Tag Archives: knowledge

Southwest Gas’ (SWX) CEO John Hester Discusses Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Southwest Gas Corporation (NYSE: SWX ) Q2 2015 Earnings Conference Call August 6, 2015 13:00 ET Executives Ken Kenny – Vice President, Finance and Treasurer John Hester – President and Chief Executive Officer Roy Centrella – Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Justin Brown – Vice President, Regulation and Public Affairs Analysts Matt Tucker – KeyBanc Capital John Hanson – Praesidis Operator Good day, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Southwest Gas 2015 Midyear Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, today’s conference is being recorded. I would like to turn today’s conference call to Mr. Ken Kenny, Vice President of Finance and Treasury. You may begin. Ken Kenny Thank you, Kevin. Welcome to Southwest Gas Corporation’s 2015 midyear conference call. As Kevin stated, my name is Ken Kenny and I am Vice President, Finance and Treasurer. Our conference call is being broadcast live over the Internet. For those of you who would like to access the webcast, please visit our website at www.swgas.com and click on the Conference Call link. We have slides on the Internet, which can be accessed to follow our presentation. Today, we have Mr. John P. Hester, Southwest President and Chief Executive Officer; Mr. Roy R. Centrella, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Mr. Justin L. Brown, Vice President, Regulation and Public Affairs and other members of senior management to provide a brief overview of the company’s operations and earnings ended June 30, 2015 and an outlook for the remainder of 2015. Our general practice is not to provide earnings projections. Therefore, no attempt will be made to project earnings for 2015. Rather, the company will address those factors that may impact the company’s year’s earnings. Further, our lawyers have asked me to remind you that some of the information that will be discussed contains forward-looking statements. These statements are based on management’s assumptions, which may or may not come true and you should refer to the language in the press release, Page 2 of our presentation, and also our SEC filings for a description of the factors that may cause actual results to differ from our forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements are made as of today and we assume no obligation to update any such statements. With that said, I would like to turn the time over to John. John Hester Thanks, Ken. Moving to Slide 3, I would like to summarize some of the highlights of the second quarter. First of all, on the natural gas side of the business, we had 28,000 net new customers in the past year. As we have previously projected, this represents an annualized growth rate of approximately 1.5%. Last month, we commenced construction on our $35 million Paiute Pipeline lateral, which will interconnect with Ruby Pipeline. We expect these facilities to the completed and in service in November of this year. We also submitted a request to the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada for authority to replace $43.5 million of older vintage plastic and steel pipeline next year. All three of these developments are indicative of the positive growth that we are continuing to experience on the regulated utility side of our business. At our unregulated construction services business segment, our effort to fully integrate the Link-Line Group of Companies that we acquired in October of last year continues to progress. We experienced strong revenue growth both organically and from the acquired companies in the past quarter. As we have indicated in previous disclosures over the past year, we continue to believe that we are on pace to reach $950 million to $1 billion in construction services revenues by year end. And with our peak construction season ahead of us, we expect a strong third and fourth quarter that we think will culminate in the construction services group achieving its previously announced 2015 goals. We did increase our loss reserve associated with the Canadian industrial project this quarter by another $2 million and we are currently in negotiations with our customer over change orders. We believe that we are in a very strong position in the ongoing negotiations and that our efforts will result in a substantial mitigation of the current loss reserve. This particular project is essentially complete and we remain very enthusiastic about the construction services segment, including the businesses we acquired this past October. Turning to Slide 4, for today’s call, Roy Centrella will provide an overview on our consolidated earnings as well as separate detail for the regulated natural gas and Centuri Construction Group segments. Justin Brown will provide a recap on the activities that we have been undertaking on the regulatory front and I will wrap up with a report on customer growth, our capital expenditure expectations and an update on our outlook for 2015. With that, I will now turn the call over to Roy. Roy Centrella Thank you, John. As noted, I am going to spend some time reviewing second quarter and 12-month financial results of both the natural gas and construction services segments. I will also highlight some of the key factors impacting the changes between the related periods and potentially influencing full year 2015 results. We will start on Slide 5. Net income for the three months ended June 2015 was $4.9 million, or $0.11 per basic share, down from the $9.6 million, or $0.21 per share earned during last year second quarter. The contribution to net income from both operating segments was down modestly between periods. For the 12-month period ended June, we earned $138 million, or $2.95 per basic share, an improvement from prior period net income of $135 million, or $2.91 per share. Results for the gas segment were markedly better, while the construction segment experienced a slight decline. Let’s turn to second quarter results of the gas segment on Slide 6. A loss of $657,000 was experienced this quarter versus earnings of $1.8 million previously. Operating income declined due mainly to higher operating costs, but was offset by lower interest costs. So other income, which decreased by $2.5 million between periods due mainly to unfavorable returns on company-owned life insurance, or COLI policies, was the primary cause of the decline between periods. Slide 7 provides a breakdown of $4 million operating margin increase, half of which came from customer growth and half from rate relief and other factors. We added 28,000 net customers over the last 12 months consistent with expectations for about 1.5% growth rate. Overall, considering customer growth and rate release, operating margin remains on track to reach our estimated growth forecast of 2% for all of 2015. Moving to Slide 8, you will see that operating expenses increased $5.6 million or 3.5% between quarterly periods. Most of the increase was attributed to higher depreciation and property taxes, resulting from capital expenditures. The reduction in financing cost was attributable to strong cash flows, which allowed us to redeem long-term debt early. I will turn to Slide 9, which summarizes the activity in other income, which declined by $2.5 million between periods. This quarter, we recognized no income on the investments underlying our COLI policies, whereas last year’s earnings amounted to $2.3 million. Next, we will move to Slide 10 and 12-month gas segment results. Net income of nearly $121 million was up about $3.4 million from the $117 million earned in the previous 12-month period. Strong growth in operating margin and flat net operating expenses resulted in a $15 million increase in operating income. A $5.6 million reduction in other income, principally COLI returns, partially offset the improvement in operating income. The next couple of slides further breakdown these components starting with Slide 11 and operating margins. Operating margin grew by $15 million between periods driven by two primary factors. Customer growth contributed $8 million towards the increase, while combined rate relief in California and our Paiute operations kicked in $9 million. Slide 12, total operating expenses. Total operating expenses were flat between periods as increases in depreciation and general taxes were offset by a $14 million decline in O&M expenses. Within O&M, the most significant favorable factors were legal expenses, which fell $5.6 million due to a legal accrual in 2014, which did not recur and a $2 million reduction in rent expense resulting from the company’s purchase of a portion of its headquarters complex, which was previously leased. Slide 13 covers other income and deductions, which declined $11.2 million to $5.6 million. The primary takeaway on this slide is that COLI-related income for the prior period was extremely high due to strong investment returns on assets underlying the policies. On the other hand, in the current period, the $3.4 million return was in the more normal range of $3 million to $5 million. Also, we remind you that in any given period, losses are possible. Next, we will discuss Centuri’s operating results beginning on Slide 14. During the most recent quarter, the construction segment contribution to net income was $5.6 million, down $2.2 million from last year’s $7.8 million. Two factors which influenced this line. First, the loss reserve on the industrial construction project in Canada widened by $2 million. And second, the acquisition of Link-Line made the seasonal aspect of our construction segment more pronounced as it increased a proportionate size of our Northeastern operations and added more fixed cost. This, in no way, dampened our enthusiasm for the business. It’s just a recognition that due to the weather implications, a higher percentage of construction segment earnings are likely to occur during the second half of the year. During the 12-month periods, contribution to net income declined slightly from $17.5 million to $16.9 million. There were several significant factors, which influenced results for both periods, which I will touch on in a minute. Moving to Slide 15, you can see that revenue increased $70 million or 39% between the second quarter of 2014 and 2015. This reflected $32 million of incremental work at NPL and $38 million from the Link-Line acquisition. Construction expenses increased $68 million or 43% between periods with $30 million attributable to NPL and $38 million for the acquired companies. Depreciation expense increased $2.4 million due mainly to equipment purchases to support the higher revenue level, along with $1.4 million of amortizations on acquisition-related intangibles. Now regarding the industrial project, an additional $2 million was incurred beyond our initial reserve estimate to complete the project. The facility is operational and we no longer have employees on-site. We are actively negotiating change orders with the general contractor and believe we will mitigate this loss reserve during the second half of the year. Slide 16 summarizes 12-month construction services results. On the top line, current period revenues totaled $869 million and we are up $207 million between periods with $134 million coming from the acquired companies and $73 million from NPL. Construction expenses increased $189 million with $137 million applicable to the acquired companies and $52 million to the NPL. Depreciation expense increased $9 million, reflecting equipment purchases, Link-Line depreciation of $3.6 million and $4.3 million in amortization of finite live intangibles recognized from the acquisition. The net result of this activity was an increase in operating income of $9.4 million from $28.3 million in the prior periods to $37.7 million in the current 12-month period. Current period operating income reflects a $7.6 million loss reserve on the industrial construction project in Canada as well as $5 million of acquisition costs recorded during the second half of 2014. Prior period operating expenses included $4 million legal settlement recorded in late 2013. As we look ahead to the second half of the year, the construction services segment is well positioned to finish strongly. We are heading into the third quarter construction season peak. There is significant ongoing replacement work in both our U.S. and Canadian service territories. And we are cautiously optimistic that progress will be made on change orders actively being negotiated on the industrial project. I will now turn the time over to Justin Brown for a regulatory update. Justin Brown Thanks Roy. Turning to Slide 17, I would like to focus my comments on the regulatory initiatives that have undergone recent developments since our last earnings call. First, as we have discussed in previous calls, one of our key regulatory initiatives has been to establish infrastructure replacing mechanisms in each of our jurisdictions in order to timely recover capital expenditures associated with projects that enhance the safety, service and reliability to our customers. In Nevada, we recently made our second filing under the recently approved regulations wherein we requested the approval to replace $43.5 million of qualifying projects. These regulations were approved in January 2014 and they authorized Southwest Gas to make annual filings where we will propose the replacement of qualifying projects. We made our first filing in June of last year and subsequently received approval in October 2014 to replace $14.4 million of projects. We anticipate a final commission decision on this year’s application sometime in October. And Nevada regulation, also permit us to make a separate annual filing to implement a surcharge to recover the revenue requirement associated with the previously approved projects. In the fall of 2014, we submitted a rate application and we were authorized to institute a surcharge effective January of this year to collect $2.2 million annually. Similar to last year, we plan to make a proposal on October of this year to update the surcharge to reflect expenditures associated with previously approved projects that have now been completed. In May, the Arizona Corporation Commission approved our requests to update the customer owned yard line or COYL program surcharge to collect annual revenues of $2.5 million, up from the previously approved $1.5 million. The program was approved as part of our last Arizona rate case decision and was most recently expanded in 2014 to include a Phase 2 for the replacement of certain non-Link-Line customer lines. The updated surcharge reflects total capital expenditures of $16 million of which $6.3 million was incurred during 2014 for both Phase 1 and Phase 2. Turning our focus to the two expansion projects, we continue to make progress on the construction of our liquefied natural gas storage facility that was approved by the Arizona Commission. You may recall late last year, we received pre-approval from the Arizona Corporation Commission to construct a $55 million liquefied natural gas storage facility in southern Arizona. We are getting close to completing our due diligence on the land purchase and we recently entered into a contract for the engineering design of the facility. We are looking forward to completing construction of the facility by year end 2017. In Nevada, construction of the Elko County expansion project has officially begun. In June of 2014, our Paiute Pipeline subsidiary made a formal application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requesting approval to build a 35-mile, $35 million lateral to interconnect Paiute with Ruby Pipeline and increase gas supply deliverability to Elko. In May, the FERC issued an order authorizing a certificate of public convenience and necessity to Paiute to construct and operate the project and subsequently provided a formal notice to proceed. Following receipt of the notice to proceed, work began on preparing the 35-mile pipeline corridor for construction. Pipe is also being delivered to the project site and pipeline segments are being welded together and installed. As John mentioned previously, we anticipate construction being completed by year end. Lastly on this slide, you may recall we received approval on California to increase margin by $2.5 million as part of the previously approved annual post test year attrition margin increase of 2.75% per year for calendar years 2015 to 2018. This increase became effective January of 2015. Also consistent with our statements in previous calls, we are still on target for filing an Arizona rate case next year. You may recall, one of the conditions of our last Arizona rate case settlement precludes a filing any sooner than April 30, 2016. Now turning to Slide 18, the purchase gas adjustment or PGA clauses that we have in each of our jurisdictions allow us to adjust rates either monthly or quarterly to timely respond to changing natural gas market conditions and to recover differences between the amount Southwest Gas pays for gas and the cost of gas being recovered from our customers, sometimes resulting in either over or under collections. The benefits of slightly lower and stabilizing natural gas prices combined with having effective PGA clauses in each of our jurisdictions is demonstrated on this slide as we were able to recover approximately $111 million over the first half of this year, moving from an under collected balance at December 31, 2014 to a slightly over collected balance at June 30, 2015. And with that, I will turn it back to John. John Hester Alright. Thanks Justin. Turning to Slide 19, as I mentioned at the outset of our call, Southwest Gas added 28,000 net new customers this past year, continuing the general customer growth trend we have seen across our service territories over the past few years. Moving to Slide 20, indicative data on unemployment rates and employment growth rates in our various service territories are presented in the table shown on this slide. As you can see, unemployment rates in each of our jurisdictions declined year-over-year, reflecting a continuing modest uptrend in general business activity. The trend is less clear, although generally, up in the accompanying employment growth rates displayed. Anecdotal observations seem to confirm a modest continuing upward trend in commerce with major new construction initiatives announced or underway in our major service territories. Moving to Slide 21, we summarized our perspective expectations regarding capital expenditures. We believe that we are on pace to invest $445 million across our service territories by year end. The pie chart on this slide shows a breakout of how those capital dollars will be spent. Looking further into the future, we anticipate that our capital expenditures continue to be in line with our previously disclosed $1.3 billion 3-year capital plan. Turning to our 2015 expectations for the construction services segment on Slide 22, we will continue our ongoing integration efforts to bring the Link-Line Group of Companies into the Centuri Construction Group. We believe we are on track to reach our construction services revenue goal of $950 million to $1 billion by year end. Our operating income for the segment should approximate 6% of revenues depending on the final resolution of our ongoing negotiations related to the Canadian industrial project for which we have recorded a loss reserve. Net interest deductions are expected to be between $7 million and $8 million. Our expectations are before consideration of non-controlling interest and remember that foreign exchange rates and interest rates can impact this segment’s results. Finally, turning to Slide 23 for our outlook for our natural gas utility operations, operating margin is estimated to increase nearly 2% this year. Margin from net new customer growth should be similar to 2014 with the balance of margin growth coming from a variety of rate mechanisms and regulatory decisions. Our operating costs are expected to increase by 3% to 4%. This assumption includes an $8 million pension expense increase to reflect updated actuarial tables. Net interest deductions for this year are expected to be $3 million to $5 million lower than the $68 million recorded in 2014. And finally, as I indicated earlier, our capital expenditures this year should total $445 million. With that, I will turn the call to Ken. Ken Kenny Thanks, John. That concludes our prepared presentation. For those of you who have access to our slides, we have also provided in the appendix with slides that includes other pertinent information about Southwest Gas and can be reviewed at your convenience. Our operator, Kevin, will now explain the process for asking questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Matt Tucker with KeyBanc Capital. Matt Tucker Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my question. First, just wanted to ask at Centuri about the problem project there, could you just give us some sense as to what caused the cost overruns, the nature of the dispute, if you can call it that. Is it more whose it fault or the amount that you are due to recover? And then just kind of what gives you optimism on your position and on the recovery of the cost? Roy Centrella Yes, hi Matt. This is Roy. Well, the project was we talked a little bit about this last time, but it was a relatively short duration project. There is supposed to be 2-month project that crossed over time periods. And when we established the work for this, we are working with the general contractor, there – it was critical that because of that short timeline, the project – the pieces that – the equipment that was needed all come in on a timely basis. And through – really through no fault of our own results, the equipment we needed wasn’t coming in timely and that had, as a result, we had a fair amount of downtime with a good size workforce of about 300 people outside. So, there were – those delays caused revenue – I mean the cost side of the equation to increase. And we finished the project, took probably an extra three days or so to finish and that’s where those extra costs came from. And we initiated negotiations with the general contractor to try to recover those excess cost and that’s where we are today. We believe our position is strong, because we were at the fault of the delay in the equipment coming in. It was a general contractor. And so we are working with them. We would love to settle this without moving to a legal status, but certainly that’s a possibility that we can’t come to the resolution directly. There are legal avenues at what we can pursue. Matt Tucker Thanks. That’s helpful. You kind of preempted part of my next question about kind of the nature of negotiation at this point, but I guess as a follow-up to that, is the general contractor in reasonably good financial condition to your knowledge? Roy Centrella Yes, the best we know. They are a good-sized contractor and have been doing work in the auto industry for a long time. So, we are hopeful that we can make good progress on this leadership. Matt Tucker Got it. Thanks. And then just looking at Centuri’s overall performance in the quarter, if I back out that the project loss, it looks like your operating margin was still about maybe 120 basis points lower year-over-year. If I understand correctly, your view that, that’s primarily attributed to the seasonality in the Link-Line business, is that correct or is there something else that could be going on there? Roy Centrella No, I think that’s the biggest factor. We have some additional fixed cost that come about because of that acquisition, rents and general and administrative costs, things of that nature. And they probably have a bigger summer peak at the Link-Line side of the business than we have at the NPL side. And so as a result of that, we will see more of the earnings shifted to the second part of the year. But right now both sides of the business, the U.S. side and the Canadian side are in their peak operations. Matt Tucker Okay, got it. And then just trying to understand the seasonality a little better, I guess little surprised that the second quarter Link-Line revenues should be lower than the first. Was that unusual, like unusually bad weather this year in the second quarter or is that something you would expect or attributable to something else? Roy Centrella Well, one thing that contract we talked about the industrial project that was all first quarter revenue. And so that’s been – there is no revenues that carried forward from that job into the second quarter. That’s probably the biggest factor. I mean that was $18 million of revenue in the first quarter associated with that job. Matt Tucker Got it. That makes sense. And then just last one, as you are getting further along with the integration of Centuri and getting closer to that $1 billion revenue threshold. You have talked in the past about potentially considering some strategic options for the business when you get there, maybe sometime starting next year? Just wondering if you could update on your current thinking with regard to that? John Hester Hey, Matt, this is John. I think that is our current thinking as we have talked before that we want to make sure that we have the opportunity to continue to grow those businesses and certainly to have a little bit more transparency with the amount of earnings that those businesses will create and I think that they are going to at least need a full calendar year to demonstrate that. And then we will continue to look at our options going forward. We think that certainly, there is a lot of great growth prospects of Centuri. And we think as we talked about a little bit earlier in today’s call that there are a lot of great growth prospects of the utility as well. So, we will continue to try to grow both of those parts of the businesses. And as we continue to go forward, see how the construction services growth rates is going compared to the utility growth rate and continues to look at what options we may have in the future. Matt Tucker Very helpful. Thanks, John. Thanks, Roy. I will back in the queue. John Hester Okay, thank you. Operator Our next question comes from John Hanson with Praesidis. John Hanson Hey, guys. John Hester Hey, John. John Hanson Matt asked most of my questions, but just one kind of follow-up on the construction. What’s your guys view now on more acquisitions in that area? John Hester It’s something that, this is John, John. It’s something that we will continue to look at. One of the things that we have done at Centuri is we have taken a pretty deep dive into what the various business prospects are across the country. We have taken a look at where we have a lot of activity currently being done by the Centuri Group and what kind of markets that we may want to move into. If we see opportunities to move into new markets, we can approach that two ways. We can either start that from the ground up or we can see if there are some smaller tuck-in type companies that may facilitate that growth in markets that we might want to get into. So we will continue to look for those prospects. And if we think it makes sense for our shareholders as an avenue to continue to grow the business profitably we will do that. John Hanson When you talk markets, are you talking more geography or customer type? John Hester Mostly geography, John. John Hanson Good, thank you. Operator [Operator Instructions] And I am not showing any questions at this time. Ken Kenny Okay. Thank you, Kevin. This concludes our conference call and we appreciate your participation and interest in Southwest Gas Corporation. Thank you for being on the call [ph]. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today’s presentation. You may now disconnect and have a wonderful 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!

Northwest Natural Gas Company’s (NWN) CEO Gregg Kantor on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Northwest Natural Gas Company (NYSE: NWN ) Q2 2015 Earnings Conference Call August 04, 2015 11:00 AM ET Executives Nikki Sparley – Investor Relations Gregg Kantor – Chief Executive Officer Greg Hazelton – Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Analysts Spencer Joyce – Hilliard Lyons Operator Good morning, and welcome to the Northwest Natural Gas Company Second Quarter Earnings Call. All participants will be in listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions] Please note this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Nikki Sparley. Please go ahead. Nikki Sparley Thank you, Dow. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our second quarter 2015 earnings call. This is Nikki Sparley, acting IR Director and filling in for Bob Hess who is out on medical leave. Please feel free to contact me going forward on all IR related matters. As a reminder, some of the things that will be said this morning contain forward-looking statements. They are based on management’s assumptions, which may or may not come true. You should refer to the language at the end of our press release for the appropriate cautionary statements and also our SEC filings for additional information. We expect to file our 10-Q later today. As mentioned, this teleconference is being recorded and will be available on our website following the call. Please note that these conference calls are designed for the financial community. If you are an investor and have questions, please contact me directly at 503-721-2530. Media may contact, Melissa Moore at 503-220-2436. Speaking this morning are Gregg Kantor, Chief Executive Officer and Greg Hazelton, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Kantor and Mr. Hazelton have some opening remarks and then will be available to answer your questions. Also joining us today are other members of our executive team, who are available to help answer any questions you may have. With that, I will turn it over to Mr. Kantor for his opening remarks. Gregg Kantor Good morning, everyone and welcome to our second quarter earnings call. Before we begin today, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss some changes to our executive team. First, I’d like to introduce our new Chief Financial Officer, Greg Hazelton. As you know, after a long career with Northwest Natural, Steve Feltz retired in June. But we’re pleased to have Greg join us from Hawaii Electric where he was Treasurer and Controller. Greg started our his career here in Portland working on the electric side with Portland General Electric and then went on to work in the investment banking world for several years. He’s gotten impressive and diverse background and he’s already been a great addition to our team. I’m also pleased to announce David Anderson, who is promoted to President of the Company, effective August 1. Over the past 11 years, David has demonstrated exceptional leadership skills and help build a strong utility that leads the industry in a number of operational areas. David will also retain his role as Chief Operating Officer with responsibility for the bulk of the day-to-day operations and will continue to report directly to me. Now, moving on to the quarter, I’ll begin today with highlights from the period and then turn it over to the other Greg to cover the financial details. I’ll wrap up the call with brief comments about our priorities for the remainder of the year. In the period, we continued to work through our open dockets at the Oregon Public Utility Commission. As you know, in the first quarter, we received the commission’s decision on our environmental cost recovery proceeding and on how an earnings test would be applied to environmental expenditures we had incurred and will continue to incur in the future. As part of the decision, the OPUC required a compliance filing that describes how we would implement their order. We submitted that filing at the end of March and we’re currently working through the review process with OPUC staff and other parties. It will be subject to final commission approval which we expect by the end of the year. In addition, late yesterday, we received the OPUC’s decision on our pension docket, and you’ll recall, all of the investor owned utilities in Oregon requested that prepaid pension assets be included in rate base and allowed to earn a return. While we are continuing to evaluate the decision, which as I say we got yesterday afternoon, the commission’s order reaffirms the use of FAS 87 expense for recovery of pension costs but did not support the utilities request to include their prepaid pension assets and rate base. The decision is not what we had hoped for but the company still retains its pension balancing account which allows it to defer annual pension expenses above or below the amount set and rates. Recovery of these deferred amounts occurs over time as the balancing account fluctuates with higher and lower FAS 87 pension expense. Now shifting to the quarterly results, our performance was slightly better year-over-year; utility margin was up resulting largely from customer growth which increased to 1.5%. That growth rate translated into 10,000 new customers on a rolling 12-months basis and several economic factors suggest this uptick in activity should continue. For example, between the Portland area and Clark County, Washington, over 29,000 new jobs have been added year-over-year, which equates to about 3% increase. But the real headline for the quarter is the housing market. The homeowner vacancy rate was 1% and the rental vacancy rate was at 3.5% both in the Portland and Clark County creating a very tight housing market. For example, in June, a number of homes for sale represented less than two months’ worth of available inventory, well below the six to seven month timeframe you’d see in a more balanced housing market. The average sales price in June was up about 10% in the Portland area compared to a year-ago and up nearly 13% in Clark County. Compared to the second quarter of 2014, home sales in the period were up about 24% in Portland and up nearly 25% in Clark County. While Oregon’s single-family new construction activity is up over the past 12 months versus a year ago, it’s still not keeping pace with demand and while this imbalance may take some time to correct, we’re optimistic about the potential growth in new construction going forward. And with that, let me turn it over to Greg Hazelton to cover the financial details for the quarter. Greg Hazelton Thank you Gregg for the introduction, I’m very pleased to be part of the Northwest Natural team and on the earnings call with everyone this morning. Turning to our results, earnings for the second quarter of 2015 were $0.08 per share on net income of $2.2 million as compared to $0.04 per share and $1.1 million for the same period last year. Year-to-date earnings for the first six months of 2015 were $1.12 per share on net income of $30.7 million as compared to $1.43 and $39 million for the same period last year. As highlighted from our call last quarter, we recognized a $15 million pretax or $9.1 million after tax environmental regulatory disallowance in the first quarter. The charge to O&M was associated with the February 2015 OPUC Order on the recovery of past environmental cost deferrals. Excluding this charge, consolidated earnings for the first six months of 2015 were $1.45 per share or $39.8 million, which is slightly up from last year on higher utility earnings offset by lower gas storage results. Regarding our utility, we reported net income of $2.2 million in the second quarter of 2015, an increase of $40,000 from the prior year based on higher utility margins and decrease in interest expense offset by an increase in O&M. For the first six months, utility net income was $30.6 million or a decrease of $7.6 million from last year, mainly due to the $9.1 million environmental charge which was mitigated by improved utility results. Positive drivers included higher utility margins, an increase in other income, and lower interest expense partially offset by an increase in O&M expense. Utility margin for the quarter increased $920,000, driven by customer growth, rate base returns on tracked-in items, and gains from gas costs incentive sharing. Utility margins for the year-to-date period were impacted by record loan weather in our service territory during our peak, during our heating season in the first quarter, which continued into the second quarter. Overall, average temperatures for the first six months of 2015 were 18% warmer than year ago and 22% warmer than normal. Total gas deliveries decreased 12% and gross revenues were down 6% during this period. Although our utility margins are generally protected from weather, we do have about 11% of our customer base in Washington, which does not have a weather normalization mechanism and 7% of our Oregon customers elect out of weather normalization. In spite of the decline in volumes and gross revenues, net margins increased $1.2 million mainly due to continued customer growth, rate based returns on tracked-in items, and gains from gas cost incentive sharing. Moving to our gas storage segment, for the quarter, we reported a net loss of $90,000, reflecting $1.1 million improvement in results from a year ago. Drivers included $300,000 increase in operating revenues due to slightly higher contract prices for 2015-2016 gas storage year and $930,000 reduction in operating expenses. For the first six months, net income was $30,000 or a decrease in net income of $440,000 from the year prior. Results included $2.2 million decrease in operating revenues due to lower contract prices for the 2014-2015 gas storage year. This was offset by $1 million reduction in operating expenses. As we’ve mentioned in previous quarters, our Mist storage facility in Oregon continues to perform well due to limited storage capacity and growing demand in the Pacific Northwest. Our Gill Ranch facility in California continues to face headwinds as the oversupply of storage persist and demand for natural gas storage recovers slowly. We are seeing slightly higher pricing for the 2015-2016 gas storage year and we continue to remain optimistic on the value of gas storage in California over the long term. With regards to consolidated O&M, for the quarter, we reported an increase of $580,000 over last year. That increase primarily reflects utility cost increases for higher benefit in payroll costs. Offsetting the increase were lower repair and power costs at the Gill Ranch facility. For the first six months, excluding the disallowance, O&M increased $4.3 million over last year. Key drivers were increases at the utility for payroll and benefits, including higher wage rates under the union labor contract that was effective June 1, 2014, and increases in non-payroll costs primarily associated with ongoing growth initiatives and facility costs. These increases were offset by lower repair and power costs at our Gill Ranch facility. Meanwhile, other income for the quarter increased $870,000 compared to last year as we applied insurance proceeds under the environmental mechanism. Other income for the first six months increased $4.5 million compared to last year, primarily due to the recognition of $5.3 million of regulatory equity interest income on deferred environmental expense as was discussed on our first quarter call. This income was partially offset by higher interest expense on deferred regulatory balances. Regarding interest expense, over the last 12 months, the utilities – the utility has remedied $100 million of debentures without reissuance as a result of our using our environmental insurance proceeds to pay down debt. Consequently, interest expense decreased $1.2 million for the quarter and $2.3 million for the six months of the year. Cash flow from operating activities for the first six months of 2015 was $167 million as compared to $233 million a year ago. Last year’s cash flow was significantly enhanced by $91 million of insurance recoveries. This is partially offset by other working capital changes. As Gregg mentioned, we received the commission’s decision regarding the recovery of financing costs on our prepayment pension asset. As you may recall, the prepaid pension asset represents the timing difference between cash contributions made to the plans and the recognition of FAS 87 expense. Although we will not recover at these financing costs, there will be no financial impact to earnings from this order. We continued recovering our FAS 87 pension expense through current rates and our pension balancing account, which also earns our rate of return. Today, the company reaffirms its guidance for reported earnings in the range of $1.77 to $1.97 per share for 2015, which includes the $15 million pre-tax charge. Adjusting to exclude the charge, our guidance for 2015 remains unchanged at $2.10 to $2.30 per share. The company’s guidance assumes continued customer growth from our utility segment, average weather conditions going forward, slow recovery of the gas storage market and no significant changes in prevailing legislative and regulatory policies or outcomes. With that, I’ll turn it back over to Gregg for his concluding remarks. Gregg Kantor Thanks, Greg. At this point in the year, our focus is two-fold. First, we will be working hard to advance our growth initiatives and at the same time, we will be continuing our cost control efforts to help reduce the financial impact of a record warm winter. On our growth initiatives in July, we submitted our first carbon solutions program under Oregon’s greenhouse gas reduction legislation. As we’ve talked about before, Senate Bill 844 allows the OPUC to incent natural gas utilities to undertake projects that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Our first proposal is designed to further the use of combined heat and power in Oregon, a goal that the state has had for many years. Under our CHP proposal, industrial and commercial customers in the market could submit CHP projects for consideration. Our program will then provide incentive funding based on the verified carbon savings, making the project more financially feasible from a customer’s perspective. Over the last year, we’ve been collaborating on this proposal with other regional and state organizations interested in helping CHP gain more traction. In our view, this is an important effort that could provide a very significant carbon reduction benefit for our customers and for Oregon. The OPUC has set a schedule for review of our CHP filing that calls for a decision by the end of the year. In parallel with that effort, we’ve also been working on an oil to gas furnace replacement program to serve the residential market. We’ve completed the stakeholder review process and hope to file the program later this fall. As I said before, overall, we’ve been very pleased with the level of interest and engagement we’re getting from the OPUC staff, customer groups, state agencies, environmental groups across the state and we’re proud to be one of the first gas utilities in the country to attempt this kind of program and I would say, we’ve learned a great deal about carbon accounting, what opportunities exist for reductions and how to best structure programs going forward. We believe this knowledge will be a real asset in navigating an energy landscape increasingly shaped by climate change policies. Finally this morning, let me give you a quick update on the potential expansion project at our underground storage facility in Mist, Oregon. As you know, last December, we received approval from Portland General Electric to move forward with the permitting and land acquisition work required for the expansion project. Project would provide no notice storage services to PGE’s natural gas fired generating plants at Fort Westwood and would include a new reservoir, providing up to 2.5 billion cubic feet of available storage, an additional compressor station and a new pipeline. In April, we submitted an application to the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council for an amendment to our existing Mist site certificate, a step required to support the expansion. In June, we received information requests about our application from the Oregon Department of Energy and in July, we submitted our responses. The next major step in the process will occur when the Department of Energy and the Siting Council publish a proposed order later this year. Between now and the issuance of that proposed order, we will continue to work with both organizations to address any questions about our filing. And our team also continues to work on obtaining other required permits and property rights. Assuming successful and timely completion of those items, the current estimated cost of the expansion is approximately $125 million with a potential in-service date in the 2018, 2019 winter season, again depending on the permitting process and the construction schedule. With that, thanks again for joining us this morning and now, I’d like to open it up for questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator We will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Spencer Joyce at Hilliard Lyons. Please go ahead. Spencer Joyce First things first Greg, welcome to the team and welcome back to the mainland here. I know they’ve got a good culture there at Northwest, I’m sure you’ll enjoy it. Greg Hazelton Thank you, yeah. It’s one I’m familiar with. I started my career in Portland, it feels like coming back home. Spencer Joyce Perfect, even better there and then Dave, also congratulations in order there for the incremental promotion there and an additional responsibility, I’m sure that’s exciting. David Anderson Thank you, Spencer. I appreciate it. Spencer Joyce Turning towards the quarter here a little bit, and Greg, you touched on it there towards the end of the call, it looks like the Mist expansion potentially online for the 2018, ‘19 heating season. Just refresh us that is still on par with the initial schedule, correct and then secondarily the $125 million investment, that’s also still largely unchanged? Greg Hazelton Correct. Nothing has changed at this point. Still on schedule, still approximately $125 million. Spencer Joyce Yeah. Perfect, good to hear. Separately, wanted to turn towards the other income line of the income statement. I know there had been a couple of special items here over the last year or so, the deferred environmental expense accrual there and then the insurance item that have caused that to jump up a little bit as far as income is concerned. Can you talk a little bit about how that particular line item might play out over the next year or two, I’m kind of assuming that could trend a little bit lower or we could see a little bit less income there as we kind of model out ‘16, ‘17? Gregg Kantor Well, we have a number of things that flow through that line item. Usually, that would include all the interest that we accrue on our deferred balances, so that would be impacted by accruals on the liability, the insurance liability that would be also impacted by equity earnings on regulatory assets as well. We did highlight that we received a fairly large recognition with the recent order in February in the receipt of insurance proceeds against our environmental liabilities, which made that equity income higher than I would expect it to be going forward, absent something similar. So I think if you normalize out that $5.3 million pre-tax number, the run rate may be slightly impacted by higher – by some of the interest costs that we have going through there on the deferred balances. Greg Hazelton And Spencer, we’ve gotten all of the insurance, I should say, there is a small amount that I think is still possible in the million dollar range, but we’ve essentially gotten the insurance proceeds that we’re going to get out of our insurers. Spencer Joyce Okay, perfect. So I guess from a modeling standpoint, I mean, we’re not going to totally fall off a cliff here, but I would expect some of those balances that we’re earning or some of those accrued balances that we’re earning a bit on to trend a little lower? Greg Hazelton That’s fair. Operator [Operator Instructions] Gregg Kantor Okay. It doesn’t look like we’ve got any other calls. So thanks again for joining us and have a great finish to the summer season everyone. Take care. Greg Hazelton Thank you. Operator The conference is now concluded. Thank you for attending today’s presentation. You may now disconnect.

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.