Tag Archives: infrastructure

Unitil’s (UTL) CEO Bob Schoenberger on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Unitil Corporation (NYSE: UTL ) Q2 2015 Results Earnings Conference Call July 23, 2015, 14:00 PM ET Executives David Chong – Investor Relations Bob Schoenberger – Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Mark Collin – Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Tom Meissner – Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Larry Brock – Chief Accounting Officer and Controller Analysts Michael Gaugler – Janney Montgomery Scott LLC Shelby Tucker – RBC Capital Markets Operator Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Second Quarter 2015 Unitil Earnings Conference Call. My name is [indiscernible]; I will be your operator for today. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. (Operator Instructions) As a reminder, this conference is being recorded for replay purposes. I would now like to turn the call over to the Director of Finance Mr. David Chong. Please proceed sir. David Chong Good afternoon and thank you for joining us to discuss Unitil Corporation’s second quarter 2015 financial results. With me today are Bob Schoenberger, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer; Mark Collin, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer; Tom Meissner, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer; and Larry Brock, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller. We will discuss financial and other information about our second quarter on this call. As we mentioned in the press release announcing the call, we have posted that information, including a presentation to the Investor section of our website at www.unitil.com. We will refer to that information during this call. Before we start, please note that comments made on this conference call may contain statements that are commonly referred to as forward-looking statements, which are made pursuant to the Safe Harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include statements regarding the company’s financial condition, results of operations, capital expenditures and other expenses, regulatory environment and strategy, market opportunities, and other plans and objectives. In some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by terminologies such as may, will, should, estimate, expect or believe the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements are neither promises nor guarantees, but involve risks and uncertainties, and the company’s actual results could differ materially. Those risks and uncertainties include those listed or referred to on Slide 1 of the presentation and those detailed in the company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. The company undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. With that said, I will now turn the call over to Bob. Bob Schoenberger Thanks, David. Thanks for joining us today. If you turn to Slide 4 of our presentation, today we announced net income of $1.7 million or $0.12 per share, for the second quarter of 2015, an increase of $0.6 million or $0.04 per share compared to the second quarter of 2014. For the first half of this year, we reported net income of $15.3 million or $1.10 per share, an increase of $1.6 million or 12% and a $0.11 per share compared to prior year. 12% increase in net income for the first half of this year was Primarily driven by customer growth in higher natural gas sales. Our regulatory agenda and growing investment in our gas and electric distribution systems will continue to drive our earnings in the years ahead. Turning to Slide 5, the graph shows that our financial results have increased sharply over the past few years, with net income growing at an annual rate of 16% since 2012. Our financial results have been driven by the strong demand for natural gas in the areas we serve. Our growing investment in our gas and electric utility distribution systems and the successful execution of our regulatory strategy. As part of our regulatory strategy, in the second quarter we filed gas and electric phase rate cases for our Massachusetts Utility requesting a total of $6.8 million in rate relief. Mark will discuss these rate cases in more detail later in the presentation. Moving to Slide 6, natural gas remains a cost competitive fuel choice and offers all our customers the best choice of value efficiency and convenience of a competing fuel such as oil and propane. As a result of historical and economic factors somewhat unique to Northern New England which I’ve discussed many times in the past, we currently have a customer penetration rate of only 60% on our existing distribution system. We are working hard to change that, the relatively low customer penetration on our existing system provides us low cost opportunities to add customers along and near distribution means. Additionally, we recently filed a regulatory mechanism in Maine requesting approval to replace upfront customer contributions often required to expand into new areas with the rate surcharge mechanism for a period of time certain targeted areas. We expect that offering customers the ability to pay a rate surcharge rather than an upfront payment will help facilitate customer conversions and will help us target new areas of geographic expansion beyond our existing distribution system. Slide 7 highlights the growth we have achieved on our natural gas business. Our gas customer base grew 3% in 2014. In addition, natural gas unit sales have grown over 4% annually on a weather-normalized basis since 2012 which is right in line with our goal to grow our gas and sales between 4% to 6% annually. Moving on to Slide 8, our utility rate base continues to grow as we add new customers and improve both the gas and electric distribution systems. Over the past three years, our gas rate base has grown at an annual rate of 10%, driven by customer additions and our infrastructure replacement and improvement programs. Our electric rate base has grown 4% over the past three years. We believe that rate base will continue to grow around these levels for the foreseeable future. Finally, Slide 9 highlights our return on equity which has steadily increased over the past three years, reflecting strong customer and sales growth combined with constructive rate case results. Our regulatory strategy has helped us to achieve approximately $16 million in rate reliefs since 2010, which equates to a 50% increase in sales margin. This rate relief has enabled our earnings to match and exceed our rapid rate base growth and provides us with the opportunity to earn within our allowed rate of return. Now I’ll turn the call over to Mark to discuss our financial results and our current rate case proceedings. Mark? Mark Collin Thanks Bob. And good afternoon everyone. Turning to the next Slide, Slide 10 natural gas utility sales margins were $18.1 million and $56.9 million for the second quarter and six month periods reflecting increases of $1.8 million and $4.1 million or up 8% for the year so far compared to prior year. Natural gas sales margins was positively affected by higher therm unit sales, a growing customer base and higher distribution rates. Therm sales of natural gas increased 4% in the first six months of 2015 compared to 2014 driven by colder winter weather and new customer additions. There were 3% more heating degree days in the first six months of 2015 compared to the same period in 2014, which we estimate positively impacted earnings per share by about $0.02. Compared to normal, there were 13% more heating degree days in the first six months of 2015, which we estimated positively impacted earnings per share by about $0.09. Excluding the effect of weather on sales, weather normalized gas therm sales are estimated to be up 3% for the first half of this year compared to last year. Turning to Slide 11, this highlights our electric utility sales margin. Electric sales margins were $20.5 million and $41.7 million for the second quarter and six months period reflecting increases of $1.6 million and $3.6 million or up 9% for the year so far compared to prior year. Electric sales margins reflects higher electric base distribution rates and slightly higher sales volumes. Electric kilowatt hour sales increased slightly by 2.2% compared to the first half of 2014. Turning to Slide 12, Usource, the Company’s non-regulated energy brokering business, recorded revenues of $3.1 million for the six months period, an increase of $0.1 million compared to the same period of 2014. Operation and Maintenance expenses increased $1 million and $0.8 million for the second quarter and six months period compared to prior year. The year-to-date change in O&M expenses reflects higher compensation and benefit costs of $1.2 million and higher all other utility O&M costs, net of $0.3 million. This was partially offset by lower professional fees of $0.7 million in the current period. Depreciation and amortization increased $1.1 million and $2.3 million for the second quarter and the six months period compared to prior year for amortization cost. Taxes other than income taxes decreased $0.4 million and $0.1 million for the second quarter and the six month period compared to prior year reflecting lower local property tax expenses. Net interest expense increased $0.7 million and $1.3 million for the second quarter and six months periods reflecting higher levels of long-term debt and lower interest income on regulatory assets. Now, turning to Slide 13, we have provided an update on our financial results at the utility operating company level. The chart shows the trailing 12 months actual earned return on equity in each of our regulatory jurisdictions. Unitil on a consolidated basis earned a total return on equity of 9.6% in the last 12 months ended June 30, 2015. Also, as we have discussed in the past and as shown in the table in the right, we have long-term capital cost trackers in place to recover a significant portion of current and future capital spending, which we expect will help to maintain the level of earnings across our subsidiaries. Slide 14 highlights our recent electric and gas rate case filings in Massachusetts for our Fitchburg subsidiary. Both filings will reflect a 2014 test year a capital structure with a 53% equity ratio and a 10.25% requested return on equity. Electric division filing reflects a rate base of $57.3 million, the revenue deficiency of $3.8 million includes a multiyear rate plan for recovery of future capital additions. Gas division filing reflects the rate base of $57.5 million and our revenue efficiency of $3 million. We currently expect an order from the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities on these rate cases in the second quarter of 2016. Lastly, Slide 15 details a settlement agreement which we recently filed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in June of 2015 for grant state, our Interstate Transmission Pipeline, the settlement extends a long-term rate plan currently in place and provides for an additional three years of a capital tracker mechanism to recover spending on several major projects. The first rate adjustment of $0.4 million is expected to become effective on August 1, 2015. And future rate adjustments in the range of $0.3 million to $0.4 million are expected to take place in 2016 and 2017. The settlement agreement is subject to approval from the FERC which is expected in the third quarter of 2015. Now this concludes our summary of our financial performance for the period. I will turn the call over to the operator who will coordinate questions. Thank you. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from Michael Gaugler with Janney. Please proceed. Michael Gaugler Well good morning everyone. Robert Schoenberger Hi Mike. Mark Collin Hi Mike. Michael Gaugler Just one question on gas conversions, we’ve seen the price of oil come down, prices of other fuels come down as well, just wondering if you are seeing any slowdown in demand for conversions given that pullback in energy prices. Mark Collin Yeah, Mike. I think it’s more a question of timing. I myself just converted to natural gas so that gives any idea I saw the economy value of doing it. We actually still see strong growth, I would say it’s probably a little bit off we saw a couple years ago. But I think that’s temporary because people tell us, these are the customers, what they are telling us at least, they see it as a temporary phenomenon and they expect in long-term and natural gas will be a better buy than home heating oil. So we expect to see that growth continue and given our new approach to serving unserved areas, we’re getting a lot of strong support from town officials saying [indiscernible], the benefit of natural gas long term. Michael Gaugler Okay. That’s all I had. Congrats on a really nice quarter. Mark Collin Thanks Mike. Robert Schoenberger Thank you. Operator Your next question comes from Shelby Tucker with RBC Capital Markets. Please proceed. Shelby Tucker Good afternoon. Just a quick question on gas demand for the second quarter, I know with weather residential demand was down 3.4 conversions stood down 0.8. If would weather normalize, do you have a sense where the sales growth would have been for both segments. Robert Schoenberger Second quarter is a colder period, Shelby, so there is not a lot of in weather, well, plays a role is relatively minor impact on sales during the period. I think what we talked about from financial perspective; we think weather contributed about $0.02 to earnings per share in the period. Shelby Tucker Got it. Okay. Thank you. End of Q&A Operator [Operator Instructions] There are no further questions. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today’s call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect. Have a great day. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com . Thank you!

BlackRock Utility And Infrastructure Trust: An Option Player In The ETF Utility Space

I recently looked at UTG and UTF, leading readers to ask about BUI. BUI is BlackRock’s entrant into the infrastructure space. The biggest difference it offers is the use of options. I recently wrote an article reviewing two relatively long-standing infrastructure closed-end funds , or CEFs. My conclusion being that Reaves Utility Income Fund (NYSEMKT: UTG ) and Cohen & Steers Infrastructure Fund (NYSE: UTF ) are both good products, though UTF is trading at a wider discount at the moment. Readers of that article asked my take on BlackRock Utility and Infrastructure Trust (NYSE: BUI ), another option (that’s a pun, actually) in the space. What is BUI? BUI opened its doors in late 2011, meaning that it doesn’t have the longevity of UTG or UTF. In fact, it hasn’t really witnessed a major market correction yet, like the pain we all suffered at the turn of the century and more recently during the 2007 to 2009 recession. This is less of a knock than a piece of information to keep in mind. BUI isn’t doing anything outlandish, so it’s unlikely it would “blow up” in a downturn. Actually, just the opposite is likely to be the case, but that expectation is untested. That said, what does it do? As the name implies, like UTG and UTF, BUI invests in things like electric utilities, water utilities, pipelines, bridges, and other similar hard assets. These are the types of things we take for granted, but without which life simply wouldn’t go on as it had before. On that score, it does, indeed, deserve to be looked at with UTG and UTF. However, there’s a not too subtle difference here. UTG and UTF both make use of leverage. BUI does not. It enhances returns, specifically income, through the use of an option overlay strategy . This means two things: return of capital will always be an issue and the options it writes could provide downside protection in a bear market. One of UTG’s big bragging rights is that it has never used return of capital to support its distributions. They have always come out of income and capital gains. You can argue this doesn’t matter much so long as a fund isn’t using destructive return of capital over extended periods. For example, UTF has used return of capital in the past and in one recent year it was destructive (the net asset value went down at the same time as return of capital was being used to support the dividend). However, that was one year and UTF hasn’t used return of capital recently. But some investors are highly suspicious of return of capital distributions. And BUI has made use of return of capital every single year. Why? Because it writes options. Dividends and interest on debt fall into investment income. Capital gains fall into, well, capital gains. Option income isn’t either of those things and winds up getting shoved into return of capital. It hasn’t proven to be a bad thing at BUI, with the net asset value, or NAV, increasing from $19.10 a share at its initial public offering to $21.50 or so more recently. So, at this point, the issue of return of capital hasn’t been a big one and likely only matters if you have a personal issue with that type of distribution. Looking at options from a different angle, the premiums received can provide return during down markets. This protects an option writing fund’s returns to some extent from the full effects of a market decline. In the case of BUI, however, that’s more of an academic issue because the fund has yet to deal with a truly severe downdraft. So, in theory, BUI should hold up better than UTG or UTF in a downturn. But it’s worth noting that the use of leverage at these two funds is likely to result in notable underperformance during a bear market. Both funds, for example, lost more than 40% of their NAV value in 2008. A fact to keep in mind when you consider that options can also limit BUI’s upside because positions will get called away. So BUI should lag in good markets and shine in bad ones compared to UTG and UTF. How has it done? Looking at performance numbers, BUI has underperformed relative to UTG and UTF on an NAV total return basis over the trailing three-year period through May (BUI’s short history means that’s the furthest back this trio can be compared). Interestingly, however, over the trailing six months period, UTG is down 2.7%, UTF is up a scant 0.4%, and BUI is up roughly 1.8%. Although hardly a bear market, while UTG and UTF have struggled, BUI is beating them. BUI’s standard deviation goes right along with that. UTG and UTF have three year standard deviations, a measure of volatility, of 13.5 and 11.4, respectively. BUI’s standard deviation is a far more subdued 8.5% over that span. Looking at cost, UTG is trading at a small discount to its NAV and roughly in line with its historical price trends. UTF, meanwhile, is trading far more cheaply at an around 14% discount. BUI is trading at a discount of around 12%, nearly three percentage points more than its trailing three-year average discount. Investors looking for bargains should be interested in UTF and BUI. That said, if you are concerned about risk, BUI should have the edge (despite the fact that it hasn’t been stress tested by a deep downturn). Yield wise, BUI’s distribution is around 7.5%. That’s in the same area as UTF, but notably above UTG’s 6.3% yield. That said, it’s worth repeating that UTF and UTG use leverage to enhance yield, hopefully earning more in dividends than they pay in interest. BUI, on the other hand, generates income by selling options on its holdings, which generates return of capital, can limit upside potential, yet also helps to reduce volatility. And options are also cheaper to deal with, which is why BUI’s expense ratio is around 1.1%. Both UTG and UTF have to contend with interest costs, which push their expense ratios up to 1.7% and 2.2%, respectively. Who’s BUI for? Whether or not you want to purchase BUI really boils down to your concern about market volatility. If you think the markets are trading at premium levels and could be due for a correction, theoretically, BUI is probably the best choice out of these three funds. It also has the allure of trading at a noticeable discount, like UTF, if you prefer to buy on the cheap. And it’s the least expensive to own based on fees. All of that said, I still like UTG because of its longevity and the fact that it has never cut its distribution. But for risk-averse investors who don’t have an issue with return of capital, BUI is truly worthy of consideration. Disclosure: The author has no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) The author wrote this article themselves, and it expresses their own opinions. The author is not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). The author has no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Los Angeles' Nokia Theatre to be Called Microsoft Theater – Analyst Blog

Software developer Microsoft CorporationMSFT has entered into a multiyear agreement with AEG to rebrand Nokia Theatre as Microsoft Theater. AEG is a sporting and music entertainment presenter and LA Live developer and the owner of the theatre. In 2007,