Tag Archives: environment

Duke Energy (DUK) Lynn J. Good on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Duke Energy Corp. (NYSE: DUK ) Q2 2015 Earnings Call August 06, 2015 10:00 am ET Executives Bill Currens – Vice President-Investor Relations Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Analysts Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities (NYSE: USA ) LLC (Broker) Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Operator Good day and welcome to this Duke Energy Second Quarter Earnings Conference Call. Today’s conference is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Mr. Bill Currens. Please go ahead, sir. Bill Currens – Vice President-Investor Relations Thank you, Shannon. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Duke Energy’s second quarter 2015 earnings review and business update. Leading our call is Lynn Good, President and CEO, along with Steve Young, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Today’s discussion will include forward-looking information and the use of non-GAAP financial measures. Slide 2 presents the Safe Harbor statement, which accompanies our presentation materials. A reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures can be found on duke-energy.com and in today’s materials. Please note that the appendix to today’s presentation includes supplemental information and additional disclosures to help you analyze the company’s performance. As summarized on slide three, Lynn will begin with an update on our principal strategic, operational and financial activities since our last call, then Steve will provide an overview of our second quarter financial results, including updates on economic activities within our service territories, as well as conditions in Brazil. With that, I’ll turn the call over to Lynn. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining us. Before I start today, I’d like to take a moment to introduce Doug Esamann. Doug recently joined our senior management team and will oversee our Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky and Florida utilities. Doug has over 30 years of experience with Duke Energy, most recently as the President of our Indiana utility. Doug’s depth of regulatory experience as well as his customer and strategic focus complements our leadership team. We look forward to introducing Doug to many of you over the coming months. Now, to the quarter. We are midway through 2015 and continue to execute our operational and strategic growth objectives while positioning the company to meet our financial objectives for the year. This morning, we reported second quarter 2015 adjusted EPS of $0.95, which is consistent with our plan. Our regulated and commercial businesses have performed well over the first half of the year. Additionally, we have completed the sale of the Midwest Generation and the purchase of the NCEMPA assets ahead of schedule. This has allowed us to effectively offset the challenging business environment in Brazil. As a result, we remain confident in our ability to achieve our full-year 2015 earnings guidance range of $4.55 to $4.75 per share. In June, we completed our $1.5 billion accelerated stock repurchase ahead of schedule. Further, last month, we announced that the Board of Directors increased the quarterly dividend to $0.825 per share doubling the annual growth rate to around 4%. This increase reflects our confidence in the strength of our core business and our cash flows. Our balance sheet provides continued support for growth in the dividend. For the past 89 years, the dividend has demonstrated our commitment to delivering attractive total returns to shareholders. I am pleased with the company’s operational performance during the quarter, particularly our response to the extended heat wave in the Carolinas in June. Temperatures were in the upper 90s for much of the month and our system met the increased demand for our customers. In June, we used a record monthly amount of natural gas, approximately 25 Bcf, surpassing the previous month high of 20 Bcf set in July of 2014. Additionally, our nuclear fleet delivered a record second quarter in terms of net megawatt hours of generation. Nuclear capacity factor was around 95% during the month of June. Lastly, our field operations teams met customer needs during the stress of the summer heat and storms. Our ability to meet extreme demand conditions demonstrates the quality of our operations. We’ve made significant headway on other strategic and regulatory priorities, which I’ll briefly cover on slide five. These priorities include investments in new generation, infrastructure and a focus on environmental compliance. Beginning with our investments in new generation. Just last week, we closed on the $1.25 billion acquisition of jointly owned generating assets from the North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency. We closed ahead of schedule, after receiving the required approval sooner than expected. This reflects the mutually beneficial nature of the acquisition and the widespread support we received here in North Carolina. We immediately began supplying power to the 32 municipalities through a long-term wholesale contract. In 2015, we expect a $0.04 earnings per share benefit based upon an expected full year EPS impact of around $0.07 to $0.08. During the second quarter, we also announced the $1.1 billion Western Carolinas Modernization Project. This project includes the early retirement of our Asheville coal plant, which will be replaced by a new 650 megawatt combined-cycle gas plant. We will also build new transmission assets that will improve reliability in the region. Finally, we will install solar generation at the site. The new gas plant is expected in service by the end of 2019 and the entire project will likely be completed by 2020. Before construction begins, various regulators including the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Carolinas Utility Commissions will need to approve the plan. Our commercial renewables business continues to deliver on its capital growth projects. In April, we completed the 200-megawatt Los Vientos III project in South Texas, which is now delivering power under a long-term contract with Austin Energy. In July, we announced acquisitions of an additional 70 megawatts of solar capacity in California and North Carolina. Our commercial renewables business now has more than 2,000 megawatts of capacity in operation. In July, FERC approved our application to acquire the 599 megawatt combined-cycle Osprey gas plant in Florida from Calpine. The Florida Public Service Commission also voted to approve the acquisition. We remain on track to close by January of 2017 when our existing PPA with Calpine terminates and we have a need for additional generation capacity. Also in Florida, we announced an agreement to purchase a 7.5% stake in the Sabal Trail gas pipeline from Spectra Energy for $225 million. Similar to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, the Sabal Trail investment will be a part of Duke’s Commercial portfolio. The pipeline is expected in service by the end of 2017 and will serve the growing natural gas needs in the state, including our 1,640 megawatt Citrus County combined-cycle plant, which is expected to be online in 2018. Duke Energy Florida and Florida Power & Light have entered into 25-year capacity agreements with the pipeline. Moving to Indiana, in May, we received an order from the Indiana Commission on the transmission and distribution infrastructure plan. The Commission denied our proposed $1.9 billion investment because they would like to see greater detail. We are working on a revised plan, which we expect to file with the Commission by the end of 2015. Modernizing our electric grid will provide great benefits to customers in Indiana, ultimately increasing reliability, decreasing the duration of power outages and improving customer communication. In the second quarter, we made significant progress on coal ash management activities. In May, we began moving ash at our River Bend site in North Carolina after receiving state permits. We are now excavating ash at three sites in the Carolinas. In June, we announced recommendations to fully excavate 12 additional ash basins in North Carolina, bringing the total ash in the Carolinas we have slated for excavation to about 30%. The remaining ash basins are being further studied to determine appropriate closure methods. We are pursuing solutions that balance safety, environmental stewardship and cost effectiveness. Given our efforts over the past year, we are ahead of the curve in adapting to changing regulations our industry faces with ash management. On the subject of environmental rules, on Monday, the U.S. EPA finalized a Clean Power Plan, a regulation aimed at reducing carbon emissions from existing power plants 32% by 2030. The guidelines issued this week are more than 1,500 pages long and among the more complex rules in recent history. This rule sets state specific reduction targets and builds upon the substantial progress we have already made to reduce our environmental footprint. Since 2005, we have reduced our total carbon dioxide emissions by 22% through retirement of older coal units, the transition to cleaner burning natural gas, as well as investments in renewables and energy efficiency. Our plans continue to move us toward a lower carbon future. We will work constructively with our states to identify solutions that preserve the reliability and affordability our customers expect. As we continue to modernize our system, managing energy diversity will be an important consideration. As I look back over the first half of 2015, I am pleased with what we’ve accomplished on multiple fronts across the business. I’m even more pleased with the groundwork we’re laying for the years ahead. We’re making strategic long-term investments that will benefit our customers and communities in addition to supporting growth for shareholders. We’re developing and executing strategies that will position the company well in a rapidly changing industry. Now, I’ll turn the call over to Steve to discuss the quarter in more detail. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Thanks, Lynn. Today, I’ll review our second quarter financial results and discuss the economic conditions in our service territories. I will also provide an update on the accounting and expected costs for our coal ash management activities and review our results in Brazil. Let’s start with the quarterly results. I will cover the highlights on slide six. For more detailed information on segment variances versus last year, please refer to the supporting materials that accompany today’s press release. As Lynn mentioned, we achieved second quarter adjusted diluted earnings of $0.95 per share compared to $1.11 in the second quarter of 2014. On a reported basis, 2015 second quarter earnings per share were $0.78 compared to $0.86 last year. A reconciliation of reported results to adjusted results is included in the supplemental materials to today’s presentation. Regulated Utilities adjusted results declined by $0.09 per share, primarily due to a prior year favorable state tax settlement, planned timing of O&M cost and higher depreciation and amortization. O&M cost increased this quarter due to the planned timing of outages across the generation fleet and approximately $0.05 due to nuclear outage cost levelization impacts recognized in the prior year. This is the last quarter in which we expect nuclear outage cost levelization to be a significant driver over the prior year results. We are on track to achieve our targeted full-year O&M budget and continue to look for opportunities to reduce costs. These negative drivers were partially offset by higher margins, resulting from growth in wholesale contracts and weather normal retail sales. We had favorable weather in the quarter as a significant heat wave gripped the Carolinas in June. Weather added around $0.03 over last year’s second quarter and $0.06 compared to normal conditions. We also experienced higher earnings of $0.03 this quarter from pricing and riders, primarily due to increased energy efficiency programs. International’s quarterly earnings declined $0.13 over last year, due to factors we continue to monitor, including the economic conditions and lower demand for electricity in Brazil. As you will recall, International also had a favorable income tax adjustment of $0.07 in last year’s quarter, associated with the reorganization of our operations in Chile. Our Commercial Portfolio, formerly Commercial Power, is primarily made up of our commercial renewables business. In the second quarter, we incurred slightly lower earnings, due to lower wind production. This decrease in wind production was experienced broadly across the United States. Turning to slide seven, I’ll now provide some insight into the second half of 2015. And the key drivers that give us confidence in our 2015 guidance range of $4.55 to $4.75 per share. Through the first half of the year, our adjusted earnings per share of $2.20 is consistent with our plan. The regulated business has experienced favorable weather, and has seen strong growth in wholesale contracts and weather normal retail sales. The sale of the Midwest Generation fleet, as a whole, has been favorable to our plan in the first half of the year. These positive drivers have helped offset continued weakness at International. In order to achieve our full-year 2015 earnings guidance range, we expect higher EPS contributions in the back half of the year, over what we earned in the comparable period last year. There are a few primary drivers that support this. First, we expect continued growth in contracted wholesale volumes, as well as organic growth in retail demand over the last half of the year. Second, we experienced unfavorable weather last year in the third quarter. Assuming normal weather for the remainder of this year provides an uplift of $0.05. Third, the early completion of the NCEMPA asset purchase will provide an additional earnings per share impact of around $0.04. Earnings from our Commercial renewables business should also see an improvement in the second half of the year. We are on track to put over 200 megawatts of additional wind and solar capacity into service later this year, which would bring 2015’s total additions to more than 400 megawatts. Related to O&M cost, we expect third quarter O&M to be higher than the prior year, while fourth quarter should be lower. As a result, O&M shouldn’t be a significant driver in the second half of the year. Similarly, we expect International’s earnings contribution in the second half of 2015 to be comparable to last year. This is not a full list of drivers for the rest of the year, but these represent variances that are likely to occur based on current expectations. As you are all aware, the third quarter is historically our strongest quarter. We will be in a position to provide more insight into the year after we see those results. Moving on to slide eight, I’ll now discuss our retail customer volume trends. On a rolling 12-month basis, weather normalized retail load growth increased by positive 0.1% driven by strong second quarter growth of positive 1.7%. This was the first quarter we have experienced positive growth across all customer classes in over a year. Although, one quarter does not make a trend, this recent uptick is encouraging. Within the residential sector, we continued to experience strong growth in the number of new customers, approximately 1.3% over the same period last year. The growth in the Carolinas and Florida regions has been particularly strong, at around 1.5%. The Carolinas and Florida also saw usage per customer level off, after trending lower over the past several quarters. We continue to see favorable trends in the key indicators for the residential sector including, employment, median incomes and household formations. In fact, the 6 states we serve captured over 20% of the additional nonfarm job growth over the last year. The commercial sector grew by 0.3% on a rolling 12-month basis. This sector continues to benefit from declining office vacancy rates, and expansion in the medical and restaurant subsectors. We’ve also experienced some growth in the tourism related businesses, in certain markets. The industrial sector grew by 1.3% on a rolling 12-month basis. This growth was led by metals, transportation, construction and chemicals. Additionally, we are starting to see textiles in the Carolinas build momentum. We will continue to monitor the impact of the strengthening U.S. dollar on manufacturing activity. Our economic development teams remain active, successfully helping attract new business investments into our service territories. So far this year, these activities have led to the announcement of another $1.7 billion in capital investments, which is expected to result in over 5,000 new jobs, across our six states. We are encouraged by the continued strengthening of the economy, particularly in the Southeast. We remain on track to achieve our full-year 2015 weather normalized load growth of between 0.5% and 1%. Moving on to slide nine. Let me update you on our coal ash management activities. First I’ll cover adjustments to our asset retirement obligations related to coal ash basin closures. As you’ll recall, in the third quarter 2014, we recorded an approximate $3.5 billion ARO, reflecting our best estimate to comply with the newly enacted Coal Ash Management Act or CAMA. In April, the U.S. EPA published its final Coal Combustion Residuals Rule in the Federal Register. The EPA’s final rule is consistent with our compliance plan for basins in North Carolina under CAMA. However, the final rule did create a legal obligation related to ash basins outside of North Carolina and existing landfills across our system. Therefore during the second quarter, we recorded an additional $1 billion obligation representing our best estimate of cost to comply with the new Federal EPA rules. As of June 30, we now have total ARO obligations of $4.5 billion, which represents our best estimate to comply with state and Federal rules. These costs will be spent over the next several decades. We will continue to refine this estimated liability as plans are finalized. Next, let me summarize our cash spending assumptions for our coal ash activities. In February, we estimated $1.3 billion in spending from 2015 to 2019, to close the initial high-priority sites under CAMA. During the quarter we announced our recommendation to fully excavate 12 additional basins in the Carolinas. Our estimate of cost to close these additional basins ranges between $700 million to $1 billion. Ultimately, we expect these costs will increase our five year capital spending plan that was disclosed in February. However, we are unable to predict the precise timing under which we will incur these costs until the final risk classification is set by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Coal Ash Commission. We will continue to provide updates as our plans become finalized. There is still work to do with our remaining basins and we will keep you updated as we continue to refine our estimates. Taking a look at slide 10. Let me provide an update on our International business. As we entered the year, we anticipated challenges at International due to one, the prolonged drought conditions in Brazil, causing thermals to dispatch of hydros for the entire year. Two, unfavorable Brazilian foreign exchange rates. Three, declining earnings contributions from our interest in National Methanol, which sells products that are correlated to Brent crude oil prices. And four, a prior year Chilean tax benefit. We also assume no energy rationing and around 2% growth in demand for electricity. During 2015, reservoir levels continue to be low. Rainfall has recently been above average in the Southeast region of Brazil, where our assets are located. Reservoir levels stood at about 37% at the end of July, higher than the 20% level they started the year. However, they are still low for this time of the year. These conditions have caused the system operator to continue to dispatch thermals ahead of hydros. Additionally, the government is continuing to encourage customers to voluntarily reduce electricity consumption. The economy in Brazil continues to weaken as evidenced by S&Ps recent change in outlook for the country’s credit ratings. The softer Brazilian economy, higher tariff prices for end users and the voluntary conservation measures have placed additional pressure on electricity demand so far in 2015. As a result, we now expect 2015 electricity demand in Brazil to be lower than 2014. Taking this all into account through the second quarter of 2015, International’s earnings have declined by $0.26 per share, compared to last year. As you will recall, our original full year forecast of International contemplated about $0.12 per share of lower year-over-year earnings. We do not expect these levels of year-over-year weakness to continue into the second half of 2015. We expect the third and fourth quarters to be more comparable to the second half of 2014 for the following reasons: First, the system operator began to change the dispatch order to the detriment of hydro generators in the second quarter of 2014. So in the second half of 2015, generation dispatch order will be similar to what it was in the second half of 2014. Second, the shaping of our contract should create a less significant short position in the second half of the year than we saw last year. Finally, we have seen recent declines in the market settlement prices or PLD. In June and July, these prices fell below the established ceiling of R$388, averaging approximately R$300 per megawatt hour. These lower spot prices should provide some relief as we continue to cover our short position through market purchases, helping offset the impact of lower demand. Our International team continues to manage well in this difficult environment, concentrating on items within their control. We actively are managing our ongoing contracted levels and focusing on our cost management during this downturn. However, we do not expect International to meet its original financial plan for the full year. Before moving on, let me mention a recent development in Brazil that has received some media attention. There have been recent discussions aimed at providing some financial relief to the hydro generators. These discussions are in the early stages and it is difficult to speculate on how they may play out. We’ll keep you updated as events unfold. Slide 11 outlines our financial objectives. The balance sheet is strong and our credit ratings are in line with our target levels, allowing the company to access the financial markets on reasonable terms. We are executing our plan to access $2.7 billion of international cash over several years. In June, we returned approximately $1.2 billion to the U.S. The strength of our balance sheet and cash flows helps fuel our growth strategy, support the dividend and maintain low cost rates for our customers. Our dividend continues to be a very important piece of our shareholder value proposition. In July, we were pleased to announce an increase in our quarterly dividend growth rate from 2% to approximately 4%. In 2010, we have been working to reach our target payout ratio of 65% to 70% of adjusted EPS. Now that we are at the high end of that ratio, we will continue to target dividend growth more in line with our long-term earnings growth targets. Let me provide an update on our earnings growth objectives, both short term and long term. We are on track to achieve our 2015 guidance range of $4.55 to $4.75 per share. Near-term headwinds at the International business have been offset by strength in Regulated Utilities and early execution on some of our strategic initiatives. On a longer term basis, we continue to target earnings per share growth of 4% to 6%, underpinned by the strength of our domestic businesses. We are executing on our strategic growth initiatives, which provides a foundation for growth through 2017 and beyond. Our International business however, continues to face unfavorable macroeconomic trends such as poor hydrological conditions and a weakened economy in Brazil. As we look beyond 2015, the extent and duration of these challenges is uncertain. We will learn more as the year progresses, and we’ll evaluate the longer term impacts as we finalize our financial plans for 2016 and beyond. We remain committed to delivering long-term value for our investors. With that, let’s open the line for your questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. And we will first go to Daniel Eggers with Credit Suisse. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Hey. Good morning, guys. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hi, Dan. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Hello, Dan. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Hey. On the load growth numbers in the second quarter, I guess both customer gains, weather adjusted usage, both looked pretty good and kind of broke from trend that we’ve seen the last couple quarters. Should we read much into things getting better and this being perpetuated or this is just kind of the – some of the volatility that comes with quarterly adjustments in numbers? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Well, Dan, as we said, I’m always careful when I just look at one quarter’s results. I think we have to always have that in the back of our mind. We are seeing some pretty good trends here, though on a few factors that I will mention. The growth of customers into the Carolinas and Florida has been ramping up from 1% now to 1.5% and that’s got to be a good metric there for the future as we move forward. We’re also seeing some favorable statistics when we look at new housing starts in our service territories, meaning new homes are starting to get actually built. We’re also starting to see a lower number of rejections of mortgage applications which say that people are having the funds to buy a home or a place to live, some of those statistics are certainly compelling. We’re always cautiously optimistic on one quarter, but there are some good results here. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer And Dan, one thing I would add that Steve talked about in the script, we’ve been tracking lower usage per customer kind of quarter-after-quarter and actually, saw a leveling-off of that reduction this quarter as well, which is another thing that I would point to as a bit of a new trend for us. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) When we think about the load growth and you guys were at 0.5% to 1%, this year, I know you’ve kind of talked about 1% being more of a normalized long-term target. How important is getting to that 1% number to the utilities being able to support their end of the 4% to 6% growth target? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer It’s important, Dan. As you know on our sensitivity, a 1% increase in our organic load growth would translate to about 2% earnings growth, and it is essential to us to see growth in our service areas. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) The trends you’re seeing right now, are they giving you encouragement that 1% is feeling a little bit better after maybe feeling a bit shaky the last couple quarters? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Well, as I mentioned, I think some of these trends behind the good quarter we had in the second quarter do make us feel well. As Lynn mentioned, the usage decline stopping per customer and some of the raw data on employment, median household income starting to pick-up and get a bit of traction in our service territories, do give us some comfort there. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Okay. I’m sure, that folks are going to ask about it, but just on the international side. Looking past this year, are you guys thinking that things that are happening this year are structural or do you think they’re situational to these market conditions? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Dan, I think there are a combination of things going on. The hydrological conditions, I believe were seasonal, right. So, if we have a strong rainy season that starts in the fall, continuing into 2016, we may see a situation where dispatch order changes. I think the regulatory body in Brazil has learned a lot about the changing generation mix and how that fleet has reacted in this environment. So, over maybe a short-term to medium-term, we could be some mitigation of some of the pressures there, or changes in regulation that could be helpful to the hydro operators. I think the long-term issues are more around the Brazilian economy. And does the Brazilian economy get traction again and start growing at a pace that would be more consistent with what we have seen over the last decade. So, I think you’ve got a combination of shorter-term and medium-term to longer term issues. And so, our focus is to be as transparent as we can on what we see, and we’ll continue to update you as the year progresses. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Very good. Thank you, guys. Operator Next question comes from Shar Pourreza with Guggenheim Partners. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Good morning. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hello. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Hi, Shar. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Steve, I think you sort of touched on this in your prepared remarks, but on the injunctions in Brazil, is there preliminary, is there any procedural process that we could follow to see how things are transpiring? And then the second question is Brazil does have relatively high rates. So is there any talk on how – the potential of passing these costs onto customers? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Yeah, Shar, on the injunctions, in talking with our teams in Brazil, I don’t know that there is a set timeframe or schedule that you can look to to determine resolution of this. I think these initial injunctions and discussions around the market, by various stakeholder groups are a positive step. But we expect that it will take quite a bit of time to resolve this issue, and get new processes and settlements in place. So that’s just the nature of the way these negotiations often go in Brazil. So I wouldn’t look for a timeframe there. Regarding Brazilian retail rates, they did jump up quite a bit over the past year. And certainly that is something that is on the minds of Brazilian politicians, as to how do we deal with the cost of this out of dispatch situation due to hydrology issues. And right now, the hydro generators are bearing a lot of that burden, and the customers have borne some burden as well. That’s part of the debate that will be worked upon over the next year or so in Brazil. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Got it. Got it. And then on slide 11, you added a new footnote, footnote 3. Just curious, this footnote, is it basically inferring that the 4% to 6% is embedding some of the challenges you’re seeing in the International business, or it’s sort of pending some of the challenges that you’re seeing in International business? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer You know, Shar, what I would say is, given the depth of the challenge we’ve experienced during the first six months, and the fact that we’ve seen hydrological conditions really coupled with some of the complexities around other economic factors including Petrobras, and other things going on in Brazil. That the duration of this challenge is uncertain to us as we look past 2015. So when we look at the back half, we believe the back half of 2015 will be reasonably comparable to 2014. We’ll be anxious to see how the rainy season begins, but we need more information and time to look at our forecast for 2016 and 2017. And so, we wanted to just provide some transparency on that, and that’s the – really consistent with the remarks we shared with you today. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Got it. Got it. And then just lastly, on the weaker wind resources was a little bit of a theme this quarter. Is this something that we should think about from a structural standpoint just given that the El Nino cycle is just starting or is this something that’s sort of a bit of an normally? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer I don’t know that I’ve heard anybody profess to understand the wind patterns that well, Shar, that they could predict them. So I don’t know that it’s anything more than an anomaly now. We’re heading into the second half of the year where the wind traditionally picks up. So we’ll get a better idea after that. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Excellent. Thanks very much. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Next question comes from Greg Gordon with Evercore ISI. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Good morning. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Greg. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Hey, Greg. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI So, I just wanted to go over some of the things you said just to make sure I understand them in terms of looking on actually slide 14, which is your original assumptions put up against your year-to-date results. It looks like you’re basically telling us that if International is flat in the second half versus the second half last year, that you’re $0.10 behind plan. On the other hand, you’re saying you’re $0.04 ahead of plan at the utility because of the early close of the NCEMPA acquisition and then you’re also – see better results in the second half versus the second half of last year in the Commercial business because of the 400 megawatts of new renewables and that’s how you sort of get back to plan. Is that a reasonable summary of what you said or am I missing something? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer I think you’ve hit on some of the elements there. Assuming normal weather over the last half of the year, and we have had warm weather in July, you get a pick up there. Certainly, the wholesale contract associated with the NCEMPA acquisition provides about $0.04 there. We’ve also seen growth in our retail load year-over-year, even at modest percents that can add several cents to it. If it stayed like the second quarter’s results, it would be more than that. Our wholesale business has also picked up through new contracts with co-ops and munis in the Carolinas and in Florida in particular. So, those are some of the things that we look to to continue provide growth over the second half of the year. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer And, Greg… Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Great. I understand that. I guess to clarify my question, many of those things were baked into the $2.95 billion budget. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Yes. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI I assume normal weather was baked in there. The wholesale pickup was – you were very, very clear on in your disclosures on the expectation there. So, I’m just focused on what’s changed from the plan. I guess you’re a little bit ahead of normal going into July which is good, NCEMPA closed early which is good. So, I’d really like to circle back to your answer and focus on what’s changed that’s not in the plan. $0.04 from NCEMPA… Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer So, let me give it a try. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Okay. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Yeah, Greg, let me – so, if we step back from this, as we started the year, we expected the back half to be stronger than the first half from the get-go. And then, if you look at the first half of the year, the weakness in Brazil has basically been offset by strength in the regulated business. We had weather that was strong and comparable to last year, even a bit ahead. We had an early closing in the Midwest Generation sale, which gives us incremental. When you go to the back half, we expect the back half to be stronger, wholesale growth, retail growth. Our O&M outage was more in the first half than the second half. And then, we have the sweetener of the NCEMPA transaction closing. And so, the weakness that we offset in the first half with weather and strong results, we don’t expect to see in the back half because we think Brazil will be comparable to 2014. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Great. And that 400 megawatts… Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Does that help? Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI …of new renewables coming in, in the back half of the year is baked into your $185 million plan or is that stuff…? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer It is. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Yes, it is. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Okay. Great. That’s much clearer. Thank you very much. Have a good morning. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Next question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Hi. Good morning. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hi, Julien. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Hi, Julien. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC So, perhaps to follow-up on Greg’s question just a little bit and be clear. First, where do you stand in the context of 2015, if you can specify? And then, perhaps more broadly as you think about the 4% to 6%, is there any thought or expectation to update that and specifically rebase at any point or how do you think about that given where you stand on hydro and obviously 2015 is – could be a weather event related, but I’d be curious if you want to just elaborate on the 4% to 6% at this point too? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer So, Julien, we are on plan through the first half. And for the reasons we just discussed, we’re confident we’ll remain within the range of $4.55 to $4.75. In terms of guidance, our current thinking is that we will approach that in the same way we always do. So, you’ll have February of 2016 for 2016 and for the longer-term outlook. We will continue to update you in third quarter on any further developments we see in any part of the business as we also normally do. So that’s the schedule we’re thinking about at this point. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Got it. But perhaps just more specifically, rebasing, is there any thought process of rebasing the base year of that 4% to 6% at all? And then, perhaps the second bigger picture question if you will, with regards to the Clean Power Plan and I know, obviously incredibly complex as you already alluded to. Could you elaborate how the company is positioning to capture opportunities there and obviously you’re involved in many of the key angles that would benefit in theory from the CPP, but could you elaborate how you are thinking about taking advantage of each of those respective niches? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer And on rebasing, Julien, we’re anchored in 2013 at this point. We will rebase at some point. We haven’t made a final decision on that and we’ll update guidance in February of 2016. The Clean Power Plan appreciates those questions and we are continuing to digest, we do not have a definitive plan in any of our jurisdictions. Of course it will impact our IRP planning, and impact our thinking on state-by-state. As I’m sure you’re aware, the plan did change emission reduction targets. So we have more stringent targets in the Midwest. We have moderately less stringent targets in the Southeast, North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida. There’s a notion being introduced of a market trading platform, which is new, which we’ll need to evaluate, and then the compliance period with these incentive credits and so on, in 2020, 2021, I think, will also be something that we digest. So, we’re beginning to understand the elements, I think there is flexibility here. It will be important to involve a stakeholder and state process. These are the states’ implementation plans ultimately. But we believe that much as we’ve delivered consistent carbon reductions over the last 10 years, we’ll be looking for a way to continue progress in that direction, at the lowest cost to our customers. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Great. Thank you. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Next question comes from Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Yeah. Good morning. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hi, Steve. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Hi, Lynn. A couple questions. First, just specific details. So, I think you guys said, you expect it to be $0.12 down in 2015 in International versus 2014 and in the first half, you’re down $0.26. So, assuming it’s flat the rest of the year, that means you’re kind of off by about $0.14 from plan. Could you maybe just break up, what makes up that $0.14, how much is it below average? How much is it the hydro versus some of the other, the economy or currency or other things, at least a rough cut of that? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Yeah, Steve. The bulk of that is – and you’re just talking about International, the delta in International? Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Yes. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer From the original expectations versus where we’re at now, is that correct? Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Yes. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Yes. The biggest difference that we’re seeing is the impact of informal rationing, if you will, and the weak economy, those two impacts on the demand for power in Brazil. When we set up our assumptions in February, we stated we had no assumption of informal rationing and we had over 2% demand growth. And now what we’re seeing is that the demand is actually slightly negative. Because thermals are dispatched first, all of that delta, all of that swing comes out of hydros. And of course, we’re a hydro owner here. So that is the big difference that we did not have in the $0.12 downtick for International back in February. And we stated we didn’t have any view on rationing in the numbers if rationing came about or lower demand, the results would be lower. So that is by far the bulk of the difference in International. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Steve, one thing I might just point out, Chile, the Chilean tax adjustment that was reflected in second quarter of 2014 is $0.07 of that $0.26 that was planned. We were aware of it. And the additional weakness is in Brazil and NMC [National Methanol Company], the oil prices have deteriorated slightly, but we saw a lot of that at the beginning of the year. And then all the conditions, we’ve talked about here on further weakening in Brazil is where the larger challenge has originated. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. So when we think about beyond 2015 and if we made the jump that hydro might actually normalize. The issues outside of that are primarily related to the economy, I assume somewhat currency and are those two main issues? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer I think those are two main issues, Steve. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. Any thoughts to reconsider strategic alternatives for the business? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Steve, that’s a question we’ve spent a fair amount of time on as you imagine. We thought our process and I still believe our process last year was a good one, very thorough. We were looking at growth, we were looking at cash and we solved the cash, which we believe is important to supporting the dividend. We’ve already brought home, $1.2 billion of that $2.7 billion. There is no question we’re operating in a challenging environment, and all of the factors we talked about today are something that the team in International is focused on. I am pleased with the way they’ve responded to these challenging conditions. And at this point, I don’t have anything further to share on how we think about this business strategically, but we’ve certainly learned a lot about volatility in this business as a result of these recent events, and that’ll factor into our planning in the future. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. And then one last question maybe at a high level. Between the balance sheet and position you have now, and things like the securitization coming in Florida some point soon, how much available cash or balance sheet capacity do you have for investment in growth opportunities, right now? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Well, we have a solid balance sheet and we have a number of growth opportunities, where our capital spend is typically in the neighborhood of $7 billion a year. So, there is… Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC I’m sorry. I want to make sure – I mean above kind of what you’re planning to do right now? So, like if you had opportunities that go above the current investment plan? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer We do. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC And how much upside? Yeah. Okay. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer We haven’t quantified that specifically. The one thing I would say, Steve, is if you look at the leverage in the business, the utilities are situated relative to their cap structure that they earn on, capacity sits at the holding company and we’re probably at 27%, 28% of HoldCo debt. There’s probably capacity at HoldCo, up to 30% or maybe a little bit above, depending on how the credit rating agencies look at that. So, can’t quantify it any more specifically than that, but we’re committed to our ratings. We think we have an incredibly strong balance sheet with flexibility, to address and we think the business requires. And we’ll continue to manage that accordingly. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC And how much will you get from securitization? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer We will get about $1.3 billion from the securitization process. We’re targeting the first quarter of 2016 to get those funds. About half of those funds will be used to displace Florida – Duke Energy Florida OpCo debt, the other half of the funds will come up to the parent. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. Thank you. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Next question comes from Chris Turnure with JPMorgan. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Good morning. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Good morning, guys. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Hello. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC You kind of mentioned in your prepared remarks and then in response to an earlier question that, it’s too early to tell what’s going to happen potentially with GSF reform (49:07) in Brazil and I can definitely appreciate that. But, do you have at least a sense as to what the EPS impact would be there, if we went from say a 20% now to a 10% or a 5% protection type level, just versus normal in any given full year? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer We don’t have any sensitivities on that, Chris. There is a lot of variables here? Where is our contracted load? What is the PLD price? So there is just variables there that are too multiple for us to try to put a metric on. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer And I think… Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Okay. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer …as we get to a point of clarity on the way the courts and the way the regulation will change, we’ll be in a position to give you a better sense of timing, what our contracted position is, where we we’re forecasting PLD. But it’s premature to do this at this point, because there are too many moving parts. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Okay. Fair enough. And then, just kind of going back to the 2016 and beyond picture, it’s still pretty early here to talk about any potential growth guidance changes. But I just wanted to address maybe balance sheet capacity like we were talking about in the last question or just your ability to do other things outside of what you’ve already talked about, whether it’s accelerating more repatriation of cash or doing other securitizations outside of the Florida one that you already have in plans or maybe pulling forward Carolina’s rate cases earlier than the kind of 2017 to 2018 timeframe than you’re currently thinking about right now? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer In connection with our planning process, Chris, we’ll look at every element of the business to ensure we’re delivering as much value as we can. I think we’ve demonstrated an ability to identify investment projects that are beneficial to customers and also delivering returns to shareholders. We do have flexibility in the balance sheet for additional investment. So, we’ll be evaluating all of those alternatives in connection with our business planning process. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Okay. But at this time nothing is seeming more likely than not or nothing’s standing out in your mind? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Yeah. Nothing that I would share at this point. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Okay. Great. Thanks. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Next question comes from Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Hey, guys. Just wanted… Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hi, Michael. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. …to revisit – hi, Lynn. Just wanted to revisit a few things on the Regulated side of the house. First of all, can you remind us for the spend you do on coal ash in North Carolina what the cost recovery process is, meaning, how do you actually – how and more importantly, when do you actually get this in rates? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Yes, Michael. There is no definitive plan for collection of the coal ash in rates. We spent about $100 million to-date on this and that will ramp up over the next several years. And the way this will work, we’ll start spending and acting on our plans in conjunction with CAMA over the next several years. And then at some point, an appropriate point, we can go in for a rate case, and we can incorporate coal ash spend into that rate case. So we have flexibility there, there is no set timeframe for this. And you might look in time and think about the next rate case, being associated with the completion of a large power plant, a combined cycle or a completion of a lot of nuclear work in Duke Energy Progress area. That might put you in the later part of the teens, for going in for a rate increase. At that point in time, we would probably request an increment in base rates for coal ash recovery. And the Commission would then begin to monitor coal ash cost recovered through rates versus coal ash spent and adjust it from there, this is not like a normal capital project, where you spend over in a short intense period and then are completed, the spend will go on for a long time. So I think it will have that type of nature of recovery to it. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. There is precedent in North Carolina for more real-time recovery of environmental cost, thinking back to like Clean Smokestacks from a number of years ago, just curious, is there an opportunity, whether via a regulation or via legislation – and I’m not sure which one it would require – to get more real-time recovery of coal ash spend and more kind of the certainty of recovery over time? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Yeah, Michael. I’ll take that one. I think North Carolina has demonstrated over a long period of time recovery of mandated cost and certainly coal ash, whether it’s at a state level or Federal level, those are required costs of decommissioning the plants. I don’t see in the next year or two, any change in the recovery mechanism that Steve just described and given the magnitude of the spend that we’re talking about, I think that’s reasonable. So, we’ll be addressing it in connection with the general rate case and evaluating what else might make sense over time. I think about Clean Power Plan, I think about – we have trackers for renewables. There are a variety of events that could trigger consideration of other forms of recovery. But I don’t see coal ash as being one that would – we would approach as a single item at this point. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Got it. One last question on utility O&M. Did I hear correctly that what you’re basically saying is, O&M levels in the second half of 2015 will be flat to second half 2014? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Yes. That’s correct, Michael. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. When you look at broader O&M, what are you – at the Regulated businesses and especially in the Carolinas – what do you see as potential – you’re a couple of years out post-merger, but continued cost saving opportunities to where instead of flat, it’s even potentially down? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Some of the cost savings opportunities that we are now pursuing are the rollout of work management systems. We’ve already done a lot the corporate work. We’ve rolled out work management systems in the fossil area. We’ve done a lot of nuclear work. But now we’re rolling out into T&D and that’s more dispersed in asset location and employee workforce. So, that’s an area that is ripe for some benefits. So, we’ll continue to roll these projects out and have some opportunities here to offset some of the cost increases that we face, such as cyber security, normal inflation, Fukushima and that kind of thing, but I do believe there are efficiency opportunities still out there. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Got it. Thank you, Steve, and much appreciated. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Next question comes from Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hi, Jonathan. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Good morning, guys. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Good morning. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Sorry to revisit this, but you’ve said a couple of times, you want to be clear about and transparent about what you’re saying on growth. And I just on this – we’ve already talked about the footnote on the slide around long-term earnings growth. You also changed the word you’re using from deliver to target. And I’d hate to read too much into that, but I just – Lynn, are we saying that if International kind of doesn’t rebound post-2015 in a decent way that you may not be able to stay at the low end of the 4% to 6% or are we not saying that? I’m not feeling I heard the clarity. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Yeah. And you know, Jonathan, I’m not trying to reset guidance range at this point. But I am trying to flag for you that we see uncertainty in the International business that is difficult sitting here in early August of 2015 to predict duration and extent. And so, a rebound, if we see a rebound in 2017, that’s certainly positive. But it’s more challenging today than I would have said to you it was in January of this year and that’s what we’re trying to signal or trying to say. And we’ll continue to update you as we see rainy season starting to develop and we see any potential changes in the regulatory scheme, the injunctions and other things, but it’s more challenging based on what we see right now. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Great. Thank you. And again, apologies for the revisit. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer No. That’s fine. Great. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer All right. Operator Next question comes from Ali Agha with SunTrust. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Thank you. Good morning. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hello. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Good morning. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Hi. Listen, with regards to the securitization proceeds, Steve, you said half of them will be used for OpCo debt reduction, half going to the parent. Any thoughts on how that other half gets used? The reason I ask is on the original settlement agreement you were going to be earning an ROE on it, granted it was a 30% reduction, but there was earnings coming from that and so is there a dilutive potential given securitization that may not have been part of the original plan. Is that a fair way to think about this? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer You’re correct there. We are giving up the equity return that was baked into the Crystal River 3 recovery mechanism from the settlement in 2013, albeit it was a haircut return. Whether it’s dilutive or not depends upon the redeployment of the proceeds here. And again we will be looking for growth opportunities to help replace that equity return loss. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey So at this point you would not assume that that is used for any HoldCo debt reduction. It probably goes into some rate base kind of investment? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Well, it will move into our general funds and help fund growth. Ideally we’d like to find an investment to put it right into, but certainly it will be utilized to reduce HoldCo debt that then helps fund other acquisitions, other purchases, other investments more efficiently. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer And Ali, what I would say to that, we haven’t earmarked a specific investment for those funds, but there have been a lot of questions today about holding company capacity for additional investment, this would be part of that. And so our objective will be to deploy that in a way that maximizes the value. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Yeah. And Lynn, what’s the latest on the Edwardsport investigation in Indiana? Is that still out there? I thought it should have been done by now. What’s the latest? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer So there is a rate proceeding in front of the Indiana Commission, Ali, on the regulatory every six month rider mechanisms as well as the fuel clauses. And we would expect an order from the Commission before the end of the year, perhaps even as early as the third quarter. So, that does remain out there. In the slide deck we’ve given you kind of a chart of what the open proceedings are, I think it’s on slide 21 just to give you a sense of where these are. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Okay. Yeah, I thought it was a summer timeframe, I guess it’s a little later. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer I think it’s a little later. Yeah. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Okay. And last question, the timeline for some of you investments, you’ve made that investment in the pipeline and you’ve got the other bigger pipeline out there. Are you thinking, Lynn, when you update your long-term growth rates perhaps next year, that you may stretch it out over a five-year period as opposed to the three-year periods that we’ve been doing currently, given that some of the stuff won’t hit until later in the decade? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Ali, it’s a good question, we debate the period internally. We had a longer term one, we moved it to three years, five years is a possibility. But I think the point you’re making is a good one, which is infrastructure investment occurs over a longer period of time. So, we haven’t made a final decision on that, but we are – we will evaluate it. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Okay. Thank you. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Great. Thanks so much. Operator And ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude today’s question-and-answer session. I’d like to turn the conference back over to Ms. Lynn Good for closing remarks. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thanks, everyone for being on the call, for your interest and investment in Duke Energy. We are scheduled for a third quarter call on November 5, and look forward to seeing many of you in the coming months. Thanks again. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude today’s conference. We do thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect. Have a great rest of your day.

American Electric Power Company’s (AEP) CEO Nicholas Akins on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

American Electric Power Company (NYSE: AEP ) Q2 2015 Earnings Conference Call July 23, 2015 09:00 ET Executives Betty Jo Rosza – Managing Director of Investor Relations Nicholas Akins – Chairman, President & CEO Brian Tierney – CFO Analysts Daniel Eggers – Credit Suisse Stephen Byrd – Morgan Stanley Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research Paul Ridzon – KeyBanc Jonathan Arnold – Deutsche Bank Paul Fremont – Nexus Brian Chin – Bank of America Merrill Lynch Anthony Crowdell – Jefferies Ali Agha – SunTrust Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Operator Welcome to the American Electric Power Second Quarter 2015 Earnings Call. [Operator Instructions]. At this time I would like to turn the conference over to our host, Managing Director of Investor Relations Betty Jo Rozsa. Please go ahead. Betty Jo Rosza Thank you Nick. Good morning everyone and welcome to the second quarter 2015 earnings call for American Electric Power. We’re glad that you were able to join us today. Our earnings release, presentation slides and related financial information are available on our website at AEP.com. Today we will be making forward-looking statements during the call. There are many factors that may cause future results to differ materially from these statements. Please refer to our SEC filings for a discussion of these factors. Joining us this morning for opening remarks are Nick Akins, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and Brian Tierney, our Chief Financial Officer. We will take your questions following their remarks. I will now turn the call over to Nick. Nicholas Akins Thanks Betty Jo. Good morning everyone and thank you for joining AEP’s second-quarter 2015 earnings call. AEP once again had a strong quarter performance. At the risk of being redundant there are several reasons for this positive performance. The strength of geographic and state jurisdictional diversity, the passion and culture of AEP employees to continue our journey of efficiency gains through lean optimization activities, positive regulatory outcomes through our focus on operating company performance, continued expansion of our transmission business, increases in all three customer segments; residential, commercial and industrial; and continued positive performance by the unregulated business despite lower than forecasted power prices. These results continue to illustrate the disciplined execution of our business segments to produce consistent earnings performance for our shareholders. That’s what is expected from the next premium regulated utility, our tagline at last year’s EEEI financial conference. The second quarter GAAP and operating earnings came in at $0.88 per share, compared with second-quarter 2014 GAAP and operating earnings of $0.80 per share. For year-to-date with the positive performance of the first quarter as well, AEP’s earnings stands at GAAP $2.16 per share and operating earnings at $2.15 per share. As you already know, two days ago the board of AEP authorized dividends to be paid to shareholders of $0.53 per share making this the 421st consecutive quarter of dividends being paid in the history of AEP. It was Plato who said, there is no harm in repeating a good thing. So in light of that, as we did last year, we are raising our guidance for 2015 from $3.40 to $3.60 per share to $3.50 to $3.65 per share and increasing our capital spend and transmission another $200 million from $4.4 billion to $4.6 billion. We are also reaffirming our 4% to 6% earnings-per-share growth rate based upon our original guidance. 2015 is stacking up so far to be another great year for AEP, but we still have 1/2 a year to go. We aren’t popping the champagne corks or anything like that. But we are leaving the second quarter with a smile of quiet confidence as we enter the second half of 2015. As we have maintained for the last two years, 2016 is a significantly challenged year because of Ohio issues of deregulation and capacity auctions, but we have and continue to chip away at the deficit because of actions taken to continue our expected earnings growth profile. Let me address a few areas before Brian takes over with the details. While customer load remains somewhat tenuous if you’re looking quarter to quarter, during the second quarter all three customer classes, residential, industrial and commercial, increased; particularly commercial load. Continued industrial growth is interesting given it’s primarily driven by the oil and gas sector. We usually hear of new rig counts decreasing but that doesn’t necessarily translate to load decreases, however. We continued to see production and load increasing in the shale regions primarily due to continued optimizations of the oil and gas fields including the additions of compressor load. While overall load increases have been slightly less than forecast, the mix between customer classes continues to impact financial outcomes. We will continue to watch the load sectors closely as we gauge the robustness of any potential overall economic recovery. We continue to be pleased with the progress of our continuous improvement and cultural aid initiatives through Lean and our Power Up and Lead programs that enable a culture and an expectation of continuous efficiency improvements, with decisions made as teams in all levels of the organization. Regarding Lean activities, we are now complete with 15 plants, with one remaining and have extended into areas such as Cook Nuclear Plant and centralized repair shops as well. We’ve completed 20 of 31 distribution districts with 10 remaining for this year and one that will extend into the first quarter of 2016. Three of five transmission areas across the AEP have completed Lean reviews, with the remaining anticipated to complete by the end of the year. Additionally Lean activities are in progress in other areas such as IT, supply chain, inventory management, fleet operations, customer and distribution services and others. This activity has and will continue to be a very important part in engaging our employees to achieve not only our 2016 objectives but also to redesign our business processes and supporting culture for the future. Starting with the rate case activities, we have completed cases at APCO in West Virginia and in Kentucky. We also initiated rate case at PSO in Oklahoma. The West Virginia rate case outcome met our expectations of improved revenues to support the quality of service to our customers and improvement in the recurrent expectations with investments made at APCO. The order authorized an increase in rate with an ROE of 9.75% with additional revenues for vegetation management, confirmation of the base rate transfer of the Mitchell plant, resolution of the consolidated tax issue, among other areas that really set a positive tone for the future. Regarding Kentucky, the rate case outcome there again was constructive for future investments. The $45 million rate increase authorized included 10.25% ROE for several riders regarding certain Mitchell and Big Sandy activities including incremental vegetation management. Also importantly, it allowed the recovery of North Zip compliance costs, signaling the recognition by the commission of the importance of these types of expenditures. It also settled the issues related to the fuel cost recovery case that was before the court. While with these two cases completed along with the formula base rate adjustments at I&M and SWEPCO we have now secured the forecasted rate changes for 2015. Additionally we filed a base rate case at PSO to recover generation and environmental related costs, as well as other cost adjustments with the request of 10.5% ROE. Rates in that case are intended to be effective in first quarter of 2016, so overall a great story regarding regulatory performance. As you all know by now, FERC had approved the capacity performance model that PJM had proposed and last night threw a wrench in the plans for at least a supplemental auction being held next week. But regardless, the upcoming base residual auction will ultimately help define the forward view of generation value. The supplemental auction remains important for our risk-adjusted 2016 performance. We’ll be participating in all of these auctions, of course not saying how. But we are hopeful to see improvement in valuations of our generation. These auctions will affect the financial outlook for unregulated generation, in particular baseload generation and will begin to answer some of our 2016 risk-adjusted assumptions. More clarity on the subject will be provided when we get 2016 guidance at the EEI Financial Conference. The forward view of generation will also be an important data point as it relates to our evaluation process of the unregulated generation. The process continues with these instructive and perhaps substantial data points that we have been discussing with our board for a couple of years now. Chuck Zebula and his team have done an outstanding job compartmentalizing the risk of this business and are positioning the business in a positive way regardless of the outcome. PJM and FERC have done their jobs in at least making some progress in allowing for a potential path for improved generation value. The only holdout is the Public Utility Commission of Ohio on the PPA question. We would not have presented the PPA option through the Commission if we did not think it was important. It’s important for Ohio and its energy policy, Ohio jobs, taxes, economic development and in fact, the future of the generation business in Ohio. Governor Kasich once give me some advice. Don’t get so buried in the financial expectations of the company that you lose sight of doing the right thing. If we take a look back at AEP’s proud history of owning and operating generation in Ohio, we have always supported the economic engine for growth whether it be the assets themselves, the ancillary assets such as transmission, the supported economic developed or the development of domestic Ohio fuel to support the generation. So what’s happened in the last few years in Ohio? Well, for AEP over $0.5 billion in write-offs, the incremental loss of capacity revenue or approximately $200 million, each and every year in the last three years and a state that is left short of generation capacity to serve Ohio customers. Not a good story for generation investment in this state because we serve 11 state jurisdictions of almost all regulated jurisdictions as well as significant transmission across the country, we have managed the loss of Ohio revenue pretty well. That’s the value of diversity. But this is really about the customers in the state of Ohio. It’s about volatility of electric pricing, particularly in extreme heat or extreme cold that impacts all customers’ pocketbooks. It’s about Ohio’s energy and financial future by developing its own resources such as natural gas and maintaining existing resources. Continual delays are not the answer. It’s time for the PECO to do the right thing. Moving on to another subject, we continue to participate in the EPA dialogue regarding the clean power plan. We’ve talked at length in previous earnings calls about the challenges the proposed rule produces for the state utilities and other stakeholders so I will not cover that ground again. I will say that I believe through conversations at the White House and the EPA that there is an understanding of the major issues involved, namely the aggressive front-end 2020 emission targets and timeline and the reliability applications. What they ultimately do about it in the final rule we don’t know. We will continue to work with our states to understand the final ruling implications and engage in the succeeding deliberations to achieve an ultimate result that is reasonable and rational and its impact on customers costs and reliability of supply while maintaining to achieve environmental progress. Let’s turn to the next page. The famous equalizer graph, there is a couple of start things in the equalizer graph that I will get into here but from an Ohio power situation, the ROE for AEP Ohio decreased this quarter primarily due to lower earnings driven by increased PJM and property tax costs and lower margins due to seasonal rate adjustments. However we do expect the AEP Ohio subsidiary will finish the year in line with the 12% ROE forecasted. For APCO you just heard about the rate case in West Virginia and the outcome there. So rates were implemented in June or 2015, so we expect to see higher ROEs for APCO for the balance of the year and that will continue to improve. The primary drivers – and Kentucky is one of those areas 0.6% does not look too good. But the primary drivers for the decrease in ROE were the $36 million regulatory provision that was reported for the fuel cost recovery disallowance related to Mitchell, plus an additional $7 million that was recorded in 2015. Also Off-System Sales have been off slightly in Kentucky as well, but we expect the ROE will grow to approximately 5% by the end of 2015 and should be in the 9%-10% range by the end of 2016. We should see a measurable progress here in the next year and a half. I&M continues to do well. It’s on track to grow earnings and achieve its authorized ROE range. They are in the middle of several capital investment programs particularly in generation with Rockport SCR, solar installations, nuclear lifecycle management and its well transmission projects, so we continue to see that one improve. PSO did improve modestly as a result of higher retail margins primarily on increased rider revenues and lower O&M expenses. A base rate case, I mentioned earlier, has – had been filed July 1, 2015, so we expect continued recovery there as well. And SWEPCO, the transmission cost recovery in Texas and a formula-based rate true-up in Louisiana as well as a true-up in increased wholesale customer rates were the primary drivers for SWEPCO’s ROE improvement during the second quarter. However the ROE continues to be under pressure because of the Arkansas portion of TERC and we continue to analyze our alternatives and timing associated with addressing the 88 megawatts of TERC that are still outstanding. AEP Texas we expect the ROE&A there to continue to decline somewhat through 2015 as distribution has raised their CapEx and the need to infuse equity to replace tax obligations due to related deferred taxes from the securitization. The AEP Transmission Hold Co. is doing well. Its Hold Co. returned 11.9% is still in line with its authorized return so it continues to do well. So from an equalizer standpoint the numbers are reasonable. The overall has come up, it will continue to come up and Kentucky which is the one that is showing extremely low, will make rapid progress so we’re in good shape there. The transformation of our industry is occurring. AEP will continue to position itself to succeed. If I could borrow from Jim Collins, the famous business author, of Good to Great, Great by Choice and other books, what our investors have witnessed over each quarter of the last four years has been the beginning of AEP’s version of the 20 mile march. With dogged determination, disciplined execution and AEP ingenuity, we will be successful as the next premium regulated utility. Brian, I will turn it over to you. Brian Tierney Thank you Nick and good morning everyone. Let’s begin on slide 5 with a review of the major drivers affecting the earnings comparison for the quarter. This year’s second quarter operating earnings were $0.88 per share or $429 million compared to $0.80 per share or $390 million last year. This solid performance for the company was driven by our regulated businesses where we are investing for our customers, executing on our regulatory plans and spending O&M wisely. With that overview let’s review the major earnings drivers by segment. Earnings per share for the vertically integrated utilities segment was $0.43, up $0.12 from last year. Key drivers in the quarterly comparison include rate changes which added $0.11 per share and are related to the recovery of incremental investment to serve our customer. This improvement includes the effect of annual true-ups related to FERC formula rate customers. Warmer temperatures in 2015 and higher normalized margins each added $0.01 per share to the quarter versus last year. The growth in normalized sales is primarily driven by improvements in the commercial class. I’ll talk more about load and the economy in a few minutes. The vertically integrated segment also benefited from lower O&M expense, adding $0.02 per share for the quarter. Partially offsetting these favorable items is a $0.03 per share decline in off system sales margin which was driven by much lower power prices this year. The transmission and distribution utilities segment earned $0.16 per share for the quarter, down $0.02 from last year. The $0.02 per share decline in normalized margins is due in part to the elimination of seasonal rates in Ohio beginning in 2015. This will reverse over the balance of the year. This segment was also adversely affected by $0.01 per share from higher O&M expense primarily due to higher transmission costs in Ohio. These two unfavorable items were partially mitigated by earnings on incremental. investment and distribution facilities to benefit customers in Ohio. The Transmission Hold Co. segment continues to grow, contributing $0.13 per share for the quarter, an increase of $0.03 per share over last year. Year-over-year the Transco’s net plant grew by approximately $1.2 billion, an increase of 57%. The generation and marketing segment produced earnings of $0.16 per share, off $0.04 from the second quarter of last year. As expected we’re beginning to see the adverse effect of lower Ohio capacity revenue. You will remember our 2015 forecast included a capacity revenue decline of $0.35 for the year beginning in June. Despite this decline, the segment benefited from favorable hedging activity which helped offset the impact of weaker market prices. AEP River Operations declined $0.01 per share quarter over quarter, reflecting a decline in barge revenue due to high water conditions in May and June. Corporate and other earnings were unchanged from last year’s results. On slide 6 we have a view of year-to-date operating earnings compared to last year. Operating earnings for the period end at $2.15 per share or $1.1 billion, compared to last year’s $1.95 per share or $950 million. Similar to the quarterly comparison growth from our regulated businesses is driving results with the competitive businesses performing close to last year. Weather had no impact on the year-to-date comparison. Earnings per share for the vertically integrated utilities segment were $1.03 per share this year up $0.15 from last year. The major drivers for the segment include the favorable effect of rate changes for $0.15 and the effect of the Virginia rate legislation adding $0.03 per share. Remaining drivers were discussed at length during our first-quarter call; as a reminder these include lower normalized margins, primarily due to lower residential sales in the East, the effect of lower power prices this year on both our Off-System Sales margin net of chairing and PJM expenses and lower O&M this year primarily driven by a decline in employee-related expenses. The transmission and distribution utility segment earned $0.36 per share for the first six months, down $0.02 from 2014 consistent with the second quarter. We’re on track to achieve the segment’s earnings target for the year. The Transmission Hold Co. segment earnings through the first half of the year are at $0.21 per share, up $0.06 for the same period in 2014. Similar to the quarter, increased investment is driving the year-to-date results. The generation and marketing segment matched last results through the first half of the year. As I mentioned we’re seeing the adverse effect of lower capacity revenue but our trading and retail activities have offset this impact. And finally AEP River Operations remains favorable for the first six months driven by lower cost in the first quarter. In summary when you look at our performance for the first half of 2015, you see our regulated utilities executing on their investment and rate recovery plans while demonstrating cost discipline with day-to-day operations. Our competitive businesses, despite being challenged by the decline in capacity revenue, have produced earnings at last year’s level as the commercial and retail teams continue to take advantage of the available opportunities. This combination has allowed us to exceed last year’s results by $0.20 per share. Strong results from the first half of the year and a stable outlook for the balance of the year serve as the basis for raising the operating earnings guidance range to $3.50 per share to $3.65 per share. Now let’s look at slide 7 to review the normalized load performance for the quarter. Starting in the lower right corner, weather normalized load grew by 0.009% compared to last year. With growth spread across all our major retail classes. This brings our year-to-date normalized growth within 0.003% of last year’s results through the second quarter. In the upper left quadrant residential sales are up 0.003% compared to the second quarter of 2014. The growth in residential sales is largely coming from customer growth which is also up 0.003%. Most of the customer growth is happening in our Western territory, especially Texas, where residential counts are up 1.2% versus last year. Year-to-date residential sales are down 2.2% versus last year; this is mostly a result of the weak normalized growth reported the first quarter. Remember that last year’s first quarter normalized load was unusually impacted by the polar vortices. Looking to the upper right corner of the slide, commercial sales were up 1.9% for the quarter. Here we saw growth in commercial sales at every operating company except for Kentucky Power. Once again the strongest growth in the commercial sales is happening in the West, where we also saw the strongest growth in non-farm employment. Finally in the lower left quadrant, industrial sales growth moderated again from the previous two quarters but still grew by 0.006% compared to last year. We continued to see robust industrial sales growth from customers in oil and gas related sectors despite the recent decline in oil prices. Outside of the oil and gas sectors, our industrial sales were down 3.2% compared to last year. As many of our export manufacturing customers are starting to feel the impact of the strong dollar and weaker global demand. With that let’s review the most recent economic data for AEP’s service territory on slide 8. Starting with GDP you can see that the estimated 1.7% growth for AEP’s service area is about 0.5% less than the estimated growth for the U.S. This is not surprising given the impact of falling oil prices, especially in our Western footprint. As you know, AEP’s service territory covers five of the seven major shale areas that the EIA has noted are responsible for 95% of domestic oil production and all of natural gas production growth since 2011. While the entire nation benefits from lower fuel prices, the regional economies supporting these shale plays experience the direct impact of the lost oil and gas jobs in those areas. In fact this quarter marks the first time in over four years where AEP’s Western GDP growth fell below that of the East. In the bottom left quadrant you can see that the job market within AEP’s service area to improve in step with U.S. employment recovery. Here job growth within AEP’s Western territory exceeds the Eastern service area. The sectors showing the strongest job growth for the quarter included construction, leisure and hospitality and education and health services. We should point out that the sector which saw the biggest decline this quarter is the natural resources and mining sector which is not surprising given the decline in oil prices and active rig counts. Now let’s turn to slide 9 to update you on the domestic shale gas activity happening within AEP’s footprint. We continue to see significant industrial load increases in the parts of our service area located in and around major shale formations as illustrated in the upper left chart. It’s remarkable that we saw 10% growth in electricity sales to oil and gas related sectors despite oil prices that are down 45% from last year, rig counts being down nearly 60% and 8000 fewer oil and gas workers than we had at the end of 2014. In the upper right chart Oil and Gas loads spread across all major shale plays within AEP’s service territory with the strongest growth located around the Woodford, Eagle Ford and Marcellus Shales. If we dissect the oil and gas growth into its components that is upstream, midstream and downstream activities, as shown in the bottom left chart, you see that the strongest growth is coming from the midstream pipeline transportation sector which grew by over 34% in the second quarter. This is mostly due to the expanding infrastructure being built in West Virginia, Ohio and Texas to support the Marcellus, Utica and Texas shales. In our upstream sector, oil and gas extraction, volumes are up nearly 6% while the downstream petroleum and coal products sector grew by just under 2% this quarter. I should point out that we expect a number of new oil and gas related expansions to come online over the next 18 months. In contrast to the growth in our oil and gas sectors, I’d like to focus your attention to the red bars on the upper left chart. This shows the trend in our industrial sales excluding the oil and gas related sectors. You can see that the rest of our manufacturing sales are not growing as they were last year at this point. Down 3.2% in the second quarter. In fact through June, 6 of our top 10 industrial sectors are down from last year’s results. The only sectors showing growth are the three oil and gas related sectors along with transportation equipment manufacturing which benefits from low oil prices. The stronger dollar and weak global economy have developed into headwinds for many of our export manufacturing customers. For example, sales to chemical manufacturers were down almost 9% this quarter, while primary metals volumes were down 10%. This is something we will continue to monitor closely as we work through the balance of the year. On a lighter note, let’s turn to slide 10 and review the company’s capitalization and liquidity. Our debt to total capital is very healthy at 54.3%. Our credit metrics, FFO interest coverage and FFO to debt are solidly in the BBB and BAA1 range at 5.6 times and 21.5% respectively. Our qualified pension funding has improved and is now fully funded at 101%. This improvement was driven by our reduction in liabilities from increased interest rates which more than offset a small decline in pension assets. The company also made a $92.5 million contribution to pension assets in June, as planned which is equal to the company’s estimated annual service costs. Since our OPEB funding stands at 122%, no funding will be needed in 2015. Finally our liquidity stands at $3.2 billion and is supported by our two revolving credit facilities that extend into the summers of 2017 and 2018. At this point I would like to point out some of the opportunities our Treasury group has taken advantage of during the quarter. First, at Appalachian Power Company, they redeemed a high coupon issuance and refinanced at a much lower market rate. Secondly the Treasury team extended to April 2017 the $500 million AEP generation resources term loan with a flexible lower-cost facility. And finally, the team partnered with local banks in the Indiana and Michigan service areas to grow that company’s local bank facility to $200 million with an expiration in May of 2018. The company has worked very hard over the last several years to strengthen its balance sheet. As you just heard, our Treasury group is active in the debt markets and working with our banking partners to secure low-cost capital to put to work for our customers. This when combined with our strong operating results give us the confidence to increase our capital spend by $200 million this year. Let’s see if we can wrap this up on slide 11. Clearly the first half of 2015 is off to a strong start for our customers, shareholders and employees. Conditions have been favorable and our operating commercial and corporate groups have made the most of the opportunities available to them. Based on our strong results to date and our outlook for the balance of the year, we’re comfortable raising our operating earnings guidance range to between $3.50 per share and $3.65 per share. Based on our operating cash flows, our strong balance sheet, and our continued access to low-cost capital we’re confident in increasing our capital investments this year by $200 million. This incremental spend will be in our transmission businesses, both at the Transmission Hold Co. and at our utility operating companies. And finally, we are reaffirming our 4% to 6% growth range. We have some challenges related to Ohio deregulation and an unsettled economy but we’re managing our way through with disciplined O&M spending, the continuous improvement initiatives that Nick mentioned and increased investment in our regulated businesses. With that I’ll turn the call over to the Operator for your questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions]. Our first question today comes from the line of Daniel Eggers with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Daniel Eggers Nick, I know you cannot control the government and all regulators but certainly delays in Ohio and the [indiscernible] last night pushed that timeline the clarity on the generation business but can you walk through how you and the board are approaching a decision on monetization. What datapoint you guys think you need to see before you are comfortable formalizing that decision? Nicholas Akins Dan, clearly we were looking at the capacity auctions to look at the long-term value generation. The supplemental auctions are by and large sum of the risk-adjusted items and filler in for 2016 and 17 during those years, but in particular 2016. If those supplemental auctions continue to occur before certainly before in September, October time for an even then we will have a good handle on what we 16 looks like. But the base residual auction is clearly the important one in terms of long-term valuation of generation and we continue to expect those valuations to improve. Our board has been along with us all along the way. As a matter fact we had a board meeting with them this week. And when over the issues involved and the primary issue was the upcoming auctions that would be a large part of presenting to us our options relative to the strategic valuation of generation. That is the key component. As far as the PPA is concerned that will continue on. It’s really hard to tell when the pew co-will focus on that. I would say that we continue to push for the PPA obviously but the main determinant right now with the board is the capacity auction. Once we get that we will have a major data point for the board and we can continue our process of the strategic evaluation. Daniel Eggers And on guidance and we’re going into the summer but if you look at generation now above your full-year guidance and transmission and the run rate equals your full-year guidance, what are some of the things we should think about tempering the second half results to stay within this elevated band and how particular on some of the segments. Nicholas Akins I think you have O&M spent obviously that there is timing issues with O& M. As far as the remaining they could be storm related activities, many things we hedge on. I know that sounds like sandbags to a certain point but it’s not that. It’s really we’re trying to risk adjust some of these issues that can occur. Brian? Brian Tierney Yet another big driver is that PJM capacity revenue declined $0.35 almost all that is in the back half of the year. Five cents of that was in second quarter but the remaining $0.30 is back half of the year. Daniel Eggers I guess maybe, just the other way how much O&M do you think you can incrementally pull forward from ’16 into ’15 just to give you a little more breathing room for next year given some of the other built-in challenges there already? Nicholas Akins We pulled some already the sequential beyond what we did last year. It’s around 14 million. It’s getting harder and harder to do that obviously. You can pull some input you cannot pull everything in. I’m seeing that as more limited right now. Operator Thank you. Now we will go to the line of Stephen Byrd with Morgan Stanley. Your line is open. Stephen Byrd I wanted to touch on transmission, you’re making great progress in terms of incremental spend. I wondered if there were further opportunities that you saw or if you could maybe give us more color on the outlook there to create additional opportunities. What sort of – what are the drivers here as we should think about your ability to grow transmission even further. Nicholas Akins There is a lot of color here. We have a lot of incremental spending that we can do in transmission. Right now transmission you think about it we have over 2000 projects going on right now. And those are small projects and larger projects in all that kind of thing. But it shows the bandwidth of what transmission is doing with look at the investment profile for transmission particularly for AEP in it continues to be – it’s a huge footprint that we are able to invest in from Transco perspective and from an individual operating company perspective. We mentioned this last time. Just the rehabilitation of the existing grid we are challenged to keep up without that alone put an additional enhancements and we really want to do that because it improves the quality of service ultimately to our customers. And so we have a lot of runway left a lot to transmission. No question about it. Stephen Byrd And switching back to clean power plant, after we see the final rule from EPA could you just talk about sort of the process overall. I know you’ve a bunch of things to think through but how should we think about how you might respond over time in terms of what that will mean for your overall spending plan and how the grid will look and make the power plant etcetera. Can you talk at a high level as to how we should view that for you? Nicholas Akins Sure. Obviously it depends upon what the final rule looks like. If you look at the categories – if you’re having to adjust natural gas dispatch versus call dispatch example that is one thing. That ultimately impacts the fuel cost to customers. As a result when you do that kind of switching, but in terms of infrastructure, we’ve made the plan – our initial approach to this is going to be we get the final rule and if the EPA is fully aware of the issues involved from a reliability standpoint but also from a implementation standpoint and if they wind up being respectful to the state of the resource process that they go through and allow time for that to occur and targets are more rational instead of – 11 states have over 75% of the requirement in 2020 and many states there’s over 50% of requirement in 2020. That has to change. It’s too early and it is too aggressive emission reduction targets. If they come off of that and have a rational plan to allow technology to continue to improve and we can actually wind up at a better place at the end of the day in 2030 then that would be a good outcome. In that case we could be able to work with the state. They obviously care about what we think in terms of liability standpoint and the infrastructure that we put in place and how quickly we can do it and that kind of thing. But it is a state plans. And the states have to have time to review those plans and then we start taking actions based upon or our individual states want us to go. In my mind it depends upon certainly the president because the president is driving the bus on this thing. And the EPA obviously is looking at the issues – all the issues involved and if there is moderation associated with the targeted implementation and being respectful of the state process that need to occur and the infrastructure and timing of infrastructure and having reliability provisions that make sense, then we can get about the process of investing from an AP perspective. We’re in the middle of a transformation anyway. The industry is in the middle of a transformation. We’ve already reduced our emissions by 15% since 2005. And that process continuing with the advent of natural gas shale gas activity in the advent of renewables putting in solar and doing wind farms, but energy efficiency and better technologies are coming into play as well. There are real opportunities for us to invest in the right things for the future and actually balance out our energy portfolio which is a good thing for this company and the country as a matter fact. Stephen Byrd And assuming that again the EPA rule does give you a realistic path as you pointed out is that the past that is – you really couldn’t achieve, should we be thinking about resource plan that can be filed and overall plans over time that you would submit that would be out how you see the best path forward and what that would involve in terms of spend an asset mix? Nicholas Akins Yes that’s right. We be working with the states to file the resource plans and then we was start the actions associated with it. This is a little different than the March reroll per customer approval was planned specific endpoint specific the new index we need to do. This it has got tentacles in many aspects of the electric utility business itself. And it will take some dialogue and serious dialogue and contemplation of how to address these types of issues to me state jurisdictional perspective. And will be a part of that process will follow our resource plan and we will go from there, just like we always have. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research. Steve Fleishman You’re for the couple times to the 2016 risk-adjusted assumptions. Could you just clarify exactly what you mean by that? Nicholas Akins When you go into forecasting a year you are looking at what loads doing and obviously load is moving around on us. The customer mix is moving around on us. Capacity auctions were contemplated whether PPA would occur during that period of time and then of course looking at any transmission investment and those kinds of things that we need to evaluate. Those are important pieces but I think probably [indiscernible] thing we can do is come up with a plan and budget that risk-adjusted many of these items and some of them are externally driven. Significantly externally driven like the capacity auctions and the PPAs approach in Ohio. So as we go forward in the year, we obviously like to get more information that we can make – really make a quality forecast of what 2016 looks like. I think made a lot of progress. Because we know what we’ve done relative to the continuous improvement enhancements that have occurred that crescendo over time. And we expect that in our benefit in 2016. These external items are more difficult to tell and really what happened last night is another indication of how things can get adjusted at the last minute. So it’s difficult to scale but I think in the next two 22 to 3 months we will see a lot of clarity. Brian Tierney And even with all those factors that make mentioned, Steve, as with that we 16 we’re still into the operating earnings guidance range that we’ve given for that previously of $3.45 to $3.85 per share. Steve Fleishman Okay. As part of this trying to judge how much you need to manage cost and move stuff around depending on how these play out? Is that also what currently you’re referring to? Nicholas Akins Yes absolutely. We’ve been moving costs from 2016 into 2015 and 2014. And now we’re reaching the point of conclusion where we understand those cost components going into the year. It really is about load forecast and ladies external issues that we are doing with. But those will play themselves out in the next couple of months. Steve Fleishman Okay. And maybe this is a bit of a commentary in the question but just I know you continue to focus very much on the auction outcomes and maybe a lesser extent PPAs in Ohio for the decision on generation. But there are a lot of other things that affect the value of the portfolio commodity prices, stock market, financing conditions, all those kinds of things. How much do you need – how are you weighing kind of answers to some of these questions versus just there can be periods of time where it’s hard to get transactions done. Nicholas Akins Obviously the answer is rate environment. We continue to deal with and certainly with Janet Yellen is trying to do with interest rates in the future. Might have an impact but as far as the sector itself and our performance within that sector, we feel very good about the past that we’re taking and that is to take risks out of our business. And to make sure that we are able to invest in those things that provide quality returns to our shareholders. And. That is what we control. And we have to be very disciplined at it and there may be external things that occur around the world or nationally that could impact it but typically though even if you look at commodity prices I think where we’re at right now is somewhat of a tenuous economy because we see residential commercial and industrial moving back and forth all during the year. It’s like you’re in a waiting stage. Who knows what will happen but you could have and energy economy take off or you could have an energy economy that stagnates but these based on public policy whether you exporting or we two other things. It would have an impact on the commodities themselves. And I think it’s important for us to be knowledgeable about those kinds of issues so that we can manage our business around aggressiveness met shoulders consistent returns. And that’s what we’re doing. Steve Fleishman Last question, the page with the credit metrics particularly the FFO to debt or the EBITDA metrics clearly shows you are way stronger than your targets. Can you give some thought on what’s the ultimate goal? I assume your goal is not to stay dramatically above the targets. Nicholas Akins It’s to be within those targets, Steve. Part of that rationale is why we increased the CapEx for the balance of the year and of course will be looking at what we expect those metrics to be in 2016. And adjusting our apex forecast accordingly. Brian Tierney A lot of this is about making sure that the business is on firm and sound financial footing so that we can make continual judgments about where he put our capital. And we have this huge hedge out there called transmission that we are able to essentially do acquisitions all-time. And it’s a good place to be but at the same time we improved our currency value we improved our position from a risk tolerance perspective. And it is an opportunity for us to reposition this company for the future. We just retired 3500 MW of coal-fired generation. So you are starting to see a rebalancing of the portfolio to address what customers truly want in terms of resources we believe a balanced set of resources is important including cold but we’ve got to get through the process of ensuring that we’re advancing from the other technologies and addressing customers concerns relative to quality of service and that’s what we’re doing. Operator Thank you. We will now go to the line of Paul Ridzon with KeyBanc Paul Ridzon The 200 million of incremental transmission capital, how is that going to be divided between holdco and the utilities? Brian Tierney About $80 million of that will go to the Transco and remainder will go to the integrated utility operating companies. Paul Ridzon Could you give more flavor as to what went better than planned to allow you to raise guidance at this point in the year? Nicholas Akins I think we covered that during the meat of the call to a large degree. Rate increases and whether were stronger than what we had forecasted. The regulated businesses are doing very well and the competitive businesses are doing about as well as last year. Cash flow is ahead of expectation and you put all of those things together in that gives us the confidence to raise the operating earnings guidance and raise the CapEx that we talked about Brian Tierney And the continuous improvement activities, they are starting to culminate across the Board. So it’s cost control, it’s certainly the underlying fundamentals of the business are very positive and it gives us the confidence to raise the earnings. Operator Next we will go to the line of [indiscernible] Unidentified Analyst Can you talk about the scale of the open position at AEP generation resources as you look out over the next few years or how to think about that as a sensitivity? Nicholas Akins They are trying to stay in a hedged position of about 60% -70%. I think they’ve done that to pretty good effect really since early last year when the business started. And that allows them to do a couple things. Allows them to hedge in what some of the earnings are going to be at prices that they find attractive and they do that through both retail – they also auction they have to serve FFO vote and their normal trading activity. But then it also leads them with an open position to take advantage of what could be higher prices like they have during the Polar Vortex sees of last year. Take advantage of that. And to cover things like unit outages or load spikes or price spikes that can happen in the short term. They don’t want to be sold out and fully committed. They want to have a significant portion hedged and a portion to cover from on expected short-term opportunities Brian Tierney Chuck and his team continually evaluate that but the 60 to 70% has been a target for a very long time now. It’s for that reason – we are risk-averse from that standpoint because that business is really focused on making sure it continues to be an airtight business that has like I said earlier, Easton a great job of compartment slicing the risk. And that is a part of that ability for them to do that. Nicholas Akins The assets that Chuck has in that business are great assets and the risk management they’ve applied to that is this has been phenomenal through some really pretty volatile circumstances over the last year and half. We really proud of the way they are managing that business and they’ve done it very to good effect financially. Brian Tierney Really when we look at it’s not internally what the issues are because we can control what happens all to have Power Generation operates from operational excellence perspective. And how we manage risk within that envelope. The real issue is what happens outside with the regulatory commissions, FERC, Ohio and elsewhere. But certainly yesterday was another indication. Markets moving toward a certain set of conditions for the auction and it gets changed at the 11th hour and that is a concern because you never know what the rules of the game are and they can change at the last minute or change afterwards. And that is troubling. I think consistency – we have consistency internally. It’s consistency externally that we need. Unidentified Analyst Is it presents us to say that you are bullish about power prices? Nicholas Akins I wouldn’t say that’s presumptuous. I really believe we have taken substantial amount of capacity that’s been retired and we believe that capacity prices will improve. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank. Jonathan Arnold Any update on the River Ops transaction that you talked about last quarter? Nicholas Akins The process we’re going through terms of valuation continues. That’s really all that we can report at this point. Operator And we will now go to the line of Paul Fremont with Nexus. Your line is open. Paul Fremont I guess I wanted to follow up on the PECO [ph] decision yesterday to get further consideration at some point in the future of your rehearing request in the [indiscernible] proceeding. Nicholas Akins It just looks like it is some continued delay really. We don’t seem to be getting answers or schedules or the things we need to be able to get the answers we’re looking for. They seem to be putting some of the decisions further out into the future and as Nick said we need some clarity and we don’t seem to be getting it. Brian Tierney I don’t know far you can delay these things. It’s an issue where there needs to be an answer and I’m just concerned that we are either waiting until after the capacity auctions or whatever. Ohio needs to be concerned about – yesterday was another indication if you’re going to depend upon from the federal side to address the market issues that changes will occur that you didn’t – you may not anticipate. And I think from a generation perspective we’ve got to make sure that Ohio continues to develop and certainly with the natural gas out there that nothing will happen until there is some resolution so you’re in a hold pattern. We’re not going to make any investments in central station generation in Ohio. I have not seen many others step up to the plate. I know there’s maybe one or two units that are being built out there but keep in mind you’ve retired thousands and thousands of megawatts and you’re short in Ohio. And so the delays need to come to an end. Operator Thank you. We will now go to the line of Brian Chin with Merrill Lynch. Brian Chin Just a brief one on your earlier balance sheet comments, clearly the metrics are looking a little better debt to cap numbers of strategy around and even the pension funding numbers looked really solid. Given all of that does it make sense on the margin to reconsider capital deployment towards maybe looking at the dividend policy as opposed to truly looking at transmission CapEx? And marginal changes there to think about? Nicholas Akins The real question is what happens to the dividend. Brian Tierney In so many words, yes. Nicholas Akins Yes. Usually we review the dividend policy in the October timeframe and our board certainly will be considering the dividend policy. We still maintain our 60% to 70% range we stated earlier and the dividend will be commensurate with the earnings profile looks like. We stand by that. There’s no reason to see it will change but obviously we look at the baseline of the business and with the forward long-term view would looks like and the board will reevaluate and do that in October timeframe. Operator Thank you. We will go to the line of Anthony Crowdell with Jefferies. Anthony Crowdell I guess this is a softball question. Do you think Governor Kasich entering into the race slows decisions down in Ohio? It looks like [indiscernible] with the endgame is where they are looking to punch you but do you think this slows things down or speeds things up or has no impact? Nicholas Akins My bet would be no impact because Governor. Kasich obviously has confidence in the commission and certainly Andre Porter is chairman has taken over there and my belief is that he is going to leave it to the commission to decide what this Ohio policy looks like. I don’t see his running for office of the president to slow things down. I guess the real question is will the PCO actually speed up? That is something that they need to address. Anthony Crowdell Do think they are waiting for – Brian had used that football metaphor for they keep punting. Are they punting to a certain calendar date or a certain time whether it’s PGM is resolved or is that their target or is not really sure? Nicholas Akins Only they can answer that. It’s one thing to have one delay but to have delays of several cases occurring, that’s really not a good message. And to said energy policy in the state, you’ve got to have the courage to step up and make a decision. Brian Tierney And see them score touchdown or field goal rather than punt again. Operator We will now go to the line of Ali Agha with SunTrust. Ali Agha I just wanted to make sure I heard your original commentary correctly, with regards to your thinking on the generation business. So as you said these Ohio PPA [indiscernible] most likely now we’re looking at that maybe in 2016. But if I’m hearing you right should we still expect your final decision on the merchant business this year in the remaining months of this year? Or is that also going to be dependent on when this PPA rider stuff now comes out? Nicholas Akins I think certainly the capacity performance and the base residual auctions are significant piece of that discussion. We’re going to have to see – what the lay of the land is after that is concluded to visit with our board and determine what the next steps are. But that doesn’t stop us from pushing ahead with the PPA proposals regardless of the outcome. But certainly I think Ohio could send a great message by proving those PPAs. It remains to be seen whether we’re going to actually wait. This can’t go on for a long time. We’re after certainty for our investors and from a shelter perspective, we cannot have this overhang because it really not only confuses us on how to invest in the unregulated generation or lack of investment, but it also is so convoluted that it is difficult to understand exactly what it is you have in terms of valuation of that generation. And so the steps being taken particularly with the clean power plan and other things that are occurring I think those units will survive the clean power plan because there absolutely needed. They are great units and they are 2/3.1/3 gas. A lot of fuel switching occurs between coal and gas. So they are valuable units but they just need to be reflected that way. I just think it’s something we’ve got to get a handle on. As far as timing is concerned, we want to make that decision as quickly as we possibly can. But we have to do what is right for the shareholders and we have to do on analysis based upon what we can determine the best we can with the value of that generation on the forward basis will be. If you get a great capacity performance number, then that may diminish the need for PPA. But I still think PPA is needed. It’s an important part of the hedging for customers in Ohio. It’s important part of that generation being maintained in Ohio with the jobs taxes and everything else I’ve talked about. We’re not going to – we have not and will not give up on the PPA approach with the commission. They need to answer that question. It would be great if the answered it relatively quickly so we can get on with the business at hand. But certainly those two items are still outstanding and we’re hopeful that at least one of them will get resolved very quickly, so that we can start filling in the blanks. Ali Agha And from a logistics point of view, Nick, there would be no constraint for you to exit the merchant business while this PPA rider application was still outstanding ask Nicholas Akins We don’t believe there is a constraint because the real value of the PPA is again to maintain the generation in Ohio and make sure that economically there is still there and regardless of the outcome of the disposition of that business. Ali Agha And last question, is it fair to assume that previously you had looked at scale and spin off as two trajectories. Is still look a little more likely outcome than spin off? Is that fair to say? Nicholas Akins We don’t know that yet. We’ve all these events look at things like the tax efficiency and other parameters before we can really make a decision on sale versus spin. Or for that matter keep but certainly sale and spin which you mentioned. Those are areas where we have to look at the economics and it depends on – you’ve got to be offered a sale price that overcomes the tax efficiency of the spin and there is other things involved with it from a business perspective as well. I would say both are still part of the decision process. Operator Thank you. And we will go to the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS. Julien Dumoulin-Smith A quick question if you look at all and get some clarity around transmission spending, [indiscernible] has been The gems been evaluating reduction in the forecast but from what I understand you are investing below the [indiscernible] level as in its basic transmission investments at the lower KV. How do think about the impact of potential reduction in PJM load forecast relative to your investment plans near term and long term it’s actually in the context of having more proceeds from any prospective sale of the River Ops or [indiscernible] etcetera. Nicholas Akins I don’t anyone knows what the load forecast is at this point and certainly we don’t know the level of investment needed from a transmission perspective. We are in the process of redefining this electric grid. And we have retirements that occurred on one of the transmission has been built because of the retirements but also there continues to be optimization across the grid as a result of their will be more optimization after the clean power plan gets resolved. The changes occurring in PJM now are more about generation and certainly reliability and less so about load. And so I wouldn’t put much context in terms of a forward-looking transmission plant. We’ve seen over and over how transmission plans change with varying degrees and sometimes we get irritated by that because we plan transmission like PATH and things happen. But if you look at the underlying fundamentals of transmission, the grids is changing dramatically. The flows on the grid are going to change dramatically. So when you look at the four power transmission system you can be bullish about that and then the underlying which you mentioned the lower KV levels be some transmission and those levels, there is a massive amounts of rehab work and follow-up work to forward purchasers and at least be done. And we happen to have the largest transmission system in the country so that bodes well for the investment potential for AEP. Julien Dumoulin-Smith Perhaps just to clarify if you will, in the increase in transmission spend off late and just thinking about the sensitivity if there were to be a shift in the RTEP [ph], it seems that you guys have historically had some element of comfort around projections given that they don’t primarily seem to flow out of the [indiscernible] process, if you could elaborate a little bit. Just getting some sense of how hedged are you presently to changes either way in RTEP. Nicholas Akins We have a bunch of big buckets and a lot of those big buckets are not RTO dependent. Brian Tierney Our transmission spend and forecast is not dependent on a RTEP load forecast. I would not put a lot of stock in a RTEP load forecast anyway. Operator We will go now to the line of [indiscernible]. Unidentified Analyst Couple of ones, first one with the transmission auction have you guys heard from PJM or do you guys have any idea when the new schedule might be or when we might get more information on that? Nicholas Akins Yes we will know soon. I think certainly PJM will have to speak about the ins and outs of that but we suspect it will be within maybe a month or three weeks delay or something like that. I don’t think it’s a substantial thing. Still have to observe the same performance criteria when they did in. I think it should be a large delay. Unidentified Analyst If it might be before the PRA? Nicholas Akins I don’t know about that. They will have to answer that obviously but I don’t think we’re talking about moving into fourth quarter or anything. Unidentified Analyst Let’s hope not, just another quick one for you. In terms of the potential asset sale or spend which you guys be open to idea of accepting other entities currency like a stock deal? I’m sorry guys would prefer cash if short sell the Junco would you guys be open to the idea of maybe taking the equity of whatever one of the players out there that has been acquiring these things? Nicholas Akins Paul, at this point is worth evaluating. I think everything would be on the table. We wouldn’t say no to that if we felt that was the highest value for our shareholders. Brian Tierney I think we haven’t closed off on any of these parameters that we keep talking about because frankly we don’t have the full answers yet. Unidentified Analyst On the delays that have been happening in Ohio etcetera, have you sensed any change in tone or issues that have come up or any flavor as to the environment there with respect to this? Or is this regulatory stuff that happens in a lot of major proceedings that are not exactly run-of-the-mill? Nicholas Akins Obviously the PUCO I speak for supplement issue but it is a major issue. You can’t get around that. I’m sure there’s a lot of deliberations occurring over in their camp and it’s part of the regulatory process. Many times I think it support for policymakers to understand the business disruptions that occur relative to either waiting for decisions or not making decisions let alone the wrong decisions. We really do need some consistency and delivering on orders and rulings on a timely basis. I think it’s particularly important to the industry and particularly important to electric utilities in Ohio. Unidentified Analyst Okay but you have noticed a significant shift I guess or any change in what’s going on there other than normal back-and-forth and what have you? Or have you? Nicholas Akins I don’t think there’s been a significant shift or anything. I think there’s a lot of dialogue going on. We have dialogue going on these issues in the Ohio business Roundtable and the close partnership and of course at the commission as well. It is an important issue but I haven’t sensed a change. I think it’s a very deliberative approach. Operator The final question will then come from the line of [indiscernible]. Unidentified Analyst We have touched a lot on PGM and PPA. Fix it over to transmission back again. Could you talk about what you guys are thinking any update on potential alternative structures? I know last time you talked about the restructure doesn’t make sense for you guys. Any updated thought process on that? And the second non-related question that could you talk about what you are – I know demand looked pretty good on normalized basis. Angel more insight into with respect to you see pattern to what you’re seeing there are what sort of aside from just a general economy improving that striving the growth or demand improvement there? Nicholas Akins Brian, covered the economy piece of it. As far as transmission is concerned we have in changed our approach to the transmission business we’re still heavily investing in it and we still want to make sure that we continue to do it in a positive way from a state perspective. We haven’t changed our approach from that perspective. Brian? Brian Tierney I think on the customer usage side a large part of what is driving residential in particular is customer counts. We are seeing average customer usage hang in there. We’re not seeing decreased to the degree some others are. But it is customer count that is driving it. I’ve been this job for five and half years maybe more and I’ve been talking about 5.3 million customers that whole time. I’m finally through to be able say we’re rounding at 5.4 million customers. Customer counts particularly in the West helping us out. It’s largely driven by is not the talk about macro factors but a lot of it is shale gas and with the economy are doing well. We are seeing increased usage. In places like Kentucky Power that is being particularly hard-hit by mining shutdowns in the like we’re seeing customer counts decrease and used down. It really does unfortunately follow the macroeconomic factors that we are seeing and we are blessed to have the shale gas plays in our service areas and that’s really driven a lot of the load increases that we’ve seen. Betty Jo Rosza Thank you everyone for joining us on today’s call. As always the IR team will be available to answer any additional questions you may have. Nick, would you please give the replay information. Operator Today’s call will be available for replay beginning today at 11.15 and running through July 30 until midnight. You may access the playback system by telling 1-800-475-6701 and entering the access code 364235. The dial-in number again is 800-475-6701 and International 320365 320-365-3844 with access code of 364 364235. That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for your participation for using AT&T executive teleconference. You may now disconnect.

Capstone Infrastructure’s (MCQPF) CEO Mike Bernstein on Q1 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Executives Aaron Boles – VP, Communications & IR Mike Bernstein – CEO Mike Smerdon – CFO Analysts Kelsey Roste – RBC Capital Markets Capstone Infrastructure Corp. ( OTCPK:MCQPF ) Q1 2015 Results Earnings Conference Call May 15, 2015 8:30 AM ET Operator Thank you for standing by. This is the Chorus Call Conference Operator and welcome to the Capstone Infrastructure Corporation First Quarter 2015 Conference Call and Webcast. As a reminder, all participants are in listen-only mode and the conference is being recorded. After the presentation there will be an opportunity to ask questions. [Operator Instructions] At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Aaron Boles, Senior Vice President, Communications and Investor Relations. Please go ahead sir. Aaron Boles Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining on Friday before a long weekend, good for you, to discuss Capstone Infrastructure Corporation’s financial results for the first quarter of 2015 ended March 31. Today’s call is hosted by Mike Bernstein, Chief Executive Officer. Also on the call is Michael Smerdon, Chief Financial Officer. Our News Release was issued after market closed yesterday and is available on our website at www.capstoneinfrastructure.com. Today’s conference call is being webcast live with accompanying slides and will be archived on our website along with a transcript of the event. Following management’s remarks, we will hold a Q&A session as usual. During the Q&A, we would like to ask that you limit your questions to two before re-entering the queue so that everyone has a chance to participate. Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone that during the course of this conference call, we may make various forward-looking statements that involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially. For information about such risks and uncertainties, I refer you to the MD&A and our Quarterly Report and to our most recent AIF dated March 24, 2015. And with that, I’ll turn the call over to Mike Bernstein. Mike Bernstein Thanks Aaron. Good morning and welcome to Capstone’s quarterly conference call. Thank you for joining us. The first three months of 2015 marked the start of a busy transitional period to a new phase of growth for Capstone. Two of our heritage power assets began operating under contracts. Our 24-megawatt wind facility reached commercial operations and another 25-megawatt project neared completion. We received key approvals for the next stage of wind developments and Cardinal made substantial progress on its $30 million refurbishment and life extension work. Bristol Water successfully completed its previous five-year 560 million asset management program and also initiated a challenge to the subsequent five-year plan. As we noted in the forecast we issued at the end of last year, our mid to long-term prospects remain very positive though the changes at our businesses will exert downward pressure on some of our financials in the near term. Adjusted EBITDA was 29.1% lower than the first quarter of 2014 at $29.5 million, primarily reflecting the new long-term contracts at Cardinal and Whitecourt and reduced production at our operating wind facilities. These declines were partially offset by contributions from our new Skyway 8 and Saint-Philémon assets. Bristol Water also provided a lift in the final quarter of higher tariffs from asset management plan 5 and favorable currency exchange rates. The factors impacting adjusted EBITDA also resulted in lower adjusted funds from operations, which came in at $6.6 million. We expect these figures to improve as we build out our current wind development portfolio over the next two years. We remain committed to our current dividend policy as we continue to build our portfolio, look to improve the performance of our existing assets and execute Capstone’s growth strategy. Organic growth is progressing steadily. In the first quarter we commissioned the 24-megawatt Saint-Philémon site in Quebec and made good progress on the 25-megawatt Goulais facility near to Saint Marie. Construction is now complete. The facility is energized and we expect it to be commissioned within the next week. In the first quarter, we received approvals for the Grey Highlands ZEP and Ganaraska Development sites and recently Settlers Landing and Grey Highlands Clean also received their approvals. Typically, the last step before construction is a six-month review process. We’re also making important investments in our operating assets. The technology improvements we’re investigating or installed at our wind assets including wind boost, Vortex Generators and improved the effectiveness of the blades, turbine pitch optimization and condition based monitoring are all designed to maximize the generating capacity of the turbines. With a $30 million refurbishment at Cardinal nearly complete, including the installation of a new gas turbine roader, the plant will be ready to supply power to the Ontario Grid this summer when it makes economic sense to do so. Under its 20-year contract the plant received escalating monthly capacity payments and provides electricity during peak demand periods. The warm months are typically when additional power is required. Consequently, Cardinal did not produce electricity in the first three months of this year. We’ve engaged consulting engineers to explore the potential for additional new streams for Whitecourt. The new contract there with Millar Western took effect in January of this year and the facility generated electricity consistently and profitably in the first quarter. However, low Alberta Power Pool prices resulted in reduced revenue during the first three months. Bristol Water has now concluded the Amp 5 business plan which expands from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2015. The total expense on investments was $567 million, which translates into cumulative regulated capital value today of £418 million or roughly $770 million. It’s important to recall that this strong position at the end of the five-year plan came as a result of Bristol Water challenging the final determination set by the economic regulator Ofwat in 2009. Bristol Water is once again challenging the 2014 final determination to the competition markets authority. I’ll update the progress of the CMA review later in this call. At the end of the first quarter of 2015, following a strong finish to 2014, Capstone is in solid shape. We’re going through our contracted wind development projects, investing in our operating assets and are positioning ourselves for a better outcome for Bristol Water for the CMA review. Now I’ll turn to Mike Smerdon for a financial review. Mike? Mike Smerdon Thanks Mike. Following on Mike’s discussion of Capstone’s adjusted EBITDA and AFFO, I’ll cover our revenue expenses, capital structure and outlook for the balance of 2015. First quarter revenues were $90.2 million, which is 21% lower than in 2014. The factors driving this result were the 51% decrease from the power segment as a result of old contracts expiring at Cardinal and Whitecourt. Poor wind conditions affected most of our wind assets, but were partially mitigated by new revenue from Skyway 8 and Saint-Philémon. And declines in power were somewhat offset by gains in utilities with a 9% increase from Bristol Water through a combination of higher regulated rates and favorable current foreign currency translation. Expenses for the quarter came in at $49 million or 19% lower than in 2014. This result reflected lower operating expenses at Cardinal from reduced production requiring less fuel, the absence of administrative cost related to acquisition integration and these were partially offset by higher project development costs and higher expenses at Bristol Water related to foreign currency appreciation, a restructuring program developed as part of the PR14 business plan and cost associated with the current regulatory review. At the end of the first quarter, Capstone had unrestricted cash and cash equivalents of $55.3 million. This includes $38.3 million from the power segment, $11.1 million from Bristol Water and approximately $6 million at corporate. Of our total cash and equivalents $24.2 million is available for general corporate purposes and our undrawn corporate revolver’s capacity stands at over $39 million. Capstone’s long term debt at quarter end was approximately $929 million including debt at corporate and our proportionate share of debt at the power assets as well as Bristol Water. Our outstanding debt remains predominately fixed rate or linked to inflation and is largely secured at the operating business level and non-recourse to corporate. Approximately 98% of the long term debt at our power facilities is scheduled to fully amortize over the PPA terms. At Bristol Water, approximately 78% of the long-term debt has maturity longer than 10 years. This debt level represents a debt-to-capitalization ratio of 70.8%, which is slightly lower than at the end of our last fiscal year. In general, our capital structure aligns with the cash flow profile and duration of our businesses giving us the flexibility to pursue new investments. With the first quarter of 2015 complete, we affirm our outlook for adjusted EBITDA in 2015 of between $115 million and $125 million. We’ve planned carefully to ensure that we have the liquidity to maintain Capstone’s dividend, while our wind project developments are showing good progress. With the eminent commissioning of Goulais, we will have completed three wind projects in the past nine months with renewable energy approvals from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change now in hand for four more. We’ve invested in new equipment, leading edge technology and refurbishments to maximize the productivity of our businesses to ensure that they can provide diversified and stable cash flow that meet our business and financial requirements and we’ve taken steps at Bristol Water to position the company for an improved business plan that meets the needs of customers and investors. Mike will speak more about that now. Mike Smerdon Thanks Mike. Capstone has a clear set of priorities for the balance of this year. The first is to achieve a successful outcome for Bristol Water. The CMA is guided by statute and therefore has a defined schedule to conclude its Bristol Water review with a firm deadline of September 3 though we expect it will be delivered in August. The process is now at about the halfway mark with the first main party hearings taking place in early June. Up to this point, both sides have made their respective cases with a series of written submissions including a statement of case from Bristol Water, our reply from Ofwat and a response to that reply from Bristol Water. These documents are publicly available on the CMA website. The prevailing opinion among experts who’ve reviewed the submissions is that Bristol has made a number of persuasive arguments for an improved outcome. And CMA’s following the termination, our provisional determination is expected to be released and made public in early July. That interim document will be subject to further refinement with more input and representations from both sides to follow, that will provide useful insights about where the CMA is likely to settle in its review. Our next priority is to continue to achieve organic growth through the development of our wind projects. We anticipate that Goulais will be commissioned within the next week and we have approvals in hand as Mike mentioned for four additional facilities in Ontario. Construction is expected to start on the first of these by the end of 2015. We’re also preparing to engage in the appeal of an Ontario Superior Court decision from March 12, 2015, which found that the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation did not properly calculate the price paid in payable for electricity produced under PPAs with Capstone and other power producers in Ontario. On April 10, 2015, the OEFC served a Notice of Appeal in respect of the March 12 decision. Capstone intends to defend the appeal, which could take as long as 16 months. If the decision is upheld following appeal, Capstone would receive about $25 million net, representing retroactive adjustments for revenue claims from the OEFC. In addition the future price paid for electricity at Capstone’s Wawatay and Dryden Hydro facilities is expected to be calculated in accordance with the original pre-2011 methodology into respective PPAs, resulting in higher future power rates. This could result in a gain of almost $900,000 per year for the duration of the Power Purchase Agreements at these hydro facilities. Developments in public policy have also drawn our attention. The Ontario Government has recently announced plans to join with Quebec in California in a cap-and-trade system under the Western Climate Initiative. The details haven’t been finalized, but this system will be designed to reduce the amount of green-house gas produced in the province by setting a limit on emissions and creating a market for trading credits. We continue to evaluate perspective investments across our four targeted pillars of power, utilities, public private partnerships and transportation. The uncertainty surrounding Bristol Water has affected our share price and made it more challenging in the short term to complete acquisitions. However, we know that the CMA decision will remove that uncertainty this summer and we’ve continued to set this foundations for new opportunities. Capstone will hold its Annual Meeting of Shareholders on Wednesday, June 17 at the Ivey Tangerine Leadership Centre in Toronto. We encourage our shareholders to attend and look forward to speaking with you there or to join our live webcast from the event for those unable to attend. At the end of the first quarter, Capstone is tracking to plan for 2015. Our organic development projects have been completed. Our operating portfolio is performing well and the Bristol Water regulatory review is progressing towards satisfaction and will be concluded over the coming summer and we look forward to moving ahead with our growth strategy with more certainty for our company and our shareholders. Thank you for your continued support and now we’ll be happy to take your questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] The first question today is from Kelsey Roste with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Kelsey Roste Good morning, everyone. Mike Bernstein Good morning. Kelsey Roste I had a question in respect to the four development facilities that you received approval. You had mentioned it was with Grey Highlands Clean Energy as well as Grey Highlands ZEP, what were the other two projects? Mike Bernstein Ganaraska and Settlers yeah, and we’re hoping for snowy imminently. Kelsey Roste And snowy imminently and all of those are expected to achieve CPD in 2016. Are any of them expected to have a material contribution in 2016? Mike Bernstein Not material in 2016, no. Kelsey Roste Thank you. And then just kind of turning to the M&A market, so solar and wind developments M&A still seems to be pretty hot in North America and if you had mentioned the negative pressure on your share prices, put some pressure on your ability to do acquisitions. Are you guys still actively looking in North America for wind and solar? Are you more learning towards P3, there can you provide a little bit more additional color on your acquisition strategy? Mike Bernstein Yeah, I think overall I’d say not just in the solar and wind sector, but generally for operating assets where we’re seeing it is a pretty frothy market. So we’re focusing a lot of our efforts right now on the development side. So looking particularly in the U.S. on gas development and this is with our CPD team and we’re also evaluating opportunities with the upcoming LRP in Ontario. On the P3 side, it’s a combination of partnering with established players at the — again probably at the earlier phases, but that also could involve looking at portfolios that include some operating assets, but you’re quite right. Even with the strong currency it is more of a seller’s market than a buyer’s market on the M&A front. Kelsey Roste Great, thank you. That’s all my questions. Mike Bernstein You’re welcome. Operator [Operator Instructions] There are no more questions at this time. I’ll hand the conference over to Mr. Aaron Boles for closing comments. Aaron Boles All right. Thank you for joining us this morning and everybody have a great long weekend. Okay. Thank you. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today’s conference call. You may disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating and have a pleasant day. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com . Thank you!