Tag Archives: infrastructure

Great Plains Energy Inc. (NYSE: GXP ) Q3 2013 Earnings Conference Call November 06, 2015 09:00 AM ET Executives Lori Wright – VP of IR and Treasurer Terry Bassham – Chairman, President and CEO Kevin E. Bryant – SVP, Finance and Strategy and CFO Analysts Ali Agha – SunTrust Shar Pourreza – Guggenheim Partners Brian Chin – Bank of America Christopher Turnure – JP Morgan Charles Fishman – Morningstar Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs Paul Ridzon – KeyBanc Brian Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research Paul Patterson – Glenrock Operator Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Great Plains Energy Third Quarter 2015 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session, and instructions will follow at that time. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference may be recorded. I would now like to introduce your host for today’s conference, Ms. Lori Wright, Vice President, Investor Relation and Treasurer. Ma’am, please go ahead. Lori Wright Thank you, operator, and good morning. Welcome to Great Plains Energy’s third quarter 2015 earnings conference call. On our call today will be, Terry Bassham, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Kevin Bryant, Senior Vice President, Finance and Strategy and Chief Financial Officer; Scott Heidtbrink, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of KCP&L; and Darrin Ives, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs are also with us this morning, as our other members of our management team who will be available during the question-and-answer portion of today’s call. I must remind you of the inherent uncertainties in any forward-looking statements in our discussion this morning. Slide two and the disclosure in our SEC filings contain a list of some of the factors that could cause future results to differ materially from our expectations. I also want to remind everyone that we issued our earnings release and third quarter 2015 10-Q after the market close yesterday. These items are available, along with today’s webcast slides, and supplemental financial information regarding the quarter on the main page of our website at greatplainsenergy.com. Summarized on slide three are the topics that will be covered in today’s presentation. Terry will begin with a business update and will highlight KCP&L’s recent rate case outcome followed by a discussion of our strategic initiatives. Kevin will provide an overview of our third quarter financial results as well as updated considerations for 2016 and 2017. With that I’ll now hand the call to Terry. Terry Bassham Thanks, Lori and good morning, everybody. I’d also like to welcome everyone to the Great Plains Energy call and we are proud to say the home of the world champion Kansas City Royals we’re very excited here in Kansas City. Yesterday we announced third quarter earnings of $0.82 per share compared to $0.95 per share in 2014. Year-to-date earnings per share were $1.22 compared to $1.44 a year ago. In addition we announced the narrowing of our 2015 EPS guidance range from $1.35 to $1.60 to $1.35 to $1.45 driven by mild weather, soft wholesale market conditions from lower natural gas prices and the impact of regulatory outcomes in our recent rate cases in Missouri and Kansas. Kevin will discuss quarter and year-to-date drivers in his remarks. Third quarter marked the milestone as we completed our rate cases in our KCP&L Missouri and Kansas jurisdictions. We received more than 75% of our ask in both cases, resulting in a total revenue increase of approximately $138 million. We were also granted approval to implement several new riders and trackers, including a fuel recovery mechanism in Missouri, which will reduce the risk around wholesale margin moving forward. And in Kansas a transmission delivery charge rider a SIP Cyber Security Tracker. We’re pleased that our Missouri and Kansas commissioners continue to recognize the strong project management discipline we regularly demonstrate in the value of the investments that we make on behalf of our customers. Consistent with the treatment received on prior major projects, there were no disallowances on seen environmental upgrade and we achieved full recovery of our project cost. While we view the traditional elements of the orders as constructive, we are disappointed by the allowed ROEs. We recognize that the 9.5% ROE allowed in Missouri and the 9.3% allowed in Kansas are consistent with recent ROEs awarded in those states. However those ROEs are in the low end of what is being awarded nationally. We’re also disappointed by the Missouri commission’s continue denial and even removal of what we view as pragmatic regulatory mechanisms to deal with lag that is increasingly impacting our industry. Absent broader policy change in Missouri, the commission indicated a preference to use general rate cases to address the issues driving lag for the gas and electric utilities it the state. In response, we plan to file much more frequent rate cases. However, we believe this is not the optimal long-term solution for our customers and we are actively working with the other utilities toward more progressive policy change. Our hope is that we can work with others in our region to advance progressive reforms that are more responsive to the dynamic environment we operate in today. As we look forward to 2016 and beyond, our earnings growth will be driven by targeted investments and a regulated utility infrastructure and continued disciplined cost in capital management. In addition, investment in national transmission and a growing regional economy support a solid earnings growth profile. Consistent with our annual planning timeline, we’ll provide EPS guidance for 2016 on our year-end call. In addition, we planned to provide longer-term earnings growth targets and cash distribution plans. With the completion of our La Cygne environmental project, slide six highlights our simple and clear strategic approach as we move forward. As a leading provider of electricity in the Midwest we focus on closely managing our existing business promoting economic growth and improving our customer experience. We remain focused on operational excellence and meeting the changing needs of our customers. Our recently completed information technology projects that include an automated meter infrastructure upgrade, meter data management installation and an outage management system replacement are part of our broader strategic focus of providing top-tier customer satisfaction and operational excellence. The installation operation of our Clean Charge Network, which includes over 1,000 electric vehicle charging stations is helping to build Kansas city’s reputation as an innovative and sustainable place to live and work, a reputation that helps attract companies and talent. A key element of our strategy is the advancement of regulatory policy reform. To continue making investments that strengthen our infrastructure and meet the changing needs of our customers we must have a regulatory framework that allows us a reasonable opportunity to earn our allowed return. In the coming year we plan to be active in multiple venues to evocate for specific energy policy advancements that improve the regulatory frameworks in both Missouri and Kansas. We know that effectuating the top of change we think is necessary will not happen overnight. It will require hard work, significant stakeholder education and rigorous collision building. However, we believe that now is the time to work together toward longer-term solutions that benefit both customers and shareholders. In late October the EPA published the Clean Power Plan in the Federal Registry, where we have previously worked to improve the emission profile of our generation, with nearly 72% of our cold fleet scrub we continue to evaluate the implications of the recently finalized rules. Although the state targets for carbon reduction both in Missouri and Kansas increased significantly we will likely utilize the combination of strategies, including optimization of the operation of our existing generation fleet, investments in new renewable resources and shut down of our older less sufficient units to comply with the rule and to mitigate the cost impact to our customers. The investments we have made over last several years have afforded us flexibility in this regard. Ultimately we will continue to evaluate rules impact, but we’ll balance the need to transition to a cleaner energy profile with mitigating the cost impact to our customers. Now on slide seven, earlier this week our Board approved a 7.1% annualized dividend increase from $0.98 to $1.05 per share. This action represents an annualized increase of approximately 7% from 2013 to 2015, exceeding our target of 4% to 6% growth. In addition this marks the fifth consecutive year we have rate the dividend and reflects continued confidence in our long-term plans. We remain committed to narrowing our target dividend payout ratio to 60% to 70% and as I mentioned earlier we’ll lay out our long-term cash distribution strategy in February. With a decade long strategic investment cycle behind us and increasing focus on improving our regulatory environment, investment flexibility and improving cash flows to support dividend growth we are in a much stronger position moving forward. We’re excited to deliver the opportunities in front of us and have a clear focus for strengthening our utility infrastructure to promote the regional growth, innovate and adapt to customer expectations, while delivering dependable shareholder returns. With that I’ll now turn the call over to Kevin Bryant. Kevin E. Bryant Thank you, Terry and good morning, everyone. I will begin with an overview of our financial performance for the quarter and year-to-date. As you can see on slide nine earnings for the third quarter were $0.82 per share compared with $0.95 a year ago. Year-to-date earnings were $1.22 per share compared to a $1.44 per share last year. As detailed on the slide the $0.13 decline for the quarter was driven by increased O&M, depreciation and amortization expense and lower AFUDC. The increased O&M was consistent with our plan driven by higher Wolf Creek nuclear unit expenses and an increase in distribution expense. Additionally the third quarter of 2014 included a tax benefit that did not recur this year. These impacts were partially offset by favorable weather resulting from 18% more cooling degree days in the third quarter of last year. The $0.22 decrease for the year-to-date period was driven by several of the same factors impacting the quarter, including the impact from a decline in wholesale margin due to lower natural gas prices for KCP&L Missouri. However, as Terry indicated a few recovery mechanisms improved in the recent Missouri rate case will minimize risk around wholesale margin moving forward. Year-to-date weather normalized demand was flat through September in line with our full year projection of flat to 0.5% net of the estimated impact of our energy efficiency programs. I’ll also highlight that this past September was the warmest since 1980. While traditional weather normalization estimates incorporate the typical response to whether variations versus normal. We believe customer behavior contributed to our estimated third quarter decline in demand of 1.1% given the distribution of cooling degree days during the month. More globally we continue to be encouraged by the economic growth in the Kansas City region. And improving residential real estate and jobs market is leading to continued customer growth. Year-to-date through September single family residential real estate permits were the highest in eight years and the unemployment rate declined to 4.4% compared to 5.4% a year ago and the national average of 4.9%. In fact, the third quarter of 2015 marked the 18 consecutive quarters of customer growth on our system and 51 months in a row where the region has experienced job growth. While we recognize that the impact of our energy efficiency program, new energy efficiency standards and population shifts have smaller homes and multi-family housing are driving lower average use per customer. We continue to actively work with our local economic development partners to [indiscernible] of our region and to support continued economic growth moving forward. Turning to slide 10, for review of the fourth quarter and full year 2015. In terms of what’s in store for the rest of the year when compared to 2014, we will have new retail rate and cost recovery mechanism in KCP&L’s Missouri and Kansas jurisdictions. We project full year weather normalized demand growth of flat to 0.5% again net of the estimated impact of our energy efficiency programs. Our team continues to diligently manage our business. Through disciplined cross management, we now expect a full year O&M increase of only 2% to 3% including regulatory amortizations and items with direct revenue offsets. This compares to our initial projection for the year of 3% to 4% growth. Exclusive of those items and demonstrative of our focus on cost discipline, we expect O&M for the full year 2015 to be flat versus our previously disclosed 1% to 2%. Once again effective cost control remains a key focus. And as the last word on slide 10 highlights, we’ll see an uptick in interest expense resulting from KCP&L $350 million senior unsecured notes issuance that was successfully completed in mid-August. Turning to slide 11, Terry has already mentioned that we will provide EPS guidance for 2016 along with longer-term earnings growth target and cash distribution plans on our year-end call in February. However, I would like to comment briefly on key drivers for 2016 and 2017. For 2016 the primary earnings drivers include new retail rates that reflect true ups the KCP&L’s cost of service. In addition, we are assuming weather normalized demand growth of flat to 0.5% net of the estimated impact of our energy efficiency programs. The results of the recent rate cases including the allowed ROEs and our lack of ability to implement many of the trackers that were soft in Missouri to address future expense lag will pin to drivers to the lower end of our previously communicated EPS growth target of 4% to 6% through 2016. However, when combined with the above target dividend increase we declared earlier this week and flexibility for continued dividend growth moving forward. We believe we are well-positioned to deliver solid total shareholder returns in 2016 and beyond. We are committed to earning closure to our allowed return and will exercise discipline in where and how we spend our dollars to best meet the increasing expectations of both our customers and shareholders. And as Terry mentioned, we will respond accordingly in the short-term to address regulatory lag by more actively filing rate cases. But we’ll aggressively work with our regulators, policy makers and other utilities across the state towards more comprehensive policy changes. We expect to file a GMO rate case in the first quarter of 2016, with an abbreviated rate case for KCP&L Kansas by November 2016 to true up our cost for listing. Recall, we received authorization by the KCC to include budget cost in our current rates. We are in the planning stages for the next series of rate cases at KCP&L Missouri and KCP&L Kansas. As a reminder the rate case process in Missouri is 11 months while Kansas’s is approximately 8 month. Finally, our future income tax benefits from NLOs and tax credits will allow us to avoid paying significant cash taxes through approximately 2023, which mitigates the need for additional equity in the foreseeable future. Details of the NLOs and tax credits can be found in the appendix. And on the capital markets fronts, we have no plans to issue equity. Turning to slide 12, in summary our strategy for delivering long-term consistent shareholder returns is straight forward. We are well positioned to execute on our plans to deliver solid total shareholder returns from a combination of both dependable earnings and increasing dividend growth. And on a personal note, I have had a chance to visit with a number of you this fall, but I do want to emphasize just how I excited I am in my new role and look forward to having a constructive and transparent dialog with you at EEI [ph] and to delivering dependable results for many quarters to come. Thanks for your time this morning. We would now be happy to answer any questions you may have. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Ali Agha with SunTrust. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Ali Agha Thank you, good morning. Terry Bassham Good morning. Ali Agha Terry, in the past you’ve talked about when you come out from a rate case and get the full first year impact that your target has been get within 50 to 100 basis points of regulatory lag or authorized ROE I should say, is that still sort of the way we should look at calendar ‘16 with the full first full year of these rate cases coming in? Kevin E. Bryant Ali, I’ll take that I think that’s generally been our plan in the past. So you should remember though this year we still have not filed cases for GMO. So with our plan to file GMO in the first quarter of next year we likely will have continued lag in the GMO’s jurisdiction. But as a generic target we do plan for kind of that level of lag coming out of rate cases. But last time we saw that was coming out of our 2012 rate cases of which we had all three jurisdictions rate cases timed at the same time. So we’ll see continued lag in 2015 from GMO. Ali Agha Got it. And then related to that also given that a lot of these riders that you had asked for did not come through, again past practice has been that in the second year following the rate case that lag actually goes up. I know you’ll GMO rates coming in but not for the bigger utility. So is that still a trend we should think about for ‘17 but the lag probably goes up somewhat from ‘16? Kevin E. Bryant Yeah, the areas where we saw riders and trackers that we didn’t have successes in the cases primarily property tax and transmission will continue to see lag in those area, where transmission potentially flattening out is the build out in SVP starts to level out. But certainly property tax lag will continue to grow with our earnings. So yes, we’ll continue to see that lag grow the second year out of rate cases. Ali Agha Okay. And my last question again related to that, you alluded to the fact that you are going to be filing rate cases more frequently, at this stage when should we expect the next filings coming from the bigger utilities? Kevin E. Bryant So certainly in GMO we’ll file some time likely in the first quarter. We are in active as Terry mentioned an active planning stages for KCP&L Missouri. We have an abbreviated case in Kansas, we’ll file by the end of the year next year. But for KCP&L Missouri we are in the planning stage, but as Terry mentioned we’ll try to file that as quickly as possible. Ali Agha Not in Calendar ‘16 though? Kevin E. Bryant I am not ruling out calendar ‘16. Ali Agha Okay, thank you. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Shar Pourreza with Guggenheim Partners. Your line is open, please go ahead. Shar Pourreza Good morning, Terry and Kevin. How are you? Kevin E. Bryant Good morning. Terry Bassham Good morning. Shar Pourreza So, Terry, in your kind of prepared remarks you highlighted that you’re sort of networking with other utilities in the region to sort of review the construct down there. It’s certainly been a little bit challenging, I mean sort of can you elaborate on what you are looking at changing it? Terry Bassham Yeah, I mean I think we’ve always worked together. But I think given the timing of all our rate cases both Ameren empower we have now all had rate cases in the same year, which got several similar rulings on issues. We also have worked with our gas and water utilities in that regard as well. And so I think we all are going to work together to look at the issues that are similar to us, on a very simple basis some things that we’ve talked about or like property taxes and in this now after these cases transmission, which has been removed from the fuel factor we have very aligned interest in that regard and that at a minimum would be something we’d talking about. I think we’ve been talking about this for two or three years now though and sometimes that’s what it takes. So we’ll also be talking about potentially broader changes. We’ll see how those conversations go, but certainly will be moving on several fronts to see what the opportunity is in this session and potentially sessions to come. Shar Pourreza Got it. And just a touch on that, I think on the second quarter call you highlighted that, you could be interested in pursuing that ROE adjustment mechanism and sort of a more general proceeding. Is that an option still? Terry Bassham Yeah, I mean obviously if the commission looks at new opportunities or different ways to manage those things we’ll participate in those as well. We believe that this commission has authority to do several things that they have been less or more conservative on. So if they are willing to consider those we will work with them to the extent they don’t believe they have as much flexibility, we’ll be talking the legislature about opportunities to give them that flexibility. Shar Pourreza Got it. And then just lastly on overall sort of strategy and sort of the trends we’re seeing here, obviously there has been a bit of a M&A move companies your size valuation levels have been a target for a multitude of buyers. We really got to get sort of your refresh feel and how you think about M&A if you’re sort of willing seller or a buyer. And then as your board kind of aware of some of these premiums that are being paid for utilities your size. Terry Bassham Yeah so on a generic basis I’d say what we’ve said before and that is that we are confident on our plan we like our strategic plan we really like our territory and our opportunity for investment given our generation profile and the things we have in front of us. Having said that certainly our duty as a Board is to be aware of what’s happening in the marketplace, we talk about it at every meeting obviously. And so we’re very self-aware of what’s happening and I think what we said before remains true, which is we’re — we’ll maintain our knowledge of the market and we’ll be opportunistic for things that are good for shareholders. We’ve shown in the past we’ve been willing to do and I think we’ll continue to do that as we move forward certainly a lot of activity in the market right now. Shar Pourreza Thanks, Terry and Kevin great to you on Board. Thank you so much. Terry Bassham Thank you. Kevin E. Bryant Thanks Shar. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Brian Chin with Bank of America. Your line is open, please go ahead. Brian Chin Hi, good morning. Terry Bassham Good morning, Brian. Brian Chin Going over to the dividend. So if we think about I understand the comments on the payout ratio, but if we think about the compound annual growth rate, clearly the 7% was a little bit higher than the band that we saw for ‘14 through ‘16. If we’re thinking about the 4 to 6 band CAGR rate going forward. Should we think about that as being based off of the newer dividend per share level that was just established or should we continue to base off of the original ‘14 dividend per share trajectory going forward? Kevin E. Bryant I’d base it off the level just established Brian. Brian Chin Okay great. And then… Kevin E. Bryant And just to remind you I mean we plan to come out in February on our year-end call with updated thoughts around both earnings and dividends as we move forward. Brian Chin No that makes sense. It sounds like you’re shifting the strategy a little bit more towards the dividend component of the total shareholder returns, so I think that message was pretty clear to everybody. I guess the second question is you made some comments about the weather impact and in the prepared remarks you talked about how customer behavior may have exacerbated the weather impact above and beyond sort of the normal heat and cooling degree days calculation. In the press release it says that the unfavorable weather for the third quarter relative to normal was negative a penny year-over-year. was that customer behavior something above and beyond that penny? And if so can we quantify that or can you give a little bit more clarity there? Kevin E. Bryant So that penny was related to normal weather. We also described in the press release how we had 18% more cooling degree days year-over-year, but I think the comment in the prepared remarks really related to the weather pattern we have this year where we had a bit of a cool August and then it warmed up for a couple of weeks intermediately in September. And so what we’re trying to see is when you look at the 1.1% decline in demand just based on the traditional weather normalization calculations it attribute big piece of that to demand. Although if you think about how our customers respond when it was cool, they kept their air conditioners off and didn’t turn them back on those couple of days when it warmed up. And so that feels a lot like customer behavior, but based on the normal calls it would attribute that to demand. And so that was the point we were trying to make with respect that 1.1% decline. We think some of that’s demand, but a big piece of that could have been driven by the weather pattern for the quarter. Brian Chin So then stated in other way, if we’re looking at modeling to normal weather for next year, should we basically be adding back a penny for unfavorable weather or should we be adding back more to get back to normal customer behavior sales growth? Kevin E. Bryant For the quarter you could add back that penny to get back to normal. Brian Chin Okay alright . Thanks for clearing that up, I appreciate it. Kevin E. Bryant Sure no problem. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Chris Turnure with JP Morgan. Your line is open, please go ahead. Christopher Turnure Good morning, Terry and Kevin. Could you give us a little bit of an updated series of thoughts on your capital plan for the next five years, it’s still in a pretty high level especially in ‘16 and ‘17 I just wanted to hear your thoughts kind of post the regulatory outcomes there? And then also I wanted to hear your plans there, but then also your plans in light of the Clean Power Plan and any changes that that might drive especially in the near-term? Kevin E. Bryant Sure on the CapEx plan I mean we still have our disclosure that in our 10-K and in our investment materials where we’re projecting CapEx that kind of peak in 2015 what was seen. It falls off a bit in 2016 $180 million or so. We’ll update that CapEx disclosure as we file our 10-Okay, but I think the broad takeaway is and as we’ve talked about with our dividend flexibility we expect our CapEx to moderate as we move forward, which creates flexibility for those cash distribution topics that we discussed in our prepared remarks. And then in the context of Clean Power Plan we continue to evaluate the impacts of the Clean Power Plan our states have filed stays and we’ll be working on filing our state implementation plan, but that said I think a combination of optimizing our plant performance renewables and shut down of older units really is the path towards CPP compliance longer-term, we’re working to figure out what all that means. We’ll give you an update in February, but there’s a number of moving part as we plan for CPP compliance. Christopher Turnure Okay. And then your kind of initial conversations there do you feel like early next year will be a time where you’re going to have enough to be able to make significant announcements on the Clean Power Plan front or is it going to take longer than that? Kevin E. Bryant It will likely be past our year-end update I mean we’ll be working on planning throughout the summer, we’ll give you the best we got in February, but I suspect that we’ll have a lot better clarity in terms of our CPP compliance path later on in the year. Terry Bassham Yeah remember the way the process have worked, we work hopefully this first year to make progress and get the extension for the addition of couple of years in that progress. And so we won’t have final kind of ideas around it till that continued work happens, but I would say that the work we’ve done over the last several years and the opportunity for renewables locally gives us a lot of flexibility on that when the plans are finalized. Christopher Turnure Okay, great thank you very much. Terry Bassham Thank you. Kevin E. Bryant Thanks Chris. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Charles Fishman with Morningstar. Your line is open, please go ahead. Charles Fishman Thank you. Congratulations on the royals and question is on Kansas the 9.3% you say you’re disappointed yet it was a settlement why didn’t you run it out? Kevin E. Bryant No so you may have mixed us with Westar we did not settled ROE, we settled almost the entire case, but for a couple of issues and the primary issue that we ended up litigated was ROE. So we ended up litigating that actually. Charles Fishman Okay, I misunderstood that. May be a misunderstanding, now you were the one that had commissioner Apple saying the 9.3% was extremely generous am I correct on that? Kevin E. Bryant Yeah his issue really was ROE his issue really wasn’t with ROE, his issue was with a small group of customers that had a rate adjustment about four years ago, three cases ago and because ultimately there was not a resolution to his satisfaction on that issue. He thought ROE was a way to address it, he did really address ROE in a traditional rate base manner, it was almost single issue related. Charles Fishman Okay. So there was something going on there besides what typically the order in his comments it sound like there were some left over baggage? Kevin E. Bryant No it was very specific to a unique situation and had nothing really to do with the marketplace the appropriate ROE for utility in a rate case left there. Charles Fishman Terry it seems like with the CPP and the fact that you stray around Missouri and Kansas that you have an opportunity here to maybe use compliance to work on some of these regulatory lag issues as well as ROE in Kansas well for that matter both states, is that on the agenda? Terry Bassham Yeah I would agree with that I mean I think we’re going to be spending time with our commissioners, with our legislators and with our environmental departments of both states to work on these kind of plans. It’s going to — one thing is clear is that CPP is going to require investment, the time frame as it is will require potentially significant investment. And our ability to work with those parties to manage that investment in a way which has the least or best impact on customers, I think is in front of us and we’ll have the ability to talk about ways to do that because regardless of the outcome unless the rules are rolled back we’re going to have to invest in potentially a lot of renewables. Charles Fishman Okay. I have a few others. But I’ll wait for EEI. Thank you. Terry Bassham Sounds good, look forward to seeing you there. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open, please go ahead. Michael Lapides Hey, Terry. First of all congrats Kevin on your new role. Kevin E. Bryant Thanks, Michael. Michael Lapides One question for you, I want to make sure what trackers outside of fuel, what trackers do you have that will impact revenues and offset some cost in 2016 and like how material are these kind of thinking pension property tax, kind of the works everything, but kind of the fuel side of it? Terry Bassham Okay, we’ll tag team these, bit of a test. Most obviously the one we’re pleased with most with this last case is getting the final fuel factor if you want to call it that far KCP&L Missouri. So that was really important. We already have obviously a pension tracker in both states which we have had for quite a while. We have a property tax rider in Kansas, but Missouri did not agree to that. So we don’t have a property tax rider in Missouri, but we do Kansas. We have an energy efficiency cost rider in Kansas. Missouri energy efficiency investment at EMEA is what we have in Missouri on kind of that front and it’s a larger program if you will. We have the [indiscernible] rate case, which is not really the tracker rider, but it will kind of true up things on our same project in Kansas. We still have transmission in fuel in Kansas, but obviously with the latest rulings that will not be in Missouri and then the additional pickup this year in Kansas was also a SIPS cyber security tracker in Kansas and again Missouri the climate. I think that’s the list. Kevin? Kevin E. Bryant Did you mention the renewable energy track? Terry Bassham I missed that, I guess. Kevin E. Bryant So, we also have renewable energy standard rate adjustment, we affectionally call [indiscernible] in Missouri or for GMO. Michael Lapides How? Terry Bassham I think that’s the list. Michael Lapides Help us just… when we think about what the revenue benefit you could use nine months or this year or you could use expectations 2016, how big of a revenue uptick has that been or more importantly when I think about the track items that are in O&M, how much of that has being offset with incremental revenue? The year-over-year growth. Terry Bassham A lot of that drives this discussion around 50 to 100 basis points in the very first year. So the extent we have lag at GMO related to any of those things that would continue next year. Obviously the riders and trackers really are helpful as the year goes on, years go on and as we come out of a case those cost August reset. And so the level of increase for each one of those things we’ve had sharp increases in property tax in certain years. So I would say that there is a lower impact on everything but GMO in the very first year, next year that’s what will drive that lesser lag there, GMO would continue to have that and then ‘17 without acquiring a rider or tracker ‘17 you would start to see that percolate backup. Depending on increases in cyber security, property tax and transmission in particular. Kevin E. Bryant Michael, another way to think about it on the O&M inside we’ve talked about kind of flat O&M this year versus 1% to 2% flat assuming items that exclude the items that have regulatory offset with 1% to 2% in terms of total O&M. So that 1% to 2% could give you a proxy for the items that have regulatory offset on the O&M side. Michael Lapides Hey, guys you all faded out there for like the last couple of minutes. The last thing I think folks heard on the call was likely around the renewable. So had a little bit of a telecom issue there. I just want to make sure — let me simplify the question, year-over-year what was the or what do you think the revenue uptick is or the margin uptick is that is related to trackers that help offset cost? Kevin E. Bryant Yeah so can you hear me now Michael? Michael Lapides Yes sir. Kevin E. Bryant Okay. We describe kind of our O&M expectations for the year of 1% to 2% revised O&M expectations of 1% to 2% increase including the items that have regulatory offset, but being flat if you exclude those items. So you could kind of do the math and that 1% to 2% difference would be the items for which we have regulatory offsets on the O&M side of the equation. Michael Lapides Got it okay. So up 1% to 2% with trackers flat without? Kevin E. Bryant Correct. Michael Lapides Got it. Last question, the ARC what are the big drivers of the ARC that you file at the end of next year? And when would those rates go into effect? Kevin E. Bryant You’re talking about the abbreviated case in Kansas right? Michael Lapides Yes. Kevin E. Bryant Yeah so the big driver there is the fact that the way we file that case we were filing on budget. Because of where were in the process with the project. And so it will be truing up actual cost. In this instance we actually came in under budget on time and under budget. And so that true up actually may involve some flow back from that perspective. But it will be true up of actual cost as we completed the project. Michael Lapides Got it, okay thanks guys. Much appreciated. Terry Bassham Thank you and sorry for the telephone issue. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Paul Ridzon with KeyBanc. Your line is open, please go ahead. Paul Ridzon I think she is talking about me? Kevin E. Bryant Yes. Paul Ridzon What is the year-to-date weather impact versus normal? Kevin E. Bryant For the quarter it was $0.01 year-to-date let me find that, I don’t have that in my fingertips Paul let me track that down. Paul Ridzon So the weather adjusted 3Q load was a negative 1.1% is that I got up right. Terry Bassham That’s correct for the quarter. Paul Ridzon But that catch you because there were some weird weather? Kevin E. Bryant That’s correct. That whole that August to September weather effect with it being cool in August and warmer in September. And I think the year-to-date effect — the year-to-date effect from weather was about $0.03. Paul Ridzon Below normal? Kevin E. Bryant Below normal. Paul Ridzon And then just on your last question you probably had some O&M commentary about being flat with the trackers, that’s for ‘16 correct? Kevin E. Bryant That’s for ‘15. Paul Ridzon ‘15? Kevin E. Bryant Correct. Paul Ridzon And where do you expect the O&M to be in ‘16? Kevin E. Bryant We’ll provide ‘16 guidance on our February call. Paul Ridzon Okay, thank you very much. Kevin E. Bryant Sure. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Brian Russo with Ladenburg Thalmann. your line is open. Please go ahead. Brian Russo Hi, good morning. Terry Bassham Good morning. Terry Bassham The $0.08 decrease in the midpoint of your 2015 guidance, you attributed to weather and wholesale market conditions and rig outcomes. Can you break that down I guess weather is $0.03 out of the $0.08 and then at least $0.05 for wholesale and rig outcomes. Just curious the EPS — the decline in EPS associated the rig outcome that probably is structural whereas the wholesale market conditions will be mitigated through the fuel adjustment cost I am just trying to get more accurate picture of the EPS sensitivity. Kevin E. Bryant Yeah so certainly the move from ROEs from where we were previously in Missouri from 9.7% to 9.5% and from 9.5% to 9.3% in Kansas. If I’m doing the math right it’s a couple cents. And then obviously to the extent we didn’t get the riders and trackers there is a quarter impact on the year from that perspective as well, the fourth quarter not getting the impact of those property tax and transmission tracker. So I think those are the pieces that kind of guide us to the bottom end of that range. You mentioned wholesale? Brian Russo Okay. So wholesale probably couple of pennies also? Kevin E. Bryant Yeah, wholesale being a big piece of it that got fix with the fuel adjustment costs in Missouri. Terry Bassham That would be a driver for our lower O&M to help offset some of those impacts. Brian Russo Got it. And then on slide 11, the 4% to 6% EPS growth ‘14 to ‘16 based off of the initial ‘14 EPS guidance range of $1.60 to $1.75, should I be using the midpoint of that initial ‘14 guidance or should I be using your actual ‘14 earnings just want to get a better picture of the base? Kevin E. Bryant So the base was that $1.60 to $1.75 which was our initial guidance range way back in 2014. So we were growing 4% to 6% through ‘16 off of the top and bottom side of that original ‘14 guidance range. Does that make sense? Brian Russo Okay. I guess it does, should we just take the midpoint of that guidance and grow it by 4% to 6% or grow the low end of 4% and the high end of 6%? Kevin E. Bryant Grow the low end at 4% and the high end at 6% would give you the bands of the range through 2016 not the midpoint? Brian Russo Okay, got it. And if I heard you correctly you’re kind of forecasting the low end to that quarter 4% to 6% CAGR through ‘16? Kevin E. Bryant Yeah based on the outcomes from these rate cases who drives us to the lower end of that implied range or we’ll come out and give you the full mill deal in February. Brian Russo Okay, got it thank you. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research. Your line is open, please go ahead. Steve Fleishman Yeah that was my question, but I just wanted to kind of re-clarify the low end the growth rate of 4% to 6% and then you have the initial range of about $1.60, $1.75 so the commentary of tracking at the low end is that the low end of both growth rate and the beginning range? Terry Bassham We’ve always talked about taking that range and growing the 4% of the bottom end and the 6% of the top. So we’ll be updating and what we’re talking about here is we’re trending into the low end of that implied range that amount is out from that. Steve Fleishman Okay, thank you. Terry Bassham Yeah thank you. Operator Thank you [Operator Instructions]. Steve Fleishman The low end of the line was like a $1.73. Terry Bassham Steve is that you? Steve Fleishman Yeah. Terry Bassham You’re still live. Steve Fleishman Okay. Well I’m just calculating with you guys then. Terry Bassham Yeah we can do that math and you’re correct. Steve Fleishman Okay. Operator And our next question comes from the line of Paul Patterson with Glenrock. Your line is open, please go ahead. Paul Patterson I think you guys clarified that question, but I was wondering though in general was how should we think about the longer term outlook if you don’t get these fixes legislatively to what you see the regulatory problems was being? As you mentioned earlier we’ve seen seems like every year we hear about these initiatives and it’s difficult to predict legislation, but it hasn’t happened in the past, so I’m sure you guys have thought about this what is the contingency if we don’t get a legislative fix? Terry Bassham Yeah so obviously what you’ve seen from us in the past several years is that we had very large projects that had to be added into rate base, based upon our conference of energy plan, EPA regulations et cetera. And so our earnings were very stair step and obviously we don’t like that, shareholders don’t like that we want to smooth that out. Two things I would say is number one, is we don’t have the huge single project kinds of additions that would make that stair step as dramatic. But secondly we want to eliminate it as much as possible altogether. And so we will number one, continue to work on legislature in other ways to manage the flow through if you will. But in addition we’ll continue to watch our O&M, we’ll continue to look at our investment, if we are unable to get help from some of that investment timing wise we’ll have to watch when we make it and we’ll be working hard to make that stair stepish type earnings profile less pronounced moving forward and that would be the plan. I hope combination of some of the things we are looking for and good management gives us a great opportunity there for steady growth. But with the cash flow we now have and the fewer large projects we also have the ability to provide more dividend flexibility to manage that total shareholder return number. Paul Patterson Do you think without legislation, how should we think about regulatory lag? You mentioned obviously that will vary from year-to-year, but just in general if you are unable to get it, but of course you got a different CapEx profile going forward and you have got cost initiatives et cetera, how should we think about the regulatory lag potential post 2016? Terry Bassham So I think we’ve talked about in the very first year out of the gate from a rate case where everything is trued up. We still think on each of those cases in jurisdiction of 50 to 100 basis, makes a lot of sense. I think what you’ll see from us in the future lesser lag, less dramatic lag than you’ve seen in the past because of the lower CapEx profile. And so it will grow, but it will be depended on our ability to manage some cost and what kind of the demand growth we have on the kind of projects we hopefully have invest in from a CPP perspective. But the notion would be although it will grow until we can file another case, we should be able to manage it to some degree better than we have in the past when you are putting $1 billion project it’s very time sensitive to the case that allowed within rate. Paul Patterson The Missouri commission in last rate case during the deliberative process, the commissioner talked about a management audit and they also discussed among other than a merger between subs as potentially something that could be beneficial to the company it may appears. Could you elaborate maybe the potential or the thoughts or issues associated with a merger between subs and what have you? Terry Bassham Yeah. So when we first acquired Aquila they had purchased St. Joe Light and Power a few years before we acquired them and there was a pretty large disparity between the St. Joe rates and the – what’s known as MPS Missouri Public Service. Primarily because no generation had been added to St. Joe for many years and a couple of our cases since then they have acquired a piece if you will or allocated a piece of [indiscernible] and as a result the rates are much closer than they were. And so we think there is an opportunity to consolidate those jurisdictions the main benefit is processing multiple cases, dealing with multiple communications and being able from an accounting perspective to streamline our work with the commission, which is rate case expenses those kinds of things. We had seen synergies available through the merger. But we’ve been able to effectuate all those this is really just the process of filing the cases operations and other financial synergies we’ve actually achieved since then. Paul Patterson Okay. So should we think about any potential there as being rather modest in terms of what the earning savings or the cost savings could be? Terry Bassham Yes, I would say from an earnings perspective that’s not dramatic. It would just streamline our process of filing cases and give us some internal and customer benefit earnings wise. I don’t know that we… we don’t believe we have a lot of synergies that would be gained in addition to that, right now. Paul Patterson Okay, thanks a lot. Terry Bassham Thank you. Operator Thank you. I’m showing a follow up question from the line of Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Michael Lapides One of these earnings call should get the last name, right? It is more fun. Question for you, when you are thinking about cash flow in capital allocation and cash use and you mentioned you’ll update this on the fourth quarter call. If I use the payout range the drive to a truck of $1.73 to $1.97 and use your current dividend level. You’re still at a reasonably low kind of payout ratio level even on the low end of that. Are there — with you not being a cash tax payer, are there opportunities for either debt reduction at the holding company level or debt refinancing and just paying any make holes with some of the extra cash flow? Or even other forms of capital allocation that might be viewed as shareholder friendly? Kevin E. Bryant Yeah so Michael I mean I’ll give you the universe of things that you will consider in that regards. So you’re right, we can look at debt pay down. Dividend is up obviously and we’ll come out with our thoughts in February. What’s in the mix of share repurchases, but you have to balance that in the context of our current regulatory filing structure. If you remember the equity ratio on our most recent rate cases has been impacted by our CapEx profile. And so when we have opportunities to kind of sure that up a little bit as we go into this active rate case filing profile. So all those things are the things we would balance in terms of what the trade-off is in terms of either earnings potential or value to distribute to shareholders. Michael Lapides Got it. And are there things — if I think about the cash flow statement. So kind of net income we can take the implied guidance, depreciation, CapEx assume the dividend growth level, no income taxes. What cash drags or headwinds are there outside of some of the items that have embedded in what I just mentioned? Kevin E. Bryant I think it’s CapEx is the big mover, I mean you mentioned the big piece is cash from ops you can adjust based on demand and new retail rates, you mentioned D&A, but real big mover would be CapEx. And that’s where we expect our CapEx profile to moderate versus where we’ve been for candidly 10 years. Other than that… go ahead. Michael Lapides Yeah how should we think about cash pension requirements, how should we think about cash in the key requirements is working cap a source, a user or nothing I mean you’re about to become less of an earning story and more of a cash flow story, I am just trying to get my arms around some of the other puts and takes on cash flow. Kevin E. Bryant Yeah well in terms of pension, I mean our expense is really close to our contribution level, so I wouldn’t expect that move around a whole lot our NDT contributions are pretty consistent. So you can certainly use history to model that cash impact, but I don’t necessarily — I wouldn’t disagree with your takeaway in terms of the profile. Obviously with potential to invest in rate base moving forward, but balancing the customer impact. And so that’s where as we’ve talked about this cash flexibility it gives us the ability to either invest where it makes the right sense or to find ways to better deploy that to shareholders. Kevin Bryant Got it, thanks Kevin much appreciated. Kevin Bryant You got it, Michael. Operator Thank you. And I am showing no further questions at this time, and I would like to turn the conference back over to Mr. Terry Bassham for any closing remarks. Terry Bassham Yeah thanks for all the questions. Appreciate you being on the call I know you got other calls to get to. And I know we’ll see many of you here starting on Monday. So appreciated and look forward to talking to you soon. Thanks. Operator Ladies and gentlemen thank you for participating in today’s conference. This does conclude the program and you may all disconnect. Everyone have a great day.