Tag Archives: governor

UIL Holdings’ (UIL) CEO Jim Torgerson on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

UIL Holdings Corporation (NYSE: UIL ) Q2 2015 Earnings Conference Call August 06, 2015 10:00 AM ET Executives Susan Allen – Vice President, Investor Relations Jim Torgerson – President and Chief Executive Officer Rich Nicholas – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Analysts Andy Levy – Avon Capital Caroline Bone – Deutsche Bank Eric Guo – Gabelli & Company Andrew Weisel – Macquarie Capital Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates Andy Levy – Avon Capital Operator Good morning. My name is Bobby Jane. I will be your conference operator for today’s call. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the UIL Holdings Second Quarter 2015 Earnings Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers’ remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] I will now turn the call over to Susan Allen. Susan Allen Thank you, Bobby Jane and good morning everyone. Thank you for joining us to discuss UIL Holdings second quarter 2015 earnings results. I’m Susan Allen, Vice President of Investor Relations. Participating on the call is Jim Torgerson, UIL’s President, Chief Executive Officer and Rich Nicholas, UIL’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. If you do not have a copy of our press release or presentation for today’s call, they are on our website at www.uil.com. During today’s call, we will make various forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Safe Harbor provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Significant factors that could cause results to differ from those anticipated are described in our earnings release and filings with the SEC. With that said, I’ll turn the call over to Jim Torgerson. Jim Torgerson Thanks Susan. Good morning everybody. Second quarter turned out to be pretty good for us as we have seen from our earnings release, the net income was 15.8 million or $0.28 per diluted share that was compared to the 9.3 or $0.16 diluted share in ’14. Year-to-date, for the first six months, we had net income of 73.4 million, which was $1.28 per diluted share and that was compare to the 64.8 million or $1.13 a share in the first half of ’14. There were a number of one-time or non-recurring items during both 2015 and 2014 merger-related expenses with our pending merger with you Iberdrola had an impact and slight impact in the first– in the quarter, but mainly more year-to-date. And then again in 2014, we have the now terminated proposed acquisition of the Philadelphia Gas Works, which have which had an impact in 2014. We also recognize the reserves related to the transmission, return equity related to the proceedings at FERC and we had booked some charges mainly in the first quarter of 2015, but also found in the 2014 and there was a minor adjustment in this most recent quarter. We also had which is not shown as a non-recurring item and we did have an IRS tax audit adjustments negative about $0.02 a share which Rich will explain, but with all that said after these non-recurring items, not including the tax adjustment, the quarter was actually up $0.03 or about 12% and year-to-date for the first six months were $0.05 a share about 4%. Turning to page six, I’m going to talk about the Iberdrola, USA and UIL merger here are the some of the timelines and what’s been happening. We received a Hart-Scott-Rodino process that was completed, pretty quickly after we filed back in the end of March and on that one. The Federal Communications Commission, we got approval there. FERC approved in early part of June. The Committee on Foreign Investments, the review was completed and early on, so those have all been completed. Connecticut Public Utility Regulatory Authority has aimed you all aware in their draft final order graph decision, denied the request. And so we actually hold the request and terminated that proceeding and then filed a new application on July 31. Now, that is still subjected to the 120-day time frame in order for the PURA to give us a decision. So we would expect a decision in late November. Massachusetts DPU, we filed in the end of March, the DPU really it’s kind of I say suspended the filing that we will be making supplemental testimony that will be filed very shortly that will reflect what we filed in Connecticut, but really on our prorated basis more or less with what we have in Connecticut, reflecting the size of our assets of Berkshire Gas, which is about 5% of total in Massachusetts. We also filed our EBITDA filed the S4 and then our preliminary proxy which is a combined document on July 17. We are waiting comments from the SEC on that pulmonary filing– pulmonary proxy. Once we get through the SEC filings and everything is approved and we can schedule the shareholder vote. I want to go over a few things about this but the new application entailed and some of it in the commitments we made. The start, we have a rate credit. We will be providing the customers that would be $20 million and we are putting three options for the surbs decide on because we didn’t get feedback of their living for long-term benefit. So one of the options is closure, just provider rate credit upfront for customers, second one was to do it all ten years which nominally would be $26 million but the present value is $20 million and also a third option which would be to mimic what would be a reduction in rates something they’ve talked about, amortize that over like a 30 year timeframe. It still comes back to a net present value of $19 million to $20 million. But the rate credit would be like $1.5 million a year over the 30-year time frame. Further value is still the same, but it allows for a little longer term look at and benefits that could be provided to customers. We also put in for suggested distribution base rate freeze be till January 1, 2018 and will be to go into effect for the two gas companies in Connecticut, Southern Connecticut Gas and Connecticut Natural Gas. And for United Illuminating, our electric distribution business, new rates couldn’t go into effect until January 1, 2017. We would make a contribution to the clean energy fund, that would be $2 million a year for over three years of $6 million, and then a contribution to disaster relief of $1 dollar. And we left that up to appear to decide what the entity or agency that could go to, but we did make some suggestions. We also would accelerate our investment in electric distribution system resiliency, and the plan there was to provide [indiscernible] within six months of our closing the transaction. The opportunities we have for investments in realized and resiliency, and these things such as rising of our [indiscernible] period on to flooding and walls are to again prevent flooding, also some things with microgrids, and some cabling that we could replace to help resiliency. What we would contemplate is the first $15 million of this distribution investments, we would not get the equity return on until the projects are complete, which is expected to be around 2019, and then the subsequent rate case would pick that up. In the meantime, we would request to get the debt recovery and the depreciation. We also suggested that we would accelerate the cast iron and bare steel replacement program for selling Southern Connecticut Gas, doubling it from $11 million to $22 million over the three-year subsequent to the closing. And this will provide a benefit to customers by accelerating that. We would then not get that in the rates until we actually filed that rate case that would be talking about, which would not have rates into effect until these January 1, 2018. Those would provide benefits just because of the present value of not recovering from the cost immediately of about $7 million to customers. Then we’re negotiating a consent order with DEEP to remediate English Station. Our English Station is a plant that we sold back in 2000. It’s in New Haven, and there are PCBs at the site or negotiating with DEEP on the consent order, and the Attorney General, the estimates from DEEP as far as the clean-up costs is about $30 million, we would then undertake that. But again, that’s subject to negotiating our consent order. We also agreed to maintain our high levels of safety and reliability, but also improved customer service metrics now for the customer service metrics. Those would be for the average speed of answer abandon calls and appointments captain the agreement would be that we’ve been approved by 5% over the next three years. Also then we wouldn’t want to maintain the safety leak response in the third party damage leak response third party obviously for gas, it’s the high level that we have today and maintain those levels. From a local management commitment and if you read the PURAs draft decision they want to make sure that there was going to be a focus on local management. We would appoint an individual as President of the Connecticut operations who would come from the existing management team of UIL or one of the UIL utilities and then that individual would be headquartered in Connecticut and at the UIL companies would be head quartered there for at least seven years. We said we would not change the day-to-day management operations of any of the Utilities in Connecticut and there we would had no involuntary terminations of employees except obviously for cause of performance for at least three years following closing. We also said we would hire 150 employees or contractors over three years in Connecticut. This will allow us to do a lot of projects that we have on our plate to begin with mainly transmission project that we’re going to need contractors for and we can fill some our existing positions and looking at those attrition occurs. So the 150 employees are contractors we think it’s good for the stay. Ring-fencing protections that we would implement mainly to of provisions to avoid bankruptcy or adverse conditions that could occur in any of the affiliates, other than the UIL companies that would have — could have an impact on the UIL Utilities and this would involve the creation of a special purpose entity with at least one independent director and implementation of an independent, non-economic interest and the special purpose entity they call it Golden Share. What it really allows is that that individual holding that share would have what amount to be if there was going to be a voluntary bankruptcy of any of the UIL Utilities. And then we also would committed to maintain separate corporate existence and the provision against forming with the funds and some dividend restrictions in the event that any of the utility of drop below investment grade which we don’t anticipate. So as you can see we’ve put forth a lot to the peer of and at big proportionate when we do actually filed within it’s our supplement to make sure that we’re addressing all of the concerns that they raised in the draft decision, which again was pulled. Now, moving on to things that are going on with the UIL, as many of you know, we did acquire 2.5% equity interest in the Kinder Morgan proposed Northeast Energy Direct gas pipeline project. This really commits us to an initial capital investment of up to 80 million and again, it depends on the final pipeline configuration and design. It also committed UIL to taking 70,000 dekatherms a day, which actually, we could reduce that under certain circumstances as others come in and want the capacity on the pipeline and we can release that directly to them and reduce our commitment. We also have an option to acquire an additional up to 12.5% of equity under some limited circumstances and the limited circumstances really relates, if we can’t reduce that 70,000 dekatherms by the time the pipeline goes into operation or even later than that, a couple years after that. Then also, if the electric distribution companies, there is a project that they would get capacity on the pipeline, which then they could release to electric generation projects that you’ve heard about the Nesco proposal that was done. These are things that are going on in New England, mainly in Massachusetts and Connecticut and Rhode Island. But as these projects can come on, we’re — the electric distribution companies get capacity, we can then increase our equity interest in the pipeline as the pipeline within the more capacity to serve these needs. The project, obviously, is going to supply the needs to growing residential, commercial and industrial demand for gas, but also for— it could be a very reliable supplier fuel for the power generation, and this would be again probably under that EDC proposal. And it does provide direct access to the Marcellus and the [Utica] shale. The pipeline will extend about 180 miles, which will be new pipeline from New York through Massachusetts and then into New Hampshire. They will be making a filing with FERC at some point and Kinder Morgan can probably give you a little more details on when that will be, but we understand it should be in late fall or maybe even at the fourth quarter of this year. And then commercial operation is expected by the fourth quarter of 2018. Getting to our gas heating customer additions [indiscernible] we had just under 3,900 through the end of June. We believe we’re still on track and to meet the 12,000, we said we’d get this year. Current home heating prices obviously lower than what they had been and the margin that we customers can get as it has often quite a bit but natural gas is still more cost effective and has more benefits, so we are still seeing a number of conversions and we are confident that we’ll have the 12,000 for the year. Turning to page 11 the transmission ROE proceeding is a lot on this chart. Basically you know that comments— the complaints have been ongoing. We have the three complaint periods with different time frames for a refund periods. We’ve been through this before, but basically the 10.57 base ROE is still being challenged in the subsequent complaints and the timing right now is the hearings were held, the end of June and early July. The Administrative Law Judge decision is expected by the end of 2015 so the FERC decision isn’t expected till end of 2016. The one point here in mid-July, the New England transmission are actually filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for review of the second and third complaint, challenging their first decisions allow hearings on the merits of the second and third compliance. So that will go along with the petition we had to challenge the first complaint. But there was lot of legal activity going on with ROE for FERC. I will turn it over to Rich Nicholas is going to run through the financial results. Rich Nicholas Thank you, Jim and good morning everyone, Thanks for joining us today. On slide 12, we have the tabular results by business segment break out the non-recurring merger and all we reserve it. Jim mentioned earlier and beginning on slide 13 then is the narrative that goes through the various business segments. So looking at Slide 13 and focusing first on the electric distribution, second quarter ’15 earnings kept as compared to the second quarter ’14, it were down about $700,000, but that does include the $1.1 million charge from the IRS audit. By the audit did cover four years from 2009 to 2012, it was a routine audit and those periods are now close and resolved, but it was a of a $0.02 charge in the second quarter as a result from looking year-to-date. Again on electric distribution, a decrease from $25.2 million in ’14 to $21.8 million in 2015 again, which includes the $1.1 million charge from the IRS audit. But higher employee-related expenses depreciation and amortization as a rate base grows and some other operating taxes for things like property taxes, it was offset in part by a rate increase that took place in August of last year was the second year of a two year rate plan for UIL and we so do see some benefit from that. GenConn was up slightly quarter-over-quarter primarily due to billing adjustment, so up above 400,000 quarter-over-quarter. The 12 months rolling at distribution return on equity came in at 9.09% and that compares to our allowed of 9.15%. Turning to the electric transmission segment, earnings there were down as well, both in the quarter and year-to-date. We did recorded additional reserves in the first quarter of this year. To reflect the order run we are hearing from FERC in the first complaint, clarified that the ROE cap was at the project level not at the company level. So on slide 14, you can see the results with or without the reserve adjustments that have been made that’s been the primary driver both in the quarter and year-to-date. Both the reserve and lower ROE now going forward, the 10.57% that came out of the first complete order. Overall excluding the reserves to transmission ROE came in at 11.35% and if you were to include the reserves into 10.98%. Now looking at our gas distribution business, earnings for the quarter $1.4 million compared to a loss of $2.2 million last year and the increase in earnings is primarily due to and we’ve seen lower uncollectible expenses slightly lower corporate charges last year. We had recorded earnings sharing at CNG and we’re not in that position at this point this year. It was offset somewhat by higher O&M expense in the second quarter that we saw, we benefited on the revenue side from the cold weather but as the ground began to thaw and [indiscernible] begin to move we did have additional O&M expense to address leaks in the second quarter and that cost was about to $0.025 a share for the higher O&M. Moving to slide 15, year-to-date for gas distribution increased in earnings certainly benefited by the cold weather in the first quarter. Year-to-date we are almost 13% colder than normal, and almost 3% colder than last year, it was warmer in the second quarter of this year compared to last year, but not big heating degree day loans in the second quarter. So it was actually 16% warmer than normal, didn’t feel like it, but that was the actual data. So the impact of weather, normalized use per customer, customer growth, you can see we’re still benefiting significantly from our customer growth almost $1 million in margin quarter-over-quarter, $3 million year-over-year. Normalized use per customer is pretty stable, actually, a positive 200,000 in the quarter. And you’ll note, particularly on the year-to-date column, there the decoupling adjustment for C&G only with the cold weather in the first quarter, we do have a liability for a refund to customers resulting from that. So the results of all of that on slide 16. Our 12-month average return on equities at the gas companies, Southern Connecticut gas are about 97% to 98% as compared to the allowed 936, and at C&G 945 to 965 as compared to the allowed 918. On a weather adjusted basis, there is no weather adjustment at C&G since we have decoupling, but SCG, as you can see 8.86 to 9.06. The corporate segment where we retained certain corporate costs for interest on Holding company debt, as well as the merger related charges, both from Philadelphia, last year, and for Iberdrola this year are included in the corporate segment. If you were to exclude those merger related expenses, the quarter was essentially flat year-over-year, and year-to-date, we’re actually have $0.03 less of a loss at corporate, primarily due to increased returns on share to capitalize that are held at the Holding company for the benefit of all those subsidiaries. As we look forward now, to the rest of the year, on Slide 17, our earnings guidance, we did reduce the top end of the guidance by $0.05, effectively, reducing the midpoint then by 2.5, primarily result from the higher [indiscernible] then was expected as the gas companies, resulting from the leak repairs due to the cold weather in the first quarter. So if you exclude the non-recurring items, our current guidance is $2.30 to $2.45. And that compares to previously it was 2.30 to 2.50. We did reduce the gas guidance by $0.03 on the upper end. So that it’s now $0.95 to $1.02 versus previously it was $0.95 to $1.05. So with that, I will now hand it back to our operator Bobby Jane for the question-and-answer session. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you very much, sir. [Operator Instructions] We do have one question coming to queue from Andy Levy, Avon Capital. Your line is live. Andy Levy Just a quick question on the merger on the S4, I noticed that you gave 16 guidance and you also gave 2019, I believe our record growth rate out to 19 but I remember if I’m not mistaken that on the original announcement of the merger, you also have 17 guidance as well, but I want to make sure that your reaffirming 17 as well as we did 16 on S4? Jim Torgerson Yes, there’s been no change there. Andy Levy Okay. So it’s 17 is still at 2.59-2.75? Jim Torgerson I don’t have the document from me, but there’s been no change. Andy Levy Okay and then why that was left out of the S4? Jim Torgerson We provided the information that demonstrates the growth rate through the planning period. Andy Levy Okay, thank you and then the other question I had was, just on the makeup of the Board, under the new company. How will that be? Jim Torgerson The event through USA Board there will be two people from the current UIL Board going onto that Board along with me as of CEO and they will retain the people that are there today on the EBITDA USA Board. Andy Levy Was there any change in that when you made your filing, your revised filing in Connecticut is up to same? Jim Torgerson That’s what still it had assets in the agreement. That’s still the same. Andy Levy Okay, got it. Thank you very much. Jim Torgerson Yes, the work Board is the one where we’re going to add one Connecticut person, that’s not the EBITDA US Board though. Andy Levy Okay, I understand. Thank you very much sir. Operator Okay and then our next question comes from line of Caroline Bone, Deutsche Bank. Your line is live. Caroline Bone It’s Deutsche bank but thank you. So I guess I’m wondering if you could talk to bit more about what makes you so confident that you’ll hit that 12,000 customer gas conversion target for the full year. It just seems like you guys are tracking pretty well behind right now. Jim Torgerson Yes, we were looks like July was doing a little bit— quite a bit better. We didn’t release that number yet, but it’s looking better. So think what if we have then we’re having a good enough number of leads going on and a lot of interest in the commercial and industrial, mainly commercial not that not much industrial. Commercial aspects then the main expansions we’ve been doing are moving into other towns that actually we hadn’t even served before like Essex and couple others that [would be] doing some extensive pipeline expansions main expansions that are going to pick up some new customers [indiscernible] one of them. These are all small towns. But we’re hitting some major loads that we can then pick up and pick up some more customers along the way. Mostly commercial, so we’re pretty confident about the 12,000 I mean it’s going to be high, but because of the prices heating on it but our folks seemed very confident right now and I do too. So we had a much better month in July and now we’re getting to the point in the season where people will be looking to convert when they start thinking about their heating for the next winter. Caroline Bone So didn’t have anything to do with that I guess guidance reduction at gas? Jim Torgerson No, the guidance reduction of gas was as Rick said we had to do some maintenance as a result, of the very cold winter. And things spot out we had a bunch, number of gas leaks obviously you have to fixed right away. And that was the charge the other part of the reduction in the guidance was not for gas, but was just really when we look at the $0.02 we had from the federal income tax adjustments. So the other two items. Caroline Bone And I guess just selling gas. I mean I know that utilities in New York City are seeing an uptick in volume of units, people reporting potential gas leak system just in the wake of the Harlem explosion, a year ago and the most recent East village incident and I’m just wondering if you guys are seeing similar trend in your territory? Jim Torgerson We’re not hearing of any more people reporting gas leaks. Obviously, we jump on those as soon as we hear or people call and say that they can smell gas, so that we send people out immediately and we are pretty happy with our results for that we get out there, 98% of the time. We’re there within. You know the minute’s requirement at least 45 minutes in the state. And so we get on that pretty quickly and then we fix all the Class 1 leaks those the ones we have to fix immediately and the Class 2 lakes were getting on those pretty quickly in out too. So we’re not hearing more people calling about it that not than more usual. Caroline Bone Okay that’s good to hear. And then just a minor one on the DC Circuit Court, with regards that they appeal there on the ROE case, when do you guys expect them to rule on that? Jim Torgerson Caroline, I really don’t know. Caroline Bone Okay. Jim Torgerson I wish I did. It still be a while. Caroline Bone Okay. All right, just curious. Well, thanks very much. Jim Torgerson Sure. Operator Our next question comes from the line of Eric Guo at Gabelli & Company. Go ahead. Eric Guo Hi guys, thanks for taking my call. Jim Torgerson Sure. Eric Guo Just trying to get a better idea of the decision process, regarding NED pipeline investment, was this made exclusively at the UIL level or was this decision made with some input from the [indiscernible] guys? Jim Torgerson Well, based on our merger agreement, we — if we’re going to do something that’s outside of what we gave them, the budget, our capital spending plan, we have to get their consent, which we did so we’ve talked to them about it. After our Board then agreed that it made sense, so we did as if we have the consent, but it wasn’t really done not so in concert with them, because as we can’t, I mean, we believe at the [indiscernible] circumstance for making investments that would be significant. Eric Guo Got you. Okay, thanks. And just a second quick question on, did you guys provide — Can you provide some color regarding the earnings sensitivity related to conversions and how much in incremental 100 conversions with [will metered] for earnings are, something along those lines? Rich Nicholas Unfortunately, the quick answer is, it depends, because of the way the regulators have implemented the comprehensive energy strategy. We actually earn our return on rate base on the conversion, so it depends, if you’re on main or off main, how much capital is invested prior to that, we did say on average $250 to $300 of net income per conversion. But again, it’s a broad average and it depends, in particular, how far the main extension has to be. Eric Guo Okay, got you. Thanks. Operator And our next question comes from the line of Paul Patterson, Glenrock Associates. Your line is live. Paul Patterson your line is live. I’m going to the next question. Next question comes from Andrew Weisel, Macquarie Capital. Your line is live. Andrew Weisel Jim, on this Connecticut application, first is the S4 is it fair for me to assume that the numbers in the S4 for future income reflect all of these concessions that you’ve made in the Connecticut application? Jim Torgerson Not really, because what will probably happened as many other concessions are the things that occur, some of them get booked in 2015. Assuming we get the approval before the end of the year and actually before even close. And some of them will be right at year-end. So I would expect that a lot of those will get booked and shouldn’t have a big impact on the future and if you look at even the stuff. Let’s say they do the credit over the 10 or 30 years. As long as we can estimate it and we know exactly what is going to be and we can book it right up front, which is where we want to do. Some of the other things really get to be smaller items that it just — we’re not really loses anything long-term like other than the contribution of book those right away too. So I don’t think you’ll see much impact on the financials under. Rich do want to? Rich Nicholas Fine, under the accounting guidelines, once it’s profitable and estimatable than we’ll book in our crew if you will, and immediately and even if things in great credit by years and we’ll just pump those up against the reserve as we go forward. Andrew Weisel Okay, that’s very helpful. And then in the S4, those net income number you gave, do that essentially reflects earning you’re allowed ROE for all of those years, have quick think better inverse allowed ROEs? Rich Nicholas We haven’t put some of those specific type of assumptions out there. But those are planning forecast of today. Andrew Weisel Okay, fair enough. Next is another question on the Northeast Energy Direct. Could you elaborate a bit more detail the option to acquire additional equity maybe just dig a little deeper into the circumstances and the timing of when we might know more about that? Rich Nicholas Yes. A lot of this is under our agreement with Kinder Morgan but in broad terms, the one area where yet— for example, because we are taking on an obligation for another 70,000 Dekatherms a day to the extent that doesn’t get really say we can’t. No one else signs off on the Kinder Morgan pipeline and it remains at its current level. Then we would have the ability, once the pipeline into operational to increase our equity percentage should our option, because we couldn’t release the 70,000 to any insure people who want to have capacity that’s one; another areas with the assuming is an EDC process for the electric distribution companies, then take on capacity which are allowed the pipeline to expand then in certain states in Connecticut, I think just about every states expect one we would then have the ability, electric distribution companies take on capacity to gain additional equity interest. Now we have to pay for two but that we’ve could have increased our equity interest based on how much is added in the New England state as a result of that and its there is formulas for each state as to what percentage we can add— of people of— that take on additional capacity. So it’s all formula driven and I don’t think much of that’s has been release on just going to— that’s how it works though. Rich Nicholas Andrew we are just to be fact of re-correct. The forecast are as of the date the [indiscernible] was filed July 17. Andrew Weisel Okay, thank you both for those points there. Then just one last one the increase in O&M at gas due to cold winter is there or would it be fair to think of that as pulling forward future expenses. In other words we might this help next year’s O&M or these kind of incremental cost and in next year’s O&M budget would be unlikely to change? Jim Torgerson Right, but you can view that more is incremental cost. Andrew Weisel Okay, thank you very much. Jim Torgerson Might want to say kind of one-time or two. Operator And your next question comes from Paul Patterson, Glenrock Associates. Your line is live. Paul Patterson Can you hear me? Jim Torgerson Yes. We can hear you Paul. Paul Patterson Okay I don’t what happened last time. But anyway, just really quickly and I apologize for this but kind of got slightly distracted when you guys were talking about the settlement process. You mentioned the England station or English station. And I’m just wondering so just to clarify, are you guys in the global settlement discussion right now with the parties in Connecticut and English stations part of that? If you just, if you could, if you don’t mind elaborate a little bit more on that again? Jim Torgerson It’s not really a global settlement discussion. It was, we were having discussions with the, as we said in the application with the Attorney General Department of Energy, Environment Protection in the governor’s office as to looking at things, we could do the application and English station was one area where the city and the state would like to have cleaned up. [indiscernible] we have owned in 15 years and so [indiscernible] said we’ll look at working to get a consent order that would allow the cleanup of that facility and that we were looking at a number of the deep and put out to say that it was that the cleanup was expected, about 30 million that’s really where it went. And then really right now, there are no— we’re not talking about a settlement this point. That was a discussion that we had with the parties before we made the application filing and its really getting some of theirs to what would help gets processed using and get an application that’s hopefully PURA can accept— will accept and [indiscernible]. Paul Patterson And just to sort of understand the new application procedure, you guys have major filing, do we go through the same again or could it be abbreviated, that you can enter into a settlement negotiations, if that’s what you guys intend to do. Sooner than how the normal course of– in other words, there’s a lot of ground you guys have already covered. I would assume that perhaps. And perhaps, inaccurately assumed that maybe you guys could did act faster in terms of working with the other parties in the Connecticut case. This is– how should we think about that? Jim Torgerson Right now, I would assume that it will take the full 120 days that the peer has not decided the case. I think right now, there is no anticipation that it would be accelerated, would hope it would be, because we found a lot of ground already, but– and those parties– and those who have to– they have the right to exercise those and do their investigation and ask questions, and follow their briefs and get their interrogatories in, so I would expect that particularly, the OCC and the consumer council is going to want to go through all that. Paul Patterson Okay, but it means, so I guess, a settlement process if that were to take place, when might that happen? Jim Torgerson Yes, I guess the parties wanted to discuss settlement, and that could happen anytime, but I think in the past, what we’ve seen from the consumer councils, they want to go to all the hearing process and then do their briefs and then talk about it. So it’s not going to– short it, if the units that were to occur, I don’t think it would shorten things very much. [indiscernible] history, Paul. Paul Patterson Well, I appreciate the clarity. Like I said, that’s why I asked the question [indiscernible I was assuming too much that they might — that maybe some of the previous work that’s been done so far might somehow be helpful in making a little bit quicker, but apparently, I’m wrong. Jim Torgerson It might, but I don’t expect that the — even if it’s shortens it, you may be talk in a week or so. So I don’t think, we could count on anything less than 120 days right now. But it will still allow us to have it done before the end of the year. Paul Patterson I got you. And then the supplemental testimony in Massachusetts, that’s going to be filed against relatively soon, and then, after that we’ll get — how much, how long should we expect for interveners respond to them? Jim Torgerson They haven’t put off its full schedule or revised schedule, and so then, really the intervening party is the Attorney General. And there may be a couple of others, but those truly the Attorney but in general in Massachusetts as you know, I would expect that they’ve already given us interrogatories will probably give us more on our supplemental filings. So then the hearing schedule will hearing we were supposed to have hearings this month now is that we pushed off because we are following the supplement. I would guess it’s probably going to be September, October, hopefully we can get an answer shortly after — practically speaking there at all see what happens in Connecticut. And so I would expect to be shortly after that. Paul Patterson Thanks so much. Appreciate the clarity Operator Our next question comes from the line of Andy Levy, Avon Capital. Your line is live. Andy Levy The some fact S4 page 93 of the S4 talks about in preparing the EBITDA U.S.A projections considered by UIL’s management modified the financial forecast by the EBITDA USA management and new kind of know what it does that’s based on like weighted adjustments certain forecast. Could you just describe more the methodology that we use and how that played into coming up with the CapEx numbers that you put out there, particularly main. Jim Torgerson Sure, Andy, this is Rich. Getting forecast on before the long time, food grade agrees of uncertainty that are rounded and so working with our financial advisors. We did make some adjustments to what we thought would be good view of what the future looks like. Andy Levy Okay and have no one have asked about this before but has any of the — I guess it’s really a question for EBITDA, I’m not going to ask you but I guess or just on what’s been identified up with name that’s really question for EBITDA. Jim Torgerson I think that you probably right about that. Andy Levy Thank you. Operator And that was the last question in queue [Operator Instructions]. At this time, there is no further question in queue. Jim Torgerson Okay, well thank you all for participating today. If you do have further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact our Investor Relations people [indiscernible] and thank you all for participating today and have a great day. Good Bye. Operator And this concludes our afternoon teleconference. You may disconnect your line.

American States’ (AWR) CEO Bob Sprowls on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

American States Water Company (NYSE: AWR ) Q2 2015 Results Earnings Conference Call August 5, 2015 2:00 PM ET Executives Eva Tang – Chief Financial Officer Bob Sprowls – President and CEO Analysts Jonathan Reeder – Wells Fargo Operator Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the American States Water Company Conference Call discussing the company’s Second Quarter 2015 Results. This call is being recorded. If you would like to listen to the replay of this call, it will begin this afternoon at approximately 5 p.m. Eastern Time and run through August 12, 2015, on the company’s website, www.aswater.com. After today’s presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask question. [Operator Instructions] This call will be limited to an hour. As a reminder, certain matters discussed during these conference call maybe forward-looking statements intended to qualify for the Safe Harbor from liability established by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Please review a description of the company’s risks and uncertainties in our most recent Form 10-K and Form 10-Q on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. At this time, I will turn the call over to Eva Tang, Chief Financial Officer of American States Water Company. Eva Tang Welcome, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. On the call with me is our President and CEO, Bob Sprowls. I’ll start with our quarterly financial result. For the second quarter of 2015, diluted earnings were $0.41 per share, compared to $0.39 per share for the same period in 2014. While earnings at our Water segment remained flat for the quarter, earnings for the Electric segment decreased by $0.01, earnings at our Contracted Services segment increased by $0.02, and our parent company’s earnings increased by $0.01. I will now discuss major items impacting the comparability of the two periods. For the quarter Water revenue increased about $1.3 million to $87.6 million as compared to the same period in 2014. The increase is primarily due to the third year rate increases and increases generated from revenue recovery on capital projects approved through advice letter filings. These increases were partially offset by an $842,000 decrease in surcharges during the quarter to recover previously incurred costs approved by the California Public Utilities Commission or the CPUC. Most of these surcharges were implemented in 2013 and expired during 2014. The decrease in revenue from these surcharges is offset by a corresponding decrease in operating expenses, largely in administrative and general expense, resulting in no impact to pretax operating income. As a reminder, a change in build consumption, which decreased 13% during the second quarter as compared to Q2 last year, does not have a significant impact on the company’s revenues or Water gross margins due to the CPUC authorized Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism or the WRAM. The WRAM mechanism is in place for all of our Water service areas, excluding the effect of surcharges our Water gross margin approximately authorized Water margin approved by the CPUC. We expect Water consumption to continue decreasing during the remainder of 2015 as compared to the same period last year, because of mandatory Water conservation and rationing, which Bob will discuss in more detail later. Again, any continued decrease in Water consumption will not impact our earnings significantly because of the WRAM. For the second quarter of 2015, revenues from Electric operations were $7.9 million as compared to $8.3 million for the same period in 2014. The decrease is primarily due to a change in the monthly allocation of the annual base revenue requirement as stipulated in the CPUC’s November 2014 final decision on our electric general rate case. Differences in the monthly allocation of the annual adopted revenue for 2015 versus 2014 are expected to reverse during the year. Revenues for our Contracted Services business, American States Utility Services, or ASUS, decreased $1.9 million to $19.1 million for the second quarter of 2015. This decrease was due to lower construction activities, as compared to the second quarter of 2014, due largely to the completion of several large capital projects during 2014, which did not recur in 2015. These decreases were partially offset by higher construction revenues during the second quarter of 2015 due to favorable changes in cost estimated for certain capital work in progress. These new capital upgrade projects and cost estimates are continuously evaluated and revised accordingly. Revenues for these projects are recognized based on the percentage of completion method of accounting. There was also increasing monthly operation and maintenance revenue due to successful price redeterminations in September 2014. Our water and electric supply costs were $27 million for the second quarter of 2015. Any changes in supply costs for both the water and electric segment as compared to the adopted supply costs are tracked in balancing account, which will be recovered from or refunded to our customer in the future. Administrative and general expenses for the second quarter of 2015 were $20.5 million, as compared to $19.4 million for the same period in 2014. Excluding surcharges which has no impact on earnings, A&G for our utility segment increased by $1.2 million during the quarter. The increase was due primarily to higher legal and other outside service costs related to condemnation and drought activities at our water segment. We will continue to incur legal costs to defend our water systems from condemnation actions. Furthermore in connection with our efforts to meet California Governor’s orders to use overall water usage by 25% as compared to 2013, Golden State Water has been authorized by the CPUC to track incremental drought-related costs incurred in a memorandum account for possible future recovery. Such incremental costs are being expensed until future recovery is approved by the CPUC. Despite higher A&G at water segment for the second quarter, on a year-to-date basis the aggregate A&G, other operations and maintenance expenses were lower in 2015 than for the same period in 2014 after excluding surcharges. In addition, A&G expenses for contracted services increased by $482,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2015 primarily due to a shift in labor and other indirect costs to A&G related activities in support of various functions for all military bases. This increase was largely offset by a decrease in such costs included in construction expenses as compared to the second quarter of 2014. ASUS construction expenses decreased by $3.4 million to $10.4 million during the second quarter of 2015, as compared to the same period in 2014, due primarily to the completion of large capital projects and programs in 2014, which did not recurred in 2015. In addition, as just discussed, there was a shift in labor and other indirect costs incurred as A&G activities. While in Q2 of last year, a higher year percentage was incurred for construction activities. Income tax expense decreased by $728,000 to $9.5 million as compared to the same period in 2014, driven by an overall decrease in the effective income tax rate. Although very effective tax rate at Golden State Water’s company was due to differences between book and taxable income that are treated as flow-through adjustments. The effective tax rate at ASUS was lower as a result of the state income taxes which vary among the jurisdictions in which it operate. There were also favorable permanent differences, not just the tax deduction related to the introduction and construction activities, which also impacted the effective tax rate this quarter. AWR’s consolidated effective tax rate was about 38% for three months ended at June 30, 2015 as compared to 40% for Q2 last year. Let’s moving on to — move on to the liquidity and capital resources. Net cash provided by operating activities decreased by $27.9 million to $63 million for the six months ended June 30, 2016. The decrease was primarily due to a decrease in cash generated by contracted services due to the timing of billing and cash receipts for construction work at military bases during the six months ended June 30, 2015 as compared to the same period in 2014. During the first six months of last year, significant cash payments were received at ASUS with completion of several large capital upgrade project that did not recur in 2015. Cash flow from construction activities may fluctuate due to timing differences of when the work is being performed or when the cash is received for payment of the work. There was also decrease in customer water usage resulting from conservation efforts, which lowered customer billings for Golden State Water. These decreases in the consolidated cash flow from operating activities were partially offset by lower income taxes payment made during 2015, due in large part to the implementation of the new tax repair regulation in the first quarter of 2014. In regards to Golden State Water’s capital expenditures, we spend $32.5 million in company funded capital expenditures during the six months ended June 30, 2015. We expect to invest $85 million to $90 million in capital project due in 2014. For additional details on our second quarter and year-to-date performance, please refer to our earnings release and Form 10-Q issued yesterday. With that, I will turn the call over to Bob. Bob Sprowls Thank you Eva. I appreciate everyone joining us today. The company delivered solid earnings in the second quarter. During the quarter, we implemented water conservation measures and through the month of July, all of our service areas are meeting the mandated reductions. In addition, we continue to support our positions in the general rate case application that we filed with the CPUC for the water segment of Golden State Water. We also recently received the CPUC’s approval to acquire all of the operating water assets of Rural Water Company. Let me address the drought situation in California. As you’re aware, on April, 1st of this year, the Governor of California issued an executive order, directing mandatory conservation measures to achieve a statewide 25% reduction in urban water use as compared to 2013 levels. State Water Resources Control Board adopted emergency regulations in early May of this year to meet the governor’s executive order. The State Board also set reductions, which vary by area, depending on the historical per capita water use for the area in order to achieve the 25% reduction goal. In June 2015, Golden State Water filed updated drought response actions with CPUC for each service area to meet the new mandates. In July, the CPUC approved the filings. As a result, all of our water service areas have implemented our mandatory water conservation and rationing plan, which outlines restrictions for outdoor irrigation for water customers. If these restrictions are deemed insufficient to achieve the water use reductions, water allocations and additional mandatory rationing maybe implemented. Through the month of July, each of our service areas are meeting the mandatory reductions. During the second quarter, billed water consumption decreased by 13% as compared to the same period in 2014, due to our customers’ conservation efforts. As Eva mentioned, a change in consumption does not have the significant impact on the company’s results due to the CPUC authorized water revenue adjustment mechanism in place for all of our water service areas. The commission has also authorized a drought memorandum account to track incremental costs incurred in promoting conservation and implementing restriction measures for possible future recovery. In other regulatory matters, we continued to work with the PUC on the pending general rate case for all of our water regions and the general office. The rate case will determine new rates for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018. Golden State Waters’ requested capital budgets in the application averaged approximately $90 million a year for the three year period. For 2016, water gross margin is expected to decrease as compared to the currently adopted levels, due in part to a decrease in annual depreciation expense, resulting from an updated depreciation study and other expenses. Hearings for the rate case were completed in June and settlements for certain items and legal briefs were filed in July. A final decision on this rate case is expected by the end of 2015, with new rates effective January 1, 2016. Now moving onto other regulated business. As you may recall sometime ago, Golden State Water entered into an asset purchase agreement to acquire all of the operating water asset of Rural Water Company. This transaction was subject to commission approval. In June of this year, the commission approved the acquisition, including recovery of the purchase price through customer rates. A confirmation of the transaction, contemplated by the purchase agreement is subject to customary conditions, including, among other things adjustments to the $1.7 million purchase price for changes in utility plant since entering into the agreement in 2013. On completion of this transaction, Golden State Water will serve approximately 960 customers in the City of Arroyo Grande in the county of San Luis Obispo, California, which is near Golden State Water, Santa Maria customer service area and Coastal California. Under the terms of the purchase agreement, Golden State Water will take over operations 30 days after remaining conditions to closing are satisfied. Turning to our contracted services business at American States Utility Services, or ASUS, we continue to work closely with the U.S. government on the remaining price redeterminations. Just last week we received final resolution on the third price redetermination for Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. We expect the second price redetermination for Fort Jackson in South Carolina and the second and third price redeterminations for the military bases in Virginia to also be completed during the third quarter of 2015. Filings for these price redeterminations, requests for equitable adjustment, and contract modifications awarded for new projects provide ASUS with additional revenues and margin and the opportunity to consistently generate positive earnings. We also continue to work closely with the U.S. government for contract modifications relating to potential capital upgrade work as deemed necessary for improvement of the water and wastewater infrastructure at the military bases. In addition, we are actively engaged in new proposals and expect the U.S. government to release additional bases for bidding over the next several years. We remain optimistic about the future of our contracted services business. I would like to turn our attention to dividends. On Tuesday of last week, our Board of Directors approved a third quarter dividend of $0.224 per share on the common shares of company, a 5.2% increase. We are pleased with our Board’s decision to once again increase the dividend, which reflects their ongoing confidence in the company while balancing the need for continued investment in our systems for our customers. American States Water Company has paid dividends every year since 1931, increasing the dividend received by shareholders each calendar year for 61 years. Given American States current payout ratio compared to the companies that we compete with for capital and our high shareholders equity ratio as a percent of total capitalization, there is room to grow the dividend in the future. Additionally, pursuant to the first stock repurchase program approved by the Board in March 2014, we have completed the repurchase of 1.25 million shares of AWR stock on the open market. On May 19th, 2015, our board approved a new stock repurchase program, authorizing the repurchase of up to 1.2 million shares of our common stock from time to time. We have repurchased 387,000 common shares on the open market through June 30th under this program. The repurchase programs are intended to enable the company to achieve a consolidated shareholder’s equity ratio as a percentage of total capitalization that is more reflective of appropriate equity ratios for Golden State Water and ASUS. As of June 30, 2015, our current equity ratio is 59%. Before I close with my prepared remarks, I’d like to thank you for your interest in American States Water. And I’ll now turn the call over to the operator for questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions] The first question comes from Jonathan Reeder from Wells Fargo. Please go ahead. Jonathan Reeder Good afternoon, Eva and Bob. With the WRAM in place to protect your margins at the utility, I was just wondering if you could give us a little bit of guidance how we should be thinking about the distribution of GSWC’s adopted gross margin throughout 2015? Such as maybe what percentages fall in each quarter? Eva Tang Jonathan, we usually just look back three to five years history to determine that allocation. So if you look through the quarterly sales in the past few years and average those out, that should give you pretty good allocations for the quarter. Jonathan Reeder Do you have any idea like roughly what percentage of the margin, I guess, remains for Q3 and Q4, is it 50% greater than that? Eva Tang We think more than 50% because the third quarter is our highest sales quarter in summer. First is the lowest usually and then… Bob Sprowls Third will be greater than the second, and fourth will be greater than first. So it’s more than 50% of the last half of the year. Eva Tang Half of the year, yes. Jonathan Reeder Okay. Fourth is greater than the first still. Okay. That’s helpful. And then have your expectation for ASUS increase the bid now for 2015 due to these favorable changes in the cost estimates for the projects, or are we still thinking about maybe $0.26 or so, I think that’s what you cited last, Bob, kind of for the full year expectation? Bob Sprowls Yeah. We think that $0.26 is still a pretty good number for the entire year. And you will recall we got to that $0.26 by taking last year’s $0.31 and backing out about a nickel fourth of sort of items that were not perspective but were impacted by prior year as well. But we had a retroactive price, re-determination for instance that contributed I believe $0.03. Jonathan Reeder Correct. Yeah. Okay. And then just kind of last question. On that front with the projects that I guess, you booked those favorable changes, were those like — at all those multi-year large projects, were they some of the projects that were awarded? I think it was at the end of September of last year. When did those projects kind of get completed just kind of wondering a little more detail on that? Eva Tang Jonathan, I think majority of our current projects are not multi-year projects. We finished quite a few multi-year projects last year. So most of the projects, we are currently working on is probably 12 to 18 months project I would say. Jonathan Reeder Okay. And then the next kind of update on, where you stand with the projects we should be thinking Q3, that’s when the government I guess kind does the budget. Bob Sprowls Yes. That’s usually in sort of that September — late September timeframe, early October, the amount of additional capital work that we can do, sort of through the next 12 months, next 12 to 15 months. Eva Tang And we usually work with them, what kind of projects and we can do on the base and September 30 is really when funding comes down that we would know which paths to go forward. Bob Sprowls Yeah. I mean that’s consistent with the government’s budget. I’m sure there is more dollars being asked more than we’re going to get but it’s usually a very sizable chunk. Last year, I think we got $27 million, yes. Jonathan Reeder Okay. And then are there any — I guess, kind of large multi-year project somewhere to the three that you recently completed that might be in the near future or nothing you are aware of at this point? Bob Sprowls Yeah. Nothing we are of at this point. There are a lot of small projects that we are working on and that should keep a good solid revenue stream. Jonathan Reeder Okay. Great. I appreciate the additional clarity. Thanks. Bob Sprowls Thank you, Jonathan. Eva Tang Thank you. Operator [Operator Instructions] This concludes the question-and-answer session. I’d now like to turn the conference back over to Bob Sprowls for closing remarks. Bob Sprowls Thank you, Danielle. Again, thank you all for your participation today and for your continued interest and investment in American States Water Company. Everyone have a good day. Eva Tang Thank you. Operator Thank you. This concludes today’s American States Water Company Conference Call.

Dominion Resources (D) Thomas F. Farrell ll on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Dominion Resources, Inc. (NYSE: D ) Q2 2015 Earnings Call August 05, 2015 10:00 am ET Executives Thomas E. Hamlin – VP Financial Planning and Investor Relations Mark F. McGettrick – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Paul D. Koonce – Executive Vice President Analysts Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities (NYSE: USA ) LLC (Broker) Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Group Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Angie Storozynski – Macquarie Capital ( USA ), Inc. Steven Isaac Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Operator Good morning and welcome to the Dominion Resources and Dominion Midstream Partners’ Second Quarter Earnings Conference Call. At this time, each of your lines is in a listen-only mode. At the conclusion of today’s presentation, we will open the floor for questions. At that time, instructions will be given as to the procedure to follow, if you would like to ask a question. I’d now like to turn the call over to Tom Hamlin, Vice President of Investor Relations and Financial Planning for the Safe Harbor statement. Thomas E. Hamlin – VP Financial Planning and Investor Relations Good morning and welcome to the second quarter 2015 earnings conference call for Dominion Resources and Dominion Midstream Partners. During this call, we will refer to certain schedules included in this morning’s earnings releases and pages from our earnings release kit. Schedules in the earnings release kit are intended to answer the more detailed questions pertaining to operating statistics and accounting. Investor Relations will be available after the call for any clarification of these schedules. If you’ve not done so, I encourage you to visit the Investor Relations page on our website, register for email alerts and view our second quarter earnings documents. Our website addresses are dom.com and dommidstream.com. In addition to the earnings release kit, we have included a slide presentation on our website that will follow this morning’s discussion. And now for the usual cautionary language. The earnings release and other matters that will be discussed on the call today may contain forward-looking statements and estimates that are subject to various risks and uncertainties. Please refer to our SEC filings, including our most recent annual reports on Form 10-K and our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for a discussion of factors that may cause results to differ from management’s projections, forecast, estimates and expectations. Also, on this call, we will discuss some measures of our company’s performance that differ from those recognized by GAAP. The reconciliation of our non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures we are able to calculate and report are contained in the earnings release kit and Dominion Midstream’s press release. Joining us on the call this morning are our CEO, Tom Farrell; our CFO, Mark McGettrick; and other members of our management team. Mark will discuss our earnings results for the second quarter and Dominion’s earnings guidance for the third quarter and full year 2015. Tom will review our operating and regulatory activities and review the progress we have made on our growth plans. I will now turn the call over to Mark McGettrick. Mark F. McGettrick – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Good morning. Dominion Resources reported operating earnings of $0.73 per share for the second quarter of 2015, which was near the top of our guidance range of $0.65 to $0.75 per share. Weather added about $0.01 per share to earrings relative to guidance, while lower operating expenses contributed about $0.02 per share. GAAP earnings were $0.70 per share for the second quarter. The principal difference between GAAP and operating earnings was the charge associated with future ash pond closure costs. A reconciliation of operating earnings to reported earnings can be found on schedule two of the earnings release kit. Moving to results by operating segment. At Dominion Virginia Power, EBITDA for the second quarter was $374 million, which was in the middle of its guidance range. Kilowatt hour sales were above expectations due to slightly warmer-than-normal weather. Excluding weather, year-to-date sales growth was about 1.5%, above our expectations for the year of about 1%. Dominion Generation produced EBITDA of $546 million in the second quarter, which was also in the middle of its guidance range. Favorable weather in utility generation and lower operating expenses in merchant generation were the contributing factors to the strong results. Second quarter EBITDA for Dominion Energy was $285 million, which was in the upper half of its guidance range. Positive drivers were lower operating expenses and higher gas distribution margins. On a consolidated basis, interest expenses were in line with our expectations, while income taxes were at the upper end of our guidance range. Overall, we are pleased with the performance of each of our operating segments. For the second quarter of 2015, Dominion Midstream Partners produced adjusted EBITDA of $19.9 million and distributable cash flow of $19.3 million, all consistent with management’s expectations. On July 17, Dominion Midstream Partners’ board of directors declared a distribution of $0.1875 per unit payable on August 14 to unitholders of record on August 4. This distribution represents a 7% increase over the last quarter’s payment and is consistent with our plan to achieve 22% annual distribution growth for LP shares. On April 1, Dominion Midstream acquired Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission from Dominion Resources. We do not expect to drop anymore assets into the partnership this year to reach our projected fourth quarter annualized distribution rate of $0.85 per unit. However, we continue to actively seek acquisitions to support DM’s future growth. Interest by other parties has been active and we are optimistic of additional transactions this year. As we have said in the past, any acquisition would have the same regulated earnings profile DM has today and not carry with it commodity risk. Moving to cash flow and treasury activities at Dominion, funds from operations were $2.1 billion for the first six months of the year. Commercial paper and letter of credit outstanding at the end of the quarter were $2.7 billion. We have $4.5 billion of credit facilities. And taking into account cash and short-term investments, we ended the quarter with liquidity of $2 billion. For statements of cash flow and liquidity, please see pages 14 and 25 of the earnings release kit. In the financing area, we concluded our public equity needs for the year after raising approximately $500 million through the sale of 6.8 million common shares during the first and second quarters. We accessed the debt markets on two occasions during the quarter with senior note offers. In May, Virginia Power issued $700 million in two tranches, half for 10 years and the other half for 30 years. In June, Dominion issued $500 million of three-year notes. We plan to come to the market with another parent company debt issue, as well as an issue for Dominion Gas Holdings later this year. Looking ahead to the third quarter, Dominion’s operating earnings guidance is $0.95 to $1.10 per share compared to operating earnings of $0.93 per share for the third quarter of 2014. Positive earnings driver for the quarter compared to last year are a return to normal weather and higher revenues from growth projects. Negative drivers for the quarter are higher operating expenses and share dilutions. Dominion’s operating earnings guidance for the year remains $3.50 to $3.85 per share. As to hedging, you can find our hedge positions on page 27 of the earnings release kit. As of August 1, we have hedged 94% of our expected 2015 production at Millstone and 60% of our expected 2016 production. So let me summarize my financial review. Operating earnings were $0.73 per share for the second quarter of 2015, near the top of our guidance range. Favorable weather and lower expenses were the principal factors of our strong performance. Operating results for Dominion Midstream Partners were in line with management’s expectations. And, finally, Dominion’s operating earnings guidance for the third quarter of 2015 is $0.95 to $1.10 per share. And our operating earnings guidance for the full year remains $3.50 to $3.85 per share. I will now turn the call over to Tom Farrell. Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Good morning. Our strong operational and safety performance continued in the second quarter. Year-to-date, OSHA recordables for each business unit are ahead of or are consistent with their respective targets for the year. Our nuclear fleet continues to operate well. The net capacity factor of our six units was 95.4% for the first six months of the year. Our Power Generation group also performed well with record net generation and net capacity factors during the second quarter. Now, for an update on our regulatory activities. On March 31, in Virginia, we filed our review of earnings for 2013 and 2014, showing an earned return of 10.13%, which was below the top of the allowed range of 10.7%. Intervenor testimony was submitted last week and we expect to receive the commission staff testimony next week. Hearings will commence in September and we expect the commission order by the end of November. Neither our base rates nor the allowed rate of return are subject to change in this proceeding. The biennial review process will resume in 2022 covering earnings for the calendar years 2020 and 2021. We filed our annual Integrated Resource Plan in Virginia and North Carolina on July 1. The filing identifies and evaluates a mix of supply side and demand side resources needed to meet customers’ needs at the lowest reasonable cost while considering future uncertainties, including the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which was, of course, only in draft form at the time of the filing. Obviously, earlier this week, we saw the final rule. We’re encouraged by some of the changes made to the original proposal and are evaluating our options to help Virginia comply with the new regulations. It is clear, however, that the plan will require significant new investments in generation and electric transmission in our Virginia service territory as well as many new opportunities for all aspects of our gas infrastructure businesses. Now for an update on our growth plans. Construction of the 1,358-megawatt combined cycle facility in Brunswick County was about 75% complete through the second quarter. There are approximately 1,475 workers on site. Construction of the air-cooled condenser is 93% complete and installation of major equipment continues for all combustion turbine units. Facility is on-time and on-budget for a mid-2016 commercial operation date. A request for a CPCN and Rate Rider for the proposed 1,588-megawatt Greensville County project was filed July 1. If approved, this three-on-one combined cycle facility is expected to achieve commercial operation in December 2018. In January, the company filed for a Rate Rider and CPCN for a 20-megawatt solar facility at our Remington Power Station. This project is the first step in our plan to invest $700 million to build 400 megawatts of utility scale solar projects in Virginia. If approved, the facility will be in service by late 2016. Since our last call, we placed five contracted merchant solar projects into service totaling 81 megawatts. Another 90 megawatts have been acquired or are under construction for completion this year. In addition, we acquired a 50% interest in a 320-megawatt solar facility under development in Utah. Our plan to grow this portfolio to 625 megawatts by the end of 2016 is in place. We’ll provide more details on our plan to sell down of our merchant solar portfolio next month at the September investor conferences. At Dominion Virginia Power, we have a number of electric transmission projects at various stages of regulatory approval and construction. During the second quarter, $315 million of transmission assets were placed into service, bringing the year-to-date total to $514 million. Electric transmissions capital budget for growth projects, including NERC, RTEP, maintenance, as well as security-related investments will average over $700 million per year through at least the remainder of the decade. Progress on our growth plan for Dominion Energy continues as well for the 4 billion cubic feet per day of projects underway. We have previously announced nearly 2 Bcf per day of producer outlet projects, designed to relieve congestion and move Marcellus and Utica’s gas out of the basin. Five of these are now in service and the four remaining will be in service by the end of next year. As we complete the producer outlet projects, we have seen a significant increase in demand in both traditional LDCs and new gas-fired generation projects as coal plants move to retirement or conversion. We expect these trends to continue as gas supplies continue to grow from the Marcellus and Utica basins. We’re presently developing over 2 billion cubic feet of demand side or market-based projects. Seven of these totaling $600 million a day are expected to be in service by the end of 2017. Looking forward, there is strong interest for further customer-driven projects throughout our service area, including in our newly-acquired Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission system at Dominion Midstream Partners. And we expect to be in a position to give additional details later this year. The Clean Power Plan will greatly enhance those opportunities. We’re continuing to work towards the commencement of construction on the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and the related Supply Header Project. We began the FERC filing process last November and expect to make the formal filings in September. Surveying is about 80% complete and engineering is about 70% complete. We awarded the large diameter pipe manufacturing contract in January to Dura-Bond Industries of Pennsylvania and expect to award small diameter pipe contract in August. Construction bids were received in May. And we expect to conclude negotiations by the end of the summer, well ahead of our original project plan. We plan to begin construction on both projects in the fourth quarter of 2016 and commence operations in November 2018. Now, an update on our Cove Point liquefaction project. Overall, the project is approximately 31% complete and is on-time and on-budget. Engineering is nearly 90% complete and approximately 85% of the engineered equipment has been procured as of the end of the second quarter. So, to summarize, our business delivered strong operating and safety performance in the second quarter. The Brunswick County construction project is proceeding on-time and on-budget. We continue to work toward a formal filing with FERC for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Projects next month. And construction of the Cove Point liquefaction project is continuing on-time and on-budget. Thank you. And we are ready to take your questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. Our first question will come from Dan Eggers with Credit Suisse. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Hey. Good morning, guys. On the DM M&A opportunities for this year, I guess, a) what are you seeing as far as receptivity of sellers and some pressure on kind of the yields space with the MLPs or the YieldCos? And how do you guys feel about issuing equity on DM right now to supplement an acquisition at this moment? Mark F. McGettrick – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Hey, Dan. This is Mark. We’ve had a lot of interest from a number of parties in terms of assets that would fit nicely within a DM portfolio. If any of those transactions were to materialize between now and the end of the year, we do not expect issuing any equity associated with those – any public equity associated with those. And, again, I’ve mentioned in the script that we will be sure to focus on only assets that have a very stable, regulated, long-term earnings stream. But we are excited that people really like the DM currency. And I think there may be greater value with the DM currency than what their current earning streams are within their assets. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) So, Mark, that means you would cash fund them from what they have available or you would be giving your equity to the seller of the assets? Mark F. McGettrick – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer It could be both. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Okay. All right. Tom, can you talk a little bit about kind of thoughts on CPP now that it’s made its the land of final and how you guys see that affecting both the IRP and Virginian, maybe some of the ongoing investments in gas generation and solar and that sort of stuff? Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Good morning, Dan. Obviously, it’s a very complicated rule. It’s interesting to take a look – you have to really look at it state-by-state. I’m sure you know that and all those folks listening. So, to make broad generalizations about it, I think, is a mistake. I think you need to look at how each state – how they have – what levels they have to comply with, what their existing mix is. Example, if you look at the Southeastern states and the Midwestern states, where our pipeline assets are as well positioned as any, there are others well positioned, but I think ours are well positioned as any or better. Gas-fired power will be able to meet the needs with the latest emissions targets – the rates that were published in the final rule. So we’re encouraged by that. I think that’s a good news – opportunity for our infrastructure businesses. We’re going to take a hard look at the IRP. I’d say our Greensville County plant, for example, will clear all these hurdles. It provides tremendous customer benefit – most customer benefit we’ve had of any of these projects, truly an outstanding opportunity. We will be looking hard at solar. The renewable and energy efficiency parts of the rule are slightly convoluted with the way the timing works. If you’re looking at a potential gap, I think, in incentives to build renewable, once the tax production did not – the investment tax credits expire, at the end of next year – for example, solar, if you start building after your status filed a final plan, which is going to be well after most likely when the tax credits expire, then you can start earning these double credits, but only in the years 2020 and 2021. And then the ability to earn the credits expires. You can’t earn them in advance of 2020. So all the folks that sit in rooms like we’re in here today are going to be looking at, well, when do I – if I’m going to do this, when do I do it? When is the best for my customers, at least a solution to my customers? So I think people will have to be thinking through all that, state-by-state. You could have a couple of years there where there is a lack of incentive to build renewables when compared to waiting. So that’s a long answer, probably longer than you want. We’re looking for – it’s a complicated rule. All of us have a lot of work to do. And we will be reassessing our IRP. But, as you know, we file it every year. So, it’s not like it’s stagnant. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) I guess one last one, just on the non-regulated solar sales. You updated those in September. But are you seeing a wavering interest from prospective parties, given what the YieldCo space has done recently? Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Quite the opposite. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Okay. Wait for September. Thank you, guys. Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Thank you. Our next question will come from Michael Weinstein with UBS. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Hey. Good morning. It’s Julien. Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Good morning, Julien. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Hey. So, perhaps a little bit to follow up on a related question. Just be curious, in terms of the general partnership, how are you thinking about potentially monetizing that in a more attractive manner? And I’m just curious, what is your reaction to what you’ve seen out there in the marketplace of late and recent months, following some of other companies pursuing new angles here? Mark F. McGettrick – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Julien, it’s Mark. We think our GP is extraordinarily valuable. It grows in value every day as we get closer to major drops in 2018, 2019 and 2020. Although there’s been some good valuations on GP sales down the road, we think that value should move into both the DM and to D stock as we give more and more clarity on that. So, we are not looking to do anything different with our GP except to hold it at Dominion as we grow the entity. In terms of the MLP sector in general, it appears that some investors have shown concern based on recent transactions around change in business practice or at least change in philosophy on their business mix. DM will not go that way. DM is going to stay with what we told investors in February. That we have a great dropdown story, regulated assets, very firm earnings. And if we decide to acquire anything, it will fit that same portfolio. Also, it looks like that folks that had to issue equity as part of a transaction have not been treated too well in certain circles. So, again, we do not expect to have any market equity issued for any potential transaction from DM to make sure that we’re focused on growing that entity and growing value for both DM unitholders and D shareholders. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC I’d be curious just in terms of some recent pushback on the undergrounding project in Virginia, just be curious what’s the latest there in terms of potentially trying to re-file that project or next steps more broadly? Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer We’re taking a look at the commission order. I’m confident we will – they asked for some more cost justification. There is a lot of cost justification. We don’t anticipate any difficulty with that. It’s a new statute, new proceeding. So we’ll take a look at what they want us to file and then we’ll file it and proceed from there. I don’t expect any issue on it in the end. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC All right. Great. Well, thank you, guys. Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Thank you. Our next question will come from Greg Gordon with Evercore ISI. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Group Thanks. Sorry to harp on the same subject as some prior questions, but one of the other things that seems to have happened in the MLP/YieldCo space is investors rightfully focusing on transaction valuations in terms of the long-term IRR for the LP holder and not just the dividend growth accretion that comes from those transactions. And they’re sort of been punishing both the GPs and the LPs of companies that look like they’re not disciplined financially. So, can you please go over what’s the financial metrics you look at in terms of when you look at a drop, when you look at an acquisition, what are the hurdle rates for IRRs and accretion that you hold yourself to? Mark F. McGettrick – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Well, Greg, I’m going to give a general answer to that, because we’re not going to disclose what our internal financial rates are. But, as we look at any transaction on DM, we’ll look at is it positive to the discounted cash flow metric, is it positive in terms of long-term IRR, is it positive in terms of strategic long-term value, is it positive in terms of can we operate it more effectively potentially than the current owners. And anything we do on DM is going to, again, fit, I think, the structure that our unitholders are interested in. And our focus would be, if we did acquire, it allows us to keep the backlog that we have and grow it even more from the $1.7 billion post-2020 that we’ve already identified. And so, those are kind of opportunities we’re looking at. I think the Carolina Gas Transmission acquisition fit all those parameters that I outlined for you. And I think if we have any announcement in the future in terms of acquisition, it will meet the hurdle rates that people are expecting or exceed those and be well received. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Group Thanks. And I know that the focus of the company appears by – to be creating shareholder value through the continued growth in the midstream of pipeline businesses, but there does continue to be consolidation of the utility industry. So, on the utility side of house, are you still opportunistically considering expanding the regulated utility footprint? And if the answer to that is yes, what are the criteria that you’re looking at there? Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Greg, I don’t think we’ve ever said that we were opportunistically looking to expand our utility franchise. In fact, I’m quite certain that we’ve never said that in the 10 years I’ve been CEO. All we said is that we have been – we are interested in assets for Dominion Midstream Partners that fit the criteria that Mark mentioned. I think we are perceived as a management group and a broad of directors that exercises financial discipline. And that’s the way we will continue to perceive. But we’ve never said we’re looking around for an electric utility. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Group Perfect. Thank you, guys. Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Good morning. Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Good morning. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC You have Chris Turnure for Jeremy. One quick question on CGT. You guys, I guess, recently did a pre-filing for $120 million extension. So, I guess, looking at the current plan and the current operations at CGT, how that’s running relative to your plan at the time of the acquisition? Paul D. Koonce – Executive Vice President This is Paul Koonce. The filling was part of our due diligence process. So, it really fits right in line with our expectation. We did go out for solicitation of interest in June, just to kind of pulse the community down there, to find out what the interest was in additional gas service. And that response was good. So, we hope to add to what was already an existing portfolio of spread. Mark F. McGettrick – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer This is Mark. Let me add on to that. Obviously, from initial expectation on CGT, the cash flows have been better than what we anticipated, one reason that we confirmed earlier that we didn’t need to drop anything else in 2015. And so as – only being associated with that entity for five months or so now. We’re very pleased with the way it operates, very pleased with the growth potential that it has. And, again, we believe that there is more opportunities to improve the cash flow coming out of South Carolina than what we’ve initially anticipated in January. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Thanks. That’s helpful. That’s it from me. Operator Thank you. Our next question will come from Angie Storozynski with Macquarie. Angie, go ahead with your question. Angie Storozynski – Macquarie Capital ( USA ), Inc. I’m sorry. Thank you. I’m sorry. Just to go back to the Dominion Midstream. So you mentioned that you would be pursuing some – actually pursuing acquisitions even later this year. Now the fact that you’re not going to finance them with equity, should we imply that those are not going to be big acquisitions? I’m basically trying to figure out if there is a way to accelerate the IDR payments to make the increased cash flow from this entity more visible to Dominion shareholders? I understand that you’ve created the structure to actually create value for Dominion shareholders. And I think we’re still waiting a little bit for the recognition of the value creation. Mark F. McGettrick – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Angie, this is Mark. (31:14) in terms of size would be material to DM, what we’re looking at, but not material to a D balance sheet. So our focus really is what assets are out there that may fit our portfolio that would allow us to continue to build our backlog long-term and stay and support our 22% distribution growth. We do not anticipate advancing any drops to do that. This would just be a matter of it fits the profile, has good future growth, but they – I would say they would not be significant in terms of size is what we’re – from what we’re looking at right now. Angie Storozynski – Macquarie Capital ( USA ), Inc. Okay. Now, separately on the Cove Point expansion, can you comment if there has been any movement on your long-term contract supporting that entity, like any attempts to negotiate contracts given the lower LNG demand worldwide? Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer No. Angie Storozynski – Macquarie Capital ( USA ), Inc. That was easy. So, lastly, some of the strengths in your second quarter earnings have to do with cost efficiencies. I see that you’re showing increased operating costs as a drag on third quarter results. So should I imply that this is just a timing of O&M? Mark F. McGettrick – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer I think that’s a fair representation. Angie Storozynski – Macquarie Capital ( USA ), Inc. Okay. Thank you. Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Thank you, Angie. Operator Thank you. Our next question will come from Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research. Steven Isaac Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Yeah. Hi. The Utica details that you used to give, you don’t have. And I’m just curious maybe at a high level you can give us an update on your kind of what you’re seeing in the Utica, which seems like it’s pretty good. Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Yeah, Steve. Paul Koonce will provide that. Paul D. Koonce – Executive Vice President Good morning, Steve. Yeah. In past calls, we’ve kind of provided the state level kind of number of permitted wells, drilled wells and producing wells. And just looking at that information since February 9, the number of permitted wells are up 202, the number of wells drilled are up 231, the number of wells producing are up 200. So we still see a lot of activity in Ohio. And really what we’re starting to focus on are really the five counties that Blue Racer really serves: Guernsey, Belmont, Noble, Monroe and Washington counties. And if you look at permits statewide, they look like they’re leveling off. They’re still issuing permits leveling off. But if you look at these five counties, they’re continuing to increase month-over-month. So we see that as positive. Steven Isaac Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. And just maybe at a high level comp, is it – given the continued growth in your kind of core areas, I mean, should we expect further maybe new project, new CapEx plan in the midstream gas when you do your update? Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Yeah. Steve, we’ve got a lot of things we’re working on. And we’ll do our best to make sure we give you as much clarity as we can in the fall. Steven Isaac Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. Thank you. Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Thank you. Our next question will come from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Good morning. Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Hey, Paul. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Just a few quick ones remaining here. Just the coal residuals, the one-timer, are we finished with that do you think? Is that sort of one and done with respect to – Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Yeah. I think it’s two and done. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC All right. Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer We’ve reserved some in December, I think, Paul. And then we’ve spent a lot of time through the last six months looking at – we need to keep this in context, of course. We don’t have – there are many other of our colleagues in the industry have a lot more of these ponds than we do. We do have some ponds. We will deal with them. We’ve fine-tuned it. We don’t think it’s that significant of an expense, but, obviously, significant money. But we’re going to clean them up in compliance with all the EPA regulations. So that’s a long way of saying, yes, we believe that’s all we will have to do. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. Great. Then the SUP order, the strategic undergrounding thing, last week the order – the last part of it sort of mentions that although it’s not included in their analysis for denying the application, they mention sort of an overall rates – the context of overall rates for customers. So they say it’s not part of their (36:11) doing this, but basically they draw attention to it. So what my question is – question is basically how do you look at the rate impact that we’re seeing here? I know you guys are very cognizant of these rate impacts for customers and CapEx and what have you. How do you look in terms of general about the Clean Power Plan, everything going on here, what the rate outlook might be for customers? Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Paul, thank you for that question. We spend a lot of time looking at not only – take, for example, the IRP. We gave five or six different approaches depending upon we were sort of guessing – educated guesses of what the Clean Power Plan would look like. And we’ll obviously take another look at it. But cost to our customer is a paramount thing for us. We spend a lot of time looking at that. We pace things as a result of that. Now if you look at the gap that we still have for producing our own generation, if you’re went back five years, we could have justified building two or three of these plants all at one time to meet our customers’ needs. But we didn’t think that was the appropriate way to deal with rates. We start from a very strong position. We’re 20% below the national average in rates. We’re among the lowest on the East Coast. We have one of the lowest industrial rates in the entire country. So we work very, very hard at keeping really strong operations, particularly in our generation fleet, to keep cost down, reliability for our customers. As these things go along, we take into account all through that process. I don’t find it remarkable that a commission would say that they’re concerned about rate pressure. I hope that all commissions are concerned about rate pressure. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. Great. And then just finally on Dominion EDGE with the Clean Power Plan and what have you and other initiatives. I know you guys have done some rollouts here. How is that gone? And do you see any additional opportunity there? Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer EDGE is a – just to remind everybody is a software product that we developed here – we have multiple patents on – that does voltage control in real-time instantaneous information and can be verified. The cost savings can be verified through a separate process. So, quite a few utilities co-ops have adopted it and are in the process of installing it. There are a lot more looking at it and some very large ones. So I think the Clean Power Plan – they got rid of the energy efficiency as one of the methods but they still give you some incentives, of course, if you wait till 2020. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. Great. Thanks a lot. Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Thank you. Our last question will come from Shar Pourreza with Guggenheim Partners. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC It sounds like the Clean Power Plan could lead to some additional growth opportunities. Any sense on whether Virginia will submit a state implementation plan, file a lawsuit? And then maybe you can just touch on whether we’re looking at a regional approach or state specific? Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Our Governor McAuliffe, I think, pretty sure I read, has already stated that they intend to – the state of Virginia will file a state implementation plan. He’s said that before as the EPA was going through it. So, I wouldn’t anticipate any lawsuits from Virginia. And, obviously, we will be working with the governor’s environmental quality people along with our reliability regulators to help get make sure they have all the information they need to form the best plan for Virginia. So, a lot in the growth. We’re definitely going to have to do a lot more in Virginia, but there is a lot of growth that’s also going to happen in the gas infrastructure businesses. People talk about renewables being built and they will be built. But, as you all know, you have to backup all those renewables with gas-fired power plant. So, we think there is a lot of opportunity. And if you look at it state-by-state, the region where our pipeline operates, gas will work. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Got it. And then just lastly in Atlantic Coast, are we still comfortable at 1.5 Bs per day or are we still – is there an opportunity to upsize that? Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer It’s signed up for 1.5 now. And I think we’ve said previously that it’s easy to expand it to 500 a day just by adding some pressure. So, we’re still obviously in the pre-filing process but we’ll file that formally next month. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Got it. Got it. And then just lastly on DTI. Is there any opportunity to potentially drop down DTI sooner than 2018 or is there just some covenants on the debt that will not allow you to? Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer There are issues around debt, but we have no intention of – I don’t think we’ve ever talked about DTI before anytime. It’s out in the future. What we’re talking about dropping right now is Cove Point, the Atlantic Coast pipeline, Blue Racer and all times to – when necessary to meet the 22% distribution growth rate that we have been meeting so far and will meet over the balance of this period. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Excellent. Thanks a lot. Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Thank you. This does conclude this morning’s teleconference. And you may disconnect your lines and enjoy your day. Thomas F. Farrell ll – Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Thank you.