Tag Archives: massachusetts

Algonquin Power & Utilities’ (AQUNF) CEO Ian Robertson on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Executives Alison Holditch – Manager of Investor Relations Ian Robertson – Chief Executive Officer David Bronicheski – Chief Financial Officer Analysts Rupert Merer – National Bank Paul Lechem – CIBC Nelson Ng – RBC Capital Markets Matthew Akman – Scotiabank Ben Pham – BMO Sean Steuart – TD Securities Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp ( OTCPK:AQUNF ) Q2 2015 Results Earnings Conference August 13, 2015 10:00 AM ET Operator Good day and welcome to the Alqonquin Power & Utilities Corp Q2 2015 Analyst and Investor Call Conference Call. Today’s conference is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Alison Holditch, Manager Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Alison Holditch Thank you. Good morning everyone. Thanks for joining us on our 2015 Second Quarter Conference Call. My name is Alison Holditch, Manager of our Investor Relations function. Joining me on the call today are Ian Robertson, our Chief Executive Officer and David Bronicheski, our Chief Financial Officer. For your reference, additional information on the results is available for download from our web site at AlgonquinPowerandUtilities.com. I would like to note that on this call, we will provide information that relates to future events and expected financial position that should be considered forward-looking. We will provide additional details at the end of the call and I direct you to review our full disclosure on forward-looking information and non-GAAP financial measures in our results published yesterday which are available on the quarterly results page of the investor center on our web site. This morning, Ian will discuss the highlights for the quarter, David will follow with a review of the financial results and then we will open the lines for questions. I would ask that you restrict your questions to two and then requeue if you have any additional questions to allow others the opportunity to participate. Now I would like to turn things to Ian to review the quarter’s results. Ian Robertson Thanks Allison and thanks to everyone for joining us for our Q2 results call from [indiscernible] I would point out that it rained last night but it is sunny and windy today which is kind of the tri-sector for an organization which is in the hydro, solar and wind power business. So anyway, in summary for the second quarter, we were pleased to see the continuation of increased year-over-year financial results. During the second quarter, we realized a 22% increase in our adjusted EBITDA with $81.1 million generated versus the $66.4 million we reported at the same period a year ago. This growth is the result of incremental contribution from both our generation and distribution business groups and it is highlighted in the second quarter with two renewable energy facilities having achieved commercial operations is favorable rate case settlements in our regulated utilities. Within the generation business group, the company’s eighth generating facility, the 23 megawatt Morse Project in Saskatchewan and the company’s second solar facility, the 20 megawatt Bakersfield I Solar Project located in California. Both achieved commercial operations in April, these facilities operate under 20 year power purchase agreements with large investment grade electric utilities effectively extending our average power purchase agreement. While the resource levels of wind, solar and hydro naturally fluctuate from quarter-to-quarter, we were pleased that the diversification strategies on which our portfolio is constructed were to effectively to mitigate the lower than average resources experienced in the Generation Business Group. As a note, regarding further reductions in our already competitive cost of capital in their reaffirmation of the General Business Group DBRS changed their outlook commentary to positive obviously such trend will change is consistent with our view of the credit positive activities within this business group. Moving on, the Distribution Business group had a good quarter with a 9% overall increase in net utility sales and a 27% increase in operating profit. Growth in net utilities sales is driven primarily by successful rate case outcomes specifically the EnergyNorth asset and received final order on its spending rate case request approving a US$12.4 million revenue increase. And lastly, APUC’s Transmission Business group announced last November that its participation in the joint development of Kinder Morgan’s NorthEast energy direct natural gas pipeline transmission project in the North East US. We were pleased that in July that Kinder Morgan Board of Director approved proceeding with the project development, this opportunity now adds more than US$300 million to our growth pipeline. Before I turn things over to David, I like to provide a quick update on our continuing strong relationship with our larger shareholder in Emera. By way of background, open in Emera entered into a strategic investment agreement or SIAS we call it five years ago, which crafted a collaborative commercial relationship between our respective organizations. Without a doubt our [indiscernible] enjoyed benefit from our close relationship with the Emera through their endorsement of our growth strategies, their continuing financial commitments would just help drive down our comp to capital and last but not least the continuing contributions of Chris Huskilson, Emera‘s CEO as a member of our Board. Over the intervening five years, Algonquin has undergone profound growth and evaluation to put that in perspective in 2010, Algonquin was $980 million organization focused primarily on independent power development. In pretty start contrast today’s Algonquin is a $4.5 billion organization competing across the entire generation distribution and transmission utility value spectrum serving over 0.5 million electric natural gas utility customers owning over 1,100 megawatts of electric generation and driving growth through our $2.6 billion pipeline of identified opportunities. It might be important to note that is just Emera or Algonquin who is just growing and changing in addition to Algonquin’s broadening strategic interest over the past five year Emera has also continued to evolve it’s business focus with a recently stated interest in natural gas utilities. In recognition of these natural evaluations in our respective organizations over the past five years, Emera and ourselves jointly concluded that our strategic investment agreement or SIA would benefit from an update to its terms. And therefore, we’re now in the process of updating this agreement to serve us better for the next five years while the final document is an active work in progress. There are three main areas of which the changes are focused. First, we are seeking to reflect the pursuit of larger transactions by Algonquin giving the reduced size differential between our respective companies. Second, the amended SIA needs to acknowledge the evolving sectorial and geographic areas of interest of both organizations. And lastly, we will remove the existing share ownership restrictions, which would potentially allow Emera to increase its interest in Algonquin beyond the current 25%. In summary, we believe and I’d hope that Emera would also agree that the relationship embodied in the SIA has served us well for the past five years, delivering significant benefits to both of us and we look forward to continuing to create mutual value with Emera for the years to come. With that, I’ll turn things over to David to speak to the Q2 results, David? David Bronicheski Thanks, Ian. And good morning, everyone. We’re pleased to be reporting yet another solid quarter of earnings. The benefits of the diversification of our portfolio are evident in our results, as well as the benefits from having 80% of our operations in the US given the recent strength of the US dollar. As an example should the current exchange rate of a US$1.30 hold to the end of the year, we would expect this contribute over and above everything else we are doing, and additional $0.40 per share relative to the $1.10 exchange rate that we experienced in 2014. Adjusted EBITDA in the second quarter totaled $81.1 million, a 22% increase over the amount reported a year ago, which was primarily due to rate case settlements of full three months of production that are Morse and Bakersfield solar facilities and of course, as I mentioned a stronger US dollar. Adjusted EBITDA for the six months came in at $195.6 million, a 19% increase over what was reported in the first six months of 2014. Taking that close to look at some of the numbers are just a net earnings came in at $22.2 million compared to $16.6 million a year ago for the quarter and on a six-month basis, our adjusted net earnings were $64.6 million compared to $53.6 million last year. So now I let’s move into a little bit more detail about our operating subsidiaries beginning with the generation group. For the first six months of 2015, the Generation Groups renewable energy division generated electricity equal to 88% of long-term average resources compared to a 100% during the first six months of 2014. For the second quarter of this year, the combined operating profit of the Generation Group that will $45.9 million as compared to the $43.3 million during the same period in 2014. Moving on to our distribution group in the second quarter of 2015, the distribution group reported an operating profit of $35.4 million compared to the $27.9 million reported in the same quarter a year ago. The increase in the operating profit is primarily due to the impact of rate case settlements. In the first six months of 2015, the distribution group reported an operating profit of $98.3 million compared to $86.1 million for the six months of last year. And a little bit more detail, the electricity division within the distribution group had net utility, electricity sales totaling $17.4 million compared to $18.1 million last year. For the first six months of 2015 net utility electricity sales totaled $36.1 million which adjusting for the retroactive recognition of $2.5 million for new revenues granted under the granted state electric system rate case implemented in the first quarter of last year or consistent basically year-over-year. Moving on to the natural gas division. In the second quarter of 2015 net utility natural gas sales and distribution revenue was $34.7 million compared to the $29.9 million for the same period a year ago. We have been quite successful in our rate cases and that accounts for most of that increase. Moving on to the water division in the second quarter of 2015 revenue from water distribution and waste water treatment totaled $15.6 million compared to $15.1 million during the same period in 2014. Again, rate increases and our successful prosecution there up was a main contributing factor as was the acquisition of White Hall Water System. Now I want to update on recent financing activities at April 30, 2015 the distribution group completed a private placement of the U.S. issuing $160 million of senior unsecured 30 year notes bearing the coupon of 4.13% this was the first time the utility group issued 30 year notes and we were very pleased with the offering. The proceeds of the financing would be used to partially financing our pending part water system acquisition, which is expected to occur later this year and some of that for general corporate purposes. This offering a very attractive rates and long tender clearly demonstrates the strong currencies that are elaborating utilities on platform has in the U.S. private placement market. I’m also pleased to report as Ian had mentioned DBRS is also changed the rating trend to positive on a generation business, which we view as a quite positive and reflective of the strengthening credit of our generation business. I’ll now hand things back to over Ian. Ian Robertson Thanks, David. Before we open the line up for question as usual, I would like to provide a quick update on our growth initiatives. Within the generation business group construction work at our 200 megawatt, Odell Wind project in Minnesota commenced in May of this quarter and I can report that all of the access rows and foundation [indiscernible] has now been completed. We’re started on the collection and introduction facilities for approximately three quarters of transmission line haven’t been installed. With the California Bakersfiled, one solar facility now completed. The generation business groups team has begin work on the adjacent 10-megawatt Bakersfiled 2 expansion project. During the quarter, the final permit complaints binders were submitted to the county, engineering designer facility as well underway in procurement of long lead-time electrical equipment in solar panels has begin. Within the distribution business group applications now have been filed seeking a total of $26.2 million in revenue increases collectively for the CalPeco electric system in California, the Black Mountain Sewer system in Arizona, Dracut system in Massachusetts and the Missouri natural gas system final decisions on all for rate proceedings are expected within the next 12 months. Regarding the acquisition of the Park Water company, which David spoke, approval from both the California Public Utilities Commission and the Montana Public Service Commissions are required. An approval application was filed in November 2014 with the CPUC seeking approval to acquire the two water utilities, which are located in California. In this regard, a joint settlement agreement has now been executed with the office at the ratepayer advocate and a joint motion to approve settlement was filed with the CPUC in May. The settlement agreement is currently before the administrative law judge and the decision is expected in the fourth quarter of this year. In Montana, an approval application was filed in December last year with the Montana Public Service Commission seeking approval to acquire the Montana Utility Mountain Water Company. I would say notwithstanding the ongoing twist and turns in the condemnation proceeding with the city in Missoula are regulated – a regulatory hearing with the State of Montana is now scheduled for October 19 of this year with the decision on the Montana application expected before the end of the year. Within the transmission business group permitting work on the Northeast Energy Direct continued with the Environmental Review being filed with the FERC in June and the filing of the formal FERC certificate application planned for October of this year. Construction is currently forecast to begin in January 2017 with the commercial operation targeted for late 2018. In closing, we trust the shareholders were pleased with the dividend increase that we announced early in Q2. I will point out that this represents the fifth consecutive year of dividend increases bringing our current five-year dividend CAGR in Canadian dollars to over 15%. APAC has confirmed its expectations for double-digit earnings in cash flow growth to support future targeted dividend increases. And lastly, before we go to questions, I would like to offer the commentary that we believe that our current dividend yield is not fully reflected of the fundamental value of our business. In particular, we speculate that perhaps it’s not fully appreciated that the material growth in our annualized dividend is more than $0.48 Canadian per share to our normal course increases together with appreciation of the U.S. dollar is actually supported by increased Canadian equivalent earnings coming from 80% of our operations, which are located in the U.S. We’re confident that as we continue to communicate their hedging and deliver on the promised earnings cash flow and dividend growth from our clearly identified $2.6 billion growth pipeline this will ultimately reflect in a continued rise in our share price for the balance of 2015. So with that, let’s open the line for the question-and-answer session. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Your first question will come from the line of Rupert Merer with National Bank. Please go ahead. Rupert Merer Good morning everyone. Ian Robertson Good morning, Rupert. David Bronicheski Good morning, Rupert. Rupert Merer So on growth and M&A with your updated agreement with [indiscernible] it sounds like you could cast your net a little wider for growth, can you talk about how your focus could change and then what are you seeing on transaction multiples recently, maybe a little color on how prices vary between asset types and what you could see in broader geographies? David Bronicheski Sure, I’m not so sure that in broader geographies we clearly obviously have been, I won’t say home bodies because we have a North American focus and I think of your question would we consider regulated utilities outside of North America and I don’t think it would be unreasonable for us to think that there is – there maybe opportunities for us in OECD countries obviously outside of our current focus. In terms of the multiples, I think it’s not – they remain strong and robust, the interest rates are continued to be low though I think we are cautiously optimistic that I think there is an interesting dynamic developing between Canada and the U.S. as you read every day in the newspaper with continued slide in the oil and gas prices, the prospect for increases in Canadian interest rates is somewhat muted whereas in the U.S. I think the prospect of interest rate increases is probably if not a foregone conclusion. It’s certainly a probability. I think that’s creating an interesting dynamic that would improve the competitiveness of Canadian organizations in the M&A space as we think about US. So perhaps think about it this way, improving PDEs in Canada versus falling PDEs in the US and so I think we are cautiously optimistic Rupert that our competitive advantage generated by the differential between the Canadian environment in the US market will create some very interesting opportunities over the next 12 to 18 months. Rupert Merer Great. And then a follow-up on growth talking about Kinder Morgan pipeline, it looks like our COD target November 2018, and I believe you mentioned potentially starting construction January 2017. Talk about what the milestones look like for that project leading up to construction what you are going to need to see to be sure you are moving forward that’s’ and what the returns look like compared to some of your other investment opportunities. Ian Robertson Sure. Well, I think we all in this business obtaining the FERC Certificate is a huge gaiting item right now but the first FERC is expected to be filed in October of this year so October 2015 I think a year worth of prosecution of that application is probably are reasonable so therefore October 2016 is a reasonable period to expect that FERC certificate. Our construction start of January 2017 really kind of falls on the expected receipt of that certificate late fall next year. I will say that, what is ongoing and I think Algonquin Liberty can play an important role in it is all of the outreach programs that are going on certainly across New Hampshire. We are thinking an active role in demonstrating the benefits that this pipeline can bring to the existing customers of liberty utilities, but also potential new customers that pipeline is going through a sections of the state which are underserved by natural gas as I sort of joke. They don’t call the Hampshire the granted state for non and that the installation of pipelines is quite expensive and so I think we are taking a lead role and trying to show the talent and communities that will now be within economic distance of the pipeline, the opportunity to participate in what is undeniably a convenient and cost effective field. So I think that the next year is going to be busy for us in terms of supporting Kinder’s prosecution of the FERC and our own continued outreach in New Hampshire. You asked the question about returns, I think we are confident that the returns of the Kinder Morgan pipeline are going to meet or exceed the returns that we see from our other utility investments and frankly depending how the capacity of the pipeline has increased to incremental compression to get at it, the returns could significantly exceed the regulated returns on our distribution utilities. I hope that’s helpful, Rupert. Rupert Merer Yes. That’s helpful. Thanks very much. Ian Robertson Thanks, David Bronicheski Thanks, Operator Your next question will come from Paul Lechem with CIBC. Please go ahead. Paul Lechem Thank you. Good morning. Ian Robertson Good morning, Paul. Paul Lechem Good morning. And just continuing the question on Northeast Energy Direct, you have an option to increase your ownership from 2.5% to 10% so I just wondering under what circumstances would you exercise that, are you looking, are you waiting out through the FERC process, for you do so, is that something else you are waiting for. Ian Robertson No our auction is continuing until the FERC certificates in hand and frankly when we negotiated it with Kinder, the fault was, where is the FERC certificates in hand, it’s pretty clear what the future is going to look like and so I’m not sure there is really practically any value in exercising the options since it’s at book value if you want to think of it that way before that date. So October 2016 will be called on to make a decision, it’s hard to frankly to imagine a circumstance as we look at the project today to say that you wouldn’t be exercising that option. I think the project is an attractive opportunity to commit as I said close to US$300 million to other opportunity, which will generate returns, which are kind of consistent with our expertise of our regulated utilities and so with the approval of Kinder Morgan’s board of directors of the project. I think from my perspective and you’d I have spoken and historically I have always characterized the Northeast energy direct opportunity really more I asked people to characterized it more as an additional of the entrepreneurial spirit alive and well within our [indiscernible] to be able to set out this kind of an opportunity but I think now with the approval in hand and the commitment from Kinder Morgan that we start to think about this being added to the do this rather than that perhaps the spec of that nature that might had before. Paul Lechem Okay, thanks and then back on the [indiscernible] agreement given your expanding geographic and scope of the acquisitions you’d look at how do you avoid complex between the two companies when you go after these new expanded opportunities access, of the areas where you still delineates which company will go after what’s or is that potential now for you both to start looking at similar kind of opportunities? Ian Robertson Well I think I’ll start by saying is that, is this has been an incredibly collaborative relationship over the past five years and well we certainly we evolved and Emera’s evolved and I’m highly confident that reasonable people can come to a reasonable understanding in terms of what’s best for both of us and I think that there is, there remains obviously a size differential I think they would probably agreed or the very, very focused on the North East, U.S. in terms of and Eastern, in terms of their focus and so I think there, I see way more opportunities for mutual support then for competition if you want to think of that way and but I think it is important if we just recognized that what was five years to go probably requires a update this and so we’re going into this, I don’t say positive and enthuse and you have to ask Chris but I would probably say the same from his perspective, it’s been a great run and we obviously wanted to continue. Paul Lechem Okay, thanks again. Ian Robertson Thanks Paul. Operator Your next question will come from Nelson Ng with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Nelson Ng Great, thanks good morning everyone. Ian Robertson Good morning Nelson. Nelson Ng Just two follow up on that Emera arrangements would there any projects where over the last year so we’re you actually wanted to pursue but based on your current arrangement with Emera you current per sale. Ian Robertson Yes, no, that I mean that it’s not about should have not being able to pursue and then just saying no or asked the say no clearly it’s a much more as I said collaborative relationship with that I think if you read the SIA that existed five years ago there were some sort of size though limits in there that probably don’t make as much sense any more we are clearly with the NED have got foot in the natural gas pipeline business which is with never contemplated before I think Chris acknowledged on his call that I think their interest per utility they’re spending to include natural gas a distribution utilities that was in contemplate. So I think we just need to. I think we just need to, I think it’s all about are just recognizing that the companies look different today but I think their remains the commitment to create mutual value as they said its worked really well and we’re filled with the relationship I don’t what more I can add because we’re obviously in the discussions for right now but we’re – we strive can kind of provide transparency in terms of these sort of ongoing relationships that’s kind what we are talking about it. Nelson Ng And could you just remind us when you expect to have that agreement revised or completed. Ian Robertson Its, discussions is going on right now, I think but there is couple of things that we’ve certainly have committed to and I kind of outline them in the agreement and one of them is obviously the agreement made reference to restrictions to – interest in Algonquin [indiscernible] totally appropriate any more given the size of Algonquin and so its underway right now, it’s in active working progress Nelson. Nelson Ng Okay. Got it. And then I guess somewhat related in terms of pursuing M&A or development opportunities, I guess there is a lot of activity in Mexico and I was just wondering whether you would look at doing transmission or pipeline or power opportunities there? Ian Robertson We actually have looked at some solar projects down in Mexico, obviously whatever other thing is a big step for us to be thinking about introducing country risk and potentially currency risk depending on how the PPA or is denominated but Mexico is not too far certain Dallas, Arizona utility and so I think there would definitely be a comfort there and I think what are the things that maybe just getting back to my prepared remarks is broadening its horizon on that one and as we look forward to the next five years, I think there are opportunities that we need be at least cognizant of that – that would be considered international as we think about U.S. and Canada today but I might provide reasonable growth and value opportunities for our shareholders. So I’ll give you, the short answer to your question Nelson is yes I mean I think we are interested in looking there. Nelson Ng Okay, got it. And then just one last question in terms of the Park Water acquisition on the Missoula condemnation process, I believe there was a ruling in favor of the city and can you provide us with an update on the process going forward, presuming you are appealing the decision and how long will that take and when do you think that will be final decision on that? Ian Robertson Sure. Well maybe the best way to quote the answer to your question is to quote the Montana Commission when they were petitioned by the City to dismiss our approval – transfer approval application in the commission basically said back to the City, when you are a long way away from actually owning this utility and some check is written, we are going to continue on, it’s a long road as you point out Nelson, we are in early innings that as you suggest the ruling on necessity which is only half of the process has been appealed by us the next part of the process is the valuation section of a condemnation and that is crafted to make sure that under the fifth amendment of the U.S. constitution we [indiscernible] just consideration. And I would point out that the value application, the valuation that is being submitted by Park Water in respect of that valuation process is close to $200 million and we’re just as I said this is a twist and turns kind of road, but we are looking for to completing the acquisition that we signed up for with Carlyle and we will continue to prosecute the condemnation part of this – the condemnation proceeding in the way we would do in any other of our jurisdictions and it’s certainly a process that we’ve been familiar with, you may recall we kind of bumped into this in Texas and so I see them as two completely independent and parallel processes now. So we’re looking forward to completing the acquisition of the whole [indiscernible] late this year. Nelson Ng Okay, great. Thanks for the clarification. Ian Robertson Thanks Phil, thank you. Operator Your next question will come from Matthew Akman with Scotiabank. Please go ahead. Matthew Akman Thank you. Good morning. Ian Robertson Good morning, Matthew. Matthew Akman My question is just follow up on the agreement with – one thing I’m not sure if you mentioned was whether you would consider doing development with [indiscernible] in line with possibly doing larger acquisitions? Ian Robertson That’s an interesting thought, until now historically as you’re aware – development has really kind of focused on development within the regulated utility footprint and joint ventures with other developers. And it is I guess I got to be frank and say that that is something that we would need to explore to see whether that is of interest with Emera I think one of the things I think this is where the heart of your question is that the development, I will call it again but the development process for power projects is becoming should have not again for Mom’s and Pop’s as you know Odell project is a third of US$1 billion. We’ve looked at other projects which are significantly larger and so there may well be an opportunity for a collaboration between Emera ourselves and some of these larger projects up to now we’ve been pretty comfortable with the things that we’ve been able to announce Emera has obliviously implicitly supported our initiatives by stepping up to the plate with continued commitments of equity capital and there has obviously been a history of us working together, you will recall the CalPeco acquisition was done in direct partnership with Emera and ultimately they rolled their direct interest into us to create an indirect one. So I think it’s a great thought and certainly something that will be on the table as we’re sort of continuing discussions over the coming weeks. Matthew Akman Okay. Thank you. And just one other question is with the Obama administration announcing that they will be putting in place more incentives for clean energy in the US, I’m wondering if you have started to give any thought to opportunities around your existing US footprints that might arise from that. Ian Robertson I think you are making reference to the whole rule, Section I 11D of that clean power plant. We think that’s a real shot in the arm for a positive shot in the arm for the renewable sector and so for sure I think as we contrast the activity that’s taking place in Canada versus the US, there is no doubt about it, our development teams are keeping their Canadian passports in good stead because there is tons of opportunity down there and frankly, to be frank we actually don’t bump into as many certainly in Canadian competitors who are comfortable with the US tax equity landscape and the US electricity markets and so for sure I think the recent announcements and you might continue, you might phrase it as Obama is continuing war on coal, I think is a really good things as positive implications for an organization with our focus. Matthew Akman Okay. Thank very much. Those are my questions. Ian Robertson Thank you. David Bronicheski Thanks, Matthew. Operator Your next question will come from Ben Pham with BMO. Please go ahead. Ben Pham Hi, thanks, good morning everybody. Ian Robertson Hi, Ben. Ben Pham I just wanted to go back and then maybe if you can quantify the size of the [indiscernible] opportunity for you in terms of acquisitions when you consider your EBTIDA mix and just where you want to go, geographically going forward. Ian Robertson Sure. I think in terms of our, I mean I will start with the question about EBITDA mix. Currently we are about 50-50, we are completely comfortable with 50-50 though I will say we are not wedded to 50-50 and acquisitions such as the Odell project, or Park Water, they tend to be lumpy, we don’t add our EBITDA $1 in time. So we acknowledge that, that split could temporarily move in one direction or the other. I think we are mindful of the fact that our credit rating is primmest on the organization as a whole, which is obviously reflect of significant portion of our earnings on regulated utilities and so we are mindful of that. In terms of our sweet spot for transaction, I think we were obviously comfortable with the Odell project, a third of a US$1 billion. And so arguably maybe our sweet spot has certainly increased as the organization is headed for $5 billion in total size but the good news is projects tend to be getting larger in size and the scale as well and so we are tending to find those larger projects. In terms of M&A, acquisitions, I don’t think it’s a reasonable rule of some to say that quite comfortably an organization could probably do M&A equal to about one-third of its size without creating huge [indiscernible] in the marketplace and so as we head for $5 billion we’re definitely north of $1.5 billion in terms of the acquisition that we can do on our own. But just a follow on, I know that was Matthew’s question but one of the benefits of the relationship of the Emera is allowing us to punch way above our weight in terms of that scale and scope of M&A activity I mentioned our California experience which Amherst took a direct interest in the utility, the allowing us to as definitely hunt in a size range that would be north of that $1.5 billion which would be our left or own devices kind of threshold and so I think it’s just been another example of how we benefited from that opportunity of the [indiscernible] relationship to be able to explore opportunities which have a very wide dynamic range Ben Pham And you mentioned about the CalPeco JV and years back when you first starting you guys thinking that’s one own with the utility side of things when you think about that doing from our side and thinking about the nears comments about the OTC gas, I remain are you having more discussions about bringing back that JV structure going forward with Amherst? Ian Robertson Well, I think it would, I think it’s obviously circumstantial dependent, we have, when do you we gone at on our own I think that the short answer is we’ve identified utility acquisitions and growth opportunities that obviously to seem to make sense to fit into our portfolio perk water in examples that’s hard to imagine how JV with the [indiscernible] on that would have been strategically aligned for them but obviously right on the fair away from our perspective but I think as we think about some of the larger opportunities and I think we’re thrilled that [indiscernible] has an interest in gas LDCs because now all the sudden there is a possibility to collaborate on some of the larger LDC sales where – would say yeah, we are interested in a direct opportunity up till now to be frank I think it would been reasonable to a thought that those JV opportunities would have been pretty much limited to electrical distribution company because that’s where [indiscernible] focus was so I think it actually just expand the potential scope for in terms of modality and in terms of geography for collaborating with – so I think it’s all good. Ben Pham Okay, got it. That’s all I have. David Bronicheski Thanks Ben. Operator Your next question will come from Sean Steuart with TD Securities. Please go ahead. Sean Steuart Thanks good morning guys. Ian Robertson Hi Sean. David Bronicheski Good morning. Sean Steuart Thanks for all the general commentary on I guess broader growth ambitions I just have a couple of projects specific questions. On Odell you guys have an option to take full ownership there, can you give us a little bit of context of you’re thinking on when that actually happens? Ian Robertson Sure and I think it’s important as we think about managing our balance sheet through the development cycle and those we think about all of the metrics by which we’re elevated that joint venture structure is a good way to address what is the very short term part of the overall life of a generating station and so when you think that once the generated station hit COD you’ll got 30, 40 years of life in front of you but the development pace is 12 months long. And so we were comfortable putting that development structure in place during the construction phase but would have to rethink whether we would prefer to own a 100% of that come to COD of the project and we’ve obviously crafted an option to do that and so I think may be so just to be so to be specific in responses to your question we would probably a evaluate whether we want to 100% of that project at the end of the development phase once we got through the COD and that’s where we probably be thinking about it. Sean Steuart Okay, understood and on Amherst you guys give a little bit of commentary in the MD&A about some recent progress there any inside on what we might be looking at for construction beginning and expected appeals from locals any general update on Amherst? Ian Robertson Sure and obviously we kind of give up, given specific dates for how we think this process will but broadly and that the which is the renewable energy approval and we’re thinking end of summer the appealed process which is you aware is called the Environmental Review Tribunal ERT at the six month process and so it sounds like as we have been managing our construction timing and contracting that next year we jumped heavily into that construction process at the end of the ERT which kind of sounds early 2016. Sean Steuart Okay. Thanks very much Ian. Ian Robertson All right. Thanks, Sean. End of Q&A Operator [Operator Instructions] There are no further questions at this time, please continue. Ian Robertson Well again, thanks everyone for joining us on our Q2 investor call and we appreciate all the questions and interest that you’ve demonstrated. So with, I would ask everyone to remain on the line for a review of our disclaimer. Alison. Alison Holditch Certain written and oral statements contained in this call are forward-looking within the meaning of certain securities laws and reflect the views of Algonquin Power & Utilities with respect to future events based upon assumptions relating to among others, the performance of the company’s assets and business financial and regulatory climates in which it operates. These forward-looking statements include among others statements with respect to the expected performance of the company, its future plans, and its dividends to shareholders. These forward-looking statements relate to future events and conditions by their very nature and require us to make assumptions and involvements here and uncertainties. We caution that although we believe our assumptions are reasonable in the circumstances, these risks and uncertainties give rise to the possibility that our actual results may differ materially from the expectations set out in the forward-looking statements. Material risk factors include those presented in the company’s most recent annual financial results, the annual information found in most recent quarterly management discussion and analysis. Given these risks, undue reliance should not be placed on any forward-looking statements. In addition, such statements are made based on information available and expectations as of the date of this call and such expectations may change after this date. APUCs reviews materials, forward-looking information that is presented not less frequently than on a quarterly basis. APUC is not obligated to nor does it intend to update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future developments, or otherwise except as required by law. With respect to non-GAAP financial measures, the terms adjusted net earnings, adjusted earnings before interest tax and depreciation and amortization, or adjusted EBITDA, adjusted funds from operations, per share cash provided by adjusted funds from operations, per share cash provided by operating activities, net energy sales, and net utility sales collectively the financial measures are used on this call and throughout the company’s financial disclosures. The financial measures are not recognized measures under generally accepted accounting principles or GAAP. There is no standardized measure of these financial measures, consequently APUC’s method of calculating these measures may differ from methods used by other companies and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. Our calculation and analysis of the financial measures and a description of the use of non-GAAP financial measures can be found in the most recent and published management discussion and analysis available on the company’s website and cedar.com. Per share cash provided by operating activities is not a substitute measure of performance or earnings per share. Amounts represented by per share cash provided by operating activities do not represent amounts available for distribution to shareholders and should be considered in light of various charges and clearance against APUC. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude the conference call for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect your lines.

Just Energy Group’s (JE) CEO Deb Merril on Q1 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Just Energy Group Inc (NYSE: JE ) Q1 2015 Earnings Conference Call May 14, 2015 02:00 PM ET Executives Deb Merril – President and Co-Chief Executive Officer Pat McCullough – Chief Financial Officer James Lewis – President and Co-Chief Executive Officer Rebecca MacDonald – Executive Chairman of the Board Analysts Damir Gunja – TD Securities Nelson Ng – RBC Capital Kevin Chiang – CIBC Operator Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Just Energy Group Inc. Conference Call to discuss the Fourth Quarter 2015 Results for period ended March 31, 2015. At the end of today’s presentation there will be a formal Q&A session. [Operator Instructions]. I would now like to turn the meeting over to President and Co-CEO, Ms. Deb Merril. Please go ahead, Ms. Merril. Deb Merril Thank you very much. Hi, my name is Deb Merril. I’m the Co-CEO of Just Energy and I would like to welcome you all to our fiscal 2015 fourth quarter and year-end conference call. I have with me this afternoon Executive Chair, Rebecca MacDonald; my Co-CEO, James Lewis; as well as Pat McCullough, our CFO. Pat and I will discuss the results of the quarter and full year as well as our expectations for the future. We will then open the call to questions. Before we begin, let me preface the call by telling you that our earnings release and potentially our answers to your questions will contain forward-looking financial information. This information may eventually prove to be inaccurate, so please read the disclaimer regarding such information at the bottom of our press release. 2015 was a remarkable year for Just Energy. Not only did we deliver outstanding financial results, we also made significant strides along many of the critical objectives we set out to accomplish. These are objectives that we feel provide the platform upon which to transform the company and execute the strategy effectively. A strategy that will position Just Energy to fully participate in what we do as a significant macro-trend and how individuals will consume energy and manage their energy needs in the future. I want to first address the headline in this morning’s AP Newswire, which was Just Energy reports fourth quarter loss compared to a profit a year earlier. For most of you on the call, it is obvious how misleading this is. In fact our fourth quarter generated tremendous results, particularly compared to fourth quarter of last year. Let me once again explain, the loss from continuing operations in the quarter, $65 million, and the year, $576 million is entirely due to the change in non-cash mark-to-market valuation of our future supply position. As this future supply has been sold to customer at fix prices, changes in the mark-to-market should have no impact on future margin and therefore company value. Management remains adamant that quarterly mark-to-market will have no true impact on current and future results. As with other energy retailers, Just Energy uses base EBITDA as a preferred measure of operating performance. As you will see, our base EBITDA grew significantly both for the quarter and the year. Before diving any deeper into the results, let me take a moment to reflect it a bit more on why fiscal 2015, was so important to Just Energy’s future. When JE had hit the range over one year ago, the polar vortex had just slipped the retail energy market on their heads, leading to financial losses and even bankruptcy among many small players, in addition to causing a shift in consumer behavior. All of these things benefitted Just Energy on a relative and absolute basis due to our leading position in this space. First, our world class risk management capabilities protect Just Energy against that kind of one-in-one hundred year type of event. We pride ourselves on the sophisticated risk management strategy that we’ve developed over the last several years, utilizing various instruments to minimize adverse impact to business from weather. It is also worth mentioning that our hedging practices have actually improved as a result of the lessons we learned during the polar vortex. Second, we saw consumers become more aware of their energy usage and bill and ultimately seek out better options than they have historically then presented. This time at Just Energy and our record 1.4 million gross customer additions and our 276,000 net customer additions for the year is just one example of that. In fact, fiscal 2015 marks the 18th consecutive year of net customer additions for Just Energy. We now serve over 2 million individual customers consuming the equivalent energy of 4.7 million residential customers. To put that into perspective Just Energy now provide nearly 2% of North American’s total energy consumption. What’s important about our continued ability to grow as large established base business is that the growth is also very profitable growth. We realized higher margin for customer in both the residential and commercial business during fiscal 2015. This is directly related to the ongoing commitment to the margin improvement initiatives that we have talked publicly about over the course of the past year. To add some color on how far we’ve come along already this year, we’re now signing consumer customers at $191 margin per RCE which compares to $166 one year ago. Additionally, commercial margins being added at $79 per RCE up from $67 one year ago. We were able to drive these improvements in margin because our innovative new products are gaining more appeal and presenting more value for customers. This is allowing us to price our energy management solutions at premium points without sacrificing customer satisfaction. I think when we have provided and specifically mentioned our great success in UK as well. We entered the UK commercial market just over two years ago. Over that period, our customer base has grown to 202,000 RCEs. Gross additions for the year were 148,000 up 90% from 78,000 a year ago. This market has grown to become 4% of our customer base. Not only has UK has fully repaid our investment in the region, but it now makes a contribution to the profit of the company. We launched our residential product offering in the UK as of last July. We believe this early success validates our model and our ability to compete outside of North America taking the lessons learned in evaluating new avenues for growth in new markets that will benefit from our innovative approach to energy management solutions. In addition to the strong financial results for the year, we also significantly improved our financial footing and flexibility by directly addressing the company’s debt level. At year end 2015 our book value net debt was 598 million, down 322 million, a 35% reduction from one year ago. We sold two non-core non strategic assets in November our National Home Services water heater unit and our Hudson Commercial solar business, and the proceeds from these sales drove the debt reduction. Pat will discuss with you in more detail next. Simultaneous to all we’ve discussed so far, we also reached a very unique strategic agreement with Clean Power Finance to enter the high growth residential solar market in a manner that leverages Just Energy’s core competencies and sales and marketing, tapping into our 2 million captive customers and the millions of doors our team knocked on annually. This partnership enables Just Energy to provide solar offerings to its customers in a way that positions us to benefit from the most profitable part of the solar value chain. We lost our solar pilot program in California in March and New York in May whilst it is still very early in the pilot phase of the business, the initial results and feedbacks have been positive. Our plan now is to continue to carefully expand our solar footprint to other states where it makes economic sense and to continue to push the industry forward to develop more customer friendly products that provide value to the homeowner. In summary, it has been an excellent year for our company and one we feel strongly directs us on the path forward to becoming the premier world class provider of energy management solutions. Now I’ll turn the call overt to Pat McCullough to talk about the financial details for the quarter and fiscal year and then I will finish with a discussion of future trends and the outlook in the market. Pat McCullough Thank you, Deb. I want to echo what Deb said and that we are really pleased with the progress we made in 2015, how we finished off the year from a financial perspective and the strong start we’re seeing here in fiscal 2016. Let me cover first some highlights of the fourth quarter and then I’ll take you through the fiscal year results. Fourth quarter sales were up 7% to $1.2 billion reflecting our year-over-year growth in customers. Gross margin of $194 million was up 41% from fiscal 2014 reflecting comparison to the polar vortex quarter last year as well as the higher U.S. dollar. Base EBITDA was 68 million up 20% reflecting the strong margin growth offset by unforeseen legal costs which drove administrative expense higher. Lower debt after the closing of the NHS sale had a very positive effect on FFO for the quarter as it reached $32 million up 84% from fiscal 2014. Overall an extremely strong quarter. Let me now cover the results for the fiscal year. Our sales for the year were up 10% to $3.9 billion reflecting our 6% increase in customers. The impact of the higher U.S. dollar on conversion of U.S. revenue as well as higher selling prices in fiscal 2015 compared to 2014. For the year the overall net impact of the higher U.S. dollar including impact on both revenues and expenses was approximately $8 million favorable. For the fiscal year margins were up 19% to $600 million driven by our customer growth the U.S. dollar higher volumes used for commercial customer and higher realized margins per customer. An important driver of profitability was higher new customer margins, we’re able to do this because of our innovative new products that achieved both value for the customer and provided better margins for Just Energy. As Deb mentioned, new commercial customers were signed at $79 per RCE annual margin, up from $67 a year ago. A higher commercial margin is a conscious decision to reduce low margin commercial business and focus on more profitable customer segments. We’ve also benefitted from the market exit of a number of smaller low price competitors who failed because of less sophisticated risk management processes during the polar vortex. New residential customers were signed at $191 for RCE annual margin, up from $166 a year ago. Improved margins per customer has been the focus here, higher margin on residential customers is a positive trend, as these customers are largely locked in some multi-year contract terms. Administrative costs were up $37 million or 32% year-over-year. We had anticipated double-digit growth to fund expansion of organic infrastructure but there were significant unforeseen impacts from the U.S. dollar and non-recurring charges of $14 million and legal costs related to law suits dropped during the year. We expect the administrative costs to return to normal in fiscal 2016. Selling and marketing expense during the year increased by $35 million or 19% year-over-year compared to the 5% increase in customer editions. Selling cost included amortization of past advances to commercial agents and residual payments to our online channel. These costs are not associated with customers added during the period. This trend of high growth in selling costs will continue until the shift to higher residual marketing channel stabilizes. Bad debt was at the low end of our target range at 2.4% of relevant revenue, up from 2.1%. This increase was attributable to higher defaults on very high polar vortex bills last year which became due in fiscal ’15. The proportion of revenue on which we bear credit risk will continue to increase as Texas in particular remains the fast growing market. Fiscal year 2015 EBITDA finished at $180 million, up $13 million or 8% from fiscal 2014. The company has provided guidance of $163 million to $173 million of base EBITDA for fiscal 2015 and updated that guidance to the upper end of that range following the third quarter results. Actual results succeeded the upper end of the range by $7 million based on strong fourth quarter performance despite higher than anticipated operating costs associated with the legal and regulatory expenses. For the year, funds from operations were $93 million, up from $89 million in fiscal 2014 consistent with our change in EBITDA. Our dividend payout ratio was 94% for the full year, down from 139% in fiscal 2014. Based on our current $0.50 per share dividend, that ratio would have been 81% for the last 12 months. We have a target of 65% payout ratio and we expect to make a significant step toward that number with our guidance for fiscal 2016. At fiscal year-end 2015, our book value net debt was 598 million or 3.3 times or our trailing 12 months base EBITDA. This is down from $919 million a reduction of 35% from one-year ago. During the year, Just Energy used the proceeds from the sale of NHS to repay the debt of approximately $260 million associated with that business as well as repay our credit facility. Debt reduction remains a clear priority for us at Just Energy, while much has been accomplished to improve the overall balance sheet and debt position management feels there is more that can be done. As such we have defined a logical, financially prudent approach to further reducing debt that also recognizes certain restrictions on our ability to prepay some maturities. This will involve our growth in cash flow to repurchase our debt in the market further reducing our debt to EBITDA going forward. Just Energy is in a strong position to execute the deleveraging plan and we believe the results will place the company in a stronger more financially flexible position. It’s important that we remain aligned with the corporate strategy of financial optimization through adherence to a capital like high return on investment capital business model. Overall the years surpassed our expectations and exceeded our guidance. Let me turn it back to Deb to talk about trends for the future. Deb Merril Thank you, Pat. As I alluded to earlier, the energy management solutions industry is bringing value added products to market that address the transformation in how energy will be consumed in the future. The retail energy industry has historically been viewed as offering only opaque financial instruments that yielded little value and which consumers didn’t fully understand. Today technology and innovative products make it a relevant industry adding real value to consumers and providing significant growth opportunities for companies with sales and marketing expertise that can provide exceptional customer service. Products like our Just Energy conversation program offer dual fuel flat built contact bundled with smart thermostat reflecting that innovation and technology. Just Energy has the longevity, size, independent and forward thinking solutions to capitalize on this emerging opportunity and to disrupt the traditional utility model. We believe the opportunities that come from this disruption are robust and global and we continually evaluate new market opportunities that offer strong demographics clear participation in industry trends and a favorable regulatory landscape. This reflects the future of continued growth. While our vision is long-term, we expect to see the benefits of our strategy and leading market positions in fiscal 2016 while it’s still early the solar strategy has launched and leverages our core competency to offer nearly immediate accretions and significant profitability enhancement streams as soon as the second half of fiscal 2016. In summary the organization is committed to measureable financial improvement that will serve as a springboard to capturing significant global opportunities. Through prudent fiscal management as well as a clear strategy for the future, we are in a very solid position heading into 2016. Our core business is healthy and growing. We’re generating record numbers of new customers while customer margins are improving. We have a leading market position in all our geographic territories and our sales and marketing expertise will allow us to step with the evolving needs of our target customers. As such, we are committed to delivering fiscal 2016 double-digit base EBITDA growth over a strong 2015 we just completed. I will be remised if I didn’t take a moment to thank our employees. We have 1,300 employees in three different countries that work tirelessly this past year to ensure these results for our shareholders. On behalf of Rebecca, Jay, Pat and I, we want to express our sincere appreciation for their efforts this past year and for their support in the future. We will now open for questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions]. And our first question comes from Damir Gunja from TD Securities. Please go ahead. Damir Gunja Just with respect to your guidance, can you share what currency assumption for the Canada U.S. dollar you are using there? Pat McCullough We’re using 1.20. Damir Gunja And I guess you’ve got a few or at least one legal item outstanding. Can you share sort of what you think legal expenses might look like for the coming year? James Lewis Damir, I think what we’ve sort of set aside as you’d can imagine is unknown but we think we have the right amount of reserves as you saw there. We put 14.5 million for the year between legal reserves and AD settlement. We think that’s appropriate now I mean as we go forward we need to adjust as well. Damir Gunja Any other sort of one-time items we should think about as we head into the next fiscal year? Pat McCullough Damir the one thing that we tried to point out in the outlook was that we will become a federal cash tax payer in Canada in fiscal ’16, we expect to not become a federal cash tax payer in the U.S. until fiscal ’18 but we wanted to point that out so that will be a trend that impacts cash flow. Operator And our next question comes from Nelson Ng from RBC Capital. Please go ahead. Nelson Ng I have a few questions on the solar business, Deb you mentioned that the pilot projects have started in California and New York. How long does the pilot projects need to go on for before you decide in terms of whether you rollout more widely within the state or into other states? Deb Merril From our perspective the pilots are really to learn and kind of refine not only our sales process but our ability into manage those customers and work with those customers over time. It’s not really a should we move forward or not, it really is the ability for us to learn and to figure out the best way for us to utilize our skills, so that we can get the best results. So, we fully intend to continue to rollout through New York and California and other markets as well in fiscal ’16. And we’re trying to really take our very smart deliberate approach to making sure we learn in a very controlled environment before we really get big. Nelson Ng So you’re currently just targeting very specific markets in California and New York, right? Deb Merril Yes, kind of our key learning how to operate and one of the things we’re really trying to do Nelson is the solar industry if you look at conversion rates which from the time we get a customer, time the customer actually gets installed and a lot of customers that qualify are not following through and we think there are some things that we can do on the product side as well as how we interact with customers to make it easier for customers to be our solar customers. So we’re really looking at utilizing our knowledge of customer behavior and pushing that and listening forward from that perspective as well. Nelson Ng And then in relation to your fiscal ’16 guidance, do you have like what assumptions have you made in terms of the contributions from the solar business? Deb Merril So we’ve put a little bit in that solar, but we’re not — like I said until we really know what we think we have here in the productivity, we wanted to make sure that we’re a little bit — learn a little bit before we actually put the full effect in there. Nelson Ng In terms of — and then just kind of moving onto the next question, customer additions in fiscal fourth quarter was down quarter-over-quarter, I was just wondering whether any factors that caused the slowdown. I know in the past I think fiscal Q4, the winters didn’t really slow you down in the past I was wondering if there are other factors from this past quarter? James Lewis We have a commitment to margins, so from our perspective we think we’re going about it at the right way. So we want to make sure that we’re going out to the more profitable possible customer. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from Carl [indiscernible] Please go ahead. Unidentified Analyst Just again I realize it’s early in the solar pilot, but in terms of maybe more specifics, do you — the early indications of what you think you can earn in terms of EBITDA contribution or what — install what — are those kind of meeting your early expectations and how quickly do you expect to ramp over the next say two to three quarters and then maybe two years out? And then maybe talk about some other market besides New York, California that you’re targeting? And I have a couple of follow-ups. Deb Merril Carl I think from our perspective what we’re trying to learn now is how much we can close per agents in the field, we’re really making sure that we can get a lot of productivity out of our sales force, which goes around training, sales pitch, product all of those things. So that’s really as we start to move through this that’s what we’re focusing on right now. Unidentified Analyst And then maybe outside New York, California, could you highlight a couple of other regions you think might be targets as fiscal ’16 unfolds? Deb Merril We’re looking at Massachusetts, we’re looking at Ontario and Texas they are not traditionally looked out right now for the hot solar markets. But we believe there is some opportunities there as well. So kind of we could say most of the space that you see people operating in where we have a customer base, that’s where we’re going to focus first. Unidentified Analyst And then maybe switching gears little bit, obviously you have lot of very strong success in the very short timeframe in the UK, can you talk if you’ve been able to realize it’s fairly early and targeting in the residential side. But there are things that you can learn from a commercial side and port it over to the residential side a very different markets within UK and then what do you see potential opportunity in either continental EU or other international markets do you think might be near-term targets? Deb Merril One of the things we’re really seeing and we’re excited about in UK is that the product that we have in North America with a bundle that we are doing, some of the flat build products and bundling smart thermostat, we’re not seeing while that happen in the UK. So we actually think that this year we’re going to try to bring some more innovative product over there that is on the ways that we’re doing on the residential side in U.S. So it’s really not a commercial learning to residential, it’s really residential in North America learning taking it over to residential UK. And we really believe that giving customers over their products that really has true value to them that they can really budget around that we’ll have a big impact. As far as direct in Europe, I think our success here has given us a little bit of confidence in our ability to do these things and have lot to do with people in the UK, we have a great team over there, but we’re always looking at additional opportunities in other markets where it makes sense. So I think that there some opportunities in the Netherlands and some other countries, even outside of Europe. Unidentified Analyst And I know you probably broken some in the past and maybe can share, but you talk about your margin per customer in the UK, these are either North America or U.S.? Deb Merril What we have said in the past, that we don’t break it out, but we have in the past is that our margins are slightly better over there than they are in North America what we’ve seen so far. Unidentified Analyst Pat maybe a couple of questions for you in terms of talking about re-utilizing a credit facility, is that — I am assuming that you’re not necessarily going to bring down the embedded as quickly due to last year for obvious reasons, but is credit facility looking — are you looking potentially there to bring down the high yield debt and swap it for a cheaper credit facility, is that one of the early goals? Pat McCullough Yes, I think what the company needs on a go forward basis is a strong credit facility, so we are working towards a renegotiation of the existing credit facility as it expires to the end of this calendar year. At that point we’ll be looking to restructure things like for the 330 and the 105, the coupon on the 105 is challenging for us but the size and the eminence of the 330 are also important to us. So that’s the priority list for us with the balance sheet. Unidentified Analyst And then you talked about returning more to a normal administrative expense run rate in fiscal ’15. Could you maybe qualify a little bit? Maybe however you we want to do so versus revenue or maybe even as well as the base EBITDA? Pat McCullough Our goal as management is to always drop through more gross margin and sales and more EBITDA than gross margin. So, as we look at this year we were really challenged with the legal reserves that we took so as we go forward and as we clarify things like our employment practices and defend ourselves vigorously we don’t expect to have that level of one timers impacting us on a go forward basis, so it’ll be much more of G&A investment associated with the infrastructure needed for our growth. Unidentified Analyst Last question is typically and maybe I’d missed it and didn’t get time to go through it full press release so you talked about percentage of Just Green and maybe the consumption of the energy of the supply from Just Green? James Lewis I mean — it is 31% there of our customers taking Green and of that Green, they’ll take the majority of the usage and Green — 84%, yes. Unidentified Analyst 84% okay, yes, I was wondering if it’s flattish but sounds it kicked up plenty bit. I’ll take my questions offline. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from Kevin Chiang from CIBC. Kevin Chiang Just a couple of modeling questions from me. We’ve seen your, I guess your renewal rates over the next five years become much more front end loaded as you increase the number of commercial customers you have. I am just wondering as you rollout solar and as you kind of look at your international expansion, is there a thought process of maybe managing this renewal cycle to spread it out more to reduce kind of the upfront risk or is it going to continuously be kind of 50% of your renewal are due in the next two years and kind of look out over the next little while here? James Lewis I think with the renewals there on the commercial side, what you’ve sort of seen is commercial customers wants to lock in longer term when — with pricing low and some of those come in up run a year or two ago, we’re fighting where there is contingency cost we’re going to walk in a little longer-term. So they’ll probably ease itself out here over the next couple of quarters. Kevin Chiang And just the month-to-month customers I know aren’t included in that renewal table. But just generally how they’ve been trending, are they typically rolling over at the same paces you saw in previous years or months or have you seen any change in their customer behavior? James Lewis No material change it’s probably 1% change that falls into the attrition there, so when you look at the attrition number the month-to-month attrition there is 1% up which caused attrition rate for the commercial customers to be higher. Kevin Chiang And then just lastly from me, I know you’re moving forward or from independent contractors to employees which I think will be a positive cultural shift. But just trying to get a sense of how that impacts your P&L and your cash flow statement? I presume all of their wages now get booked into SG&A. And I know currently you have a component that goes through cash flow statement in terms of contract initiation costs. I am wondering that disappears if you move to 100% employee base and away from independent contractors and then net-net does that impact how you look at the dividend payout ratio longer term if I am right in those changes? James Lewis These are a couple of things there. So on an employee model there, it’s around the residential and it does go into SG&A as you mentioned there. While we’re seeing a slight pick-up there on some of the costs we haven’t seen a material change there. What we have seen is early indications that we are getting some better conversions on the employees that are sticking around. So we feel good about early indications there. Kevin Chiang And are you, when you look at the sales force overall, are you losing some of your top performers or in general people are the better sales agents sticking around as you would have hoped? James Lewis No, I think when you look at it, the sales agents themselves especially those top performers have stuck around that something hasn’t changed so we’re excited about that. It with more around more regulatory or legal requirement on the employee side but we do think we’ll get some benefit that we can leverage there as we look to bundle products, so we are bundling products out there that allows us to be more efficient and more effective and the sales force have been responsive to that. Operator Thank you. [Operator Instructions]. And at this time, I am showing no further questions. I will now turn the call over Ms. Deb Merril for closing remarks. Deb Merril Again, thanks everyone for joining us on the call. Like we said earlier, we couldn’t be happy with how the year saved us and we’re very much looking forward to fiscal 2016 and coming back next year and with another good year for all of our investors and shareholders. Everybody enjoy your day. Thank you. Operator Thank you, and thank you ladies and gentlemen. This concludes today’s teleconference. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect. Speakers please stand by for post conference. 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!

NiSource’s (NI) CEO Bob Skaggs on Q4 2014 Results — Earnings Call Transcript

NiSource, Inc (NYSE: NI ) Q4 2014 Earnings Conference Call February 18, 2015 09:00 ET Executives Randy Hulen – VP, IR Bob Skaggs – CEO Steve Smith – CFO Analysts John Barta – KeyBanc Carl Kirst – BMO Capital Chris Sighinolfi – Jefferies Becca Followill – U.S. Capital Advisors Charles Fishman – Morningstar Operator Welcome to the NiSource Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions]. As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Randy Hulen, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Randy Hulen Thank you and good morning everyone. On behalf of NiSource and Columbia Pipeline Partners, I would like to welcome you to our quarterly analyst call. Joining me this morning are Bob Skaggs, Chief Executive Officer and Steve Smith, Chief Financial Officer. As you know, the primary focus of today’s call is to review NiSource’s financial performance for the full year and fourth quarter of 2014 as well as provide an overall business update. Following our NiSource prepared remarks, we will also share a brief overview of the predecessor results for Columbia Pipeline Partners which were released this morning. We will then open the call to your questions. At times during the call, we will refer to the supplemental slides available on our website. I would like to remind all of you that some of the statements made on this conference call will be forward-looking. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in the statements. Information concerning such risks and uncertainties is included in the MD&A and Risk Factors section of our periodic SEC filings. With all those items out of the way, the call is now yours, Bob. Bob Skaggs Thanks, Randy. Good morning and thank you for joining us. 2014 was a watershed year for NiSource. It was anchored by focused execution of a record infrastructure investment program and the initiation of strategic and transformational growth plans. Those notably included the creation of Columbia Pipeline Partners and the announcement of the Columbia Pipeline Group spinoff. If you will turn to slide 3 in the supplemental deck that was posted online this morning, you will see a few of the year’s highlights. The NiSource team delivered yet another year of solid operational performance and industry-leading financial results. In 2014, we generated net operating earnings from continuing operations, non-GAAP of $1.72 per share, exceeding our guidance range of $1.61 to $1.71 per share and up nearly 9% from 2013 and we delivered total returns to our shareholders of 32%, which outperformed the major utility indices for the sixth consecutive year. Our team executed on a record $2.2 billion capital investment program, made significant progress on various regulatory and legislative programs and originated several transformational growth projects at CPG. These initiatives synched closely with our company-wide modernization initiatives, delivered significant value to our customers by facilitating the development of significant shale resources and providing more modern, safe, efficient and environmentally friendly infrastructure. They also benefit our communities through job creation and economic development and our shareholders through sustainable long-term returns. During the year, we also expanded our projected long-term inventory of infrastructure investments which is now targeted at $12 billion to $15 billion at CPG over the next 10 years and $30 billion at NiSource’s utilities over 20 plus years. As I noted at the top of the call, 2014 marked the launch of two important strategic initiatives; the separation of CPG and the creation of Columbia Pipeline Partners. On that note, our team was pleased with Columbia Pipeline Partners’ $1.2 billion initial public offering in early February. The Partnership’s offering was enthusiastically received by investors. Steve will provide a brief update on the partnership as part of this morning’s call. We remain on track with the NiSource CPG separation process. A couple of weeks ago, we filed our initial form 10 registration statement with the SEC, have announced key expected board members and the majority of executive team members for both companies. Following the separation, both companies are expected to move forward as independent, investment grade pure play entities with experienced teams focusing on executing and elevating well-established platforms for growth. As we look ahead to NiSource and CPG operating, independent companies, I wanted to briefly highlight their growth expectations. As we first announced in our 2014 investor day, NiSource as a pure play utility expects its average annual long-term earnings and dividend to grow at 4% to 6% over the long term. As a pure play pipeline company with an MLP, CPG is targeting its annual adjusted EBITDA growth in the mid- to upper teens over the next several years. Its annual dividend growth is expected to be commensurate with this robust EBITDA growth. With these very strong growth rates and deep investment inventories, both companies will be positioned in the top tier of their peer groups. As the separation date gets closer, both NiSource and CPG will conduct roadshows to provide additional details on their projected performance profiles. And just to expand on the growth for one moment, we wanted to be absolutely clear on the fundamental baseline commitments of each company. Therefore, we provided earnings and dividend outlooks as well as capital expenditure outlooks. We wanted to be clear on what long-term drivers are for each of the businesses. We wanted to be helpful versus academic. And as you know, 2015 will be a split year for NiSource and CPG with significant developments unfolding during the first half of the year, including the IPO of CPPL, the recapitalization of CPG and NiSource, as well as the separation itself and the ongoing development of Mountaineer XPress and Gulf XPress. Again, we wanted to provide what was helpful, what was most constructive, therefore our key commitments are key fundamental drivers. As we mentioned, roadshows will occur prior to separation to provide additional detail on 2015, 2016 and the long term. Now with that, let me turn the call over to Steve Smith to review our 2014 financial results highlighted on page 4 of our supplemental slides. Steve Smith Good morning, everyone. As Bob mentioned, we’ve exceeded our guidance range for the year by generating non-GAAP net operating earnings of about $545 million or $1.72 per share, which compares to about $495 million or $1.58 per share in 2013. On an operating earnings basis, NiSource was up about $125 million. By GAAP comparison, our income to continuing operations was about $530 million for 2014 versus about $490 million for 2013. At the segment level, you will see in today’s release that each of our three core business units delivered solid financial results. CPG delivered operating earnings of about $491 million compared to about $441 million in 2013. CPG’s net revenues excluding the impact of trackers were up about $80 million. NIPSCO’s electric operations delivered about $288 million in operating earnings compared to about $265 million for the prior year. Net revenues excluding trackers were up about $47 million. And finally, our Gas Distribution business unit came in at about $517 million, compared to about $449 million in 2013. Net revenues, again excluding the impact of trackers, were up about $126 million. As our numbers attest, it was another strong year for the NiSource team. Full details of our results are available on our earnings release issued and posted online this morning. Now turning to slide 5, I would like to briefly touch on our financing and liquidity positions. We retained a strong liquidity position with approximately $720 million of net available liquidity at the end of the year. Of our record $2.2 billion capital investment program, approximately 76% of these investments were focused on revenue-generating opportunities. Our debt to capitalization came in at about 62% of the end of the year. And as Bob mentioned, we remain on track with the NiSource CPG separation. In that regard, we have taken several key steps to establish a strong financial foundation for both companies. The first step was to secure two separate credit facilities that will become effective at the separation. We entered into two $1.5 billion five-year credit facilities, one for NiSource and the other for CPG. These facilities will replace NiSource’s existing $2 billion agreement. At the same time we entered these agreements, we also entered into a $500 million five-year facility at Columbia Pipeline Partners which went into effect at the time of the IPO. The next major step in this process is the recapitalization, which is on schedule to commence in the second quarter. We will provide additional updates on this process in our first quarter earnings update and through other public announcements. With that, I will turn the call back to Bob to discuss a few execution highlights from each of our business units. Bob Skaggs Thanks, Steve. Let’s start with CPG highlights on slide 6. The CPG team continues to advance a steady stream of transformational growth and modernization projects. As I noted earlier, CPG expects to invest up to $15 billion in growth capital over the next 10 years, with most major projects currently in execution or in advanced stages of development. During 2014, CPG placed more than $300 million in system expansion projects and service, adding approximately $1.1 billion cubic feet of system capacity. An additional $200 million in midstream projects were put in service during the year and CPG’s modernization work approached $320 million. So in total for 2014, we added more than $800 million in new revenue-generating assets in service all on time and on budget. Meanwhile, the CPG team is in full execution mode on several ongoing and transformational growth projects. In December, the FERC approved the construction of the East Side expansion project which will provide approximately 315 million cubic feet per day of additional capacity for Marcellus supplies to reach growing mid-Atlantic markets. This $275 million project is expected to be placed in service later this year. In addition to the East Side expansion, CPG has more than $3 billion of growth projects in progress that will add approximately 4 billion cubic feet of transportation capacity. These projects include the Leach and Rayne XPress projects, the WB XPress project and the Cameron Access project. The Rayne and Leach projects collectively involve about $1.8 billion in system expansion, creating a major new pathway for transporting shale production to attractive markets and liquid trading points. Both projects are expected to be in service by the end of 2017. WB XPress is almost a $900 million project to transport about 1.3 billion cubic feet of shale gas to East Coast markets and various pipeline interconnects including access to the go point LNG terminal and Cameron Access is a roughly $300 million investment that involves new pipeline facilities to connect with the Cameron LNG terminal in southern Louisiana. The project will offer initial capacity of up to 800 million cubic feet per day. Our Columbia midstream team also is continuing to capitalize on CPG’s strong asset position in the Marcellus and Utica regions. Midstream projects currently in progress include $120 million Washington County gathering project and the $65 million Big Pine expansion project. Big Pine in the first phase of Washington County will be placed in service before the end of the year. As you may recall during our prior discussions, we’ve outlined plans for the potential Mountaineer XPress project. We’re now in advance commercial discussions with customers on this major project, as well as a complementary project called Gulf XPress. If implemented, these projects would provide substantial transportation capacity out of the Marcellus and Utica shale regions. These two projects could involve an investment as large as $2 billion to $2.5 billion. We hope to complete commercial terms and clear all contractual outs by July. As you can see, on all fronts, the CPG team is executing against an impressive and indeed transformational growth agenda. In 2015, we’re targeting a capital investment level of approximately $1.1 billion of CPG. As you’ve heard us say before, our intent is to triple our net asset base over the next five years. With that, let’s now shift to our utility businesses starting with NIPSCO, our Indiana electric and natural gas business summarized on slide 7. NIPSCO is continuing to deliver on its commercial and customer strategy with an inventory of investment opportunities approaching $10 billion for electric infrastructure and $5 billion for gas infrastructure over the next 20 plus years. 2014 was a strong year for NIPSCO as well. In the first half of 2014, NIPSCO commenced its seven-year natural gas and electric infrastructure modernization programs now expected to reach an investment level of nearly $2 billion and completed approximately $120 million of projects in 2014. These investments will help improve reliability, maintain system safety for the next generation. On the environmental front, in December NIPSCO placed the final FGD new unit in service at Schahfer Generating Facility. This unit, like the one placed in service during the fourth quarter of 2013 was delivered on time and on budget. A third FGD unit at NIPSCO’s Michigan City Generation Facility is on schedule to be placed in service by the end of 2015. Following the completion of the Michigan City units, all of NIPSCO’s coal burning facilities will be fully scrubbed. On the growth side, progress also continued on two major NIPSCO electric transmission projects. Right of away, acquisition and permitting are underway for both projects and preliminary construction will begin on the 345 kV Reynolds to Topeka line in the first half of this year. If you recall, these projects involve an investment of about $0.5 billion for NIPSCO and are anticipated to be in service by the end of 2018. Finally, in addition to the continuation of NIPSCO’s electric energy efficiency programs, the IURC approved the extension of the green power rate program. NIPSCO also reached a settlement on the continuation of its feed-in tariff program. NIPSCO’s agenda in 2015 remains focused on enhancing the reliability and environmental performance of the systems through modernization and replacement investments. In addition to delivering customer programs that help reduce energy usage and manage bills, these investments expected to reach nearly $400 million in 2015 deliver significant economic development and job creation activity in northern Indiana, while at the same time delivering value to our investors. Turning to our Gas Distribution Operations on slide 8, you can see a similar story of large-scale infrastructure investment paired with complementary regulatory and customer initiatives. Touching on a few highlights from the year, in November, the Pennsylvania Commission approved the settlement in Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania’s base rate case. The case provides for recovery of CPA’s investments in its well-established infrastructure modernization program and will increase annual revenues by approximately $33 million. New rates went into effect in December. Also in December, Columbia Gas of Virginia reached a settlement with customers for its rate case, which if approved would increase base rates by about $25 million. Notably in January, the hearing examiner in the case recommended approval of the settlement. Final commission decision is expected by the end of the first quarter. These rate cases, along with one completed in Massachusetts, provide for continued recovery of investments related to our well-established infrastructure programs which are designed to maintain and improve the safety and reliability of our systems. Also in the fourth quarter, Columbia Gas of Massachusetts filed its 2015 system, gas system enhancement plan under new legislation authorizing accelerated recovery of gas infrastructure modernization investments. If approved as filed, cost recovery would increase annual revenues by approximately $2.6 million. Across the gas utilities, we expect to invest almost $900 million in 2015. Together, NiSource’s industry-leading platform for utility growth provides significant reliability, safety and environmental benefits to our existing and new customers while also delivering shareholder returns through transparent recovery mechanisms. Shifting to slide 9, our key takeaways for 2015, we plan to execute our current business and customer plans while at the same time delivering the CPG spinoff on schedule in mid-2015. We’re moving ahead with another year of record capital investments, targeted at $2.4 billion across our utilities and pipelines and a complementary regulatory and customer service agenda. As for the separation, we’re well on our way to standing up two premier companies, with an experienced slate of management and directors at both companies. CPG and NiSource will be well-financed and strongly positioned to execute on their distinct strategies and deliver enhanced long-term earnings and dividend growth. As I mentioned, both NiSource and CPG will conduct roadshows prior to separation to provide detailed business profiles. With those highlights for NiSource, we will now shift to slide 11 in the NiSource deck and Steve will discuss Columbia Pipeline Partners IPO and its predecessor results. Steve? Steve Smith Thanks, Bob. With the launch of CPPL, we’ve introduced a best in class MLP to the market. One with a strong supportive sponsor, stable and predictable cash flows that are virtually insensitive to fluctuations in commodity prices and volumes, a robust growth profile with a deep inventory of long-term infrastructure investments. The strategic footprint overlaying the Marcellus and Utica shale production areas. The financial strength and flexibility and a premier execution focused and experienced leadership team. Our offering was very well received and we’re very pleased with the continued positive response. Let’s quickly touch on our IPO and predecessor results on page 12. The offering of approximately 54 million units at $23 per share raised nearly $1.2 billion. The pricing offering on February 5 and subsequently began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol CPPL the following day. These units include the full [inaudible] allotment executed by the underwriters. And as I mentioned previously, our $500 million five-year revolving credit facility we entered into in December came effective upon the IPO. Now let’s turn to our predecessor results issued this morning for periods prior to the IPO. As we outlined during our earlier NiSource remarks, Columbia Pipeline Group executed on and placed into service a wide variety of high-value projects during the year. These projects recorded CPPL’s predecessor growth and will serve as the model for the partnerships growth in 2015 and beyond. The predecessor reported net income of about $269 million for 2014 compared to about $267 million for 2013. The increase is primarily a result of new growth projects placed in service, new firm contracts and higher mineral rights royalties. On an adjusted EBITDA basis, the predecessor reported about $599 million in 2014 versus about $543 million in 2013. These results provide us with a solid footing as we move forward with CPPL’s strategy. Bob? Bob Skaggs Thanks Steve and thank you for participating today and for your ongoing interest and support of NiSource and Columbia Pipeline Partners. With that Nicholas, we’re ready to open the call to questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions]. Our first question comes from the line of John Barta with KeyBanc. Your line is now open. Please proceed with your question. John Barta Bob, thanks for the color on the Columbia kind of growth rates there. First off, are there any certain milestones we should be looking for regarding Mountaineer and Golf pipeline or did you say everything was going to be finalized in July? Bob Skaggs Yes, we mentioned we hope to clear all of our contractual outs by July. At the moment, we’re still working on agreements with the foundation shippers. One event that we would point you to is open seasons, both Mountaineer XPress and Gulf XPress. If you see those in the coming weeks, or so, that would be a positive sign that the projects continue to be moving forward. I would add those open seasons will be binding open seasons. That would be one guidepost. Operator Our next question comes from the line of Carl Kirst with BMO Capital. Your line is now open. Please proceed with your question. Carl Kirst If I could just maybe stay with Mountaineer and Gulf XPress for a second but perhaps ask it in a way to see if there has been any shift in tone in producer conversations and in particular, if you’ve seen any reticence or pulling back midstream versus pipeline? Certainly your enthusiasm for the pipelines to hopefully have contracts by July would indicate that they are staying pretty positive and constructive. But I just wanted to make sure I’m getting the right read here. Bob Skaggs Yes. You’ve hit the nail on the head. It remains positive, constructive. We have been in very, very close contact with our producer shipper customers both on the big work projects as well as the midstream projects. Carl Kirst Do you find a difference in the tenor of conversations between the midstream and the pipelines, or just given the exposure to the region, both are continuing to move forward? Bob Skaggs It’s the latter. There is not a material difference in tone. As you know, folks are being prudent with their CapEx for 2015. Having said that, they still remain fully committed to the Marcellus and Utica and they still focus on take away capacity particularly when you get into the 2017, 2018, 2019 timeframe. Carl Kirst And then maybe one last question on the larger pipes and recognizing hopefully we have a binding open season not too far away. I guess should we think about the risk to the project? Is this more of a — do you guys feel like you are in a competitive shootout with anybody, or is this just a matter of getting the producers comfortable with the economics and trying to get to the right region, but once they make that decision, you guys or these projects are the obvious choice? I just want to make sure I got a good sense of that. Bob Skaggs I wouldn’t go so far as to say obvious choice, but I would say that the focus tends to be on your latter point. That being the economics, the in service date and the like. Carl Kirst And then last question if I could and then maybe one for Steve. I know of very tiny thing, but I’m just curious given the difference of commodity prices, is there any way we should think about the delta or the change in mineral or royalties that you guys are getting from the upstream exposure between 2015 and 2014? Steve Smith This is Steve. I would say it’s immaterial to the overall results going forward. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Chris Sighinolfi with Jefferies. Your line is now open. Please proceed with your question. Chris Sighinolfi I just wanted to follow-up on of couple things. I appreciate your color and comments on the CPG ex EBITDA and dividend growth profiles. I was just curious assuming that you’re not going to answer a question as to where the starting point is for 2015, if you could just help us frame as you think about it and the board thinks about it the policy considerations around the initial level. I get the growth rate, but as we think about where — the variables that might shape where you guys ultimately set the starting point upon which we’re going to grow at that mid to upper teens level. Can you just give us some additional color on that front? Bob Skaggs Yes. Two key considerations. Number one, as you know we’re very sensitive to credit. We’re fully committed to investment grade credit. We need to go through the credit rating process in the March timeframe as we prepare for recap. So that starting point quite frankly is somewhat sensitive, somewhat dependent on credit considerations. The other is that the huge CapEx needs we have and so it’s balancing credit, CapEx and financing coming out of the gate. Those are the key considerations for starting point. Chris Sighinolfi Okay. And so to dovetail on prior questions, if some of the projects that are currently in discussion, sounds like they are moving forward into execution, like Mountaineer and Gulf that could be significant capital deployment. I would imagine then that would be part of this conversation. Bob Skaggs Correct. As I pointed out in my prepared remarks that we do have the significant events as we come up to separation and that’s certainly a huge, huge variable as we look at the financials and the outlook for the business. Chris Sighinolfi Perfect. And I guess switching and perhaps this is a question for Steve. Given the IPO, I know priced 15% or so above the range and I’m imagining the full overallotment exercise. Does that change at all the amount you had talked previously about a $3 billion debt recap. Does that shape at all the expectations around that modestly or at all? Steve Smith Not to a large extent. I mean, it does help obviously from a credit perspective, so we’re very pleased with the outcome of the IPO. With respect to the recapitalization, it is not going to move the needle too dramatically either way. Bob Skaggs We suggest still thinking in terms of $3 billion. Chris Sighinolfi Okay. And that I imagine will be profiled out in various tranches the various duration. Am I incorrect in thinking that? Steve Smith That is correct. Our current debt portfolio has a weighted average life of approximately 13.5 years. We would shoot for something north of 10 years, weighted average life. So probably issue a basket of 5, 10 and 30s to achieve that. Chris Sighinolfi One final question for me, there was a slight uptick even if I exclude the transaction costs for the fourth quarter that you reported in your corporate segment. There was an uptick in the corporate line item. Is there anything specific that’s driving that or is that just a variance from year-to-year? Bob Skaggs That’s just a variance from year-to-year. We have a bit more outside services costs in there as well as a result of all the activities we have going on here currently with respect to the separations. Operator Our next question comes from the line of Becca Followill with U.S. Capital Advisors. Your line is now open. Please proceed with your question. Becca Followill The growth rate that you’ve outlined for CPG of mid- to upper-teens, over what time frame is that? Bob Skaggs Next three to five years. Becca Followill And are you willing to talk at this point about what type of payout ratio that assumes? Bob Skaggs Not at this point, Becca. Becca Followill Okay. I understand. And then the large CapEx program that you have at CPG, how do you finance that going forward? Bob Skaggs Well, the MLP is the sole source of equity through the period and we will be using it frequently to support that. Operator [Operator Instructions].Our next question comes from the line of Charles Fishman with Morningstar. Your line is open. Please proceed with your question. Charles Fishman I assume you will take a couple questions on NIPSCO. Slide 7, Bob, the $67 million of the electric modernization plan to be expected to be spent in 2015. 100% of that is covered by trackers? Bob Skaggs That’s correct. Charles Fishman And then I would assume if my math’s correct $1.1 billion over seven years, that’s probably likely going to accelerate that number in 2016 or is this thing backend loaded? Bob Skaggs It gradually steps up and you may have heard us say in prior calls, prior discussions, as we complete the scrubber program, the modernization program begins to tick up or step up. Charles Fishman Okay. And then last question on NIPSCO, the clean power plan, if you look at what the EPA is proposing for Indiana, a lot of coal plant heat rate improvement, a lot of renewables, a lot of efficiencies at the customer level. Not a lot of gas CCDTs, but have you had any initial discussions with Indiana about what, what would be expected of NIPSCO if this thing comes in even close to what they are proposing? Bob Skaggs Yes. We’re in constant communications with our stakeholders, with the state. At this point nothing definitive has really been exchanged or decided. But clearly we’re working day to day with all those folks. Charles Fishman Now in the CPP plan for Indiana, a lot of renewables, is that something that’s even on the radar screen as far as the electric utility or the NIPSCO that’s after the separation that that’s an investment opportunity that they might consider? Bob Skaggs Yes, it could be down the road, but I would say over the next few years, still continues to play a modest role in the portfolio. Operator Thank you. And with no further questions in the queue, I will now like to turn the call over to the speakers for any closing remarks. Bob Skaggs Thank you and thank you once again for your ongoing interest in NiSource and your ongoing support. We greatly appreciate it. Have a good, safe day. Thanks, everyone. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today’s conference. This does conclude the program and you may all disconnect. Have a good day, everyone.