Tag Archives: infrastructure

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.

Public Service Enterprise Group (PEG) Ralph Izzo on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. (NYSE: PEG ) Q2 2015 Earnings Call July 31, 2015 11:00 am ET Executives Kathleen A. Lally – Vice President-Investor Relations Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Analysts Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities (NYSE: USA ) LLC (Broker) Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Travis Miller – Morningstar Research Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. My name is Brandy, and I am your event operator today. I would like to welcome everyone to today’s conference, Public Service Enterprise Group Second Quarter 2015 Earnings Conference Call and Webcast. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session for members of the financial community. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded today, Friday, July 31, 2015, and will be available for telephone replay beginning at 1 PM Eastern today until 11:30 PM Eastern on August 7, 2015. It will also be available as an audio webcast on PSEG’s corporate website at www.pseg.com. I would now like to turn the conference over to Kathleen Lally. Please go ahead. Kathleen A. Lally – Vice President-Investor Relations Thank you, Brandy. Good morning. Thank you for participating in our earnings call this morning. As you are all aware, we released second quarter 2015 earnings statements earlier today. The release and attachments as mentioned are posted on our website at www.pseg.com, under the Investors section. We also have posted a series of slides that detail operating results by company for the quarter and the first half of the year. Our 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2015, is expected to be filed shortly. I won’t go through the full disclaimer statement or the comments we have on the difference between operating, earnings, and GAAP results, however, as you know the earnings release and other matters that we will discuss in today’s call contain forward-looking statements and estimates that are subject to various risks and uncertainties. Although we may elect to update forward-looking statements from time-to-time, we specifically disclaim any obligation to do so even if our estimate changes unless, of course, we are required to do so. Our release contains adjusted non-GAAP operating earnings. Please refer to today’s 8-K or other filings for a discussion of the factors that may cause results to differ from management’s projections, forecasts and expectations and for a reconciliation of operating earnings to GAAP results. I’m now going to like to turn the call over to Ralph Izzo, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Public Service Enterprise Group. And joining Ralph on the call is Caroline Dorsa, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. At the conclusion of their remarks, there will be time for your questions. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Thank you, Kathleen. And thank you, everyone, for joining us today. Earlier this morning, we reported operating earnings for the second quarter of 2015 of $0.57 per share, a 16% improvement over the $0.49 per share earned in 2014 second quarter. The results for the quarter bring operating earnings for the first half of 2015 to $1.61 per share, a 7% increase over operating earnings of $1.50 per share earned in 2014’s first half. Slides 4 and 5 contain the detail on the results for the quarter in the first half. Our business is performing well and meeting the challenges of today’s low energy price environment. The results for the quarter and first half of the year demonstrate the importance of strong operations in providing our customers with safe, reliable, low cost energy. PSE&G invested $1.3 billion during the first half of the year as part of its planned capital program for 2015 of $2.6 billion. This included upgrades to the electric and gas distribution and transmission system. PSE&G’s focus on improving the resiliency of the grid and increasing operational efficiency has also translated into strong performance in a number of the areas of customer satisfaction including price, billing and payment, corporate citizenship and field service. PSE&G was recently assigned a share of the transmission upgrade work at Artificial Island. PJM’s decision will increase PSE&G’s transmission-related capital spending by $100 million to $130 million over the next four years. This project will add to PSE&G’s robust pipeline of projects that will drive high single-digit growth in PSE&G’s earnings over the three-year period ending in 2017. The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities has begun proceedings related to PSE&G’s proposed $1.6 billion Gas System Modernization Program. The investment would provide for a continuation of the work underway to replace 800 miles of cast iron and bare steel pipe over five years to enhance reliability and reduce the potential for harmful emissions of methane gas. Approval would also provide a direct boost to New Jersey’s economy. We continue to believe that this is the right time to move forward with this work, given the sizeable savings customers continue to realize from low gas prices. PSEG Power’s earnings demonstrate the strength of its asset mix. Recent economic investments have increased the capacity of existing nuclear and fossil units and have improved the fleet’s operating efficiency. The completion of upgrade work at the gas-fired Bergen combined cycle unit yielded an increase in capacity of 31 megawatts, just as the completion of the first phase of the Peach Bottom upgrade which achieved 100% output at the new rating in May provided an additional 65 megawatts per Power’s share of this nuclear unit. In addition, Power recently announced plans to construct and operate a new 755-megawatt combined cycle unit at the Keys Energy Center in Maryland at a cost of $825 million to $875 million. The investment is in keeping with Power’s overall strategy of investing in efficient capacity in its core markets. All three investments will enhance Power’s ability to perform on the PJM’s recently approved capacity performance program. Capacity performance, with its emphasis on performance, is an example of how customer demands for reliability are increasing. The size of PSEG Power’s fleet, the diversity of the fleet’s fuel mix and its dispatch flexibility should support performance under the new capacity standards. The real impact of the changes in the RPM capacity auction should result over time as the market recognized the need for increased investment to maintain system reliability, particularly in light of anomalous weather patterns. We are focused on executing our investment strategies and expanding our infrastructure in a disciplined manner, a manner that supports the goals of customers and shareholders alike. PSE&G’s investment program is expected to yield double-digit growth in rate base through 2019, as the earnings contribution from our regulated business should continue to exceed 50% of our consolidated earnings. PSEG Power’s investment program is expected to enhance the fleet’s efficiency and reliability as we continue to look for opportunities to expand that fleet. The potential investment in Artificial Island, actually the recently approved investment in Artificial Island, the announced acquisition of the Keys Energy Center and the gas system modernization program, if approved, would expand our previously announced capital program for 2015 through 2019 by 15% to 20%, or $2.2 billion. Based on the strength of our results for the first half of the year and the outlook for the remainder of the year, we are updating our earnings guidance for 2015. We have narrowed our range for guidance to $2.80 to $2.95 per share from its original $2.75 to $2.95 per share. Our financial position remains strong. The growth in capital spending can be financed without the need to issue equity. We intend to utilize our financial strength to pursue investments that enhance operating efficiency, support our market position, and seek to improve on the high levels of reliability expected by our customers as we increase shareholder value. With that, I’ll turn the call over to Caroline, who will discuss our financials in greater detail. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thank you, Ralph, and thank you everyone for joining us today. As Ralph said, PSEG reported operating earnings for the second quarter of 2015 of $0.57 per share versus operating earnings of $0.49 per share in last year’s second quarter. We provide you with a reconciliation of operating earnings to income from continuing operations and net income for the quarter on slide 4. And we’ve also provided you with a waterfall chart on slide 10 that takes you through the net changes in quarter-over-quarter operating earnings by major business and a similar chart on slide 12 provides you with changes in operating earnings by each business on a year-to-date basis. So, now I’ll review each company in a bit more detail, starting with PSE&G. PSE&G reported operating earnings for the second quarter of 2015 of $0.33 per share, compared with $0.30 per share for 2014’s second quarter, a 10% improvement. Results for the quarter are shown on slide 14. PSE&G’s operating results for the second quarter continued to benefit from the expansion of its capital program and the impact of warmer-than-normal weather on demand. Returns from PSE&G’s expanded investment in transmission added $0.04 per share to earnings in the quarter. An increase in revenue at the start of the year under its transmission formula rate provides PSE&G the opportunity to continue to earn its allowed return on its transmission investments. Electric demand benefited from the more favorable weather conditions during the quarter, that is, the weather was hotter than normal and warmer than last year, as well as the recovery of costs associated with PSE&G’s capital infrastructure programs. Together, these improved earnings comparisons in the quarter by a $0.01 per share. Gas deliveries continued to grow in response to sustained low prices. The growth in gas deliveries also increased earnings comparisons by $0.01 per share. The improvement in earnings associated with this growth and revenue was partially offset by an increase in pension expense as well as higher storm-related expenses, with those increases totaling an impact of $0.02 per share. An increase in taxes and other items reduced quarter-over-quarter earnings by $0.01 per share. Economic indicators in the service territories such as employment and housing are showing signs of improvement. Modest growth in electric demand is reflective of the improvement in economic conditions. On a weather-normalized basis, electric sales grew by 0.2% for the quarter and about the same year-to-date. Growth in demand by residential and commercial customers was partially offset by a decline in demand from industrial customers, but weather-normalized deliveries of gas grew 2.7% during the first half of the year in response to sustained low prices, something you’ll recall we saw last year as well. PSE&G as part of its annual BGSS filing with the New Jersey BPU, requested a further reduction of $17 million in annual revenues, reflecting its lower cost of gas supply. When placed into effect, the BGSS rate will be reduced to $0.40 per therm from $0.45 per therm effective October 1st of this year. And including this reduction, the typical residential gas customer has experienced a reduction in his or her bill of $792, or 47%, since January of 2009. PSE&G has maintained a steady level of capital expenditures, investing $1.3 billion in the first half of the year as part of its annual planned capital program of $2.6 billion and upgrades to the electric and gas distribution and transmission systems. The capital investment associated with PSE&G’s share of recommended upgrades to the transmission system at Artificial Island will increase investment in transmission by $100 million to $130 million during the 2016 to 2019 timeframe. So, we are updating our forecast for PSE&G’s operating earnings for the year from $735 million to $775 million, to $760 million to $775 million. Given year-to-date results, operating earnings for the full year will be influenced by the summer weather and of course the recovery of costs associated with higher levels of capital spending. Now, let’s turn to Power. PSEG Power reported operating earnings of $0.22 per share for the second quarter of 2015, and adjusted EBITDA of $301 million, compared with operating earnings of $0.17 per share and adjusted EBITDA of $276 million for the second quarter of 2014. Power’s operating results for the second quarter benefited from improved operations at its Nuclear and Fossil generating facilities as well as higher prices on its hedged output and a decline in the cost of its gas supply. The benefit to earnings from the improvement in operations more than offset the impact on earnings from an expected decline in capacity revenue and the lower wholesale market prices for energy. Higher average prices on energy hedges, coupled with a reduction in the cost of supply, more than offset the impact on earnings of lower wholesale market prices for energy. These items combined to increase quarter-over-quarter earnings comparisons by $0.10 per share. In addition, a 10% improvement in the output over the prior year increased quarterly earnings comparisons by $0.02 per share. So this improvement in margin was partially offset by the expected decline in PJM capacity revenues, which reduced Power’s quarter-over-quarter earnings by $0.08 per share. The reduction in capacity revenues reflects the impact both of a lower average capacity price and the retirement of capacity that we’ve talked about before, the capacity that’s no longer compliant with environmental regulations. Higher levels of O&M and depreciation expenses were offset a decline in tax of $0.03 per share and other items to net improved quarter-over-quarter earnings by $0.01 per share. The lower effective tax rate in the quarter of approximately 23% versus last year’s 31% was anticipated and we continue to estimate that the tax rate for the full year will approximate 38%, which was about the same rate as you saw in 2014. The increase in adjusted EBITDA for the quarter is in line with the changes in earnings per share that I just went through on a quarter-over-quarter basis. The average price per capacity declined in the quarter to approximately $168 per megawatt-day from $217 per megawatt-day. In addition, the amount of capacity that cleared the PJM’s capacity auction for the 2015-2016 capacity year, which we’ve discussed over the past few years, was reduced by about 1,800 megawatts to 8,800 megawatts. And this reflects the retirement in May of this year of the HEDD peaking capacity that didn’t meet New Jersey’s nitrous oxide emissions standards. As we move through the second half of 2015, the average price received on PJM capacity will remain stable, relative to the average price received during the second half of 2014 at about $168 per megawatt-day. However, we should continue to expect on a year-over-year basis a decline in capacity revenues during the second half of the year specifically related to that retirement of capacity under HEDD. The fuel diversity and flexibility of Power’s fleet of generating assets was demonstrated once again in the quarter. Our output increased 10% over a year-ago levels to 13.2 terawatt-hours. The nuclear fleet operated at an average capacity factor of 86%, producing 7.1 terawatt-hours of output, or about 54% of our generation. And this level of output represents a 9% improvement from year-ago levels. The performance on the nuclear fleet reflects the absence of some major repairs to Salem 2 in 2014, which led this year’s fewer outage-related days in the second quarter. Production from the combined cycle gas fleet increased 26% this year to 4.6 terawatt-hours of generation or 34% of our total generation, as the fleet’s capacity factor improved to 61% from 49% in the year-ago quarter. Linden’s availability improved versus 2014 as the result of upgrade and maintenance work that was occurring in the year-ago quarter. Dispatch of the combined cycle fleet was also supported by the availability of low-cost gas. Dispatch of the coal fleet, however, was hurt by a decline in the price of gas and lower wholesale energy prices. Output from the coal fleet declined 1.3 terawatt-hours or 10% of generation during the quarter. Wholesale market energy prices have been affected by a decline in the price of gas and anomalies in the dispatch of generation associated with the volatility in pricing. Strong production of low-cost gas from Marcellus station and the lack of sufficient takeaway capacity, not unexpectedly, has resulted in a lower price for gas. The impact on power prices from the lower cost of gas has been further compounded this summer by repair work on electric transmission lines in the Maryland-D.C. area and differentials on load, given warmer-than-normal weather in Southern PJM versus the more normal demand experienced in the northern part of PJM. That inability to dispatch energy to meet demand as a result of the transmission constraints hurt the wholesale market price for power in our region. This situation is alleviated during periods of more normal weather-related demand in the areas served by PSEG Power. So the dynamics affecting the power markets were not wholly unexpected, given that lack of gas transmission takeaway capacity in the Marcellus basin and the work underway to alleviate the constraints on electric transmission to the south of us. Power’s combined cycle fleet continue to benefit from its access to this low-cost gas supply during the second quarter. And since power prices held up and we continue to access lower cost gas, the combined cycle fleet experienced an expansion of spark spreads and Power’s fleet will continue to benefit from low gas prices and a somewhat open gas position. As we look to the full year, the improvement in availability of Power’s gas-fired and nuclear fleet combined with incremental operating capacity at the Peach Bottom 2 nuclear plant and the gas-fired Bergen Station should allow Power’s fleet to produce energy at the upper end of our forecasted output for the year of 55 terawatt-hours to 57 terawatt-hours. This level of output represents a 1% to 5% increase over 2014’s output of 54.2 terawatt-hours. Approximately 70% to 75% of anticipated production for the second half of the year is hedged at an average price of $53 per megawatt hour. The average price on Power’s energy hedges remains the same, approximately $4 per megawatt hour higher than the average price received on energy hedged during the second half of 2014. For 2016 and 2017, Power’s forecast output will remain stable at approximately 55 terawatt-hours to 57 terawatt-hours. Of this, Power has hedged 55% to 60% of 2016’s forecasted generation at an average price of $51 per megawatt-hour and about 30% to 35% of 2017’s forecasted level of generation is hedged at an average price of $50 per megawatt-hour. As Ralph mentioned, Power has acquired the rights to develop the 755-megawatt gas-fired combined cycle Keys Energy Center in Maryland. The addition of Keys, which represents an investment of approximately $825 million to $875 million, is targeted to enter commercial service in 2018. The plant’s location, we believe, will complement Power’s fleet in the core market and add to a fleet capable of meeting PJM’s new capacity performance standards. The forecasted range of Power’s operating earnings for 2015, even with lower wholesale energy prices, remains $620 million to $680 million as guidance, and for adjusted EBITDA, it remains unchanged as well, at $1.545 billion to $1.645 billion. Results for the remainder of the year will be influenced by higher average hedge prices, that declining capacity revenue that I mentioned and wholesale energy market prices. Just a quick note on Enterprise and Other. Operating earnings for PSEG Energy Holdings and Enterprise in the second quarter of 2015 were $12 million, or $0.02 per share, versus operating earnings of $7 million or rounded $0.02 per share for the second quarter of 2014. The improvement in the operating income for the second quarter reflects higher earnings from PSEG Long Island, lower O&M expense and higher interest income at the parent. And we continue to forecast full-year operating earnings for PSEG Enterprise/Other of about $40 million to $45 million. PSEG closed the quarter ended June 30, 2015 with $597 million of cash on its balance sheet with debt at the end of the quarter representing 41.9% of consolidated capital. During the quarter, PSE&G issued $350 million of 10-year secured medium term notes, at an interest rate of 3% and $250 million of 30-year secured medium-term notes at an interest rate of 4.05% and we also redeemed $300 million of maturing medium-term notes, yielding 2.7%. As Ralph mentioned, we’ve updated our forecasted operating earnings for the full year to $2.80 to $2.95 per share, given the strong operating results at both businesses in the first half of the year. Estimates of PSEG Power’s adjusted EBITDA remain unchanged at $1.545 billion to $1.645 billion. Finally, just on a personal note, as you know I announced a week ago my plans to retire from PSEG during the fourth quarter. I have really enjoyed working with all of you and as I move on, I know the PSEG has an outstanding management team led by Ralph Izzo, with a strong balance sheet and lots of opportunities to deploy it in the future and possesses a really solid foundation for further growth. With that, we’re now ready for your questions and I’ll turn it back to you Brandy. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Your first question is from Daniel Eggers with Credit Suisse. Please proceed with your question. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Hey, good morning, guys. Can we just talk a little bit about the Keys plant and just your thought process on the capital allocation on that front, given the fact that you’ve looked at a variety of other brownfield type projects in generation that haven’t passed muster from your cost-capital perspective? Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Yeah, Dan. So I think in general we’re somewhat cautious about injecting new supply into a market where demand isn’t growing much. So most of the investments you’ve seen may have been kind of upgrades to existing units and we’ve talked a lot about (26:54) and replacement of existing units. This one is a little bit unique for us, in that A, it’s not an existing asset, and B, it is a new development project. I think what makes this one a good fit for us is its location, it’s in Southwestern MAAC where we’ve seen some seasonal basis advantages. Number two, I think we’re ahead of the market in terms of the future delivery of gas to that region, which will put a 6,400 heat rate unit in a very, very strong competitive position. And number three, this one went beyond the usual forecasting of forward price risk and it included an element of construction risk that we believe ourselves particularly well-suited to manage given the project work we’ve done both in power and in the utility and how well that has all worked out. So for a combination of reasons, we were able to see clear to some value creation here that was different from other opportunities where I can’t believe people had outbid us. So I think what you hear me saying is that we remain cautious on injecting copious amounts of discipline in the market that’s not growing, but this was a fairly special situation that we thought fit our portfolio rather nicely. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) And given kind of your history of being pretty conservative on using capital, is your view effectively that the energy value of the asset is going to make sense for it since you don’t have the lock on capacity that you would have had if you had earned Bridgeport or something else? Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Yeah that’s right. I mean we did talk in the past about how we – we were attracted to the seven-year lock of capacity in New England. And this one obviously is more about sparks and energy margins than it is about a one-year price on capacity. But it will be clearly a CP-eligible unit. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Okay. And I guess Caroline what – you’ve talked in the past about how much balance sheet capacity you guys thought you had to redeploy. How much you think you have left with the Keys investment and because it is more merchant, does that lower the amount more meaningfully than just the dollars going into the project? Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President No, Dan, so we still have plenty of capacity when I think about – remember the slide we showed in March and we know we’ve talked about before, we add capacity and multiple billions of dollars both at POWER and at parent, parent mostly for regulated. When I look at where we landed at the end of the second quarter, actually similar to what we’ve talked about before, Power ends with – does it cap at 31%, FFO to debt number is well above our floor level. So, we didn’t relax any standards here in doing the analysis for Keys. We will be able to finance that on Power’s balance sheet and that doesn’t use it up, right? So, when we talk about those balance sheet capacities, remember I’ve mentioned before that that’s the most conservative way to look at them because we look at them assuming they don’t start contributing any FFO back and when this goes in service, it certainly will. So, when we looked that Keys, we didn’t look at it from the perspective of well, if we do Keys, we can’t do anything else. We looked at it from the perspective of Keys is a really good project and by no means does it use up all of our balance sheet capacity. So, we can still continue to look at new opportunities for Power as well. So, I feel really comfortable that it’s one balance sheet deployment, but it’s not the only one we’ll be able to do in either businesses. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) So, this wouldn’t preclude the HEDD upgrades or something else then? Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer No. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President No, no, not at all. We’ll not preclude other things that we may be considering, not at all. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Okay. Well, Caroline, I trust we’ll have you on the third quarter earnings call, so I won’t say goodbye yet. And thank you guys. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thanks, Dan. Next question. Operator The next question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS. Please go ahead with your question. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Hi, good morning. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Good morning, Julien. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC So, perhaps to follow-up on investment opportunities here. I’d be curious to – obviously we’re moving forward or PJM is moving forward with Artificial Island at this point. I’d be curious to get your prospective on the future of FERC 1000 or FERC 1000-like investments in PJM. And specifically within that your views on the use of cost caps and just other mechanisms to be more “competitive,” I suppose to what extent do you anticipate yourself and others continue to leverage those kinds of mechanisms to win as we saw with the Artificial Island example, and to what extent do you see that as impeding your ability or enhancing your ability to win, et cetera. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer So, it’s interesting that I believe that PJM published an announcement that said that the identification of this project preceded the creation of Order 1000. So PJM did not feel obligated to achieve the strict terms of the tariff on Order 1000, which is a point that may be we would beg to differ on. Look, Julien, there is way to make this process look pretty. This was a painful process and I would like to chalk it up to the growing pains associated with Order 1000. My concern, and I’ve expressed this to FERC and to PJM, is that we may be heading for a ubiquitous dumbing down of the transmission system as opposed to robust solutions that have advantages over the long term. The cheapest solution in the short-term may not be the cheapest solutions of long term and I don’t want to do get into a full-fledged debate over how you make comparisons across two projects. I still believe, based on everything that our engineering team has told us, that not only did we have a more robust solution, but we had a lower cost solution. So this is going to be challenging. I think efficient markets work when you have good information available to both suppliers and buyers and these are technically detailed, painful reviews done by a handful of assessors on the basis of a fairly robust set of bidders. It doesn’t kind of lend itself to the transparency you see at the NYMEX on what’s happening in gas markets. So I don’t mean to give a speech, but it’s showing some real challenges in terms of me having confidence that over the long term Order 1000 will yield a strong transmission system that won’t be constantly second-guessed through a challenged – the quarters or more importantly over the long-term in the field as we head towards the least-cost solutions as opposed to the short-term least-cost solution. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Got it. And the complement – to complement that last question a little bit, PJM is talking about reducing their load forecast this cycle, given some adjustments for efficiency and solar et cetera. I’d be curious, does that impact your – A, your current spending plans, with B, your prospective plans when you are thinking about transmission, and obviously you guys are on the both sides of power and the wires business. What do you – how does that change your business at all, if you can elaborate? Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Yes. So I think that PJM is still reviewing its re-forecasted load growth. And of course load growth is an important consideration in how one designs your delivery system. But don’t underestimate this significant role played by the location of load and the location of supply in having to design the transmission system. I would contend, although I couldn’t prove it to you in this call, that the reason why we’ve had such a strong need for transmission deployment is the fact that we no longer have an integrated system where utility planners go from generation all the way to the meter and PJM has had to respond to changes in supply, both in terms of unexpected retirements and unexpected injection of new supply. And that results in the need for an even more robust transmission system and one that you can plan from generation to user. Now, for Power, we had nearly all of this forecast in our fundamental model – or fundamental model already. So when we looked at something like Keys and when we looked at whatever else we might be bidding into RPM, we do scenario analysis that includes diminished demand as well as more robust growth. But well, one way of saying it, it’s not a single variable model, it’s not just what’s the demand, it’s – where is the load, where is the supply and what’s happening to the infrastructure that connects all the above. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Excellent. Well, thank you. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thanks, Julien. Next question. Operator Your next question is from Travis Miller with Morningstar Inc. Please proceed with your question. Travis Miller – Morningstar Research Good morning, thank you. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Hi, Travis. Travis Miller – Morningstar Research Ralph, just a follow-up on that, the transmission discussion. When you think about the investments you’re making, what’s on the table, how close do those investments get us to kind of next generation grid, a grid where you can have distributable generation, smart type of grid? Is that kind of what you’re talking about there, in terms of robustness and where we need to get to relative to the future? Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer So I think it does get us a long way there Travis, but I think of it more as building a set of highways, so that no matter what happens on one highway you could switch over to another one and not get stuck in a traffic jam. Other people though I think talk about the future grid as being a more flexible grid so that you don’t have to build big highways and you could just direct traffic flows along the back roads intelligently so that nothing gets clogged. And that’s probably not the best analogy. But I think the Internet of Things is what people speak about in terms of the ability to move power more flexibly. I’m not a big believer in that being an eventual outcome because of the connectivity that you need at the last mile, so to speak. And I’m more of a believer in the types of things that PJM is advocating, which is – look, the backhaul has to be robust, so that people can get on and off, people in the form of power plants can get on and off that backhaul system. Travis Miller – Morningstar Research Okay. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer It’s a central station dispatch model on a robust high voltage system that I think is ultimately one that will be economically more efficient. Travis Miller – Morningstar Research Sure. Okay. And then, more specifically on PSEG Power in the quarter, that re-contracting lower cost to serve, how one-time type of stuff is that? I’m guessing a lot of that was spark spread versus the BGS but the re-contracting part, what are you seeing on that part? Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Sure, Travis. This is Caroline. So yes, remember that when we talk about re-contracting as well as lower cost to serve, we give you that hedging data, right, so we give you all the details on our hedging data. And as I just said, we’ve moved up our hedges a little bit and the prices are basically the same as where we are. So the hedges prove to be very valuable on a year-over-year basis. I remember last year at about this time we talked about the fact that we had taken advantage of some better pricing last year to put on some incremental hedges. Now hedging doesn’t last forever, but when we see those opportunities we’ve layered on hedges as to beneficial prices and so re-contracting, that’s kind of what that benefit is about. The lower cost to serve, obviously there is lower cost to serve in terms of the wholesale market prices, but also as I mentioned in my remarks, $0.02 of that is our Leidy gas access. So, having that access to Leidy gas after the customers and PSE&G have the first call in that access, that contributed $0.02 of share in this quarter and you remember that’s contributed pennies each quarters of the key quarters in the summer particularly and for each of the last two years. Now that benefit is one that we’ve never said we expect to continue in perpetuity. But if you look at the delta of Leidy gas cost relative to Henry Hub, you’ll still see benefit. And because we have that access, that’s what gives us part of our lower cost to serve with that Leidy access. As I mentioned we have higher spark spreads. We’ve talked about this last year in the summer as well as starting in 2013 summer, that our spark spreads for our access to that low cost gas tended to be about 30% or more higher than the sparks seen in the overall market. So, some of the things are in hedge position, some things are a little more structural, but together, we think they give us a nice position with the combined cycle fleet obviously that operates very well. Travis Miller – Morningstar Research Okay. Got it. Thanks so much and congratulations on the work that you’ve done while you’re at PG – PSE&G. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thank you, Travis. Next question? Operator The next question is from Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank. Please proceed with your question. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Yes, good morning and my congratulations to Caroline. Thank you for your help. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thank you. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. But just first could we get – maybe get an update on the gas main replacement program case? If I’m not wrong the first round of settlement talks, which happened in July; didn’t seem there was a whole lot of opposition in the hearings. So, any updated thoughts on when we might see that come to a head? Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Yes, Jonathan. Thanks for your question. As you know, settlement discussions are confidential, so we can’t give you a lot of detail. It’s encouraging now that we’ve had them. And our hope really is that by yearend or at the very latest that early in 2016, we would have this resolved. As you correctly noted, it’s something that state recognizes need to be done. The interventions in the case are not many nor has there been any surprises. And I think lowering the supply tariff from $0.45 to $0.40 in October just once again points out the wisdom of doing this now. So as I mentioned – as we’ve done visits with folks I think that the debate and the arm-wrestling will be around the length of the program and the size, but we went out of our way to file conditions that were identical to what was approved at Energy Strong and that was approved only 14 months ago. Interest rates are exactly where they were then and return expectations are exactly where they were then. So right now my number one nemesis is summer vacations, just so we’ll – I think we have a couple of more settlement dates thus far on the calendar for the fall and we’re well on our way to spending the $250 million for gas that was in Energy Strong that goes through early 2016. So we wouldn’t be able – even if we had an agreement today we wouldn’t be able to add a bunch of new work in the next couple of weeks anyway. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Is there – do you see a path or route that – where it might wrap up before these fall dates or is that unlikely? Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer No, that’s possible, I wouldn’t want to bet anything that I hold near and dear to my heart on that. What we really want to do is just make sure we get this done well in advance of running out of the Energy Strong money, so we don’t have to demobilize the contractor workforce, so we don’t put pencils down on the engineering. So we just have a continuous flow and so if we got it done in the fall, that would certainly ensure that. If we get it done by the end of the year, we should be able to do that. If it gets done early in 2016, then we create a bunch of inefficiencies that the customers end up paying which we’d rather avoid. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay. Great. And then one of the topic, just strategically you’ve always been of the view that the retail business is not somewhere you want to be. But we did notice one of your merchant power peers, who have been of the similar view is evolving somewhat in that direction this quarter and citing poor liquidity in the forecast. I was just wondering whether you’re seeing similar challenges in terms of hedging and whether there might be any change of thought on your part on the same. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer So, I don’t want to send off shockwaves in the third quarter call, I’m not a big fan of retail but my short answer to your question is a qualified yes. I do think that given challenges in hedging and matching those hedges was asset locations and some of the basic challenges one has seen, the effectiveness of hedges has to be taken into consideration in terms of whether or not some consideration has to be given to that. So, I don’t know the details behind what Calpine did, but I can certainly understand why they would think of that given the diminishing liquidity and the effectiveness of hedges in terms of where the consumption is and where the supply is and where one hedges relative to those two. So – but again please don’t interpret this to expect any announcement in the next few days that PSEG is launching into the retail business, but it is something that we’re looking at now. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. That you’re at least exploring some options on that front there. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Right, yeah. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer And mostly – (45:20) from a defensive posture about how do we maximize the effect of our power business as opposed to retail being a new growth strategy or anything of that… Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay, nice. Thank you. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Next question? Operator The next question is from Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Hey, guys. Congrats, and Caroline, congrats on your announcement. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thank you, Michael. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. One question on CP. Everybody, most people have been pretty bullish in terms of what the impact of CP would be. From a contrarian standpoint, what’s the bear case? Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer I have no idea. I’m sorry, Michael. Caroline and I are looking at each other and like, no, you take it. No, I don’t – so well, I guess I will default to our usual we don’t forecast bullish or bearish prices. I guess the good news is today is July 31 and in 21 days we’ll know the outcome. But I don’t mean to be flip, I mean the bear case would be massive injection of new supply with an economy growing at 2.3%, demand growing at fractions of that. You’d have to be pretty undisciplined to inject a whole bunch of new supply but I guess that would be the bear case (46:49). Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Maybe there is a bear case if you are just a single asset, but we’re a fleet, right? Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Right, right. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President So it feels like this is a good product from our perspective. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Yeah, that would be more of a bear outcome in terms of penalties that you may incur… Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Right, right. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer If you didn’t perform, right. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. How do you think about – I means lots of people talk about the potential higher bid price because lots of assets – or portfolios have kept kind of “embed” the risk of having penalties into their bid price. How about the folks like you guys who have really well performing assets? How do you think about what the potential for rewards are? If you’re on the other side, I mean this is going to be a balancing or settling type market just like New England. How do you think about preparing for what potential rewards could be, where you’re not as focused on the penalty side, but maybe you’re also focused on the – hey what’s my upside, if I’m actually the better performing units in the market and able to deliver more megawatts than what I cleared. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer So that happens in two ways, Michael. We do think about that a lot and think about what it means for us. One is I set a UCAP of 90% of what my ICAP is and I get the other 10% out of that particular unit, which successfully clear the auction. That’s candidly an asymmetric risk-reward relationship right, because the downside is the 90% that’s strung out for you, upside is the 10% of overall performance. But for somebody like us the more significant upside is in the units that don’t clear and their availability to backstop in the event that somebody else underperforms within the LDA. So we never clear 100% of our units. And when we look at our nuclear plants, they have a very low forced outage rate, our combined cycle are slightly higher but still quite low and our LM6000s – our peaking units are also very low forced outage. And so we’ll make some incremental investments in some of the units that don’t have the same type of operating profile, but I think really for us we have not only that sort of even better performance than in the past, but probably more important is the fact that we have a bunch of units that don’t clear the auction. Some of them with high forced outage rates, but will be great insurance policies going forward. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Got it. Thank you, Ralph and Caroline, much appreciated. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thank you. Next question? Operator Your next question is from Ashar Khan with Visium (49:32). Please proceed with your question. Unknown Speaker I’m sorry, my questions have been answered. Thank you. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thank you, Ashar. Next question? Operator Mr. Izzo, Ms. Dorsa, there are no further questions at this time. Please continue with your presentation or closing remarks. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Okay. Thank you, Brandy. So, we tried to do a count – I think this is Caroline’s 26th call. I’ve teamed up with her on 25, there was an August vacation I couldn’t change if I remember correctly. She is going to tire of hearing me say these things, I’m not going to tire of saying these things and I’m going to do them for every one of the different audiences that we somehow manage to find ourselves in front of. I know you’ve all met Caroline and have been impressed by what she has done for us as a company. I can only tell you that no matter how high your opinion is of her, you probably only know a fraction of what she’s done for us as a company and what she’s done for me as the leader of this company. Her presentation – preparation for these calls is just the tip of the iceberg. Her discipline, day in and day out, her knowledge of the business, her knowledge of financial markets, and while all of that isn’t superstar category, all of that pales in comparison to just what a pleasure she is to work with. (50:58) from the times when we’ve travelled around that people think that we actually like each other, but we really do like each other and I can remember the earliest days of those visits and in these calls, she would say, Ralph, you focus on the strategic issues, I’ll answer the factual questions which was her delightfully professional way of saying, Ralph, you’ll get it wrong (51:19). So Caroline, I can’t say thank you enough for our shareholders, for our investors and for me and I know I have many opportunities to repeat that in front of employees, in front of customers and various other folks. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thank you. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer So, thank you and thank you for all you’ve done. With that, we’ll wrap up the call. Hope for a hot, sticky humid weather for the balance of this summer, and we’ll see you, I’m sure, at various conferences. Thank you all for joining us today. Kathleen A. Lally – Vice President-Investor Relations Thank you, Brandy. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude your conference call for today. You may now disconnect and thank you for your participation.

WEC Energy Group (WEC) Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

WEC Energy Group, Inc. (NYSE: WEC ) Q2 2015 Earnings Call July 29, 2015 2:30 pm ET Executives Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. J. Patrick Keyes – Chief Financial Officer, Director & Executive VP, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Allen L. Leverett – President & Director, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Stephen P. Dickson – VP & Controller, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Analysts Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Brian J. Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (Broker) Andrew Bischof – Morningstar Research Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Operator Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for waiting and welcome to WEC Energy Group’s Conference Call to review the 2015 Second Quarter Results. This call is being recorded for rebroadcast and all participants are in a listen-only mode at this time. Before the conference call begins, I will read the forward-looking language. All statements in this presentation, other than historical facts, are forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties which are subject to change at any time. Such statements are based on management’s expectations at the time they are made. In addition to the assumptions and other factors referred to in connection with the statement, factors described in WEC Energy Group’s and Integrys Holding’s latest Form 10-Ks and subsequent reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by each company could cause actual results to differ materially from those contemplated. During the discussions, referenced earnings per share will be based on diluted earnings per share unless otherwise noted. After the presentation, the conference will be open to analysts for questions and answers. In conjunction with this call, WEC has posted on its website a package of detailed financial information at wecenergygroup.com. A replay of our remarks will be available approximately two hours after the conclusion of this call. And now it’s my pleasure to introduce Mr. Gale Klappa, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of WEC Energy Group. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Colleen, thank you. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us, as we review our second quarter results. As I’m sure you know, on June 29 we acquired Integrys in a $9 billion transaction to form WEC Energy Group. We now serve 4.4 million electric customers and natural gas customers across four Midwestern states. I’ll provide you with much more detail on the new company shortly, but first, as always, I’d like to introduce the members of our management team who are here with me today. We have Allen Leverett, President of WEC Energy Group; Pat Keyes, our Chief Financial Officer; Susan Martin, General Counsel; Steve Dickson, Controller; and Scott Lauber, our Treasurer. I’d also like to welcome Beth Straka, our Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications and Investor Relations. Now, many of you know Beth from her work over the past decade or so as one of the more perceptive analysts covering our industry. I want to tell you we’ve forgiven her for that, and we’re delighted that she’s with us. Turning now to the second quarter, Pat will review our financial results in detail a bit later on the call, but as you saw from our news release this morning, we reported adjusted earnings of $0.59 a share for the second quarter of this year. That compares with adjusted earnings of $0.59 a share for the second quarter of 2014. I should point out that the numbers we’re reporting to you today reflect Wisconsin Energy only. Since the acquisition closed on June 29, Integrys earnings were immaterial. Taking a very quick look now at the state of the economy, Wisconsin’s unemployment rate stood at 4.6% in June, well below the national average. Deliveries of electricity to our large commercial and industrial customers, however, excluding the iron ore mines, fell by 1.4% in the second quarter. But several sectors showed strength including plastics, printing, and food processing. Also, our small commercial and industrial segment is growing, with electricity use rising by 2.3% over the second quarter of a year ago. In addition, we continue to see an uptick in customer growth across our system. New electric service connections are up 8.2% and new natural gas installations are up 4% compared to the same time period last year. Now I’d like to spend the next few minutes discussing our plans for the future of the new WEC Energy Group. When we first considered the opportunity to acquire Integrys, we weighed it against our three important criteria for evaluating any potential acquisition. After considerable due diligence we found that it met or exceeded all three criteria. First, it would be accretive to earnings per share in the first full calendar year after closing. Second, it would be largely credit-neutral. And third, the long-term growth rate would be equal to or greater than Wisconsin Energy’s standalone growth rate. We also saw tremendous opportunity in the framework of the new company. WEC Energy Group has the scale, scope, technical depth, geographic reach, and financial resources to thrive in our consolidating industry. We plan to leverage those strengths to deliver operational and financial benefits to all of our stakeholders, from the customers and communities we serve, to the people we employ, to the shareholders who count on us to create value. And with our proven leadership team, we will incorporate best practices across the organization to streamline our operations and reduce costs. So what does our new footprint look like? Well, as I mentioned the new company provides electricity and natural gas to 4.4 million customers across four states through our customer-facing brands: We Energies, Wisconsin Public Service, Peoples Gas, North Shore Gas, Michigan Gas Utilities, and Minnesota Energy Resources. Our company operates in a balanced regulatory environment with greater jurisdictional diversity than before the acquisition. And of course, more than 99% of our earnings will come from regulated operations. WEC Energy Group is now the eighth largest natural gas distribution company in the country and one of the 15 largest investor-owned utility systems in the United States, with significant opportunities for growth. Of course, the majority of the earning assets we acquired are here in Wisconsin, a familiar landscape for us, and major infrastructure upgrades are underway now at Wisconsin Public Service in the northern part of the state. These investment opportunities are similar to those we have pursued over the years, on time and on budget, at We Energies. We are also in excellent position to take advantage of new customer growth across the region, especially in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota, where propane and oil users are continuing to convert to natural gas. In addition, as many of you know, Integrys and Wisconsin Energy were the two largest owners of American Transmission Company. Today WEC Energy Group has become a 60% owner of ATC. As you will recall, ATC plans to invest between $3.3 billion and $3.9 billion between 2014 and 2023 to bolster electric reliability in our service area. We believe this is a solid plan, and we welcome the opportunity to increase our commitment to the transmission business. Now I would like to briefly discuss some of the conditions we agreed to as we worked our way through the regulatory approvals for the acquisition. In Wisconsin, we committed to an earnings cap for our Wisconsin Electric and Wisconsin Gas subsidiaries. Starting in 2016, next year, we will share with our customers any earnings in excess of our allowed rate of return. The first 50 basis points of earnings above our authorized return will be split equally between the company and our customers. Then any earnings above that level will go exclusively to customers. This sharing mechanism will be in effect through 2018. We also agreed to develop an integrated resource plan detailing the joint capacity needs of Wisconsin Electric and Wisconsin Public Service. We expect to file the resource plan with the Wisconsin Commission later this quarter. In Michigan, as we’ve discussed on previous calls, we expect to pursue the formation of a Michigan-only utility. Our customers in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan would be served by this entity. And we expressed a willingness, if requested, to invest in a new generating plant in the Upper Peninsula and/or purchase power from a new facility. This would allow for the eventual retirement of the Presque Isle Power Plant. In Illinois, we agreed to retain a minimum level of jobs in the State of Illinois for the next two years. We also committed to a two-year base rate freeze and a capital spending floor from 2015 through 2017. In a recent development this past Friday, the Citizens Utility Board, the City of Chicago and the State Attorney General’s Office asked the Illinois Commerce Commission to rehear our merger order. These parties are seeking additional conditions, conditions that they previously requested during the year-long approval process. The Illinois Commission now has until August 13 to accept or deny the request. We believe the Commission’s June 24 decision was correct and is supported by sound principles and by an extensive body of evidence. Now let’s touch on some of the key financial metrics for the new company. For starters, as you may recall we issued $1.5 billion of parent company debt to help finance the transaction. The all-in interest cost for the debt is approximately 2.2% annually, an excellent result and clearly lower than we anticipated. So for 2016 we now project our growth in earnings per share to be in the range of 6% to 8%. The 6% to 8% growth for next year assumes that Wisconsin Energy standalone achieves earnings of $2.72 a share this year, which is the midpoint of our current 2015 guidance. So, just to clarify, we start with a base of $2.72 a share for our standalone earnings this year, and we expect the combined company to grow earnings per share in the 6% to 8% range next year. For the longer term, after 2016 we see earnings per share growth of 5% to 7% annually, driven by operating efficiency, financial discipline, and infrastructure investments that the region needs for reliability and for improved environmental performance. We look forward to providing you with additional details on our capital investment plans at the EEI Finance Conference coming up in November. Regarding our dividend policy, in June, the Wisconsin Energy Board of Directors raised the quarterly dividend to $0.4575 a share. That’s an increase of 8.3% over the previous quarterly rate. This is equivalent to an annual rate of $1.83 a share. Going forward we will target a payout ratio of 65% to 70% of earnings. And we expect dividend growth to be in line with growth in earnings per share. Switching gears now, I’d like to update you on several of our major construction projects. On the generation side of our business, as you may recall, we’re working to add fuel flexibility at our Oak Creek expansion units as part of our ongoing Power the Future initiative. These units were initially permitted to burn bituminous coal; however, given the current cost differential between bituminous coal and Powder River Basin coal, blending the two types of fuel could save our customers between $25 million and $50 million a year depending upon the blend. During extensive testing, we identified operational and equipment-related improvements that will be needed to sustain the higher blends of PRB coal on a long-term basis. In May, the Wisconsin Commission approved our requests for additional capital spending for plant modifications, expansion of all of our coal storage capacity, and additional coal handling equipment. We’ve already started work to expand our coal storage capability, and the first in-plant capital improvements are expected to be made on the first unit at Oak Creek, the Oak Creek expansion, during a planned outage this September. We plan to upgrade the second unit during the first quarter of 2016. Our share of these investments is targeted at approximately $80 million. Next, the conversion of our Valley Power Plant from coal to natural gas. That conversion is now more than 80% complete. Total conversion costs are expected to be in the $60 million to $65 million range, excluding allowance for funds used during construction. We expect to complete the project on time and on budget before the end of this year. Our Western Wisconsin natural gas expansion project, which will address natural gas reliability concerns in the western part of the state, is now more than 75% complete and is running on time and better than budget. We expect to complete this new 85-mile natural gas pipeline in the fourth quarter of this year at a cost actually well below the $175 million budget, a budget that again excludes allowance for funds used during construction. Looking forward, we continue to see significant investment opportunities in Wisconsin Energy’s traditional business as we upgrade our aging distribution networks and focus on Delivering the Future. Just to remind you, Wisconsin Energy’s standalone capital budget calls for spending $3.3 billion to $3.5 billion over the five-year period 2015 through 2019, and our 10-year standalone capital budget calls for investing between $6.6 billion and $7.2 billion over the period 2015 through 2024. Now before I turn the call over to Pat, I would also like to discuss our plans for the accelerated main replacement program at Peoples Gas in Chicago. Just to refresh your memory, this is one of the largest infrastructure modernization programs in the country. The program calls for the replacement of approximately 2,000 miles of Chicago’s aging gas pipeline system over the next 20 years. Some of these pipes, ladies and gentlemen, literally date back to the time of the Civil War. One of our immediate and most important goals is to improve the management and performance of this project. Our first step was to appoint a new senior management team at Peoples: a new President, a new Vice President for construction, a new operations Vice President, and a new Vice President for customer service. All of them are proven, experienced leaders from the Wisconsin Energy system. Over the past three weeks, our team has conducted a thorough evaluation of the accelerated main replacement program. They have determined that the best approach is a fresh start. We have begun transitioning the management of the project to in-house personnel; previously the project was managed by an outside contractor. Going forward, we also plan to engage a nationally recognized firm to help conduct an independent, bottom-up review of the cost, scope, and schedule for the program. This past Monday we notified the Illinois Commerce Commission of our decisions, and we will incorporate these decisions into a broader transition plan. This broader transition plan will address the recommendations made by Liberty Consulting Group in their audit of the program. The Liberty audit was completed earlier this year at the request of the Illinois Commerce Commission. I am confident that the steps we are taking will ensure that Chicagoans get the safe, modern natural gas delivery system that they deserve. In conclusion, these are exciting times, filled with opportunity for our new combined company and we believe we have a very bright future ahead. We will build an enduring enterprise by focusing on the fundamentals: world-class reliability, operating efficiency, financial discipline, and exceptional customer care. And now for more details on our second quarter performance and our outlook for the remainder of 2015, here’s our Chief Financial Officer, Pat Keyes. Pat. J. Patrick Keyes – Chief Financial Officer, Director & Executive VP, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Thank you, Gale. As Gale mentioned, our 2015 second quarter adjusted earnings were $0.59 a share. That’s the same as our adjusted earnings for the corresponding quarter in 2014. Costs related to the acquisition of Integrys Energy reduced earnings by $0.24 per share in the second quarter of 2015 and $0.01 per share in the second quarter of 2014. Because of the timing of the acquisition, earnings results this quarter are exclusively from Wisconsin Energy. Going forward, our consolidated earnings will include the operating results of the Integrys companies. Please note that the balance sheet included in this quarter’s earnings package does incorporate the Integrys balance sheet. Consistent with past practice, I will discuss operating income for Wisconsin Energy’s two business segments, and then discuss other income, interest expense, and income taxes. Excluding acquisition related costs, second quarter consolidated operating income was $232.5 million, as compared with $245.8 million in 2014. That’s a decline of $13.3 million. Starting with the utility energy segment, operating income in the second quarter totaled $140.4 million for 2015, a decline of $14.8 million from the second quarter of 2014. On a quarter-over-quarter basis, our earnings were helped by $9.5 million because of the impacts of the 2015 rate case and by $3.4 million related to improved fuel recoveries. On the downside, we saw an increase in utility operations and maintenance costs of $18.5 million, primarily driven by increased regulatory amortizations, the timing of projects, and certain benefit costs. We estimate that weather reduced our margins by $4.8 million and we also saw increased depreciation expense of $4.2 million. Combining these and other factors results in the $14.8 million decline in utility operating income in the second quarter of 2015, compared with the same quarter in the prior year. Operating income in our non-utility energy segment was $93.5 million, which is $1.8 million higher than the prior year. Our corporate and other segment, which includes corporate costs of smaller affiliates, was essentially flat with last year’s second quarter. Taking the changes for these segments together, you arrive at the second-quarter operating income before acquisition-related costs of $232.5 million, a $13.3 million decline as compared to the second quarter of 2014. In addition, for the second quarter of 2015 we recognized $66.7 million of acquisition-related costs associated with benefit plan agreements, legal and banking fees, and other costs. Overall these costs were in line with our expectations. During the second quarter of 2015, earnings from our investment in American Transmission Company totaled $14.3 million, a decline of $3.2 million from the same period in the prior year. As we mentioned in the first quarter, ATC has established reserves in light of recent appeals to the FERC related to authorized returns for regional transmission organizations. Our earnings reflect Wisconsin Energy’s share of ATC’s results. Our other income net increased by $18 million. During the second quarter of 2015, we recognized an incremental gain of $15.2 million on the sale of the legacy asset. The purchase and sale of assets is a regular part of our business. In fact, we have a real estate development subsidiary, and this quarter’s sale was part of our financial plan for the year. Our net interest expense increased by $3.1 million, primarily because of higher debt levels. Consolidated income tax expense fell by $11.1 million for the quarter. Going forward, WEC Energy Group’s annual effective income tax rate, driven by a one-time adjustment related to the acquisition of Integrys, is expected to be between 38% and 39% in 2015. We expect that Wisconsin Energy’s standalone effective tax rate for 2015 will be between 37% 38%. Combining all of these items brings you to the adjusted net income of $0.59 per share for the second quarter of 2015. During the first six months of 2015, our operating cash flows totaled $715.9 million, which is a $5.4 million decrease from the first six months of 2014. During 2015, we contributed $100 million to our pension plans; no such contributions were made during 2014. Operating cash flows were helped by improved working capital. For example, lower natural gas prices dropped accounts receivable balances and reduced the cost of gas and storage. Our capital expenditures totaled $356.5 million in the first six months of 2015, a $51 million increase compared to 2014. The increase was primarily driven by the increased expenditures related to the western gas lateral. Our adjusted debt to capital ratio as of June 30th, 2015 was 50.7%. This ratio reflects the Integrys acquisition, treating half of WEC Energy Group’s hybrid securities as common equity, which is consistent with past presentations. We continue to use cash to satisfy any shares required for our 401(k) plan, options, and other programs. Going forward, we do not expect to issue any additional shares. We paid $190.5 million in common dividends in the first six months of 2015. That’s an increase of $14.5 million over the same period last year. Weather normalized retail deliveries of electricity fell by 1.3% in the second quarter of 2015 as compared to the second quarter of 2014. Actual second quarter deliveries fell by 1.6%. Looking now at the individual customer segments, we saw weather-normalized residential deliveries drop by 3.8%. Actual residential deliveries fell 5%. Across our small commercial industrial group, weather-normal quarterly deliveries rose by 2.4%. Actual deliveries rose by 2.3%. In the large commercial industrial segment, deliveries for the second quarter of 2015 fell by 2.5%. Excluding the iron ore mines, large commercial and industrial deliveries fell by 1.4%. Our year-to-date weather-normalized retail gas deliveries, excluding the gas used for power generation, were flat compared to the same period in 2014. Our actual gas deliveries, again excluding the gas used for power generation, were down 7.2% compared to the polar vortex driven gas sales last year. Our overall results for gas and electric sales in the first six months of 2015 are slightly behind our expectations for the year. Turning now to our earnings forecasts, for the remainder of 2015 we will continue to guide based on standalone Wisconsin Energy earnings. As Gale mentioned, our long-term earnings per share growth rate is based upon these standalone earnings. We will therefore make the following adjustments to the WEC Energy Group GAAP earnings. Number one, remove the impact of Integrys; number two, remove the impact of acquisition debt. As Gale noted previously, we funded the 1.5 billion cash portion of the acquisition with $1.2 billion of long-term debt and $300 million of commercial paper. This long-term debt included 3, 5, and 10-year tranches. Overall, our debt has an approximate interest cost of 2.2% annually. Number three, remove the impact of acquisition and other one-time costs such as banking and legal fees. Number four, modify effective tax rates to remove the impact of the one-time adjustment I just referred to earlier. And finally, number five, remove the impact of the additional shares issued as part of the acquisition. With that, we’ll move to our 2015 guidance. We are reaffirming our 2015 standalone adjusted guidance of $2.67 a share to $2.77 a share. We are off to a strong start, but still have six months of weather ahead of us. Again, we are reaffirming our standalone adjusted guidance of $2.67 a share to $2.77 a share. And finally let’s take a look at third quarter guidance. Last year’s third quarter adjusted earnings were $0.57 a share, which excludes $0.01 a share related to our acquisition of Integrys. Similar to last year, our summer got off to a very slow start this year, with temperatures significantly below normal during the first 10 days of July. So taking this July weather into account, we expect our third quarter 2015 adjusted earnings to be in a range of $0.56 to $0.58 a share. That assumes normal weather for the rest of the quarter and excludes any remaining transition-related costs. Once again, our third quarter 2015 adjusted guidance is $0.56 to $0.58 a share. And with that I will turn things back to Gale. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Pat, thank you very much. Appreciate the detail and the clarity. And overall, folks, we’re solidly on track and focused on delivering value for our customers and our stockholders. Question-and-Answer Session Operator And now we would like to take your questions. Your first question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS. Please go ahead. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Good afternoon, Julien. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Afternoon to you. Congrats on closing the deal finally, not too bad. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. All right, we’ll see later this week. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Indeed we will. So perhaps the first question here out of the gate, the 5% to 7% earnings growth rate, when you are thinking about that in the context of this transaction being closed, how are you thinking about the trajectory in 2016 and reflecting some of the improvement, hopefully, in the earned ROEs across the legacy Integrys platform? And perhaps maybe could you remind us or refresh our memory of where the earned ROEs stand today, just for some background if you will. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Sure, I’d be happy to. Let me first start with the initial part of your question. How do we think about the trajectory of earnings going forward here now that we have closed the acquisition? As you may have heard me say on the script, given everything we see today and given the terrific result that we got in terms of the annual interest cost on the parent company debt, we are projecting 2016 to have a growth rate over our standalone 2015 guidance, the midpoint of that guidance. So we are projecting 2016 to grow 6% to 8%. And then post 2016 we still see a 5% to 7% growth rate. There are a couple of important underlying assumptions that we are making and that we really feel very good about delivering related to the growth rate. The first is that we believe we can through best practices, through cost reduction, through financial discipline, and through on-time and on-budget investing in the infrastructure upgrades that are needed, we believe we can move all of the utilities that are the former Integrys utilities at or near the allowed rates of return in Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota, and of course WPS in Wisconsin. So that’s a pretty important underlying assumption. And to your question of, well, where were the allowed rates of return for those utilities? Just a reminder that We Energies and Wisconsin Gas have historically earned at or very close to and in some years slightly above the allowed rates of return. With that, Pat has the specific numbers on where the other Integrys utilities have been from an ROE standpoint. Pat? J. Patrick Keyes – Chief Financial Officer, Director & Executive VP, WEC Energy Group, Inc. So, Julien, let’s start with the two biggest ones. Wisconsin Public Service last year earned just above 10%; and as a reminder its authorized was 10.2%, so just underneath allowed. The second biggest or the other big one would be Peoples Gas. That last year was about 5%, and that’s out of an allowed 9%. Then the other three utilities last year – that would be North Shore, Minnesota, and Michigan, two of the three hit; one was beneath, but the year before, the one that missed hit and another one didn’t. So they’re more or less maybe slightly underneath on average is probably the simplest way to state that. Does that help? Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Absolutely, that’s great. And perhaps just getting back to my question a little bit more broadly, as you think about 2016 to 2017, are you earning a full year earned ROE? Just I’m trying to think about some of the continued benefits as you flow that forward, right. So thinking about the 5% to 7% in conjunction with what is likely – I don’t want to put words in your mouth too much – but what is likely still an annualizing factor into that higher level, I would imagine. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. I’m not sure I exactly followed you, but perhaps I can answer. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Or are you expecting to earn a full year at or near the ROEs in 2016 already, just to be clear about that, or is there an annualizing factor? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Starting in 2016 we are expecting to earn a full-year annualized rate of return, yes. And let me help with that one piece, because you’re probably wondering like, well, how do you go from 5% to 9% at Peoples Gas? That’s a very good question, Julien. I’m glad you asked it. Peoples Gas did get a resolution of a rate case in January of this year, and I believe the allowed increase was $71 million. A lot of that, Julien, was for catch-up capital that had already been invested in the infrastructure in Chicago. So the fact that a rate case has been adjudicated and they are seeing the benefit of the $71 million increase is helpful on that front. I hope that’s helpful to you. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC It is indeed. And sorry to belabor it, just one last one in terms of the integrated resource plan. How are you thinking about that now? Obviously there was some shifts in the gas generation plans earlier. What is the current expectation vis-à-vis load growth as you stand today, as you close the deal? Would you expect a shift back in generation resources meaningfully from what has been discussed through the course of this merger approval? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Let me try the first piece and then we’re going to let Allen give you the detail on the integrated resource plan that we’ll be filing later this quarter with the Wisconsin Commission. Long story short, there is no change in terms of our long-term demand growth projection. Wisconsin Public Service and our company have pretty similar demand growth projections going forward, roughly 0.05% a year basically in electricity demand growth. Our belief, though, when you look at the portfolio of generation that the two companies have together, our belief is there can be some real synergies there. Allen? Allen L. Leverett – President & Director, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Right, and just review for everyone, Julien, who might not know the Fox Energy Center, which is a plant that’s owned by Wisconsin Public Service, before agreeing to the merger with Wisconsin Energy they had planned to build a facility called Fox 3, which was going to be a natural gas fired combined-cycle unit. And then as Gale mentioned in the script, essentially what the Commission said is: Well, all right, look at the resources at both of your Wisconsin utilities and tell us overall whether that unit is still needed. So, Julien, what we’ve been able to do to date, we’ve looked just simply at what I guess I would call the capacity demand balance between the two utilities. If we look solely at the capacity demand balance, my expectation would be that you can easily defer Fox unit 3 for a number of years. The analysis that we are doing to go in addition to that capacity and demand is a bit of an energy analysis, if you will. If you look at the energy mix of the two utilities, my expectation is that it will confirm the capacity demand balance and that the unit will be deferred. But that’s what we’re in the process of doing. And then as Gale mentioned in the third quarter we’ll do a formal filing to the Wisconsin Commission along those lines. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. And Julien, the Fox 3 was estimated to be about a $600 million capital investment, which again based on our preliminary look we believe can be deferred. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Great. Thank you for all the color. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. You are more than welcome. Good questions Julien. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Appreciate it. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Greg Gordon with Evercore ISI. Please go ahead. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. All right, Greg. I want to give you a shot here. Are the Jets going to be above .500? Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Based on the strength of schedule, I’m going to say yes. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. All right. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Not necessarily based on the talent, on the team, but based on the strength of the schedule. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. And any kind of playoff expectations, Greg? Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Well, there’s always hope. Jets are used to having a lot of that. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Well, I hope it’s a good season for you. How are you doing, Greg? Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Good. I just want to cut to the chase and just make sure I hear you clearly. Making all the adjustments you guys laid out, you were very articulate. We should expect you to still be inside the guidance range pre-Integrys. And then we should expect on a full run rate, merger-integrated basis for fiscal year 2016 that you will grow 6% to 8% earnings off that number? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. That is correct. You’ve nailed it. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Okay, perfect. So you’ve taken into account everything that’s going on including the one-time impact of this legacy asset sale. You think that everything in the stewpot, that’s a number you can hit? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. We’re certainly expecting to do so. But let me mention this one-time thing you mentioned about the one-time legacy asset sale. We have with the combined company like $29 billion of assets. I think every year, Greg, since I’ve been here we’ve had some type of asset sale. And remember we also have a real estate subsidiary that develops and sells property. So it’s part of our ongoing, it’s just part of what we do. And I would suspect you want us to do this, because it’s part of maximizing the value of our assets. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI No, completely understand. I just wanted to be clear on it. My second question is as we think about your cash flow profile, pro forma for the deal, still superior and differentiating factor about your investment thesis relative to almost any other utility, given the robust cash flow nature of the Power the Future assets. How should we think about the cash flow deployment priorities of the company as they are built into that 6% to 8%, going to 5% to 7%, expectation? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. In terms of the cash flow priorities, number 1 through 10 is obviously investing in infrastructure upgrades that are very much needed for customers across the four states. And as I mentioned at the EEI Fall Finance Conference, we’ll give you a lot more granular detail particularly about our next three- to five-year capital investment program. But we see tremendous need and tremendous opportunity for the use of that cash flow to upgrade the electric and natural gas infrastructures in the region. So that’s priority number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 for the cash flow. And then obviously we want to maintain the 65% to 70% target for dividend payouts. And if there’s any cash left over, well, we’ve got three doors we can go through. One is debt reduction. One would be if we can find, legitimately, additional investment opportunities and additional infrastructure projects. And then the third would be where we were before, which is a share buyback. But I would hope that and really am very hopeful that there will be additional investment opportunities that are really needed and that we can put that cash to really good use through infrastructure upgrades. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Okay, great. Just to be clear, are there any specific commitments vis-à-vis the current rating and the discussions you’ve had with the rating agencies on how you’re going to manage the parent debt balance over the next few years? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Pat? I’ll let Pat answer that. J. Patrick Keyes – Chief Financial Officer, Director & Executive VP, WEC Energy Group, Inc. What we talked about, Greg, was the reason we tranched the acquisition debt is that our expectation is that as each tranche matures or comes to its end, we will have sufficient cash flow to be able to not renew that tranche. So in other words we plan to take it out. In addition to that I might add that we’re also looking at what I’m just going to call balance sheet cleanup or looking at some of the other debt that is sitting out there at the Holding Company and what opportunities we’ve got to clean some of that up as well. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Perfect. Thanks, guys. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Great, questions. Thank you, Greg. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Good afternoon, guys. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. How are you doing, Jonathan? Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. You just reiterated the 65% to 75% dividend payout target, Gale. And you obviously bumped it a little bit more than you were committed to post the merger. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Yes. We thought you would like that, Jonathan. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Right. My question is it looks like the payout of the midpoint of the 2016 guidance is going to be 63%. How soon do you want to get in the range? You’ve typically done December increases. How should we think about that range versus what you’ve just been discussing around investment priorities? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Well, it’s a question we will continue to look at between now and the end of the year. But certainly in the relatively near term, we very much want to be at least in the bottom end of the 65% to 70% range. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay. Then what would push you I guess broadly as you look at the earnings for the quarter, into (39:27) to the higher end of that long-term growth rate? Do you have a line of sight on what kind of things we should be looking for you to announce? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Very good question. Let me frame the answer; if Pat or Allen would like to add, I would certainly welcome them to do so. Let me frame the answer for you. There is not one single thing that could pop us to the top end of the range on a permanent basis. But if you think about our business and where we’re headed, there are several factors, the biggest of which would be increased investment opportunity or increased investment requirement that we build on time and on budget and get cost recovery for. That would be the single biggest thing. In between rate cases, if you have an economic pickup and there’s stronger sales growth, there are a number of things that can happen in between rate periods. But the single biggest factor that could drive us to the top end would be additional investment opportunities in infrastructure upgrades. Pat, Allen, anything you would like to add? J. Patrick Keyes – Chief Financial Officer, Director & Executive VP, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Well, I got just a couple things I could throw in, Jonathan. I think Gale hit the main one, but other things I would think about would be opportunity sales that would help us on the fuel recovery, to the extent that our fleet is called more by the MISO. And the other would be hitting some, we talked about our ATC 10 year capital plan and the range it could be in. You are also familiar with our joint venture with Duke, the DATC. To the extent that some of those projects hit or we get to the top higher end of that capital plan, that would also help. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. That’s a good point, Pat. So it all comes down – well, it doesn’t all, but a lot of it comes down to: are there additional investment opportunities as we go forward beyond the plan that we’ll be pretty granular about with you at EEI in the fall. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Great. If I may, just on one other point, you talked about having filed with the ICC to tell them you’re going to have a rethink around the main replacement program. Does that include some proposal for how to resolve the ongoing investigation? Or is that a separate issue? Any perspective on how we bring that to closure? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. It’s a very good question. Let me be clear about the ongoing dockets. There’s one very helpful ongoing docket. And let me back up and explain that. The commission, before we got involved with the potential acquisition, the commission brought in an outside consulting group by the name of Liberty Consulting to basically do a review of the management, the physical on-the-ground management of the gas main replacement project. Liberty has come back with 95 specific recommendations, most of which are very practical and all of which we agree with. So what the commission has done is they’ve kept that docket open and they’ve asked us by September, early September, to file a transition plan that in part lays out how we plan to incorporate those recommendations into our management of the program. So, I think a lot of what you’re asking about has a schedule and has a definite plan for resolution. But I view the Liberty Consulting report as very helpful and certainly I know the commission has a good bit of faith in the recommendations. The recommendations are very practical. They are recommendations that we would automatically have put into our transition plan anyway. And so I think that’s the way, as we take a step back and re-look the entire project from soup to nuts, from scope to schedule, to logistics, we will be incorporating the Liberty audits along the way and Liberty will also have input along the way. So, again, a schedule and a date has been set for us telling the commission how we plan to incorporate the Liberty recommendations and I think that will go a long way, in addition to the expertise that we’re going to bring to this project. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay, great. Thank you, Gale. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. You’re welcome. Operator The next question comes from the line of Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Hi, Michael. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Hey, Gale, congrats on the deal. Congrats on getting everything closed and rolling out new guidance. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Thank you. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. One question, though. I know you are starting from the base of a $2.72 midpoint for WEC standalone. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Right. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. I’m just trying to put apples – I’m worried we are comparing apples and oranges here. Because Integrys has a large gas utility presence; that means it generates or delivers a decent amount of its annual earnings in the fourth quarter. And just are you thinking that the second half of this year that Integrys would actually have contributed to our EPS? Or would it have detracted from EPS from the original standalone entity? Because a lot will depend on what your starting point is and the starting point here is a little confusing. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. No, I’m glad you asked the question. Let us answer it very directly. First of all, yes, we’re picking up a lot of gas, gas delivery companies. And yes, they generally have a pretty good fourth quarter. They also have a lousy third quarter simply because of lack of gas demand. But let’s step back here. A couple factors. First of all, the financial logic for the acquisition was that an acquisition that we would want to make, like the Integrys acquisition, would add to our earnings per share growth in the first full calendar year after closing. So, that’s 2016. So, I think the logical starting point is okay; well, what would you have done standalone 2015? What would your growth rate standalone have been 2016? And is this better than that? And the answer is yes, it’s better than that. So, I think if it’s making any sense to you, Michael, I think we’re starting with the correct starting point. But I would like to add one other factor and that is in the second half of this year there will be significant accounting adjustments. A lot of accounting noise around the acquisition, as you even saw in our second quarter adjustments. So really the GAAP numbers for Integrys, the Integrys utilities for the second half of 2015 are really going to be irrelevant to the long-run earnings capability of Integrys utilities going forward. Does that help, Michael? Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. It helps. Let me ask another follow-on question, and I can catch up with your IR team or Pat offline. When you think about how far you are in the process of evaluating things like synergy opportunities or other opportunities to benefit – I mean, merger has only been closed for not quite 30 days, actually right at 30 days. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Right. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. How early in the process do you think you are? And do you think there is upside to whatever it is you are assuming today in potential long run, multiyear benefits from the merger? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Very good question, Michael. Let me just say this. We are less than 30 days in. Right now we are very much on target in terms of our plan for follow-on integration. Everybody understands where they report. Everyone has budget targets for 2016. And we are in the process of working through every single functional area to determine where we go and what the shape of their organizations look like. So it’s a little early to give you much more granular detail, but let me back up. There’s nothing that we’ve seen that would indicate that our earlier thinking and information we’ve said publicly, there’s nothing to indicate that that’s off-track. I would expect that over the 10 years there will be a minimum of $1 billion of savings for Wisconsin customers alone in a combination of capital and operating costs. And that to me still stands as a good preliminary early estimate. So we’ll keep working on it, but right now I feel very good about where we are. And let me back-up to your earlier question again. Remember the $2.72 that we’re talking about as the base for 2015 is Wisconsin Energy standalone. So we’re basically taking out either a positive or negative impact of Integrys utilities for the second half of the year, to give you a clean starting point, if you will that was basically the foundation for the logic of the acquisition. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Understood. I appreciate the help, guys. I may follow up offline. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Okay, great. Thank you, Michael. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Thanks, Gale. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Jim von Riesemann with Mizuho Securities. Please go ahead. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Welcome, Jim. How are you? James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. I’m tired. How are you? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Tired? What, you’ve been listening to the Southern call too long? James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Yep, that’s and I’m on an airplane back from Tokyo. Hey, I have a couple questions for you. I’m confused and I’m having a little translation issue. Can you translate how much the operating efficiencies mean on a dollar basis? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. I’m sorry, one more time? James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. I tried to avoid the S word. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Thank you. Have we translated how much the operating efficiencies mean on a dollar basis? James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Yeah. You talk about robust operating efficiencies. What does that mean on a dollar basis? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. That means basically getting to our allowed rates of return and staying there for 2016 and beyond. James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Okay. I get it, I get it. Second question, totally different is, with all the noise that’s going on in the State of Illinois, can you talk about the legal precedent for changing conditions once a merger has been actually, you have an order and it has been consummated? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Well, generally in all past cases, for the Illinois Commerce Commission to change its order, there generally would need to be new facts or some demonstration of an error in the facts that form the basis for the merger order. In this case, none of us see new facts or errors in fact. As a matter of fact, the Attorney General’s Office, CUB and the City of Chicago really didn’t indicate in any way, shape, or form that there were any new facts or that there were any facts in error. So again we believe the Commission’s decision was very sound, well thought through, and supported by a significant body of evidence. James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Okay. And are you guys going to give out any 2015 consolidated guidance? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. No. Nope. I really think it’s kind of meaningless, to be honest with you. And the accounting noise around the second half of 2015 with the adjustments, et cetera, I think it would just make your head swim. To me the most important thing is: are we delivering what we said we would from the acquisition, which is growth over and above our 4% to 6% standalone growth. And what was our basis for starting? And that’s the 2015 midpoint of $2.72 a share standalone. James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Okay. Well, then let me ask you this question. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Okay. James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. If you raise the number 6% to 8% 2016 versus standalone, what prevents you from going 6% to 8% in say, 2017 and beyond? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Well, what would prevent us from doing that? First of all we’d have to have a plan that we would be comfortable with that would produce a 6% to 8%. And at this point in time, 29 days in, this is what we feel comfortable with and what we believe we can deliver. James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Okay. So wait for EEI is what you’re saying? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. I wouldn’t expect that you’re going to see an earnings guidance change at EEI. What you will see, though, is much more granular detail on our capital spending plans that drive the earnings growth. James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Great, okay. Thank you. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. You are welcome Jim. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Brian Russo with Ladenburg Thalmann. Please go ahead. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Hi, Brian. Brian J. Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (Broker) Hi, good afternoon. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Good afternoon. How are you today? Brian J. Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (Broker) Good thanks. A lot of my questions were asked. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. I’ve gotten you from bad the last time to good. Next time you will be wonderful and award-winning. Brian J. Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (Broker) Right, right. Just real quickly, what is the upcoming general rate case strategy and timing for the Wisconsin utility subs? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Okay. Well, for Wisconsin Electric if you recall we just completed our rate case last December, so our rates with future looking test years are set for 2015 and 2016. So under the normal course with the Wisconsin Commission really liking its utilities to file for a case every two years, under the normal course we would file for Wisconsin Electric in the spring of 2016 for rates that would go into effect January 1 of 2017. So that is Wisconsin Electric. Same thing applies for Wisconsin Gas. For Wisconsin Public Service, they are actually in the midst of a rate case right now, and we would expect a rate case decision as usual from the Wisconsin Commission by November or December of this year. Brian J. Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (Broker) Got it. Okay. That’s all I had. Thank you. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Okay. Thank you, Brian. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Andy Bischof with Morningstar. Please go ahead. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Hello, Andy, how are you? Andrew Bischof – Morningstar Research Wonderful and award-winning. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. All right. Rock ‘n roll. You haven’t seen the lion down there, have you? Andrew Bischof – Morningstar Research No, not yet. We are in Chicago so he hasn’t come down our way yet. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Okay. Well be careful. Andrew Bischof – Morningstar Research Just a real quick maintenance question. In terms of rate case earnings benefits in the latter half of the year, should they be similar to the $24 million in the first half? Or first quarter was a little bit higher than the second quarter? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. In terms of the Wisconsin Electric rate case benefits, guys, no? Okay, Steve, we will ask you to cover that. Stephen P. Dickson – VP & Controller, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Yeah. So you are referring during the earnings package we’ve got for the quarter rate case netted to $9.5 million. And what that represents is going into the rate case last year when the rates were set effective January 1, the Wisconsin Commission assumed a certain level of SSR revenues. And what has happened is that the SSR, we reached an agreement with the State of Michigan and those stopped. But in the Wisconsin rate case we are allowed to have the incremental revenues associated with that. So if you remember last year in the SSRs, the first half of the year the SSRs were based on the suspension. And then later in the year it went to the retirement SSRs. And so the dollar amount was greater in the latter part of the year. So the short answer is you will not see this big a benefit in the last part of the year, but you’ll see a little bit of benefit. Does that make sense? Andrew Bischof – Morningstar Research Yeah, I think so. I might follow-up off-line, but that’s all I had. Thank you. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. All right. Thank you. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Paul Ridzon with KeyBanc. Please go ahead. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Greetings, Paul. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Greetings, Gale. How are you? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. We are good. We’d like it a little hotter, a little more humid, but we are good. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. I will work on that. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. All right. Thank you. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. What’s the rate base at Peoples Gas? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. I’m sorry, one more time with the question? Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. What is rate base at Peoples Gas? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Rate base at Peoples Gas? I’m looking at Pat. I think it’s $1.8 billion. J. Patrick Keyes – Chief Financial Officer, Director & Executive VP, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Yes. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Okay. And about a 50-50 cap structure? J. Patrick Keyes – Chief Financial Officer, Director & Executive VP, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Yes. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Yes, that is correct. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Then just to make sure I understand it, combined 2016 earnings should be 6% to 8% growth off of standalone $2.72? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. You’ve got it. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Those were all my questions. Thank you very much. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. You’re more than welcome. J. Patrick Keyes – Chief Financial Officer, Director & Executive VP, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Thank you. Operator Your last question comes from the line of Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Please go ahead. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Last but not least, Paul. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC How you doing? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Good. How are you? Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC All right. You mentioned that there were going to be some substantial accounting adjustments in the second half of the year. I was just wondering if you could just give us a little bit of a preview what you are expecting to happen there? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Sure. And I will ask Steve Dickson, our controller, and Scott Lauber, our treasurer, if they have anything to add. But essentially as you know, in any acquisition – we’re not immune from this – one of the things that has to be done is purchase price adjustments. Generally you get a year to do that. But when you close this early in the year the SEC would like you to button down many of the purchase price adjustments of the time of the filing of the 10-K, which would be early, early next year. So one of the major amount of accounting work that has to be done is all the purchase price adjustment work. Then I’m certain there will be some one-time transition type costs, and there’s a whole slew of different types of costs that would be one-time costs that we would incur in the second half of this year. For example, we want to get an improvement in call center responsiveness for a number of the Integrys utilities; there will be some one-time costs to that. Pat tells me that there are software licensing costs that we will incur that would be one-time nonrecurring in the second half of this year. We could go on with a list of 30 or 40 of these things that are all transition costs that would be non-recurring. But that gives you a flavor. Steve, would you like to add anything? Stephen P. Dickson – VP & Controller, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Yeah. The only thing I’ll add, I think you nailed the transition related costs. And I’ll go back to the previous question, is we will report GAAP costs at the end of the year; but then as Pat mentioned, we’re going to strip out. We’re going to make an accounting adjustment to strip off the Integ (58:22) earnings, we’re going to strip off the acquisition debt, we’re going to strip off the additional shares associated with that to get back to the WEC standalone. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. Just to follow-up on this, though, so it sounds like there’s going to be a lot of charges. Do we have any sense as to what the quantity of those one-timers is going to be? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Not yet. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. We’ll certainly have a much better feel for that when we see you at the EEI Conference, but not yet. We are, again, 29 days into this. We know there will probably be a number of charges, and we will be working on it. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. Then in terms of purchase accounting, sometimes that has an impact going forward, and some companies strip out those impacts depending on how they are, and sometimes they aren’t. Do you guys have any feel as to how the purchase accounting might affect growth going forward? And is there any impact associated with purchase accounting that’s in your 2016 and beyond expectations for earnings growth? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Well, first of all, I don’t think we know the answer to that completely yet. But there is one element, because we have regulated operations and more than 99% of our earnings are coming from regulated operations, but in general terms when you value regulated assets they come over onto your balance sheet at carrying value, at rate based value, if I’m making any sense to you. So that actually simplifies a great deal the purchase accounting. However, there are other things that we have to take a hard look at, like the value of some of the solar assets that Integrys has retained; like the value of a company called Trillium, which is a compressed natural gas fueling station company. So there are other assets. I think there’s a waste-to-energy plant in Texas that they had. There are several of these assets that we’re going to have to take a hard look at and give an appropriate value to. But in terms of major impact on 2016 earnings growth and beyond, Steve, I don’t see any, do you? Stephen P. Dickson – VP & Controller, WEC Energy Group, Inc. No, you nailed it. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Okay. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC No, I would’ve thought it until you guys brought it up. And I mean, I think it probably would have been different if Integrys had kept the retail business. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Oh, gosh, very different, very different. Remember, that was part of the announcement, that that did not fit with our model going forward. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Right. So just to make sure I understand, basically your earnings growth doesn’t have really any major assumptions associated with purchase accounting one way or the other in it? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. You are correct. You are absolutely correct. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Thanks a lot. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. You’re welcome. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. All right. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes our conference call for today. Thank you so much for participating. If you have any questions, now we have both Colleen and Beth and they are available in our Investor Relations office, 414-221-2592. Thanks everybody.