Tag Archives: organic

NextEra Energy (NEE) James L. Robo on Q3 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

NextEra Energy, Inc. (NYSE: NEE ) Q3 2015 Earnings Call October 28, 2015 9:00 am ET Executives Amanda Finnis – Director-Investor Relations John W. Ketchum – Senior Vice President-Finance James L. Robo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Armando Pimentel, Jr. – President & Chief Executive Officer, NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Eric E. Silagy – President & Chief Executive Officer, Florida Power & Light Company Analysts Daniel Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities (NYSE: USA ) LLC (Broker) Stephen Calder Byrd – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Steven Isaac Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Brian J. Chin – Bank of America Merrill Lynch Operator Good day, everyone, and welcome to the NextEra Energy and NextEra Energy Partners 2015 Third Quarter Earnings Conference Call. Today’s conference is being recorded. At this time, for opening remarks, I would like to turn the call over to Amanda Finnis. Amanda Finnis – Director-Investor Relations Thank you, Leo. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the third quarter 2015 combined earnings conference call for NextEra Energy and for NextEra Energy Partners. With me this morning are Jim Robo, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of NextEra Energy; Armando Pimentel, President and Chief Executive Officer of NextEra Energy Resources; and Mark Hickson, Senior Vice President of NextEra Energy, all of whom are also officers of NextEra Energy Partners; as well as Eric Silagy, President and Chief Executive Officer of Florida Power & Light Company; and John Ketchum, Senior Vice President of NextEra Energy. John will provide an overview of our results and then turn the call over to Jim for closing remarks. Our executive team will then be available to answer your questions. We will be making forward-looking statements during this call based on current expectations and assumptions, which are subject to risks and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially from our forward-looking statements if any of our key assumptions are incorrect or because of other factors discussed in today’s earnings news release, in the comments made during this conference call, in the risk factor section of the accompanying presentation, or in our latest reports and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, each of which can be found on our websites, www.nexteraenergy.com and www.nexteraenergypartners.com. We do not undertake any duty to update any forward-looking statements. Today’s presentation also includes references to non-GAAP financial measures. You should refer to the information contained in the slides accompanying today’s presentation for definitional information and reconciliations of certain non-GAAP measures to the closest GAAP financial measure. With that, I will turn the call over to John. John W. Ketchum – Senior Vice President-Finance Thank you, Amanda, and good morning, everyone. NextEra Energy delivered solid third quarter results driven by new investments at both FPL and Energy Resources. Adjusted earnings per share increased 3%, or $0.05 per share, against the prior-year quarter. Along with our strong performance in the first and second quarters and excellent progress against our objectives for the full year, NextEra Energy is well-positioned to close out 2015 in the upper half of our $5.40 to $5.70 range of adjusted EPS expectations, subject to our usual caveats. At Florida Power & Light, earnings per share increased $0.02 from the prior year comparable quarter. It was a warm summer season with above-normal weather-related usage, increasing both retail base revenues and our reserve amortization balance, while allowing us to continue to earn at the upper end of our approved ROE range. We remain focused on delivering customer value through best-in-class daily operations and execution against our initiatives to drive down costs, reduce fuel expenses, and improve reliability. During the quarter, FPL filed to lower electric rates again by about $2.50 a month on average in 2016, compared with current rates. We are very pleased to be able to deliver award-winning customer service with monthly bills for a typical residential customer lower than $100, and lower than they were a decade ago. We continue to have an outstanding opportunity set ahead of us and all of our major capital projects are on track. At Energy Resources, our results were in line with our financial expectations for the quarter and Energy Resources is well-positioned to attain its full-year expectations. Adjusted EPS at Energy Resources declined by $0.04 against the comparable prior-year quarter. The core Energy Resources story is unchanged as we continue to benefit from growth in our contracted renewables portfolio. In addition, our renewables origination results remain very strong. The team signed contracts for approximately 725 megawatts of new wind and solar projects since the last call, including approximately 600 megawatts of wind for 2016 delivery. Based on everything we see now, we are on track to exceed the high end of our previously announced 2015 to 2016 wind-build range. We continue to believe that the fundamentals for the renewable business have never been stronger. NEP remains on track to meet its distribution per unit expectations of $1.23 on an annualized basis by year-end, subject to our usual caveats. Since the last call, the financing and acquisitions of NET Midstream and the Jericho wind project were completed. Third quarter adjusted EBITDA and CAFD, which did not include contributions from either of these acquisitions, were slightly below our expectations due to wind resource. Wind resource was 93% of the long-term average for the NEP portfolio, while the long-term average for the Energy Resources portfolio was slightly higher at 97% for the quarter. The NEP board declared an increased quarterly distribution of $0.27 per common unit, or $1.08 per common unit on an annualized basis. Not only do we expect to deliver on our financial expectations for 2015, but we also are well-positioned against our 2016 financial plan. At FPL, we expect to earn in the upper half of the allowed ROE band and, as we have done this year, we expect continued strong execution against our capital deployment program for the benefit of Florida customers. For Energy Resources, we expect increased contributions from new renewables to drive adjusted earnings growth. Overall, we remain very comfortable with the 2016 adjusted EPS expectations we communicated in the second quarter earnings call. Let me now take you through the details of our third quarter results, beginning with FPL. For the third quarter of 2015, FPL reported net income of $489 million, or $1.07 per share, up $0.02 per share year-over-year. Regulatory capital employed increased by 7.8% over the same quarter last year and was the principal driver of FPL’s net income growth. This rate of growth in regulatory capital employed was higher than comparable measures in the first and second quarters this year and we expect another increase in the fourth quarter. As we discussed in the last call, we continue to expect the bulk of this year’s earnings growth for FPL to be in the fourth quarter. Our reported ROE for regulatory purposes will be approximately 11.5% for the 12 months ended September 2015, and this remains our target for the full year. For 2016, we continue to target a regulatory ROE in the upper half of the allowed band of 9.5% to 11.5%. As always, our expectations assume, among other things, normal weather and operating conditions. As a reminder, under the current rate agreement, we record reserve amortization entries to achieve a predetermined regulatory ROE for each trailing 12-month period. During the third quarter, due to higher retail based revenues driven by weather-related usage and customer growth, we reversed $115 million of reserve amortization. As part of the Cedar Bay settlement agreement with the Office of Public Counsel, we agreed to reduce the total available reserve amortization balance by $30 million, leaving us with an available reserve amortization balance of approximately $330 million at the end of the third quarter, which could be utilized in the remainder of 2015 and 2016. We continue to execute on our overall customer value proposition by delivering clean energy, low bills, and high reliability for Florida customers. Each of our capital deployment initiatives to provide low-cost, clean energy continues to progress in accordance with our development plans. Our generation modernization project at Port Everglades is on schedule to come online in mid-2016 and remains on track to meet its budget. Development of our three new large-scale solar projects remains on schedule, with each of these roughly 74 megawatt projects expected to be completed in 2016. These projects, once complete, will roughly triple the solar capacity on our system and add to the overall fuel diversity of our fleet, which is important for FPL and its customers. As a reminder, consistent with our focus on delivering cost-effective renewables for our customers, these projects reflect specific opportunities that take advantage of the remaining 30% ITC window, while leveraging existing infrastructure and prior development work. Aside from these specific projects, utility-scale solar, which is by far the most cost-efficient form of providing renewable energy in our service territory, particularly as compared to residential roof-top applications, is becoming more cost-effective across our entire service territory. We continue to expect that there will be additional opportunities for utility-scale solar on FPL’s system by the end of the decade. During the quarter, the Florida Public Service Commission issued its final order on its approval of modified natural gas reserve guidelines for up to $500 million per year in potential additional investments, which we continue to view as an important step in what we hope will be a larger program. The development team is actively evaluating new investment opportunities to lock in historically low natural gas prices for the benefit of Florida customers. Also during the quarter, we closed on our acquisition of Cedar Bay, and filed a determination of need for the approximately 1600 megawatts, $1.2 billion Okeechobee Clean Energy Center to be placed into service in mid-2019. FPL also continues to execute on its investments to improve reliability for Florida customers by upgrading its transmission and distribution network. We expect to invest approximately $3 billion to $4 billion in infrastructure improvements through 2018, with roughly $900 million of this amount being deployed this year. I am pleased to report that on a year-to-date basis, FPL has achieved its best-ever period of system reliability and is on track to deliver its best-ever reliability performance on a full-year basis. Last week, FPL won multiple national awards, including being recognized as the most reliable electric utility in the nation. Looking ahead, in 2016 we expect to deploy approximately 28,000 smart grid devices across our system as we continue to execute on our program to further improve system reliability. All of these initiatives are focused on delivering superior customer value. Our residential bills are 30% below the national average, the lowest among reporting utilities in the state, and lower than bills paid by FPL customers 10 years ago. Overall, we are extremely pleased with the execution at FPL and our relentless focus to deliver low bills, high reliability, clean emissions, and excellent customer service. The Florida economy continues to improve. The state’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in September was 5.2%, down 0.6 percentage points from a year ago and the lowest since early 2008. Over the same time period, Florida’s job growth was 3%, a continuation of a five-year trend in positive job growth with close to 1 million jobs gained since the low in December 2009. Along with the strong growth in jobs, retail activity has increased markedly since the trough in mid-2009, and July retail activity grew 8.6% since last year. At the same time, the September reading of Florida’s consumer sentiment remained close to the pre-recession highs. With the Florida housing sector, the Case-Shiller Index for South Florida shows home prices up 7.5% from the prior year, and mortgage delinquency rates continued to decline. As an indicator of new construction, new building permits remain at healthy levels. Third quarter retail sales were up 2.6% from the prior-year comparable quarter, and we estimate that approximately 1.4% of this amount can be attributed to weather-related usage per customer. Our weather-related retail sales increased 1.2%, comprised of continued customer growth of approximately 1.6%, reflecting the growing population of our service territory, offset by a decline in weather-normalized usage per customer of approximately 0.4%. This measurement reflects a residual from our estimation of the impact of weather. This is particularly challenging in periods with relatively strong weather comparisons such as we have had in the first three quarters of the year. However, based on the average of negative 0.3% for this reading over the last 12 months, we have reduced our outlook for weather-normalized usage per customer. Looking ahead, we expect year-over-year weather-normalized usage per customer to be between flat and negative 0.5% per year, primarily reflecting the impact of efficiency and conservation programs. As we had discussed last quarter, we do not expect modest changes in usage per customer to have a material effect on our earnings. For this year and next, any effects of weather-normalized usage are expected to be offset by the utilization of our reserve amortization and, after the expiration of our current settlement agreement, will be taken into account in our regulatory planning. The average number of inactive accounts in September declined 16% from the prior year and the 12-month average of low-usage customers fell to 7.8%, down from 8% in September of 2014. We remain encouraged by the positive economic trends in Florida and continue to expect above-average growth in our service territory. Let me now turn to Energy Resources, which reported third quarter 2015 GAAP earnings of $375 million, or $0.82 per share. Adjusted earnings for the third quarter were $221 million, or $0.48 per share. Energy Resources’ third quarter adjusted EPS decreased $0.04 per share from last year’s comparable quarter. NextEra Energy benefited from continued growth in our contract to renewables’ portfolio reflecting the addition of more than 1,900 megawatts of wind and solar projects during or after the third quarter of 2014, as well as positive contributions from the customer supply and trading business in the existing generation portfolio. Wind resources were roughly 97% of the long-term average versus 95% in the third quarter of last year. Offsetting the positives, among other things, were higher interest expense due to growth in the business and higher corporate expenses due largely to timing differences and increased renewables development activity in light of what we consider to be a very positive landscape for the renewables business. Results also were impacted by share dilution and lower state and federal tax incentives versus the prior-year comparable quarter. Year-to-date adjusted EBITDA increased 9% and operating cash flow was strong. We continue to expect full-year cash flow from operations to grow 20% to 25% subject to our usual caveats. As I mentioned earlier, the Energy Resources’ development team had another very successful quarter of origination activity, adding approximately 725 megawatts to our contracted renewables backlog since the last call. Let me spend a bit of time now on where each program stands. Since our last earnings call, we have added approximately 600 megawatts to our wind backlog, reflecting projects for 2016 delivery. Based on the strength of our wind development pipeline, we now expect to exceed the high end of our previously announced 2015 to 2016 wind-build range. The origination of new solar projects has also been strong. The team signed a 125 megawatt power purchase agreement for another new solar project for post-2016 delivery since last quarter’s call, demonstrating once again continued demand for solar projects even after the anticipated expiration of the 30% ITC support. The accompanied slide updates information that we provided at our investor conference in March, showing our excellent progress against our objectives for the 2015 to 2016 development program. As we discussed last quarter, we are encouraged that the Senate Finance Committee passed the tax extenders package in July that includes a two-year extension of the production tax credit. Although this is just one step in the process, we are pleased with signs of bipartisan support for a potential extension. We expect to update our 2017 and 2018 wind-build estimates by our first quarter earnings call next year. Overall, we believe that the strong fundamentals for the renewables business will continue to strengthen with continued equipment cost declines, improved efficiency advancements, a potential PTC extension, and the expected demand created by the EPA’s new renewables targets under the clean power plan. Let me now review the highlights for NEP. Third quarter adjusted EBITDA was approximately $99 million, and cash available for distribution was $15 million. These results were slightly below our expectations for the quarter, primarily due to weak wind resource, but the portfolio remains on track to achieve the distribution per unit expectations that we have shared for the fourth quarter distribution, payable in February. Since the last call, NEP completed the financing and acquisitions of NET Midstream and the 149-megawatt Jericho Wind project. The NEP Board declared an increased quarterly distribution of $0.27 per common unit, or $1.08 per common unit on an annualized basis. Turning now to the consolidated results for NextEra Energy. For the third quarter of 2015, GAAP net income attributable to NextEra Energy was $879 million, or $1.93 per share. NextEra Energy’s 2015 third quarter adjusted earnings and adjusted EPS were $730 million and $1.60 per share, respectively, with adjusted EPS up 3% over the prior-year comparable quarter. As we have discussed on the prior two quarterly calls, our earnings per share account for dilution associated with the settlement of our forward agreement of 6.6 million shares that occurred in December of 2014 and the June settlement of approximately 7.9 million shares associated with the equity units that were issued in May 2012. In the third quarter, the settlement occurred for approximately 8.2 million shares associated with the forward contract component of the equity units that were issued in September 2012. The impact of dilution in the third quarter was approximately $0.05 per share. Adjusted earnings from the corporate and other segment increased $0.07 per share compared to the third quarter of 2014, due to consolidating tax adjustments, earnings that are in pipeline and transmission business and other miscellaneous corporate items, none of which were individually notable. The development of both the Sabal Trail Transmission pipeline and the Florida Southeast Connection pipeline continue to progress well through their respective processes. We continue to expect to be in a position to receive FERC approval in early 2016 to support commercial operation by mid-2017. The Mountain Valley pipeline project concluded the scoping process as part of the pre-filing procedure and filed its application with the FERC this month. The project also added Roanoke Gas as a shipper and its affiliate as an equity partner. Mountain Valley is an approximately 2 Bcf per day project with 20-year firm transportation agreements, providing NextEra Energy a capital investment of $1 billion to $1.3 billion. The project schedule continues to support commercial operations by year-end 2018. We are very pleased with our progress so far this year at NextEra Energy. As we discussed on the last call, we are in a strong El Niño cycle that tends to be correlated with below average continental wind resource. And we also know that meteorological expectations are for the El Niño phase to potentially continue through the fourth quarter and into the first quarter of 2016. Nonetheless, based on the overall strength and diversity of the NextEra Energy portfolio, we expect to end the year in the upper half of the $5.40 to $5.70 range of adjusted EPS expectations that we shared with you previously. We continue to expect NextEra Energy’s operating cash flow adjusted for the potential impacts of certain FPL clause recoveries and the Cedar Bay acquisition to grow by 10% to 15% in 2015. For 2016, we expect adjusted earnings per share to be in the range of $5.85 to $6.35 and in the range of $6.60 to $7.10 for 2018, implying a compound annual growth rate off a 2014 base of 6% to 8%. For the reasons I mentioned earlier, we feel particularly good about the opportunity set at both FPL and Energy Resources and are well positioned going into 2016. We expect to grow our dividend per share 12% to 14% per year through at least 2018 off a 2015 base of dividends per share of $3.08. As always, our expectations are subject to the usual caveats, including but not limited to normal weather and operating conditions. Let me now turn to NEP. We continue to expect the NEP portfolio to grow to support a distribution and the annualized rate of $1.23 by the end of the year, meaning the fourth quarter distribution that is payable in February 2016. After 2015, we continue to see 12% to 15% per year growth in LP distributions as being a reasonable range of expectations through 2020, subject to our usual caveats. Our expectations for 2015 adjusted EBITDA of $400 million to $440 million and CAFD of $100 million to $120 million are also unchanged, subject to our usual caveats. In addition, last month, we introduced run rate expectations for adjusted EBITDA and CAFD. The December 31, 2015, run rate expectations for adjusted EBITDA of $540 million to $580 million and CAFD of $190 million to $220 million reflect calendar year 2016 expectations for the portfolio at year-end December 31, 2015. The December 31, 2016, run rate expectations for adjusted EBITDA of $640 million to $760 million and CAFD of $210 million to $290 million reflect calendar year 2017 expectations for the forecasted portfolio at year-end December 31, 2016. These expectations are subject to our normal caveats in our net of expected IDR fees as we expect these fees to be treated as an operating expense. With that, I will turn the call over to Jim. James L. Robo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Thanks, John, and good morning, everyone. It’s been a very strong first three quarters. At both NextEra Energy and NextEra Energy Partners, we’ve executed well both financially and operationally, and we’ve had strong execution of our growth plans all across the board. At FPL, the team continues to make excellent progress against our core strategy of investing to further improve our customer value proposition. FPL has typical residential bills 30% below the national average, one of the cleanest emission profiles in America, and was recently recognized as the most reliable electric utility in the nation. As we prepare to file a rate case at FPL in 2016, I’ve never felt better about the quality of FPL’s customer value proposition. Ultimately, as I’ve said before, our goal at FPL is nothing less than to be the cleanest, lowest-cost, and most reliable utility in the nation, and we’re well on our way to achieving that. At Energy Resources, we’ve made terrific progress against our core strategy of being the world’s largest generator of wind and solar energy. The fundamentals of the renewable business have never been stronger and Energy Resources continues to build what I believe is the largest and highest-quality renewables development pipeline in the space. John mentioned that Energy Resources now expects to exceed the high end of its range for 2015 to 2016 U.S. wind development that we shared with you in March. Based on the future demand we expect from the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and the potential extension of the PTC, we now see opportunities to increase even further the scale of our wind and solar development capabilities in order to seize an even larger share of the growing North American renewable market. We are significantly increasing our internal resource commitment to renewables development and we expect to as much as double the development resources committed to these activities over the next few years. I’m also very pleased with our natural gas pipeline and competitive transmission development efforts. Total expected capital deployment in our pipeline business, including pipelines underdevelopment and recent acquisitions, is now approaching $5 billion. In our competitive transmission business, we expect to invest more than $1 billion by the end of the decade. Although competition is fierce for both of these businesses, customers value our development capabilities, our engineering construction expertise, and our stakeholder relationships across North America. As with renewable energy, we expect the markets for new pipelines and new transmission will continue to grow, driven in part by the emissions targets under the Clean Power Plan. As with renewable energy, we believe NextEra Energy is well-positioned to capitalize on these new opportunities. Across the board, NextEra Energy is ahead of the goals we shared with you in March. Our announcement last quarter of increased earnings per share and dividends per share expectations for NextEra Energy was a reflection of this performance and we’re well-positioned to achieve these expectations. Notwithstanding recent volatility in capital markets, we continue to have confidence that the yieldco model can work and work well for a partnership like NEP that has the right structure and the support of a world class sponsor like Energy Resources, giving it access to the largest and strongest portfolio of potential future acquisition opportunities. While we need to position ourselves to work through a period of potential uncertainty and settling out, which we have done with our modified 2015 financing plan now successfully executed, in the long run, we think the capital markets’ reevaluation of the yieldco space can play to our competitive advantage both at NEP and at Energy Resources. Times of challenge are often also times of opportunity. I continue to believe that the NEP value proposition is the best in the space. NEP offers investors average annual growth expectations and LP unit distributions of 12% to 15% through the end of the decade. NEP’s existing cash flows are backed by long-term contracts, which at the end of the third quarter, had an average contract life of approximately 19 years and strong counterparty credits. NEP also has a portfolio that is largely insulated from commodity risk and a well-aligned incentive structure, with the sponsor owning incentive distribution rights in a significant limited partnership position in the vehicle. We’re also pursuing several options to minimize NEP’s need for significant amounts of public equity through 2016 to ensure that we have plenty of time for markets to settle down. We continue to evaluate the optimal capital structure for NEP as it has some additional debt capacity that can help finance future transactions, being mindful, of course, that we don’t want to over-lever the vehicle. And, of course, in the long run, in order for NEP to serve its intended purpose, we need to be able to access the equity markets at reasonable prices. We plan to issue a modest amount of NEP public equity to finance the growth included in our December 31, 2016, annual run rate. However, we will be smart, flexible, and opportunistic as to how and when we access the equity markets. And to that end, I’m pleased to announce that the board of directors of our general partner has approved putting in place an up to $150 million at-the-market equity issuance or dribble program. At the same time, NextEra Energy has also authorized a program to purchase from time to time, based on market conditions and other considerations, up to $150 million of NEP’s outstanding common units. The ATM program gives the partnership the flexibility to issue new units when the price supports new unit issuance, while the unit purchase program gives NextEra Energy the ability to demonstrate its commitment to the partnership by purchasing units at times when they’re undervalued. We will be patient with NEP and have taken the necessary steps to provide plenty of time for recovery of the equity markets. We remain optimistic that the NEP financing model can and will work going forward. In summary, I am as enthusiastic as ever about our future prospects. FPL, Energy Resources, and NEP all have an outstanding set of opportunities across the board and we continue to execute well against all of our strategic and growth initiatives. FPL continues to have an excellent story with a growing service territory and a strong customer value offering, while Energy Resources is strategically positioned to capitalize on what is expected to be one of the best environments for renewables development in recent memory. Overall, we are well-positioned to leverage these great businesses to continue to build growth platforms to drive our growth in the future. With that, we’ll now open the lines for questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator We’ll take our first question from Dan Eggers. Your line is open. Daniel Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Hey, good morning, guys. I guess just kind of the first question, Jim, following up on a couple of things you made comments on today – the doubling of development resources into renewables is a lot given where your baseline is already. Are you talking about operating expenses to try and find more projects or are you thinking about the idea of actually doubling the amount of renewables you’re doing on an annual basis? James L. Robo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer So, Dan, we would expect that for an increase in development expenses that we would get a pro-rata increase in the amount of megawatts that we will be able to develop. And so I said, up to double; we’re going to be obviously smart and opportunistic about it. I think all of the things that we’ve said about the renewable markets – the economics are getting better; the Clean Power Plan is coming; there continues to be good federal support and the potential extension of the wind production tax credit. And, frankly, the chaos in the yieldco space creates an opportunity for us, with some of our competitors not being as well-positioned as they were four months ago, for us to be able to continue to gain share in a market – you know, last year, we gained share in the wind business. We were the number one player – we’ve been the number one player for many, many years, and last year we gained share. And that’s – my goal for the team is to continue to build to gain share and to build profitable projects that make sense for our shareholders and for our customers. Daniel Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) So I guess maybe extending that conversation, when you talk about the targets for NEP’s CAFD run rate for next year, does the $150 million dribble equity, is that enough to get you within that band or is there an assumption that NEE is going to put more equity capital into NEP to help get into that guidance range? John W. Ketchum – Senior Vice President-Finance Dan, this is John. We need a minimal amount of equity for NEP next year. Obviously, the ATM dribble program would be a good start to be able to build on an equity position heading into what our growth plans are for next year. But we have a lot of levers around NEP as well. You’ve seen the guidance, so we have some flexibility around the capital structure. But the ATM program would allow us to get off to a start on what we see as a minimal equity need for NEP next year. Daniel Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) And you guys feel good about hitting the increased growth rates from last year, even if NEP’s at the lower end of their growth range or the equity capital markets are still stayed tight for them? James L. Robo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer We do. Daniel Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Okay. Thank you, guys. Operator Our next question is from Stephen Byrd. Your line is open. Stephen Calder Byrd – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Good morning. James L. Robo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Good morning, Stephen. Stephen Calder Byrd – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC I wanted to at a high level talk about usage of your balance sheet. You’ve positioned the company with quite strong credit stats and at the high end of the range for many of your ratings targets. When you think about opportunities to deploy that balance sheet at the corporate level, we saw just very recently a big utility buy a small LDC, so there are corporate opportunities versus M&A for assets versus more organic growth, and obviously it sounds like you’re very bullish on more organic growth at Resources. But at a high level, when you think about all of the opportunities for deploying your balance sheet, what do you think is likely to create the most economic value for shareholders? John W. Ketchum – Senior Vice President-Finance Well, one, there have been a couple of deals that have gone off at pretty high multiples, and leverage has been used to finance those transactions. From our standpoint, having a strong balance sheet is key to reaching our growth objectives and we have no intention of compromising our current credit metrics. That being said, there are opportunities perhaps to optimize our existing balance sheet, and so we always look at particularly projects that may not have debt financing on them and other opportunities within the portfolio where we could optimize our current position without compromising our credit metrics. James L. Robo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer So Steven, this is Jim, just to add to what John said. I think to use your balance sheet to lever up to acquire assets at massive premiums and transfer much of the value from that leveraging up over to someone else’s shareholders, I have a hard time – I scratch my head, honestly, and I have a hard time understanding how that makes sense for the acquirer’s shareholders. And so, that’s not something that we would be running up and down, jumping up and down, in terms of trying to do something like that. The other thing from an acquisition standpoint, that I would say, just overall from an M&A standpoint, I would say is we have great organic growth prospects. I feel really good about our organic growth prospects. We do not have to do anything other than execute on our organic growth prospects to deliver the expectations that we’ve laid out to you here, and anything that we would ever do on M&A would have to be accretive to what we’re telling you in terms of our expectations going forward. Stephen Calder Byrd – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Very much understood. That’s very, very helpful. When you think about wind growth potential, obviously, we may not know the PTC outcome till very late in the year. In your dialogue with states and utilities that may go out and procure more wind, how should we likely see this unfold? Is this likely to involve very quick action by states and utilities to start to – I’m assuming that the PTC does get extended – do you think it’s going to be a fairly rapid movement by states to try to take advantage of the PTC, just given that it’s always uncertain how long subsidies do last, or do you think it’s more of a gradual evolution throughout 2016 and 2017? How should we think about how this might actually unfold? Armando Pimentel, Jr. – President & Chief Executive Officer, NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Stephen, it’s Armando. I think the first thing, let me just talk about what we’re seeing right now. What we’re seeing right now is really a significant amount of interest in the wind space to get projects signed up for next year. Some of the customers that we’re signing up are very clearly telling us that they don’t necessarily know where the Clean Power Plan is going to end up, but they are taking steps today in order to address what they see as potential issues that they have under the Clean Power Plan. Others are telling us that, look, we would like to take advantage now while the PTC is here because with the PTC the prices that are being offered in the market are very economic to us on a very long-term basis. When we are having discussions with customers about 2017 and 2018, there is obviously some concern as to whether the production tax credit gets extended or not in the near term. But what’s encouraging is that, once you kind of get past that, it looks like that wind has a lot of opportunities, I would say, through 2020 at least, whether it’s early action credits under the Clean Power Plan or whether it’s, with or without PTCs, what customers are seeing as a trend to go more renewables is very positive for us. So I’d say where we sit on wind 2017 and 2018, I would expect on a combined basis to be pretty good for us. Stephen Calder Byrd – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC That’s great. Thank you very much. Operator And we’ll take our next question from Julien Dumoulin-Smith. Your line is open. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Hey, good morning. James L. Robo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Good morning, Julien. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC So let me actually start by following up on the last question a little bit. When it comes to CPP, I’d be curious, you have this dynamic around 2020 to 2021 of early action. To what extent is that creating kind of another boom/bust in the cycle? Obviously, you got a PTC extension here, but are folks holding off to get projects qualifying for their early action program? Armando Pimentel, Jr. – President & Chief Executive Officer, NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Yeah, Julien, it’s Armando again. Just to follow up on what I said before, in the near-term here there is obviously some discussion with our customers about the Clean Power Plan, and they’re taking advantage because they don’t know whether the Clean Power Plan is going to work out, but they see that it’s a huge benefit while there is a production tax credit to sign up cheaper wind. The 2017 and 2018 discussions that we’ve been having on wind – a lot of folks are obviously concerned about whether there’s going to a production tax credit or not, but in my view, whether there is a production tax credit or not, the combined 2017 and 2018 years I think will be pretty good for us. If there is no production tax credit, my expectation would be that the amount of wind that you see get built in 2017 would be below what we would otherwise have seen and what we have seen in the last couple of years, but I think that’s only a temporary blip before 2018 starts coming back. The economics for wind and, honestly, the economics for solar from the customer standpoint are very attractive today with the PTC and with the ITC for solar. They’re very attractive without the 30% ITC when you get out to the 2018, 2019 timeframe, and we believe that for wind, they will be very attractive, even without the PTC by the end of the decade. So customers are aware of that. There is obviously some uncertainty about the Clean Power Plan, but I think that uncertainty is actually playing in our favor. People want to take action early. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Great. Two further quick clarifications. Your credit expectations here for S&P and Moody’s, what are your expectations for financing in 2016 here? You obviously are well within the range on both. Just to be very clear about this? John W. Ketchum – Senior Vice President-Finance Yeah, Julien for financing activity in 2016, we continue to evaluate where we are from a CapEx standpoint. We still have another quarter of wind origination to go. We’ve had strong cash flow growth as well. We’ve got some other levers within the portfolio that we’re looking at, a couple of balance sheet optimization opportunities. Kind of a long way of saying that we’re still working on framing up exactly what that’s going to look like. But…. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Perhaps to be more specific, the projections of 26%, for instance, for SMP, that does not contemplate incremental equity, or just I know it’s a moving target given the size of the CapEx budget, but… John W. Ketchum – Senior Vice President-Finance Yeah. We don’t know yet. There are factors at play, again, having the strong quarter of origination on wind at 725 megawatts, looking to see how we come in on the fourth quarter, looking to see how we finish up from a cash flow perspective, and then looking at 2016, what the CapEx need might be and then looking at the other levers within the existing portfolio and some of the optimization things that are on our list. Obviously, the goal is to keep any equity issuance down as low as possible if we have to do something. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC And last quick one. Where do you stand on merchant divestment, specifically Texas. Just curious what your thoughts are broadly about it because you seem to have commodity sensitivity, be it from wind projects or combined cycles in Texas. James L. Robo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Yeah, so Julien, I’ll start out with the general comment that you guys will ho-hum to. But I mean it’s true. I mean we look at that portfolio, our entire merchant portfolio every year and try to determine whether it still makes sense for us from a shareholder perspective to retain those merchant assets based on our view, which is not necessarily the market view, based on our view of what we think those markets are. We’re going through a process in Texas on Lamar and Forney. I warn folks all the time, we’ve gone through processes before on our merchant assets. And that doesn’t necessarily mean at the end of the day that we divest those assets. We sometimes go through the process and we retain those assets, but we believe that there may be folks that are very interested in those assets; they’ve been great assets for us. We believe that there might be a shareholder base or other bases out there that believe those assets are worth more to them than they would be to our shareholders. So we’re going to take it, look at that very seriously here over the next couple of months. And if we decide that it make sense, then we will likely make the decision to divest. But those should not be the – I know there has been a focus on those assets; those should not be the only assets that investors and analysts believe that we’re looking at. I mean, we look at all of our assets every year, and determine whether it makes sense for us to continue to hold them. Those are just, honestly, the ones that are public at this point. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Great. Thank you. Operator Our next question is from Steve Fleishman. Your line is open. Steven Isaac Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Yeah. Hi, good morning. Just on the – curious kind of the latest updates on the gas reserve additions in Florida and just with the environment continuing to maybe get more attractive to buy reserves, how you’re thinking about that potential? Eric E. Silagy – President & Chief Executive Officer, Florida Power & Light Company Yeah. Hi Steve, this is Eric Silagy. So we are – you know, with gas prices coming down, we’ll see how the market plays out, but we think there’s going to be opportunities. We’re going to be very judicious in how we approach this and making sure that we’re locking in long-term positive deals for customers. So we have a program that’s underway right now at – in one play in Oklahoma and that’s going well. And we’ve got origination teams that are talking to multiple counterparties on opportunities. So I think we’ll see how everything plays out in the market from a gas perspective, but right now we see this as presenting actually some potential opportunities. Steven Isaac Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. And then, separate question. Just on NEP, maybe, Jim, is there any way to give some color on your intentions with this buyback in terms of just, you know, is this something where you’d want to be in right now doing; is this something that’s kind of there if there’s another kind of attack on yieldco, so to speak, or just how should we think about the buyback? James L. Robo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer So, I think I probably should limit what I said to what I said in my remarks, Steve, but I am certainly not going to lay out prices at which we’re buying or the prices at which we’re interested in doing the ATM. You know that’s – part of the thinking behind this is to give us the flexibility to issue units when we think the price supports new issuance and the buyback gives us the opportunity to show our commitment to the partnership by buying units when we think they’re undervalued, and… Steven Isaac Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. James L. Robo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer I think it’s as simple as that, honestly. Steven Isaac Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC So it’s kind of a buy low, sell high – kind of a new concept. Okay. Makes sense. James L. Robo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer You said it, not me, Steve. Steven Isaac Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC And then, lastly, just could you maybe give us any color or latest thoughts on the Hawaiian Electric deal? James L. Robo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Sure. So we continue to work hard to get the final hurdle, which is state regulatory approval in Hawaii. We have recently gotten a couple intervenors to either fall away or announce their support, and I was very pleased that the IBEW announced their support for the transaction last week. And we continue to work it. I think my expectation, based on timing right now, is that we’re not going to get any kind of decision from the PSC until next year, and so we’re going to continue to work it and continue to talk to the parties to try to get it across the finish line. Steven Isaac Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Great. Thank you. Operator We’ll take our next question from Paul Ridzon. Your line is open. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. One of the drivers you discussed on the reduction in years earnings was a drop-off of state tax incentives. How does that unfold over the next several quarters? And was that just a concentration risk of your adding some assets in a particular region? John W. Ketchum – Senior Vice President-Finance Yeah. A couple things there, Paul. One was just pushing part of a CITC project out into the next year. And then the second was, when you look back at our Q3 results for 2014, I think we had about 500 megawatts of projects that we had built in Oklahoma. Only had about 100 megawatts this quarter, and so, you know, Oklahoma has that state ITC, so it was really a combination of those two factors. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. And then at FP&L, it looks as though we’re actually seeing some modest demand destruction. As you think about your rate case, I mean, decoupling – is that on the table? Or maybe an annual look for a true-up, and how are you thinking about that strategically? Eric E. Silagy – President & Chief Executive Officer, Florida Power & Light Company Yeah, Paul, this is Eric Silagy. No, we’re not looking at any decoupling. Again, I think you go look overall at both our performance as well as the fact that the state continues to grow, we feel very good about our prospects going forward. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Is that something you’ll try to put into your regulatory strategy? Eric E. Silagy – President & Chief Executive Officer, Florida Power & Light Company How we look at moving forward – our base – our rates are set on a projection of test year. And so, it will take into account that we have strong customer growth coming in as well as more modest growth from the standpoint of usage or potentially negative usage. So both of those factors get factored into looking at what our revenue requirements are. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. And then lastly, there was a large swing at corporate – was that just a timing issue or could you delve a little bit deeper into what drove that? John W. Ketchum – Senior Vice President-Finance Yeah. Some of that, as we mentioned in – or I mentioned in the script was the consolidating tax adjustment, and with PMI or the customer supply and trading business having a good year, the apportionment factors that are used by many states are revenue based, and so that can kind of skew results in the more favorable tax jurisdictions, and that’s really one of the main drivers there. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. So none of these is a marked shift, and look for improvement going forward? John W. Ketchum – Senior Vice President-Finance That’s something that’s really dependent on the business mix and kind of where our revenues are coming from, what states. So it’s not something you can necessarily count on quarter to quarter. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Thank you for your help. Operator We’ll take our next question from Jonathan Arnold. Your line is open. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Hey. Good morning, guys. John W. Ketchum – Senior Vice President-Finance Good morning, Jonathan. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Quick one. So, Jim, you mentioned a couple of times, I think you called it chaos in the yieldco space, and I think you stressed that you see that helping you from a competitive positioning standpoint in the development business. My question, I guess is, do you see some M&A opportunities falling out of that situation? Or is that really less your focus here; it’s more about winning new projects yourself? James L. Robo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Well, Jonathan, we have always felt that organic development creates more value than project acquisitions do or, frankly, even overall company acquisitions unless it’s a pretty unique situation. So our focus is going to be on organic growth. We have always had project acquisitions as a part of our mix, and we will continue – I do think there will be some opportunities here. I think there’s a real question about whether folks are going to realize that when they’re selling projects that they’re not going to get the same kind of value that they perhaps would have gotten four months ago, and there is also – we’re very picky about the quality of the project, when we’re looking at it from a project acquisition standpoint. So I would expect there to be more opportunities there than there would have been a few months ago, but, honestly, our focus is really on – and I think the most high-value added opportunity for our shareholders is to be focused on growing our organic capabilities. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. It sounds like priorities are organic, then possibly projects and last on the list sort of whole portfolio company type things? James L. Robo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer I think that’s a fair prioritization, Jon. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay. Thank you. And then just one other thing on Canadian Wind; anything to report on the recent Ontario RFP? And if you – what are your – line of sight on some success there, and when would we hear about it in the backlog? Armando Pimentel, Jr. – President & Chief Executive Officer, NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Jonathan, it’s Armando. I think the first – realistically, the first that we would hear about it would be very late this year. I – and that’s the very earliest. My expectations are actually that we would hear some time first quarter of next year. We feel good about the bids that we put in. I always want to put things in context, though, right, I mean Canada or Ontario was looking for, roughly, I think it’s 500 megawatts or 600 megawatts in total of renewables, right. So I mean we wouldn’t think that it – nobody should think it’s a 5,000-megawatt bid or something. I mean it’s still reasonable; it’s still chunky, but it was 500 megawatts. We have several projects that we think are very competitive in the process the way it’s laid out. And so we’re hopeful that we’re going to get some of that 500 megawatts or 600 megawatts. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay. Thank you, Armando. Operator Our next question is from Michael Lapides. Your line is open. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Hey Jim, coming back to M&A a little bit, but maybe a different angle. How are you looking at – you’ve grown your midstream business, meaning you’ve got Mountain Valley and Sabal Trail in the development process. You did the NET Midstream deal down at NEP. How has the share price reaction in the midstream market and valuations for privately held midstream assets – how has that impacted the opportunity set that may be available for either NEE or NEP to add via M&A more midstream, and how do you think about how you would structure that, whether you would want it up at the NEE level or down at the NEP level? James L. Robo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer So, Michael I think, when I think about what we’re doing in the pipeline space, it’s really focused on very long-term contracted pipeline assets. And things that we think look a lot like our renewable business in terms of the quality of the counterparty, the consistency of the cash flows, and the ability for us to deploy our development expertise against those things. And so we have no interest in adding any midstream assets that would have any kind of commodity risk to the portfolio. We would be focused, again, first and foremost on organic development of long-term contracted pipeline opportunities, and that’s really what the team is focused on. I think the NET deal was a very unique deal in that it was a very long-term contracted set of assets. There are very few of those, really, out in the marketplace. If there was one that will become available, we would look at it. And I think, honestly, it would depend on the capital markets and where we think the most efficient financing would be, where we would put it, whether we would put it at NEE or NEP, but just again, our focus there in the pipeline space is first and foremost on organic development. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Got it. Thanks, Jim. Much appreciated. Operator Our next question is with Brian Chin. Your line is open. Brian J. Chin – Bank of America Merrill Lynch Hi, good morning. John W. Ketchum – Senior Vice President-Finance Good morning, Brian. Brian J. Chin – Bank of America Merrill Lynch I think when you guys talked about others using the balance sheets and levering up to buy other companies and then you put that in the context of buying shares of NEP and continuing to execute on your wind resources, and your regulated opportunities, I mean you guys have made a pretty strong and consistent statement about where you think your capital deployment ought to be. I guess within that context, what I’m curious about is how close are you with regards to looking at NEP versus, say, NextEra shares as a good place to deploy capital and execute on buybacks. Can you give us a little bit of color of how you frame it and are the two relatively close in your opinion? I mean, obviously, you think NEP is the more interesting place at the moment. But can you give us a sense of how you frame that discussion and under what conditions you might consider deploying capital towards NEE buybacks as opposed to NEP? James L. Robo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Well I said this last month, I think, Brian that I – relative to NEE, I think NEP is extremely undervalued right now. So… Brian J. Chin – Bank of America Merrill Lynch Any… James L. Robo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer I think our announcements today are pretty consistent with that. Brian J. Chin – Bank of America Merrill Lynch And I agree. But just any sense of color as to how you frame it, Jim, that would be great? James L. Robo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer We look at a variety of metrics and kind of the classic metrics. And we think about it in terms of – fundamentally in terms of future cash flows. Brian J. Chin – Bank of America Merrill Lynch Okay. Thank you. Operator This does conclude today’s NextEra Energy and NextEra Energy Partners 2015 third quarter earnings conference call. You may all now disconnect your lines. Thank you, and everyone have a great day.

AGL Energy Is Hitting The Sweet Spot Right Now

Summary AGL Energy’s net income and free cash flow look uninspiring, but one needs to dig deeper to find the true story. The net income was negatively impacted by an impairment charge whilst almost half of the capex consists of growth capex. Using the sustaining capex and taking AGL’s cost reduction plans into consideration, the company is trading at a 2018 FCF yield of 8-9% and that’s quite appealing. Introduction Very few people might know AGL Energy ( OTCPK:AGLNY ) ( OTCPK:AGLNF ), but this $7.5B market cap company is one of the largest electricity and gas providers in Australia. It trades in energy, but also creates its own power through its renewable and non-renewable power plants. Surprisingly, there’s a decent volume in shares of AGL Energy on the company’s OTC listing, but I would obviously strongly recommend you to trade in the company’s shares through the facilities of the Australian Stock Exchange. As you can imagine, the ASX offers much more liquidity as the average daily dollar volume in AGL Energy is $25M. The ticker symbol is AGL . 2015 was a tad better than expected… I was really looking forward to see the final results of AGL Energy’s financial-year 2015 (which ended in June of this year). We already knew that year wouldn’t be a good year when discussing the net profit, as the company had to record an A$600M ($420M) impairment on some of its (upstream gas) assets. This impairment charge was due to delays in starting up the gas production as well as a lower expected gas price. This obviously meant the book value of those assets might have been overly optimistic, so an impairment charge was the right decision. (click to enlarge) Source: Annual report And indeed, even though the revenue increased by 2% to A$10.7B ($7.5B), the EBITDA fell by a stunning 40% to A$946M. As there’s of course still the usual depreciation expenses and interest expenses, the net profit fell by almost 62% to just A$218M ($145M). Ouch! (click to enlarge) Source: Annual report Even the cash flow statements were a bit uninspiring. The operating cash flow was A$1.04B, and after deducting capital expenditures to the tune of A$744M, the net free cash flow was approximately A$300M ($210M). All this sounds pretty boring and uninspiring, but I prefer to look to the future instead of at the past. But the 2016-2018 period will contain some very nice surprises From this year on, there will be numerous improvements. First of all, the net income will sharply increase again as I’m not expecting to see much more impairment charges. That’s very nice to keep the mainstream investors happy, but my readers already know I care more about cash flow statements than about net income, so I dug a bit deeper, and I’m extremely pleased with what I discovered. Of the A$744M in capital expenditures in FY 2015, only A$395M ($275M) of that amount was classified as “sustaining capex” . As it’s essential for cash flow statements to find out what the normalized free cash flow is, one should only use the sustaining capital expenditures and exclude the growth capex. So if I’d to deduct the A$395M from the A$1,044M in FY 2015, the adjusted free cash flow increases to almost A$650M ($455M). But there’s more. AGL Energy remains on track to complete the objectives it has outlined to reduce costs by FY 2017. AGL’s plan consists of cutting operating costs in, for instance, IT and supply contracts whilst on top of that, the sustaining capital expenditures will decrease from A$395M in 2015 to A$315M in FY 2017. This would increase the adjusted free cash flow by approximately A$200M per year to A$850M ($600M). And keep in mind this doesn’t take the organic growth into consideration, as I’m expecting the company should be able to increase its revenue and operating revenue (whilst reducing the operating costs and sustaining capex). Source: Company presentation And this really puts AGL in an enviable position. The net debt/EBITDA ratio as of at the end of its financial-year 2015 was acceptable at 2.4, but this should start to drop extremely fast as the EBITDA will increase whilst the net debt will be reduced. In fact, even after paying a handsome 4% dividend yield. According to my calculations, in FY 2018, AGL Energy should have a net adjusted free cash flow after paying dividends of approximately A$400M, and this will probably be used to reduce the net debt (which will have a snowball effect as it will reduce the company’s interest expenses, increasing the net operating cash flow). It will also be interesting to see how AGL intends to spend the US$850M in cash flow it expects to generate through asset sales. Investment thesis So yes, AGL Energy’s 4% dividend yield is safe and will very likely be increased in the future. Don’t let the low net income fool you, the cash flow statements are explaining this story much better and the adjusted free cash flow is definitely sufficient to cover AGL’s dividend expenses. I’m also really looking forward to see if the company can indeed reduce its operating costs and sustaining capex, because if it would effectively be able to do so, AGL is trading at an expected free cash flow yield of 8-9% by FY 2018. I’m keeping an eye on AGL Energy and might pull the trigger during a weak moment on the market. Editor’s Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.

Veolia Environnement’s (VE) CEO Antoine Frerot on Q1 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Call Start: 02:30 Call End: 03:54 Veolia Environnement’ (NYSE: VE ) Q1 2015 Earnings Conference Call August 3, 2015 02:30 ET Executives Antoine Frerot – Chairman & CEO Philippe Capron – CFO Analysts Harry Wyburd – Bank of America Merrill Lynch Martin Young – RBC Guy MacKenzie – Credit Suisse Lawson Steele – Berenberg Vincent Ayral – SGCIB James Brand – Deutsche Bank Philippe Ourpatian – Natixis Emmanuel Turpin – Morgan Stanley Julie Arav – Kepler Cheuvreux Olivier Van Doosselaere – Goldman Sachs Operator Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Veolia conference call for the First Half Results 2015. I now hand over to Mr. Frerot and Mr. Capron. Gentlemen, please go ahead. Antoine Frerot Thank you. Good morning, everyone and thank you for joining our conference call to present Veolia’s first half results. I’m with Philippe Capron, our CFO, who will later present our results in further detail. I’m on slide 4 of the slide show. We’re presenting today very solid results for the first half, completely in line with our annual guidance and even better than that regarding our net income and free cash flow. I would remind you that 2015 is the last year of our transformation plan. Deleveraging, on the one hand and reorganization of the Group on the other hand, have been completed for a year. Hence, for this remaining year, we need to complete the last two objectives of the plan, cost savings and the repositioning of our business. On cost savings, our year-end objective of €750 million in cumulative savings over four years will be largely met and even probably exceeded. We were ahead of plan at the end of 2014 and we have accelerated this advance in the first half of 2015. Regarding the repositioning of our business, commercial successes in our new growth markets, essentially in the industrial sector, have been numerous. This puts us on track to achieve a balance mix in 2018 between our two types of clients, industrial and municipal customers, as well as between our two types of geographies, developed countries and emerging countries. However, our traditional markets, mainly the municipal sector, have also experienced robust development. At the end of the first half of 2015, all systems are go for Veolia. On slide 5, four factors explain the quality of these results. Of course, the weaker euro in comparison to other currencies, 4% growth compared to last year for all our indicators due to this weaker euro. Second, the strategic move made in energy, exchanging Dalkia France for Dalkia International, all while reducing the Group debt. Plus 5% contribution to all our indicators on this strategic move in energy. Third, cost reduction. At the same speed as the previous two years, plus 6% progression to our indicators of results. And finally, new business development which has practically compensated the erosion in our traditional activities. So revenue was up 7%, plus 3% at constant currency, down 1% at constant scope and currency. EBITDA rose 16% and plus 6% at constant scope and currency. Current EBIT increased 37% and plus 24% at constant scope and currency. Finally, the Group current net income more than doubled compared to the previous year to €321 million. And free cash flow before dividend payment and excluding the variation in working capital amounted to €552 million. As usual, we expect the change in working capital requirements to reach equilibrium by the end of the year. I remind you that our main objective for 2015 is to achieve at least €500 million for each of the two previously mentioned indicators, current net income and free cash flow before dividend and before divestment. At June end, a large part of these objectives have already been achieved. Finally, net debt was €9.2 billion down €500 million compared to the previous year, if we exclude the negative currency impacts. On slide 6, our first objective in 2015 is to achieve or even exceed €750 million in cost savings by year end. In the first half of 2015, with €110 million in savings, we have surpassed our planned rate of around €100 million per semester. At the end of June, cumulative cost savings amounted to nearly €700 million. So the €750 million December-end objective will likely be exceeded. All of the Group’s activities contributed but the water business was the main contributor, particularly in France, with a major restructuring program whose positive effects will continue for several quarters. Slide 7, as I announced earlier, commercial development has also been robust. On this slide, you can see some of our major successes this semester with our municipal players. Awards were won throughout the world. But Europe, in particular Great Britain and France, were particularly noteworthy. For instance, one of the most important contract wins in the water business, the Lille contract, seems automatic to me as marking the end of our challenges in the French water business. We should see the return to a more normal period beginning 2016. On slide 8, as for our industrial clients, emerging markets and geographies outside of Europe are more dynamic. Our selection of six priority markets has proven astute. And when oil and gas or the mining sector slows down due to the lower commodity prices, the circular economy of treatment of hazardous waste takes over. As a reminder, at the end of 2014, the Group’s share of revenue attributed to industrial customers was 39% compared to just over 20% four years ago. So our target of 50% in 2018 appears well within reach. On slide 9, therefore, at the end of the first half, we’re very comfortable with our annual guidance. Within this guidance, the main objective is twofold; current net income above €500 million to cover the dividend and hybrid debt coupon payments and free cash flow before final divestment above also €500 million to pay the dividend and hybrid coupon and at the same time, targeting flat net debt at constant currencies. First half results have already enabled us to achieve a good portion of these objectives. Along with achieving these objectives, we have also dedicated the 2015 year to the planning and preparation to execute our new three-year plan 2016-2018. This plan which is progressing well and in line with my expectation, will be discussed and approved by our Board of Directors during a day-long meeting and then presented at Investor Day. Calendar constraints to organizing a full-day board meeting led us to shift this event by a few weeks and the Investor Day is set for December 14. I will now give the floor to Philippe who will provide further detail regarding our first half results. Philippe Capron Thank you, Antoine. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. On slide 11, you have a recap of the excellent first half figures which Antoine already went through. They put us — they are fully in line with Q1 and they put us fully on track to meet our year-end objectives. I won’t go through them all but you’ll remember we have a 7% revenue increase, translating into a 16.5% EBITDA increase. If you measure EBITDA at constant scope and currency, it is still a 6% increase which is all the more remarkable that some of you may remember that in Q2 last year we had a 17% increase in EBITDA for Q2 at constant currency and perimeter. So this performance is more remarkable. This translates into a 25% current EBIT increase and a doubling of the current net income. We’ll go through these figures in more detail again in the next slides. If you turn to page 12, the results, the revenue growth is broken down by geographies. France is slightly down which is not a surprise due to the large commercial impacts of French water contract renegotiations. But you have to keep in mind that this is the last such year. It is a big year because we have Lyon and Marseille which are two large contracts, both impacting the figures. And overall we have a €70 million drag due to those contacts and some others. But again, this is the last year. Waste is up, however, with a strong pickup in Q2, mostly due to commercial wins. In the rest of Europe, you have some negative figures due to the UK construction revenue. But as you’ll remember this is pass-through, no margins. And due to the ongoing German restructuring, the rest of Europe, especially central — our central European activities, are doing well thanks to colder weather in Q2 in the case of our energy activities. The rest of the world continues to do very well, excellent growth at 14%, still 3.4% at constant perimeter — at constant currency. This is especially driven by emerging markets. Asia, Africa and Middle East and Latin America are driving this growth. Global businesses, however, are down with less construction activities. This is in part a calendar impact on large contracts and also in part the indication of a slowdown in government and municipal spending in Western Europe. If we move to page 13, we broke down the revenue growth to show the contrast between the two quarters. If you look quarter to quarter, you see that there is a marked improvement in Q2 for service activities. This is true in France, this is true in the rest of Europe and this is true in the rest of the world. In each case, Q2 is a marked improvement. And if you add those first three lines, you’ll see that we’ve gone from a 2% decline at constant perimeter and currency to a 0.5% increase which shows that the cycle for us is turning in the right way. However, if you include global businesses, you have a very different picture because as you see, we’ve gone from plus 2% to minus 8%. Keep in mind of course that global businesses contribute much less to the bottom line as they are much less capital intensive than our service activities. On page 14, we look at the revenue in terms of our main activities. Water operations are stable overall, in spite of contractual erosion in France and in spite of what we’ve just said about the construction activity which is mostly around water. Waste has suffered from lower PFI construction revenue and lower recycled prices though paper at the end of the quarter and to a lesser extent scrap are recovering. But volumes have been good and especially so in China and in hazardous waste. Our energy activity is impacted by lower energy prices in Germany or in the U.S.. But this is on a pass-through basis with no impact on margins. And this impact has been largely offset by the weather which has been better in Q2, i.e. colder and by commercial wins overall. On page 15, you have the usual detail we give on our waste revenue. As you can see, activity levels and service prices are holding up even though this is offset by recycled prices overall and construction revenue in the UK. On page 16, as we have seen our sales have been roughly stable in real terms, actually slightly declining. But our EBITDA has grown significantly, plus 6% at constant currency and perimeter. This is true even in France where we have a very slight increase despite contractual erosion in water thanks, of course, to the completion of our cost-saving exercises, especially the redundancy plan in France. Over the past three years, 12% headcount reduction has been registered in this activity. In — additionally, our waste activities overall benefit from cheaper fuel. In the rest of Europe, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, we’ve had additional cost reduction actions, especially following a disappointing Q1 in terms of climate and this has driven the sharp increase at 9% at constant scope and currency which you see for the rest of Europe. In the rest of the world, also cost cutting has gone ahead but it has added its effect to sales growth which has been — and an environment which has been overall much more supportive. And therefore at the end of the day, only global businesses have suffered because of the low activity. On page 17, you see the main drivers of the EBITDA evolution. Scope and currency of course have helped. They have roughly offset the impact of the French water renegotiations and the construction decline. But the other elements have been supportive, especially what we call effects which is volumes and the balance of new contracts. But as with the previous quarters, the main contributor to the EBITDA growth has been our cost cutting. Actually, if you exclude the currency and perimeter impact, cost cutting explains more than 100% of EBITDA growth. On page 18, you see how we go from EBITDA to EBIT. Depreciation is flat which is a reflection of our CapEx discipline which has been maintained over the past years. We have a net provision adjustment which is positive. Some risks which we had booked in the previous quarters did not materialize so that current EBIT grows by 35%. But overall, it is to be noted that we have an excellent EBITDA conversion into EBIT because even without this flat factor, the reversal in our provision adjustments, EBIT would still grow by 25% on the back of a 10% growth of EBITDA. Moving on to page 19, you can see that financial expenses are down. The reduction of our cost of carry, as we’re reducing our cash balances, has outweighed the negative currency impact on our interest charges. The income tax apparent rate is down thanks to more profit coming from Poland and the Czech Republic as expected. We have other financial income which includes €63 million in capital gains but that’s versus €48 million last year. And on the other hand, IFRIC 21, the change in the accounting of some of our taxes has had a negative — production taxes has had a negative impact on net income of €27 million which will be reversed, of course, by the end of the year. Overall, current net income has more than doubled at €321 million. On page 20, you see how the current net income translates into the reported net income, the purely IFRS net income. And its’ a very simple table this year because we’ve had no significant non-current items to report, no depreciations, no impairment or whatever. The only difference between the two figures is the Transdev contribution. As you now, we account for Transdev as a non-core asset and therefore it is below the line. This contribution is positive by €25 million which is attributed to the improvement of the result of Transdev so that for the first time in a number of quarters or semesters, we actually have reported net income which is above the current net income. Moving on to page 21, our CapEx is in line year on year. Its slight reduction is only due to the lower construction revenues for PFI in the UK which we’ve already mentioned. We still have working capital requirement seasonality which explains the negative free cash flow but it improves by €100 million year on year. And this contributes, of course, to the financial debt evolution which has been impacted year on year by €760 million that’s — because of the currency. If you strip that out, it actually has improved by €500 million due to the strong cash generation and some of the disposals which have taken place, especially our Israeli activities at the beginning of this year. Moving on to page 22, you can see that free cash generation in H1 has been extremely strong, as mentioned by Antoine. Leaving out the working capital requirement evolution which is a negative of €600 million for the first half, but we assume of course that this year as every preceding year, we will be reversing this during H2. So leaving this factor out, we’ve actually generated €552 million of free cash which is of course very encouraging because it is our yearly objective. Keep in mind though that we will be spending more in terms of CapEx during the second half. But still it’s very encouraging to see that we’re in good shape in terms of generating the expected amount of free cash. On page 23, I won’t go through the guidance again because it’s been shown to you already by Antoine. Needless to say we’re extremely confident, thanks to this very strong set of figures, that we will be able to reach our objectives this year., especially the generation of €500 million of current net income and the same amount in terms of free cash excluding financial divestments. We’ll be in a position to tell you more about this and to give you more color about the years to come when we meet on December 14 for our investor day. Thank you very much. Antoine Frerot Thank you, Philippe. And now, ladies and gentlemen, we’re ready for your questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions]. The first question is from Harry Wyburd. Sir, please go ahead. Harry Wyburd Two from me, please, the first one’s on waste volumes. If you average out the first and second quarter from waste volumes I think the average is about plus 2.5%. But overall on a Group basis, it’s just plus 0.8%. So please could you just give a bit more detail on the regions which are performing less well? And then secondly on China, a number of companies across the market have been cautioning on China, given what’s been happening in the Chinese equity market. Do you see any exposure to a potential China slowdown in the second half of the year? Thank you. Antoine Frerot I will answer to the question about China. In our case, in China, we’re well positioned, geographically speaking. Where we see some decreasing of the growth of economy in China is not especially on the most modern industries and more in the center of the country than on the cities of the coast. We’re in the cities of the coast. And during the first semester, we enjoyed an increase of our water volume more than plus 2.3%. And we had also an increase of our hazardous waste volume. So we see a very good growth in terms of revenue. But because we have long-term contracts and progressively we get the benefits of these long-term contracts, our profit increases much more than the revenue in China. So I’m completely confident for Veolia in China because our positions are well placed and I think we will not suffer about an eventual decreasing of the economy acceleration. We’ve had a splendid first semester and I think it will continue for the second part of the year. For the waste volume, Philippe? Philippe Capron For the waste volumes — well, on China first, I would add that keep in mind that we’re supplying basic services, elasticity to GDP is usually less than 1. We’re not surfing on very high growth when it occurs but we’re not impacted by slowdowns. This is not luxury goods we’re talking about. On waste volumes, I can give you the details for the first half volumes country by country for the major countries. France is up 2.6% with a significant pickup. It was 1.1% in Q1 and 4% in Q2. So this is encouraging. The UK is 1.4%. In the UK there has been a slowdown but it’s just a technical effect because we had — it’s a year-on-year comparison impact due to the scheduling of our PFIs coming online. Northern Europe, that is mostly Germany, is down 4.7%. But it is largely self-inflicted. It’s the ongoing restructuring which continues. The U.S. is roughly flat. Australia is slightly down at minus 2.9%. Our Asian activities overall and that includes a large part of China, is up 4.7%. Latin America up 5.7% but this reflects in particular a new contract in Buenos Aires which has started at the beginning of the year. And our hazardous waste activity is up 2% overall with a significant pickup. Growth doubled from Q1 to Q2. Operator The next question comes from Martin Young. Sir, please go ahead. Martin Young I’ll limit it to two questions as well. The first is on Transdev, wondered if you could just update us on the expected timeline to the alteration of the corporate structure there please? And then secondly, you’ve made it very clear that you are going to deliver the cost-reduction objectives for 2015. I very much feel that ongoing cost reduction is part of the DNA of your company going forward. I just wondered if you could give an indication of how much you think you can eliminate from the cost base on an annual basis from 2016, please? Thank you. Antoine Frerot You know that our exit from Transdev is linked to a solution for the board SNCM business. And as you know, the court decided to wait for end of September to decide about this solution. We think that the court will not have a large room for expanding again the time for decision because of problem of cash of the SNCM. So we think that during the end of the year, after this solution will be decided by the court we will find a way with our partner in Transdev, Caisse des Depots, to program our exit from the business of Transdev. But, as you see, we’re not so in hurry because first we don’t need the €1 billion or €800 million today invested in Transdev and also because the results of Transdev are better year after year. But I could confirm you that we want to exit as soon as possible with a good deal with Caisse des Depots. I understood that Caisse des Depots is always ready to take the control of Transdev and then at the end of the year I think we will have some news about that. About cost savings, we’re in a region of €200 million of savings every year, around €50 million each quarter. It is the plan of four years 2012 until 2015. During these four years the savings came mainly from stricter cost, SG&A or G&A cost. For the next plan, the next program, we prepared also new efficiency actions but perhaps not so much on G&A but more in operational efficiencies and also purchasing efficiencies. We will present to you in detail during the Investor Day what we’ll target and how we will do it. But we’re really confident that the savings in Veolia will not be over at all at the end of this year. And the magnitude of these new savings will be presented to you in some months. So it will be I think a good plan and a good rhythm for the three next years. Let us prepare it precisely to give you a precise picture of that at the end of the year. Operator The next question comes from Guy MacKenzie. Sir, please go ahead. Guy MacKenzie Three questions from me, firstly, you mentioned the slowdown in construction activities in the public markets in France and also the contract in Peru which I think you also mentioned in Q1. Wondering if you can give an update on the situation in Peru and also if you think that this might hinder the sale of SADE this year? Secondly on your longer-term targets, in 2013 you set some specific targets in industrial water, specifically you were targeting growth of what worked out to about 120% in oil and gas to 2020 with a €3.5 billion revenue target, 45% growth in mining across 2014 to 2020. I was just wondering if given the subsequent decline in commodity prices whether you still see those targets as attainable? And finally just a very quick question on your waste EBITDA, you mentioned that it benefited from a favorable impact of a litigation payment. Just wondering if you were able to quantify the amount of that litigation payment? Thanks very much. Philippe Capron Okay, on the construction question indeed we’re affected by the lack of or the slowdown, let’s say, of public orders in France. But SADE has been able over the past years to offset this in two ways. One has been to develop their telecom network construction activity in France and elsewhere and second, a large part of SADE revenue now comes from overseas. So that overall their backlog has actually increased this year compared to the previous year if you add all up. The contract in Peru to which you allude to in Cerro Verde is now over so it’s been done. Any losses pertaining to this contract have been taken and we actually now are in the claims recovery and negotiation phase so that the same contract should positively impact our H2 income. Regarding the sale of SADE, I have no remark to make. The process is ongoing. Antoine Frerot Oil and gas, I will answer this question. It is true that during the first semester, because of the lower price of oil, the new projects of oil and gas companies have been postponed, a major part of these big new projects. But your question is about medium term and despite the fact that today the price of oil is low, it is difficult to imagine that this price will stay at the same low level during four years. So we’re really confident that first the world will need oil and gas coming from alternative resources, especially shale gas and shale oil and you know that the extraction of these alternative resources needs between 10 and 20 times more quantity of water to extract them. So perhaps it will not be for this year, perhaps not also for the first part of next year, but until 2020 we’re sure to see a lot of new projects, especially in the U.S. and perhaps also in Australia for this type of new energy and then big business for water specialists. But as I told you during the introduction, when oil and gas and mining sector slows down for our development due to lower commodity prices we have other drivers in our industrial market to grow. And for this first semester it has been much more the secular economic projects and treatment of hazardous waste projects which have grown during the first semester. So we still have drivers amongst our six main new markets. We have oil and gas and mining but also food and beverage which are going quite well, secular economy, hazardous waste treatment and also a [indiscernible] as trends, rigs and other boats. So we have room for growth during this year and next one despite the low price of oil. Waste EBITDA? Philippe Capron I’m not sure if I understood your question regarding waste EBITDA. Guy MacKenzie Sorry, it mentioned in the press release that waste EBITDA benefited from the favorable impact of a litigation payment and I was just wondering how much that litigation payment was if you’re able to say. Philippe Capron We have not disclosed it. It’s significant but not huge. The main drivers in the improvement of our waste EBITDA overall has been of course cost reduction. It’s been also the price of fuel which with time of course we’ll have to give back to our customers but which for the initial quarters we’re still able to enjoy the benefit from. Operator The next question comes from Lawson Steele. Sir, please go ahead. Lawson Steele Lawson Steele from Berenberg. My first question is on cost cutting. I appreciate we need to wait until December 14 for the full lowdown on future cost saving plans but, given your confidence in achieving this year’s €750 million target, could you please give us some specific examples of additional measures undertaken to offset the declines of — the effects of Dalkia and so on and what sort of new savings have you unlocked relative to the original plan? Also versus the original plan where have gains been better than expected and where has progress been shall we say a little disappointing? And also how much of that likely €750 million cost beat is due to FX? Secondly, could you give us more details on the Olivet provision reversal and how much of that, of the €24 million total net charges to operating provisions, in other words related to the EBITDA reconciliation on page 11 of the press release? And then finally just, Antoine, to follow up on the oil and gas, are you still seeing E&P companies’ investments in existing wells offset the decline in CapEx on new projects? Thank you. Antoine Frerot So Philippe will answer the two first questions; I will come back on oil and gas after. Philippe Capron For the past, as you know, a large part of our cost reduction has come from SG&A, redundancy plans. Major examples are the two such plans we had for the headquarters. As you remember, the headquarters went from 1,400 people including the divisions now extinct to 700 people today. Similar evolutions have taken place in various countries. So this reduction of SG&A, this reduction of headquarters has been a significant driver. But, as one of you said earlier, cost reduction, cost cutting is now in the DNA of this company so this is an ongoing effort, even though, as hinted by Antoine, the focus may change over the next period. Today clearly at €690 million and with a normal rhythm of €50 million per quarter we’re fully on track to surpass the €750 million objective for the next period. We’ll give you more color during the Investor Day. For the provision reversals, those provisions are below the EBITDA so they do not include any operational elements. It’s not a single big ticket item, both in last year for the negative impact and this year for the net reversal; it’s a multitude of small elements positive or negative. Last year there was a big negative chunk for our Polish waste business which has been sold. This year for example there is another negative impact which is due to the settlement of a large litigation somewhere in Eastern Europe. It’s lots of small elements going up and down; there is no large ticket. Antoine Frerot Yes, I add something about the cost cutting. You understand I think that we will certainly exceed this year the famous objective of €750 million at the end of the year. How much we could not say precisely and because we will exceed it we will also exceed our €500 million in current net result and free cash. I could not tell you how much but we will beat it and this is very good news for us. How much? Perhaps, €50 million , perhaps €100 million, too early to tell you. Now I’m coming back for oil and gas. When an oil and gas company invested in new assets it is too late to stop it, so they prefer to operate them. And it is why on our existing contracts we had good business with oil and gas customers. And when they stop the construction of new assets they push, as they could, the production of their existing assets. It is why they use more water on the existing assets to expand the production. And they stop at the same time their investment because they are not sure that it is a good time to do that. But when the investments are done it is too late for them and the cost of production after investment is much below the price of the actual price of oil. So that interest to push and to stop do investments. So we had on the existing contracts good business with oil and gas customers. Lawson Steele Okay, can I just follow up please? Specifically I want to know what has offset the — on the cost savings what has offset the Dalkia savings which were sold and also how much of the cost cutting improvement is down to FX please? Philippe Capron We’ve not done the exact calculation regarding the FX but it’s totally marginal. I would say — if I were to bet I would say about €20 million perhaps overall. So as we’re €40 million above the objective at the end of the quarter this has not been significant. In terms of Dalkia, the figure you’re looking for may be perhaps €10 million. But, as you know, we’ve changed the perimeter. The initial perimeter did include Dalkia France and of course we do not — and it included both Dalkia France and Dalkia International in the original €750 million. So we’re actually short the Dalkia France savings which I’m sure continue but which we do not record anymore. This certainly does offset the favorable FX. Antoine Frerot I want to avoid a misunderstanding. The €110 million of savings we had during the first semester are at constant scope and currency, meaning that they include the savings we did on the Dalkia International business. But we don’t include any cost savings in Dalkia France; it is no more our business now. So the €110 million is on the perimeter full water waste business and Dalkia International. And yes we did also savings, especially in G&A on Dalkia International because we immediately included Dalkia International in our new organization, one Veolia per country and then on the Dalkia International teams in each country we had some savings through this integration. But it’s not — this €110 million has nothing to do with the deal with EDF concerning Dalkia France and Dalkia International. The savings aren’t concerning Dalkia International at all. Operator The next question comes from Vincent Ayral. Sir, please go ahead. Vincent Ayral I would like to come back a bit quickly on the SNCM and Transdev. You say that we should have a solution by the end of the year. We’ve seen the thing sliding a number of times. I’d like to understand why are we now sure that the whole SNCM issue should be done. Because I understand that cash-wise it would have been difficult for them to reach the summer. Now they reached the summer where they refill a bit the coffers in terms of cash so what’s the assessment of the situation and why a resolution by year-end? And then moving on Transdev, the results of Transdev seems to be improving materially. Can we expect something material in terms of an improvement of the Memorandum of Understanding you have with CdD so basically selling this business for a much higher valuation? Do you think this is something that can be done, reopening the MOU or are you stuck with the current price? Thank you. Antoine Frerot Okay, about SNCM, there are two big reasons why a solution should be found before the end of the year. The first is because the European Commission push and push for the payment of the fine they decided for SNCM. So this pushing will not leave big room to the French Government and also to the court. The second one, perhaps in more urgency, is that probably at the end of September or at least at the end of October there will be no more money in the cash box of SNCM, even if they away them all the maintenance costs, the cash they burn during — after the season is so huge that at the end of September or October no more money. And in this case with no more money to pay the employees the court will have not have other solution to decide the liquidation of the SNCM if they did not decide the transfer before that date. So it is why we think that SNCM could not live because of problems of cash for a long time. About Transdev Philippe? Philippe Capron About Transdev, the MOU has lapsed so there is no obligation by either party. Of course it’s a useful reference point but it’s very fair to say that given the, I would say, spectacular turnaround done by the present management of Transdev we could expect a better price. It will be a question of negotiations with our counterparts at Caisse des Depots but it would be fair to expect a better price. The company has had a €50 million net earning — net income for the first half of the year of which we enjoy half. So €50 million is a very significant figure after another year, last year which was a return to profit where they had a positive income though at a lesser level. So we’re very encouraged and when you see the plans of Transdev in thinking that we might get a better valuation. Vincent Ayral And one last question on SNCM to come back. If you have a solution and you manage to exit SNCM without having the fine, what could we expect P&L-wise in terms of maybe provision release or anything like that? Thank you. Antoine Frerot Nothing, nothing, nothing more we already have in our accounts because we told — we repeated, we as Veolia but also Transdev told and repeated that we will not put any new penny or any new euro in SNCM up to what we decided to propose for the liquidation of SNCM totally or partly if part of SNCM is taken over by another company. So we propose, as you know probably, €85 million to pay the — €85 million for two shareholders, Transdev and the French state, meaning around €62 million for Transdev. And that would be all. And these amounts are already in our books so we don’t forecast any new provision for that. Operator The next question comes from James Brand. Sir, please go ahead. James Brand Three questions, firstly, you mentioned in response to a prior question that the waste business had benefited from lower fuel costs in the first half of the year but that some of that might have to be passed back to customers. I was wondering whether you could give any kind of quantification around that? And a slight follow-on from that, I was wondering whether Transdev had also benefited from a similar phenomenon and therefore whether perhaps some of the improvement in — the great improvement in net income that you’ve seen might again be transitory? The second question is just on — you mentioned paper prices having improved quite considerably recently. If they stayed where they’ve got to, how much would that mean in terms of increased profitability for you? And thirdly, just on depreciation. You obviously have slightly lower depreciation in the first half in spite of all the currency effects which might have been expected to push it up. That’s something that’s been commented on in the past in terms of guidance but I was just wondering whether you could talk through in a bit more detail what’s going on there in terms of depreciation and whether we should expect that to be sustained going forwards? Thank you. Philippe Capron In terms of the impact of fuel for waste, the theoretical impact would be €30 million or €40 million a year. Of course this is not happening or at least not kept, because of the index mechanism and just because of competition. Many of our contracts, especially collection or haulage contracts, are short term and they’re periodically renegotiated or re-auctioned and therefore those savings tend to pass fairly quickly to the customers. So overall maybe we keep about €10 million — maybe we’ve kept about €10 million which is significant but not a game changer. In terms of depreciation, we don’t have a detailed analysis. You’re right; we should have expected a slight increase due to the currency impact. I guess this has been offset by the mix of investments we’ve done, probably with shorter depreciation periods due to the fact that we tend to shy away from long-term large CapEx deployments nowadays. I don’t have a ready answer except to say that this is according to our forecast and you should not expect this figure to increase over the next quarters. I missed the second question. Antoine Frerot The price of oil for Transdev. Philippe Capron The price of oil for Transdev, it’s the same. It’s a positive of course and the contract structure in many cases surprisingly enables them to keep it. So it’s been one of the elements which has sustained their earnings, even though over the very long run of course they probably won’t keep it. But for some of that contract they are just supplying the service but they are not themselves keeping — benefiting from the price of oil. Some of them, especially their car — their bus transportation business in France, they do keep the advantage. James Brand Paper prices? Philippe Capron Well, paper has picked up nicely during the — at the end of Q2. This certainly helps our German business and this and the restructuring of our activities there certainly explain why their results are rebounding in spite of sales being — going downward. It’s a bit early days. We’re not yet at record levels but my recollection is that over the course of the quarter it’s gone up 7% which definitely helps. Operator The next question comes from Philippe Ourpatian. Sir, please go ahead. Philippe Ourpatian I have three questions, the first is concerning the working capital. Could you just elaborate a little bit more the reason of quite high working capital excluding the seasonality effect? Is there something special this quarter which could be reversed during the coming months? That’s the first question. The second one is concerning the €34 million of others in the EBITDA bridge, could you just elaborate on that? And the last is concerning the reduction of your tax rate. What do we have to take into account regarding this year and maybe on the medium term rather than a normative level? Many thanks. Antoine Frerot Okay. About working capital, the amount of €628 million is as usual, if I could say that. We have this amount around every year the same magnitude. So there is not a lot of change if we take into account of course that we have now Dalkia International at 100% and no Dalkia France. So it is the usual seasonality effect because during the four previous years we term this requirement we think we will be able to do it again at the end of this year. So there is not a change; it is just a seasonality effect. About, add this quickly, yes, compared to last year, the working capital requirement improved by some tens of millions euros so it is even a bit better than last year. So it is completely at the same level of the other years– Philipp Capron We will remain, of course, very attentive, to make sure that the reversal of this working capital requirement does occur as it did every previous year. Regarding the €34 million item on the EBITDA bridge, on page 17, it is most — it’s all of the others, of course, that it’s mostly the increase in the renewal rates. That’s the main — renewal expenses that’s been the main component. Of course, it’s eliminated at the EBIT level. Antoine Frerot And tax rate? Philippe Capron And regarding tax rate, I missed the question. But, as I mentioned, our parent tax rate is going down for two reasons. One is more profits coming from low-rate countries, especially the Czech Republic and Poland. The second is better efficiency of French tax Group, as we tend to improve our earnings in France. We’re — the French tax Group is getting closer to being in a profit situation, in spite of France bearing the headquarters cost for the part which is not passed on as management fees to a business unit. And the financing cost of the Group, because it was the — most of our bonds were issued from France. So, in spite of those two elements, we’re getting close to having a profit. And, therefore, that limits the drag on our apparent tax rate which was due to the fact that we had negative tax income in France which we could not offset by recognizing a tax asset. Antoine Frerot And for your calculation for the rest of the year, you could make the assumption that the split of the profit of Veolia will stay during the second half as it has been for the first half with the same geographies. So, I think you could use the same rate for H2 compared with H1. Philippe Capron Maybe a bit less, because Q3 is a weak quarter for energy and, therefore, our Polish and Czech activities will not generate as much profits. Typically they don’t during H2. But, I mean, that’s second order of magnitude given all the uncertainties there is in calculating the apparent tax rate. Operator The next question comes from Emmanuel Turpin. Sir, please go ahead. Emmanuel Turpin I would like first to come back on the guidance. Your message at the start of this call was very confident. And looking at the guidance it’s, of course, open-ended. It’s not a single figure. You want to basically cover your dividend by net earnings of free cash flow at least. Would you mind coming back on the main parameters you set on these guidance’s at the start of the year and tell us how this is looking like now? I’m thinking about the macro environment, the weather and the FX which, I believe, is better than what you had budgeted. Still on guidance, you are printing a positive position reversal of just short of €40 million. I think people will like — would be interested in knowing on whether you would be counting on such a positive provision reversal to make your guidance. I would personally love to get your view on whether, on the back of this strong H1 and taking into account some delta versus your budget, mainly the FX, actually a €500 million net earnings is probably a low end of a net earnings range that you — we should expect for the full year on –? Basically, in other words, should we expect more than just €500 million? And, secondly, commercial activity, your friends and competitors Suez Environnement mentioned on their H1 conference call that they had seen a strong increase in new commercial opportunities in recent weeks across a number of geographies. So, they were talking about an increased number of projects they were tendering for. I would love your view on commercial activity in your businesses across the geographies. Where are you seeing particular, I would say, increase in tendering, if any? Thank you. Antoine Frerot So, about the guidance, Mr. Turpin, Philippe will perhaps begin by answering the technical questions about the provision we will have or not. perhaps also with the new rules of accounting about tax and so on. Could you — some figure about that? Philippe Capron Well, we mentioned early in the year that we were not accounting on a larger amount of capital gains. And the same is true in terms of provision reversals. We’re not — this is not something we budgeted, of course. This is something we have to account for. We now and then have to make — to take provisions and when they are not justified we take them out. We do not — this is probably not something which will be repeated at year end. We might end up having a zero or a negative amount on this line during H2. I really don’t know, because I can’t forecast the future. But, we’re not banking on this to achieve our guidance, obviously. Regarding the guidance itself, we’re not in the business of increasing it periodically but I heard Antoine loud and clear mention the figure of €50 million to €100 million improvement on the guidance which could be expected. So, if we were reviewing the guidance we might then say — tell you that we’re between €550 million and €600 million in our internal calculations, but we’re not. Antoine Frerot I complete, of course, Mr. Turpin, we will overpass, surpass the €500 million. For the free cash before divestment, financial divestment, we’re at the end of the first semester ahead of this target. So, for that, for sure, we’ll surpass it. And for the natural recurrent that we will also, we will not have technical gain, perhaps, not also new positive provision but in the other way we have new rules about tax calculations so –. Philippe Capron €27 million. Antoine Frerot We will have the benefit of that during the second half. As about the weather, for sure, I hope we will have very good volumes of water during July at least. So, yes, we’re completely confident to surpass quite significantly our €500 million. But, again, it is too early to tell you precisely where we will be. So, we’re very happy and have the pleasure to beat our guidance and to be sure that the middle of the year to beat it, but we could not tell you a precise figure. Again, between €550, €600 million, for the net result, it is too early. And for the free cash it will be a little bit better because it is still much better for the first half. About commercial, we have, as our friends and competitor, Suez, a lot of projects in pipe, of course. We’re in front of them for the municipal clients everywhere in the world and we have also our new industrial markets also. And in these markets, especially in energy efficiency, in [indiscernible] treatment, in secular economy also for food and — industry we have a lot of projects in pipe. So, we hope, of course, to win a big part of them. We already have a good result during the first half. And I think we will be in the same position during the second half. Our decreasing of our cost put us in a rather better position than we were last year or two years ago, because we could bid with more efficiency. And we have been successful during the two last years, especially in front of our competitor. So, we’re still in a better position today. It is why I think we will make profit of a large part of this project into the pipe today. Operator The next question comes from Julie Arav. Julie Arav I have three short questions, if I may. The first one you mentioned on the global businesses that the growth was impacted by some delays in some project at Veolia water solution and technologies. Can we have an idea — can you quantify the impact of these delays? And also does that mean that these contracts should contribute to Q3 or Q4 growth? Are they just delayed for good? Just to make sure that I understand correctly the impact from the decline in oil prices, is it right to understand that the short-term slowdown doesn’t call into question your midterm revenue target of 3% coming from new industrial contracts? And last question, can we have an idea of how much the new industrial contracts have contributed to the overall H1 organic growth? Thanks. Antoine Frerot Yes, because the decline of global business is a decline of construction business. You should have in mind that at the end of March the big sludge Hong Kong contract finished. And this big contract hasn’t been replaced during the Q2 by another big object. And it is a big part of the decline of the turnover of the construction business. We did not replace during this Q2 this big animal. And we have some bids and offers in the nature to replace this big animal. It is not the case today. We hope we have that before the end of the year. Now, I come back on our target of increasing of turnover during the next plan. You should have in mind that during the first transformation plan and in 2015 we’re still in this plan. We focus completely the Group on the restructuring and the increasing of margin and profit. So, we did not invest a lot for growth, even organic growth. The investments for growth are slow because the main priority of the Group is to expand the profitability and the return and the margin. During the past semester compared to the first semester of 2014, we increased the EBITDA margin of 90 basis points. So, it is huge and the priority of the Group until the end of this year is the profit, not the development. For the next period, we will have two drivers for boosting our turnover. The first is that we will invest all our free cash, exceeding the dividend, in organic growth. And we target the best opportunities of this organic growth with our net free cash after dividend payment. It will bring to us a fuel for growth of turnover. And the second thing is that the declining of the turnover of the French water business will be finished in the first half. During this first half of 2015 you saw that we lost, how much, €70 million of turnover in France? Philippe Capron Yes. Antoine Frerot Yes, €70 million. Philippe Capron €50 million. Antoine Frerot Next year we don’t have that and au, contraire we will have the production of the new Lille contract which is €60 million a year. So, we will [indiscernible] also the dynamic of turnover of the transporter business plus the organic growth. It is why the turnover of this first half of 2015 has nothing to do for explaining what we will do during the next plan. Julie Arav The last one on the new industrial contracts’ contribution to the H1 organic growth. Can you provide a number on that? Antoine Frerot No we need some time to make the calculation a bit, so we will give it to you when we will get it. I could tell you that for the win of the new contracts during the first half 57% came from the municipal sector in terms of turnover and backlog. And 43% comes from industrial customers. Operator The next question comes from Olivier Van Doosselaere. Olivier Van Doosselaere I’ve got just two questions remaining. One is I was wondering if you could maybe say a bit more about Central and Eastern Europe which has now become a significant part of your business. On the water side you’re talking about figures — increases in water tariffs. I was wondering how much those were. And to what extent that could be recurring. And then on the energy business I was wondering if you could just pick up a bit more about the ongoing trends, going beyond just the impact of lower power prices, what you see in terms of contract backlog and so on. Thank you. And the second question would be on the French water restructuring. I think you had taken a provision of €90 million or €95 million in the past. I was wondering if you could say how much of that provision has by now in total already been reversed. Thank you. That’s all. Antoine Frerot Okay. I just got the answer to your first question, Olivier. The prices of water, well, type of water in Central and Eastern Europe, increased on — for 0.9% during the first half compared to last year. And the second question is about –? Philippe Capron Energy trends in Eastern Europe. There is not much to say except that this business, has been helped by a colder Q2 after a disappointingly mild Q1, almost in line with the previous year. We also had a decline in the price of fuel but which mostly is passed through so it typically has no impact, no negative impact, on our contracts. And it’s also fair to mention that we have significant round of CapEx in those — in the Czech Republic and Poland due to the new European norms and therefore we have to comply with those norms. So, that means a significant CapEx influx which, of course, is well — is accounted within our normal investment envelope. So, this is not unexpected. We knew this when we bought Dalia International. Antoine Frerot And on the commercial side on this energy business in this geography we have what I could say good knowledge, meaning that some clients should appear to be ready to subcontract some of our activities of energy management and especially heating district. And we have in the pipes, because we talk about the pipe of new contracts some minutes ago, we have in our pipe some of these quite big contracts for [indiscernible] management. And perhaps even before this, the end of this year, we will be able to announce good news in that pipe and that field. It will be also a part, just a part but a part, of our organic-growth program for the next three-year plan. Philippe Capron For French water restructuring the provision has been consumed now. The plan is over in terms of the voluntary departure plan. And, therefore, the provision has been — has gone through the P&L and there is — it will have no further impact. Operator The next question is from Vincent Ayral. Sir, please go ahead. Vincent Ayral Sorry to come back, I just wanted to do a follow-up on the lower oil price. I understand that a theoretical potential uplift would be €30 million, but you just expect €10 million. I guess there’s two questions here just to be — to try to understand the whole thing. When you have this indexation are you using an average oil price over the last, I don’t know, 3, 6, 12 months or are you using spot price? And to lose, like, two-thirds of the drop in oil price instead of just half that would assume that the distribution of your indexation is mostly done like in H1. Could you explain a bit this? And the second thing is, on the energy business, what would you expect, assuming normal weather next year, the uplift to be? Or, you can ask the question the other way, what was the weather impact on your energy business in H1? Thank you. Antoine Frerot What do you mean by normal weather? Do you know that this concept of normal water? But it’s always difficult to tell you for sure. In the 10 last years we have colder winter than we had at the beginning of this year. But what would be a normal one we could say that we did half of the weight between 2014 and 2015 to compare to an average over the 10 last year. So, if we come back on the average for the future, we still have room for growth that could be some dozens of million, we said that in euro, in term of provision. Philippe Capron In term of the impact of lower fuel on the waste business, you have a wide variety of situations. First, when it’s a long-term contract with an index, you have all sorts of indices. It really depends from country to country and actually from contract to contract whether it’s spot or average. And — but in most of those contracts you have an index which represents the bar chart of our cost and, therefore, has a large or a significant fuel component. And, therefore, with some delay, it can be yearly or half yearly, this is passed on to the customer. But in many other cases you are dealing with shorter-term contracts with no indices. And it’s just the way the contracts are renegotiated or re-auctioned due to the pressure of competition which forces us, essentially, to pass the lower fuel cost onto our customer. So, there is really no precise answer to your question and my own answer was just an estimate, not a totally precise one. Antoine Frerot So, ladies and gentlemen, it is time to conclude our conference call. In conclusion, I will remind you that the progress on margins improvement has been again very satisfying and really [indiscernible] we said during the first half. EBITDA margin improved by 90 basis points. It is a huge progress. The free-cash target has been already achieved at the first semester for the whole year compared to our guidance. And the EBITDA gross conversion into net income is massive. So, for all these reasons, we’re very satisfied for these reasons but also really completely, very confident for the rest of the year, to surpass our guidance. Thank you for your presence and goodbye. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the conference call. Thank you all for your participation. You may now disconnect.