Tag Archives: auction

CPFL Energia’s (CPL) CEO Wilson Ferreira Jr on Q1 2016 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

CPFL Energia S.A. (NYSE: CPL ) Q1 2016 Results Earnings Conference Call May 12, 2016, 10:00 am ET Executives Wilson Ferreira Jr – Chief Executive Officer and Member of the Executive Board Leandro Cappa – ‎Investor Relations Director Gustavo Estrella – Vice President of Finance, Member of the Executive Board, Investor Relations Officer Luiza Mariko – Market Planning Analysts Kaique Vasconcellos – Citigroup Vinicius Canheu – Credit Suisse Miguel Rodrigues – Morgan Stanley Marcelo Sa – UBS Sergio Tamashiro – Haitong Carolina Carneiro – Santander Operator Good morning and thank you for waiting. Welcome to CPFL Energia’s First Q16 earnings results conference call. Today, we have here with us Executive Mr. Wilson Ferreira Jr, CEO of CPFL Energia as well as other officers of the company. This call is being broadcast simultaneously via Internet on the website www.cpfl.com.br/ir, where you will find the respective presentation for download. We inform that all participants will be in listen-only mode during the company’s presentation. After that, there will be a Q&A session when further instructions will be given. [Operator Instructions]. I would like to mention that this conference call is being recorded. Before proceeding, we would like to mention that forward-looking statements are being made under the Safe Harbor of the Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1996. Forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs and assumptions of CPFL Energia’s management and on information currently available to the company. Forward looking statements are not guarantees of performance. They involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions as they relate to the future events and therefore depend on circumstances that may or may not occur. Investors should understand that general economic conditions, industry conditions and other operating factors could also affect the future results of CPFL Energia and could cause results to differ materially from those expressed in such forward-looking statements. Now I will turn the floor to Mr. Wilson Ferreira Jr. Please, Mr. Wilson, the floor is yours. Wilson Ferreira Jr Good morning everyone. Good morning investors and analysts that are here with us for the earnings call for the first quarter of 2016. Let’s start on page three or the highlights of the quarter. Here we have a negative highlight. Unfortunately sales dropped in the concession area. Now segment we are going to into details. On the other hand, in the industrial area, the contracted demand is still positive. On the other hand, we excellent yields, which was the reduction on the CVA balance. As you know, we had at the end of last year BRL1.7 billion rows received and we were able to reduce that to BRL0.7 billion. So we have much more positive position here. The problem had been solved. After that we have processes for tariff adjustments where our difficult and we will talk more about that during the presentation. Another good news is that Mata Velha is started early start-up. We had initial operations of wind farms for the free market. We will talk more about that as well. We have the renegotiation also of the hydrological risk of Baesa. This was one of the only major plant where we needed to do the renegotiation. It is completed now. You will see also a drop in our GSF expenses. We will talk about my succession as well. There was also an approval of capital increase through stock dividend that was approved in our shareholders assembly and new shares will be distributed to shareholders from May 5 on an investment of BRL0.5 billion in this quarter and also we disclosed our annual reports on March 31. It electronically available in our homepage. So now turn to page four. We have a breakdown of energy sales. You can see that in the first quarter in fact we had an important drop in energy sales of 6.4%. Here we have 5.2% in the captive market and the free market of almost 10%. And the breakdown for consumption segment shows that we had no segments important drop vis-à-vis the first quarter of last year. So the economic downturn is strong both in residential as well as commercial segment of around 5%, industrial segment of over 10%. That does not change our market profile. And in the bottom part of the slide you can see two important observations. We are in a leap year. So that comparison of drop is a little different too. We will go into details, both on bill volume as well as energy loss. But when we analyze the load in the concession area which gives us a wide view of what is happening, we see that we have numbers a little bit lower. Therefore we believe in the next quarters, we should bring those figures up. As I had said, the contracted demand is still positive, so we see a movement of a positive expectation of entrepreneurs and the industry. And obviously we see new companies coming in the concession area. That’s why we have lowered values to contracted demand, both for peak and off-peak as positive areas. As I said, we have the recovery of traffic in the renewable area. Therefore, our installed capacity now is reaching 3,128 conventional installed megawatts and that happens specifically in Renovaveis. On page 5, we have our outlook. We have reported a drop in the residential segment and what we try to show you with this chart and we possibly have reached the drop in 5%. It has been stable for a few months and obviously that is because of several situations and circumstances that caused it to become stable. First, last year there was an adjustment in the tariff that was unprecedented over 50% in the electric segment and now we also have negative tariff adjustment in the second half of the year. So we had to reduce both tariff side since the beginning of the year. So that pressure on the economy in fact has dropped. It is important to say that probably people and there is a great increase and they reacted and so we can see in our sales of LED lamp sales in 2014, the amount was 27 million and last year it amounted 81 million, tripled in number. So I would say that the consumption reduction is largely due to rationalization and exchange of equipment such as LED lamp ales that propose more advantages than conventional lamp. So considering future outlook, there is drop in inflation and because of that negative adjustments, we probably won’t have higher drops in the residential area, so that consumption per client should be stable along the year. And now that we the income of new consumers, we will believe that we will have a stable volume for the second, third and fourth quarters of this year. What is of our concern here is on page six and it is also a concern of the analysts, is delinquency. Arguably, we also are comparing ourselves to other companies and now our figures have been lower PDA or the ADA gross revenue is still lower event though Renovaveis have increased, we have an increase in tariffs compared to quarters that is higher than 50%, but we have here on the fourth quarter to the first quarter also an increase from 0.5% to 0.7%, 40% higher volume in terms of our allowance for doubtful accounts. This is something we pay attention to. There is a set of questions that we have listed in the bottom right part of the slide. So the company is working on it. We have been working on conventional energy cuts over 150%. This is the most effective measure right now. You are following delinquency in the different segments in the different industries, especially in the finance sector. So that’s why we also have the blacklisting and we have lower efficacy but we are also using the electronic protest and tele collection. We have tripled e-mails. We have the collection agencies almost 44% of electronic protest actually, the new initiative and it is important to highlight that this peak has in the background our economic scenario and this is something that we needed to acknowledge in the agency itself because the agency’s barriers are lower and in general all segments of the economy are going by this problem. Now on page seven. I will go back to one of our highlights. The total losses that have an increase in our area in March, but if we analyze the moving average of 12 months, it’s not different from the figures that we have seen since March of last year. But in March, especially or in the first quarter, we have that higher figure 8.63% first that reflects the higher unbilled invoices because here we have a leap year that has an extra day and the load which is not reflected in the billing schedule. And that is the main reason why we have that difference in the billed invoices and the drop in the load. So this should reflect in our billing schedule later on. And also we have higher temperatures in this last quarter that also impacts the figures for the unbilled voices. We expect impact the slight increase shall be offset in the following quarters. So there is nothing structurally that is responsible for this increase in losses except those two topics I mentioned that are related to the billing schedule. Now turning to page eight, we have the results of the first quarter. On the first line, we have the IFRS results and on the second line, it’s what we call the adjusted base. So you can have a more perennial outlook of our company. We can see that growth for net revenues, the drops of 20% and 19% in the two different bases. They are due to the integration of regulatory assets and tariffs, but explained that major drop that we had in our PDA obviously that also is related to the market. I will talk about that in the distribution area, they are lower and also we had the tariff lags that changed and the important news is that EBITDA has an IFRS result of BRL25 million negative and also we have BRL232 million in the net income that is positive. In the recurring base, we have 5.3% negative or BRL53 million, most of that refers to wins in the renewable area. There is less wind in this quarter and as it was said yesterday by the President of the company, that has been recovered in April. So this is an important significant effect now in the first quarter, but there is a recovery of half of that difference in April in our renewable activities. And because of that and the adjusted page, we have an increase of 6.7% or BRL70 million reaching to BRL167 million in the first quarter. The amount that determine these variations are in the bottom part of the slide, the proportionate consolidation of generation also Itaipu foreign currency variation that by fact as a new accounting that go into the EBITDA amount on the net income. So it’s important to have a recurring comparison of this reconciliations and also we have the nonrecurring effects, the extraordinary ones last year we had GSF and the Energy Purchase in two generation operations, generations and renewable, the adjustment of this emphasis and track record also have a specific adjustments is now on this year and also on typically Renovaveis has now adopted the hydrological agreement and we won’t have that impact anymore. So for recurring effect comparison we think it’s important to separate it. Therefore, I believe we have an EBITDA that has a stable impact as I have mentioned by this effect we will go into details and our net income is positive. On page nine, we that assessment of the company’s EBITDA. So to the outside we have the IFRS base and in the inside area that we are going to go into details, we help a drop of 5.3%. Basically, we can see that there is a drop in the distribution area, renewable generation as well. And distribution, we have a drop BRL37 million or 6.9% and it is related to the increase in manageable PMSO lower than the IGPM of the period. We have legal and judicial expenses BRL28 million. The allowance for doubtful accounts of BRL26 million and a drop of 6.4% in sales in the concession area BRL24 million. This way we have here a negative effect in distribution. So we did have gains, both in and the reviews and tariff adjustment that added BRL66 million and our company offer different groups and also that specific treatment of the PIS and COFINS as I have mentioned. So renewable generation, there is a drop of BRL26 million or 23.3% and basically half of that is explained by less wind in windfarms and that corresponds to BRL13 million. So we have SHPPs seasonality BRL10 million. We have that last year and this year as well. So we will recover that amount in the future structures and we have a PMSO of BRL6 million and also the renegotiation premium. On the other hand, we have conventional generations with a gain of BRL9 million with positive better performance of our thermal operations and others of BRL12 million in expenses with the GSF and commercialization services and holding is rather stable with a gain of BRL1 million. So the results are negatively driven because of the renewable impact, especially wind and also a drop in volumes in addition to the allowance for doubtful account and distribution. Now on page 10, just to give you an idea for the future. Somehow we started working with ZBB methodology, BRL320 million we reached BRL369 million. You have the chart showing it and obviously our future challenge is related to the subject which is productivity here. The company is deploying two important projects, one related to using technology to increase productivity in the distribution segment. We have a whole set of indicators developed by the company, the analysis of teams and unavailability and management of our workforce. So today we have more tools to monitor and obviously to integrate technology and automation and to increase productivity. This is something with a great potential and in the near future we will be sharing with you what this work is like. And we are also working with consulting services in a news stage for corporate companies. We started doing that now and we believe that in the near future we will be able to share with you and let you know what we are doing in these two areas. So this is something we have to do to add productivity to our group. Now turning to page 11, we come to net income. In the recurring reduction, it was almost 7% and in the IFRS base it’s 63%. Here as a negative aspect, we have a drop in EBITDA of 5%, we already mentioned it. We had an improvement of the negative net financial results. It is thanks to that adjustment of sectoral financial assets and liabilities, also a variation of discos’ concession financial assets, additions and late payments fines and installments debt. We will also have here BRL30 million for that and the mark-to-market effect, the operations 4,131, these are non-cash operations and also we have the PIS/COFINS over financial revenues effect because of new taxes and that is BRL21 million net and also we had a reduction of 3.3% in depreciation and amortization with the driver coming from the reduction in the amortization of the concessions intangible assets. And here we have an increase in depreciation and amortization also an increase in income tax related to financial operations of the company. So I would say that here we have a positive outlook because we have our stable EBITDA and we are working in that environment that we mentioned. Now turning to page 12. These are the tariff events. There were several ones in this quarter, starting in what we call the tariff reviews of our five concessions that have been renewed. So we have reported here the increases in Parcel A and Parcel B, looked at industry view they already integrated the increase in the net base, increase in the CACC and the remuneration of the regulatory assets base and also the addition of special obligations remuneration, we have a parcel B in a positive variation. The effect of these gains are up around BRL15 million and we have a pass through of BRL80 million. We have also the annual tariff adjustment for CPFL Paulista increasing in little over 10% parcel B and the average effect for consumers 7.55%, lower than inflation and we have the transfer off BRL951 million financial component. As we have said, we had an important drop of our CVA in the quarter of almost BRL1 billion and now with this last adjustment Paulista then, at the end of this semester will be very close to turning this key now to the positive side for the concession. In terms of cash of the company that will fall definitely because of these adjustment, especially for Paulista. Now on page 13, we have our indebtedness. And here we have adjusted net debt over adjusted EBITDA of BRL12 million and we 3.42 and remember that with the CVA coming in, we will be running at 3.22 and be adjusted by CVA cash in balance in here. We will be able to have the benefit of the leverage in creating value for the company. This is the good news and the bad news is the increase of the nominal cost of our debt, amounting 13.7%. Obviously, that is driven by the increase of the CDI. 70% of the gross that of the company is indexed by the CDI. So obviously we reach 13.7% and inflation is at 4% of real cost of that debt. Turning to page 14. We can see that we are at a comfortable situation in terms of cash coverage. Over BRL4 billion, over two times the cover the short-term amortizations. The debt has a net average term of 3.5 years and in the short-term only 11% of it. So this is a , comfortable situation in terms of management of our debt. On page 15, another subject that concerns which is that over contracted position and the good news here is that with this PH 04, the exposure that we had that exposure was eliminated. We had 180 average megawatts before PH 04 and six of our age concessions and the public hearing of ANEEL solving on 100% of the problems. We have some residual in one of the companies and here we are talking about very little figure, maybe less than 10% of those 180. So we are telling you that obviously PH 04 mitigated 4% and we have our distributors totally aligned for 2016. It is very important because considering the macroeconomic scenario for the future, we should do some reinforcement there. So here we have also the approval in April of PH 012 that simplifies the process for postponement of new energy contracts. Here is the potential of our variation, which is 2.5% that has to be dealt with. There is some potential for mitigation, but I believe this is more important especially for future perspectives and we have to work on that. And now so it is under discussion right now the impact of what is called the customers migration to the free market. And this is a huge debate here between the agents and ANEEL. And let me remind you that what I have mentioned about exposure of 180 average megawatts, that residual very amount is after that 1.8% going out. So it will be almost 100% if we do not have such an important migration of consumers 1.8% is a high figure. So now just to report some new points here. The Mata Velha, one-and-a-half years before the contracted period, a very important part CPFL Renovaveis, 13 average megawatts and the auction is May 16, 2016 and value was BRL155 per megawatt hour and we, in these last few months, already have a sale on the free market viable and things have already been released. On page 17, just to talk about plans still in the free market. The Campo des Ventos and Sao Benedito Wind Farms will come in this year, but also with this new regulation of the agency, we have allowed to have the commercial startup of certain generators. And so we have already had up to the state the entry of four wind turbines. And we have 110 towers which will be added. So we have a reporting scheduled for the coming into operation over the next few months of this farm and this is the first financed for the free market approved by the BNDES and we have the prospect of adding revenue to EBITDA of CPFL Renovaveis which is very important to other projects, which are under construction. The Pedra Cheirosa 48.3 megawatts and the Boa Vista also under construction and so what is really important is coming of the capacity at the very short-term, both for the Mata Velha and for these two new wind farms in the Northeast Brazil. And here CPFL Efficiencia and this is very important for us. CPFL coming in here in the solar distribution and generation through CPFL Efficiencia. Here we have the Algar plant in Campinas with all the solar panels. This has involved the change of 15,000 volts using the LED efficiency or bulbs technology and also the air-conditioning has been changed and replaced much of the fluids and the construction of two solar power plants in Campinas, 200 kilowatts at the peak and another 400 in Uderlandia, savings of 27% with energy efficiency during to photovoltaic generation. An initial investments of BRL6 million and this was inaugurated in March. So in Algar, we have savings of 3,500 megawatts a year and also postponement of the construction of a substation and also with this operation we can enter the free market and also CPFL Energia participates in gains with the solar generation for the next 10 years. And we have a BOT agreement for asset remuneration in six years and it is still the supply of free energy for the next 10 years. In fact, it is a win-win operation which is very important for the CPFL Efficiencia it is very significant. I am almost finishing, but on page 19, we have the performance of shares. The share had a better performance than IEE in Bovespa appreciating almost 30%. The same with ADR, 47%. So the exchange rates effect and with the CPFL coming back in January and recovered efficiency rate. This has had its effects on the volume of business. And on the left hand side here, the lower left-hand chart, we can see this and this is very important for the future. I conclude on page 20, showing you some facts about my succession. In April, we have amounts the succession plan. It is part of a planned process the company within the best governance practices I have been here with the group for more than 18 years. So I will finish the second quarter and I will be replaced by Andre Dorf who was the President or CEO of CPFL Renovaveis and has been with us now for about three years in the company and has done outstanding work in the Renovaveis. And he will come with all his youth to manage this new phase of CPFL and we are delighted with this and in this quarter, we have carried out an integration program with the team and Andre has taken part in many activities with us so that he comes in on July 1 playing to win. So ladies and gentlemen, this is what we had to say about our results and my team and I are now at your disposal for questions. Thank you. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions]. Our first question comes from Mr. Kaique Vasconcellos from the Citigroup. Kaique Vasconcellos Good morning. I have two questions. First regarding demand. You said that you will have more stable demand and have had a shrinkage. So up to May, what have things been like? And what are the prospects for the second quarter? And second question is about amortization. So you have cash to cover the short-term amortization. So what are you going to do? Wait for better debt situation in the market or take CDI or any special spread that you are waiting for? Thank you. Wilson Ferreira Jr I will ask Leandro to answer the first question and Gustavo the second. Leandro Cappa Hello. Thank you. The April market has not yet presented the recovery that we expected because it has resolved. We have seen the load improve at the end of March and now in April. But the unbilled that Wilson mentioned has not yet come in load because of the mismatch that we have of reading days, the meter reading. So April was a hot month. So this impacted and helped with the recovery of residential factors. But the billed market, we will only see this during the second quarter. well, in fact, we are seeing that we do in fact have an expectation that this year we will be able to work with almost flat volume. Today we are working with the prospect that it won’t be flat. It will be between 1% more in terms of volume of negative, I am sorry. Gustavo Estrella Regarding liquidity and rollover, I think that the market has confirmed our expectation of credit restrictions allied to an increase of cost. And I think this has been a market trend in general. What we have done was basically bring forward a rollover. Basically last year we have few needs to rollover our debt. Today, in the company, Wilson has shown that cash of BRL4 billion, we have already covered everything that we need for 2016 and 2017. So our focus today for rollover will be only for 2018 which gives us a very much more comfortable situation so that we will be able to fetch extra situations of rollover when they are needed. And we can work from the management of the debt, we are already thinking ahead 2018 and we have plenty of time to find the best moment of the market. More important is that those discussions regarding infrastructure for the distribution sector, this discussion goes on, both the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Energy, we have here positive outlook to access the market for distribution and we can rollover lesser cost and greater terms, longer terms. But we don’t have anything now which obliges us to look for money to rollover the short-term debt. We are in a comfortable position for the company at the moment. Kaique Vasconcellos Thank you very much. Operator Our next question comes from Mr. Vinicius Canheu from Credit Suisse. Vinicius Canheu Good morning. I have two questions. One, I want to know if you could breakdown what was the loss with the over-contracting? And second, something which I did not understand, when you see slide nine regarding distribution, you show the gains with the pass through of Parcel A. I would like to know why did this impact the results? Because generally these movements of Parcel A are in the asset and liabilities, regulatory abilities. So why did this come into the result? Thank you. Leandro Cappa Hello Vinicius. This is Leandro. At the moment, when we have the tariff adjustments, we have some gains, because we have been very conservative during the year in our accounting and when we do the adjustments as happened here with the Paulista, we had a gain with Parcel A at the time of the tariff adjustment of this amount to BRL66 million. About half of that is just simple because of the mismatch and also because of the unbilled amount which is later, it does not have an effect. So we have a temporary effect. And during the second quarter, we will normalize this. So of these BRL66 million, half is temporary. So this will come back during the year and half is because we were conservative during the year and we have some gain at the moment of the annual adjustments. Vinicius Canheu Okay. Now could you talk about the over contracting please? Leandro Cappa This had zero impact of the first quarter and none at the distribution company. Operator Our next question comes from Miguel Rodrigues, Morgan Stanley. Miguel Rodrigues Good Morning. I have two questions. First, recently we had the regulation of ANEEL for the group of concessions. Could you talk a little bit about the possibly gains and risks of CPFL, if they managed to group together the five smaller concessions? And secondly, could you comment a little on the change of the methodology of the PLD, calculation of PLD and what about your risk aversion? And is this the best way to adjust the model or do you think that the model should be reviewed more thoroughly? I would like you to elaborate on that please. Wilson Ferreira Jr So starting by the grouping of concessions. Miguel, at this moment, we are evaluating this alternative. We will bring to the Board probably next month. We will bring this up to the Board. The grouping brings marginal gains to the company, but there is something that we don’t know. There are five reports of balance sheet against one balance sheet. So there will be a gain. There are five processes of adjustment and review against one. I have no doubt that some marginal gain will be possible. Our evaluation here is more of a rationalization because this is inside the company also determines for every adjustment processed, the man-hours that you must account for. So there is a gain. It’s not significant, but it does rationalize both our work team and particularly ourselves. We think the gain is more of process rationalization which makes more sense. But for the point of view of consumers, it might have the advantage of a larger area with the same tariff. It’s very difficult for us to face different tariffs from one municipality to another. This occurred in the five distributors. We would try and avoid this. We understand that the regulation was established, it’s good and we, in the next few months, will propose this to the agency. Regarding the PLD, the spot price. Regarding the review of the pricing methodology, there are some points, highlights here. The concern of minimizing, the model must reflect as well as possible the operation cost of the system. Another important point is that in case of an alteration of the methodology of the pricing that this not be done in a raw way because this will cause impact on the market negotiations in the pricing method of the agency. So you must have time to apply this change and it does not cause negative impact for the agents and a negative impression. And if you have to change things, this is under study and the CPFL Group is still studying whether this is the best way to adjust the model to improve this outside the merit. There is no way to. This is under study. We have not decided. Miguel Rodrigues Thank you. Operator Our next question comes from Marcelo Sa with UBS. Marcelo Sa Hello. To continue, it seems that there has been an increase regarding the long-term price that the collective bargaining is discussing BRL120 to BRL122. Is this because of the change of PLD? Or was it for any other reason? Is the hydrological scenario, would it be more difficult next year? And could you give us more data regarding the privatization of the Sul, do you have a new schedule or new price review with the new government, will things change? Wilson Ferreira Jr Regarding your first question, naturally the evaluation of the price curve involves many elements. The discussion regarding the formatting of the price is one of them but you have elements like the delay of Belo Monte line, which affects the price. Hydrology, well, there is a difference of expectation regarding the former one and there are several elements reflected here. It’s not a significant variation of the price, just adjustment of different variables. But nothing stands out regarding the price variation. The second question. We have not been officially informed regarding the process and we now have a new government and this would be important to review as quickly as possible. Obviously the price, there is an error, just comparing comparables of multiples regarding the bases and you will see that we have here a mistake. The sector now has, because of the regulatory movement, we are made important progress regarding the rules of distribution and we see the different states and Electrobras needing cash for the question of privatization, which could bring many benefits to those who want the concessions and for consumers, as I see it personally, should be stepped up considerably in the next few months. Especially, we don’t want to increase taxes. So one way of capitalizing companies and governments is to do this where everybody can gain. So two-thirds of the concessions are private. In all governments, there has been with a greater gain of tax because of the better efficiency of these, better quality and obviously the use of that resource for the rebalancing of public accounts and whoever is doing the selling, I believe, the shares that all the analysts have said that all those interested have already manifested their interest and I would think within the next days or months, we will have the review of this amount. Marcelo Sa Thank you. Operator Our next question comes from Ms. Sergio Tamashiro from Haitong. Sergio Tamashiro Thank you. And Wilson, I wish you all the best in your new activities and Alberto as well. Second continuing regarding the new government now with the entry of Fernando Bezerra, we know that this future government has a quick need to attract new investment to try and reverse this trend towards economic shrinkage. So in your sector, what steps do you think might be taken? You mentioned the process of privatization in the distribution sector. But what other steps could be taken and do you think could be implemented? A greater flexibility in the — what can you imagine? The second question regarding the level of debt, you had said that there was no problem here. There was no short-term cash problem and quickly you are coming into a fast leverage situation. You will have a lot of cash and then you will be thinking, well, among these new projects and you are seeing capacity of generation and new projects for distribution. So what are you seeing? Will you be interested in these other projects? Expansion into other countries? So what would be alternatives? And finally, I would just like you to elaborate regarding the level of losses. It’s a very simple thing. You have the numerator equal losses and then under that the low voltage and these two indicators seem, even in leap year, they are equally intense. So I don’t understand why only the numerator feels the effects of the leap year. Wilson Ferreira Jr Thank you Sergio for your questions and also thank you for your good wishes. One of the things besides being team tried to CPFL, I will continue here being the Chairman of the Board of ABRADEE. We have had a chance to talk to some of the members who will be involved in this process. And with an overview, I can say that the government has already taken the first step with the talking about the partnerships for investments, I feel that there is total clarity [indiscernible] with the attraction of an investment is the most important thing to [indiscernible] invest in capital and infrastructure. So there are two points here. First of all, [indiscernible] in many of the projects we have projects that are up for bidding but have not yet been put into practice also for environmental projects. And on the other hand, we have an important agenda to show legal security and regulatory stability. I think the discussions will come along regarding improvement of the regulations for the agency, improvement of the auction conditions. I want to be very frank with you regarding the electric sector. I think we have made great progress last year and this year, because most of the election, except the last one for distribution had participants and all the lots were sold. In a specific one, the last transmission auction we had the entry of new agents and we did not have the presence of some important private agents or even public that have always been part of it and the main reason was because the fact of the nonpayment of the RBS, was harming these agents, something which was done on the last day of the management of Eduardo Braga. The electric power sector today where the ceiling prices have gone up and because of competition and this is the right way to establish price and this implies in each one of these themes a higher remuneration on your own capital and also as Gustavo has said, the increase of financing or the increase of this ceiling. So the environment expropriation themes will be addressed by the next 12 months. It’s very important that infrastructure if it is useful to country and we can go from 2% to 4% of GDP in investments very quickly. This must be followed by the recognition of this importance. It means that we will have people with us and entrepreneurs trying to make things easier with the government and not complicate it. Everybody wins with this. Things become simplified. The work is delivered more quickly to the population and work is distributed more quickly. As it gets the explicit show that the theme of the investment in infrastructure and the poetry is something very smart. And this committee that is going to manage this is doing right. So they are going the right way. And the electric sector has already done a lot of this improvement. But generally speaking, so that the environment be generalized and not only for the electric power sector, many elements, be it in the agencies or the laws that support the expert preparation which comes from 1941 and all the other periods of loss, the things lost, all have to be reviewed. And I am very positive about that. Now one last point, I think, was the losses. I will call upon someone on my team. Luiza Mariko Hello. This is Luiza Mariko from market planning. As you said, the calculation is simple. What is the difference? We are performing a loss in May where the average is 8.1%, it’s higher. You have more load than market at the moment because you have the effect of temperature on the lead. When you do the reading in the month and it’s a question of date of the month. One is right at the beginning and one is right at the end. So this amount of energy which is not billed from March 15 until the March 31 had a strong temperature effect and as you have said, the load of the year has one day more, 366 days. For the reading, it’s still 365 days but there were more then 100 gigawatts accumulated and I am talking about the residential and commercial areas. Well, looking at this question of losses and as is indicated, as this will effect other quarters, this losses will probably drop. The temperature will give us back its effect in the calendar as well. At the middle of the year, we have three 365 days and so those effects of the calendar and the temperature will give us back the losses stabilizing this expectation. Sergio Tamashiro Now going back to this question of new investments, Wilson, I think the government will be attracting new investments as a priority. Now specifically the electric power, especially the great generators, there was a strong participation of the construction companies. Do you see any structural changes for the fact that this company is no longer here and there is not a participation of Electrobras and they are only private companies? Wilson Ferreira Jr Yes Sergio. I think you have had that. For example, if you take in transmission, the last auction, the great largest lot was sold to a front of infrastructure investment. So these agents that are coming in and if they are skilled, there are many resources in the world looking for investments to have these prospects that we have in Brazil. I would say that it is sure that we will have new agents here. But the CPFL, well, in the specific case of public companies, just look at the balance sheet. It is a difficult situation and I think it’s already difficult to incorporate what has been signed. So you need financial discipline to manage these companies and we participate in these investments. But with the improvement of the economic and regulatory environment and the legal environment and the business environment that this new government is bringing us, we will certainly be capable of attracting investments from other places in the world here because of the demand that you will be offering each one of them. This is the only reason, the only good point of not having invested very much in the last few years, is that there is a lot of repressed demand that can be met. And in fact, as I had said at the beginning of the year, we overcame this small acute moment of the crisis. And CPFL, just look at the indicators of solvency of liquidity and of indebtedness, the company’s situation allows it and I think that this is the main point of this new phase will come in to a new cycle of growth. The company has a very good structure to evaluate these alternatives and fortuitously we have here, if you take the breakdown of the company’s EBITDA, it has a 45% distribution, 45% generation and 10% in commercialization and services and it’s very well balanced. If we could keep this, then certainly we will do so because I think this balance is very good. The opportunities appear and we are looking at most of them according to our strategy which is to follow in the three businesses that we have said. Very focused on the electric power session and distribution and expansion or through M&A or greenfield in generation. We have experience in both and in the strengthening of this activity of services which has been an important arm for the company to make consumers more loyal or to capture new clients. So this structure is possible. But you can’t choose, if it’s a consolidation and this big steps to us to create value, this is very important. We don’t want market share, we want prospects to increase our value and improve our corporate structure. So this is what we want. The company is very aware of this and the group of opportunities is there and we are evaluating them. And we will present the best options which will bring about better value creation for our shareholders. This is our value, to create this and share with the others. Sergio Tamashiro Okay. If you will allow me a quick follow-up, although you have a positive entry on the Itaipu [ph] and also we see other companies came in the electric energy sector and I don’t know, maybe in my point of view, that could be somewhat risky. We have seen in other auctions of energy generation that the new players later on had difficulties in going forward Genpower, Bolognesi. I am not talking about Bengo, but you see that future-ly these assets being that are developed by them so that they would come in the secondary market. What is your point of view? Wilson Ferreira Jr Yes. You are right on your comment. I believe that in the development of the regulation in the auction processes, we will have two things. First, a more correct evaluation in the financial services of the bidders, actually. So some of them maybe would not be approved by the bank. So there was an improvement in the bidder’s qualification. And on the other side, we have a faster pace in the assessment of the delay. There are projects that today are at the base, also of the distributors and we already know that those will not happen. So here we should have a faster pace to make the decision and say cancel the project. That will generate the needed demand for the future because so far, well, when the project is seen as a potential to be connected in addition to the delay it might cause and sometimes this is a serious delay and that could cause a fluctuation in the market price, you then want to do investment that would be needed there. So here we do have adjustments and improvements to be made into the process and I believe that in the system of partnership and investment that has been announced yesterday probably will address the issue. But yes, we do have homework to do, both in qualification as well as in following up the process and in a possible cancellation of that participation considering all the consequences that could be attributed to the bidders. Sergio Tamashiro Thank you very much. Operator Our next question is from Ms. Carolina Carneiro, Santander. Carolina Carneiro Good afternoon everyone. My question is about the next reserve energy auction. The company has any projects that would be interested to participate on that? And a second question, in the prior call, you talked about a flat demand this year and you see a small growth and I would like to know if the economic data and billing data that you have seen in the first quarter, if that estimate is still there? Thank you. Wilson Ferreira Jr Carolina, starting on your second question. I mentioned in the call, yes, with the results of this first quarter we reviewed our projections and we estimate that it’s not going to be flat, zero. It’s going to be slightly negative, maybe one, we could be reaching two. About the reserve energy auction, especially in renewable that has been said yesterday, yes, we do have a set of assets and we will assess timely our interest in taking part on it. But yes, we do have potential assets to take part in this bid or on this auction actually and we will have a saying on that briefly. Operator The conference call of CPFL Energia is concluded. We thank you all for your participation. Have a nice day. Thank you. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com . Thank you!

Talen Energy Corporation’ (TLN) CEO Paul Farr on Q1 2016 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Talen Energy Corporation (NYSE: TLN ) Q1 2016 Earnings Conference Call May 10, 2016 8:00 AM ET Executives Andrew Ludwig – Director of Investor Relations Paul Farr – Chief Executive Officer Jeremy McGuire – Chief Financial Officer Analysts Ali Ahga – SunTrust Julian Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Abe Azar – Deutsche Bank Srinjoy Banerjee – Barclays Operator Welcome to the Talen Energy First Quarter Result Conference Call. All participants will be in listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions] Please note this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Andrew Ludwig. Mr. Ludwig, please go ahead. Andrew Ludwig Thanks Kate, and good morning everyone. Thank you for joining the Talen Energy Corporation conference call to discuss first quarter 2016 results. Today’s presentation is being webcast and we are providing slide to the presentation on our website at talenenergy.com. This presentation may contain forward-looking statements and we encourage you to review our filings with the SEC to a more about certain risk factors that could cause actual results to differ from these forward-looking statements. This presentation also will contain references to non-GAAP financial information that we use to measure our business. You can find the reconciliation between the non-GAAP financial measures we use and the most directly comparable GAAP measures in the schedules to our earnings release and the presentation that we posted on our website. With that, I’ll now turn the call over to Paul Farr, Talen Energy President and CEO. Paul Farr Thanks Andy, and thank you all for joining us on our first quarter earnings call. Joining me on the call today are; Jeremy McGuire, our CFO; Joe Hopf, who has lead our Commercial team and our non-nuclear Generation; as well as Tim Rausch, our Chief Nuclear Officer. After my prepared remarks, Jeremy will take you through a more detailed review of the financial performance and our forecast, and we’ll then take questions. We are about three week shiny anniversary of the spin and the acquisition of the RJS portfolio, and I’m extremely proud of the efforts and the accomplishments of our entire team over the past two years of planning and execution. We’ll touch on a number of initiatives that we have on our way to grow value for stockholders in our prepared remarks. So I’ll move right into Slide 4. The April 1 sale of the eastern hydro assets for $860 million marked the end of the FERC mitigation asset sales, all of which were executed at great values in competitive processes. Our Brunner Island co-fire project remains on schedule which should permit us to bring gas in Unit 3 by August and the smaller two units by the end of the year. We made significant progress on the Montana project evaluation as well and expect to have a final decision on that in the next two weeks. That project is expected to be executed all differently than Brunner Island and that we are working with the midstream company to finance, construct and operate the lateral pipeline. Since the Brunner Island project has a much smaller lateral, we are initially financing and constructing the gas line ourselves. Once the Brunner project is completed, we plan to assess the value of selling the line to a midstream company to free-up the capital we invested in that portion of the project. At Susquehanna, we safely and successfully completed our Unit 1 refueling outage, which included normal refueling and maintenance activities as well as major work to replace the original heat water heaters and the installation of shortened blades on the second Unit 1 LP turbine. That leaves the third and final LP turbine blade replacement on Unit 1 for the outage schedules in the spring of 2018. I want to thank the entire Susquehanna team for staying focused on safe execution of this work, all well keeping Susquehanna Unit 2 running at a capacity factor of 100% for 10 months in County, fantastic work by all. The great operating performance and the addition of assets to the portfolio over the past year allowed us to achieve comparable adjusted EBITDA performance for the quarter versus Q1 2015, despite significant declines in energy prices. As we noted when we provided you 2016 adjusted EBITDA and adjusted free cash flow guidance on our yearend call in late February, we excluded from that guidance, the financial contribution of the assets being sold to meet the FERC mitigation requirements. Our revised guidance ranges have been updated to reflect the actual financial contribution of those assets, which were sold and Jeremy will comment more on that in his remarks. On Slide 6, we begin the commercial and operational review. Given our fuel diverse portfolio, you can clearly see the impact low natural gas prices are having on generation assets in the region. Gas continues to gain additional runtime at the expense of coal, a major driver of our decision to invest in gasification of the Brunner Island plans and our evaluation of a similar investment at modular assets. Susquehanna generation was lower year-on-year primarily due to a difference in the timing of the 2015 and 2016 refueling outages. Our forced outage performance continues to be extremely strong, setting well for CP and pay for performance capacity constructs in both PJM and New England. We began the 2019, 2020 PJM capacity auction this week with results expected to be announced on May 24t. As usual, we are not providing a forecast to the auction results, but we see better behavior on economically and environmentally challenge assets as a key driver of the outcome. On the safety front, we continue to make meaningful strides to improve our safety track record as evidenced in the chart on the bottom right of the slide, but we remain highly focused on achieving even better levels of safety performance. Turning now to market updates, beginning with PJM on slide 7, I would broadly highlight that we’ve seen an improvement in forward gas and power pricing in all markets since the end of February. Outside of just the pricing improvement in PJM that you can see in the graph, we secured key victories at the U.S. Supreme Court in the Maryland and New Jersey litigation on subsidize new gas bills and from FERC in the Ohio attempt to subsidize existing merchant generation. Maintaining a level playing field among competitors is an essential element to having well structured, transparent and functioning markets that encourage sensible investments in existing and new generation resources. Now moving to ERCOT, the ERCOT market on Slide 8, pricing has improved from very low levels in late February, but continues to present challenges for coal and nuclear generators in that market. With wind penetration reaching almost 50% quick-start gas assets like ours that goes in our Texas portfolio become even more valuable for system reliability. Recent forecast of potential shortness in the market for the next few summers bodes well if we get any type of help from the weather, we saw that with just two weeks of heat last summer. In the New York ISO with the tempered weather and low seasonal gas pricing, we’re getting good runtimes in assets. We’ve seen some modest improvement in forward prices over the past two months, and even though the constitution pipeline is been delayed both spark spreads and energy prices have improved in the short term. Based on the public comments from the developers of the pipeline and the fact this pipeline is fully subscribed, we expect the developers will be pursuing options to move forward with that project. Finally, turning to New England, 2017-2018 power prices are up modestly since our last update with spark spreads slapped down on a recent spike and forward gas in the region. ISO New England will implement rental demand curves for the 2020-2021 forward capacity auctions. We expect this will gradual downward pressure on capacity prices due to the transition that was negotiated by the generators. On Slide 11, we’ll provide updated hedge levels and margin sensitivities. We have increased our 2016 generation hedge levels across the board, which reflects a combination of Q1 delivered results and some modest balance of your hedging. For 2017, we were on some additional hedges for the East nuclear and coal assets prior to the end of the quarter and we’re about a third hedge based on our projected output at March 31. Since that time, we have seen some additional improvement in pricing and have added additional hedges that take the hedge level to over 60% for East nuclear and coal. In the West, we added some hedges for the summer for both 2016 and 2017. I’ll now turn the call over to Jeremy for a more detailed look at financials. Jeremy? Jeremy McGuire Thanks Paul. On Slide 13, you will see some of the key drivers of our first quarter adjusted EBITDA as compared to the same quarter last year. Overall margins were higher due principally to the addition of RJS and MACH Gen margins. They were not part of last year’s first quarter results as well as higher capacity prices. Offsetting these positive margin drivers will lower realized energy prices, timing of the Susquehanna refueling outage in the early February sale of the Ironwood facility. The increase in O&M reflects the addition of RJS and MACH Gen operations, as well as the Susquehanna refueling outage timing. The increase in cost was partially offset by lower corporate costs following the separation from PPL. Let’s turn to Slide 14. As Paul previewed in his remarks, we’re affirming and updating our guidance of same time. We believe our solid operational performance, our hedging program and our continuous efforts to control costs we’ll keep this on track versus our 2016 guidance. If you recall when we initiated our 2016 guidance that we did not include any anticipated contribution from the mitigation assets. Now that the sales are complete, we know a certainty what they contributed towards our 2016 results. The net results as the $20 million increase to our 2016 adjusted EBITDA guidance and a $10 million increased to our 2016 adjusted free cash guidance. We’ve provided these adjustments so that our guidance will more closely aligned with our reported results as we move through the year. Before I turn it back to Paul, let spend just a minute on capital allocation on slide 15. Please note that we have updated the cash from operations in the chart on the bottom of the page reflect first quarter results, including the actual results for the asset sold in 2016 consistent with our guidance update. We continued to stay the course with respect to our capital allocation as discussed in the fourth quarter call. We closed our hydro sale last month which brought in $860 million from gross proceeds completing the FERC mitigation requirement. We are making good progress on the major potential projects that will influence our capital allocation decisions. We expect to have a decision on the Montana station project very soon as Paul indicated and we’ll continue our assessment with respect to the Harquahala station. We remain on discussions with various entities around potential local resource needs and we’re simultaneously refining plans to potentially move all or a portion of the capacity to the Northeast. As we’ve discussed in the past moving summer all of park would required capital investment beyond the current plan. Finally, we continue to review our liability management options, obviously on-prices have improve since our last update which will be factored into our analysis. However, there are other factors such as managing the maturity calendar and reducing interest expense, therefore consider. With that, I’ll hand it back to Paul. Paul Farr Thanks Jeremy. Our scripted remarks were fairly concise this morning as we gave you a pretty fulsome update in late February on the yearend call on many fronts. We’ve had a very solid financial start to the year, executed fully on the committed asset sales, identify further opportunities to reduce costs and continue to invest projects that we believe will improve the profitability and risk profile of our portfolio. Before we get in the Q&A session, given recent market rumors involving the company, I want to take the opportunity to remind you that we do not comment or speculate on market rumors, we never have and we never will. Please keep this in mind as you craft your questions for us this morning, operator we’re now ready to take those questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions] The first question comes from Ali Ahga of SunTrust. Please go ahead. Ali Ahga Thank you and good morning. Paul Farr Good morning. Ali. Ali Ahga Good morning. First just a logistic question, so to be clear under your old way of reporting and showing us guidance, first quarter results would have excluded the 20 million that is associated with assets that were eventually sold. Is that the way to think about it apples-to-apples? Paul Farr Yeah, that’s correct, Ali. Ali Ahga Okay. Then second, Paul I wanted to get your perspective on this new joint venture that or venture whatever you call it, the Riverstone has harmed in Texas. From this reading it appears to be a direct competitor of Talen, and I am just wondering as they being your largest shareholder? Was there any discussion with you guys? I want to just get your perspective on how to look at that venture versus talent? And just excuse me to reading through that release. Paul Farr Ali, I don’t think we have any comments on what Riverstone is doing basically that’s just the Topaz team that was managing the RJS portfolio before we bought it, is our understanding. So beyond that and then renaming the team, we don’t have a perspective on what their – I don’t think they have assets, but I’m not sure what to read into that actually. Ali Ahga Okay. But am I right in thinking that they will be going after fossil fuel projects just like you guys in your regular course of business maybe looking for fossil fuel assets as well? Paul Farr Well, we had said at when we conceived the spin that this did not represent the spin of PPL portfolio and the merger or acquisition of RJS that did not mark the – that was not a Riverstone exiting the business and that they had the capability to pursue congressional generation assets in the future, which they had planned to do. Now they have market power limitations based upon being an affiliate of Talen, but beyond that they are free to continue to pursue those opportunities, nothing change there. Ali Ahga I see. Separately in the past in one of your presentations when you had talked about what could be uplifts to your EBITDA profile. You had mentioned that the add of money shall find in Longwood contracts expiring I believe at the end of the year would add about 60 million a year, and then you were still at that something in the Brunner dual-fuel would add about 25 million a year. Are those numbers still valid today? Paul Farr The first number will still be valid. I have to believe in Joe sitting here that Brunner for ’16 especially because we had originally planned to bring all three units on by yearend. We’ve now with strong execution and construction, we feel confident we can get Brunner 3 the big Unit to 750 megawatts unit on by August. That will provide an uplift, but gas prices have declined since, so the project is going add more gross margin and look more attractive. There will be an offsetting impact on the other solid fuel assets in the portfolio but that project will look better. Ali Ahga It looks better. Okay. Last question, not specifically trying to go after these rumors out there, but just conceptually your views on consolidation in the industry today versus where they were three to six months ago? Paul Farr I don’t think that I or we have necessarily a changed opinion, I think even with some improvement in the multiples of our three peers, this whole industry of four that the cash flows were compelling. I think that scale is important that driving out cost is important. I guess I would say that as I think back on our experience in going after cost here, in the way that we went after a cost as part of an integrated utility holding company it’s much difference. So I would say that from my perspective and looking at operators operating uneconomic plants in Ohio, and looking at some nuclear shutdown that’s going on in the industry, getting after costs is much more, I guess I’ll call it aggressive in an IPP context and inside of the utility holding company with common systems, common business processes, it’s just the different urgency in a different culture. So, I would expect and I would wholeheartedly support the remaining integrated, the disintegrating and becoming carefully, but I am not really sure you have to ask the other CEO is how they think about consolidation in the industry. Everything is obviously gets limited by ultimately market power, we’re going to grind to that at some point with only four companies in the key markets where there are market power concentrations. Ali Ahga Thank you. Operator The next question comes from Julian Dumoulin-Smith of UBS. Please go ahead. Julian Dumoulin-Smith Good morning. Paul Farr Good morning, Julian. Julian Dumoulin-Smith So let me follow-up on the questions there on capital allocation, Jeremy, what’s the timing this year on taking through when you would execute on a growth that stay back or what have you given the cash is now in the door? Jeremy McGuire Yeah. So I think the two key projects that pace our timing there are the Montana co-fire which just Paul said we expect in the coming weeks to have a final view on moving forward or not and then the other is Harquahala. If part of the path value there is moving summer all of that capacity that – what can represent a really attractive return to shareholders. It will certainly require some substantial capital investment. So I think we just want to have clarity on that before we take this all as capital and do something with it. I know the markets are – the financing markets are getting better than there were, but they are not all better yet. So I think we are very cautious about doing anything in the capital markets to shrink our debt, and then suddenly realize in weeks or months later, oh gosh we need to go on raise a bunch of debt again to fence a hard move. So we are just trying to sort, draw all that now, I think that still a first half of year decision in terms of where we are moving. So I wouldn’t really expect anything splashy on the capital allocation front before the first half of the year. Julian Dumoulin-Smith Got it. And just remind us what the hard CapEx figure you’re looking at as you sharpen the pencils? Paul Farr Yeah. We were originally at around 500 KW and we fine tune that down to $300 to $400 range so on, if all three trains were moved at 1080 megawatts, that’s call it 325 million to 450 million some more in that ZIP code, if all three trains are moved. So, again Julian, it’s free-up another $100 million or $200 million by selling it in-situ or move all three, those are kind of the bookends, but that’s a potential $600 million range there of outcomes. We are continuing the dialogue with load serving and other entities in that market on the potential for sale. So we’re simultaneously evaluating both sale and relocation to markets in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. Julian Dumoulin-Smith Got it. And just a clarification, I’m just going to stay away from the market rumors, but on the RMT what are the limitations in terms of change in ownership and any implications if any for PPL, if you don’t mind reminding us on where that stands post there? Paul Farr At this stage, there is not practically any limiting factors there. Jeremy McGuire We have a general safe harbor, I mean people have to ticker on tax advice, I mean there is always a tax disclaimer right, we are not your tax lawyers. But there is a general safe harbor that provided any future transaction was not pursuant to preconceived plan at the time of the spin or prior to the time of the spin, then you’re generally okay to do whatever. It’s just there is a coincidence in timing, the closer you are to that spin date, the more scrutiny there is and the more sort of inference that there was a preconceived plan. But in general, there was no preconceive plan to a transaction at the time of spin or prior to the spin then you’d have a general safe harbor proceed. Julian Dumoulin-Smith Got it. Can you comment briefly here on the kinds of unit in PJM in the upcoming auction there you’ve seen – I know you mentioned the economics here – like we saw on fuel, but can you elaborate a little bit more regionally or how you see that changing year-over-year obviously power prices down, any elaboration we appreciate? Paul Farr Well, I mean just look back on the 18-19 auction, there was a major unit in our neighborhood that that owner said did not clear the auction. The nuclear promise activities are underway, but those haven’t born yet substantial cost reduction fruit. Tim is leading one of the initiatives there and there are number clearly underway, but that’s going to take some time to get to. So, higher cost units in what remains a persistently low gas price market are going to be under pressure. The owners of the assets I believe in all the testimonies that I’ve seen in Ohio were all quote uneconomic generation in the absence of getting subsidies well then those units should shut. The market worked just fine. There are negative impacts to markets given what the actions EPA has taken and the impact of this cheap gas that exists and persists in the region, that’s not a problem of poorly functioning markets that has impact. So, they’ll be assets like Brunner and Montour that can be gasified. There will be nuclear plants that have margin to be able to cut costs, and then there will be solid fuel plants that are not in good locations and were cost cutting where the costs are either already at very low levels and not much more can be done it. People for trying to do certain things, but at the end of the day that is creating a – that subsidization activity across all these markets is preserving uneconomic generation which is having a downward pressure on both capacity and energy. So those owners and other owners that are facing the impact of Marcellus and now Utica gap need to take a hard look in the mirror and make some tough decisions. Julian Dumoulin-Smith Speaking to tough decisions, any update on Montana lastly? Paul Farr No. We are working constructively with the parties in the state as we speak. We are doing everything we can to try to find the path to a new owner of those assets, which will result at the end of the day in some form or fashion of our exit from that market. So we’re working diligently to try to execute that in the best way possible for all the stakeholders, for employees, for the state, industrial load, for all involved there to try to find the best solution that we can. Julian Dumoulin-Smith Great. Thank you. Operator The next question is from Abe Azar of Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Abe Azar Good morning. In the 2018-2019 PJM auctions, about 20% of your portfolio went uncleared with lower demand and expect the pricing in its upcoming auction. Should we expect the similar amount of megawatts will remain uncleared or have you revisited your risk assumptions for CP? Paul Farr Well, I would say, Abe, I’d like to say a couple of things. One, that amount that roughly 2200 to 2500 megawatt so that didn’t clear also included assets that we have now sold as part of the FERC mitigation process, so that will be one point. The second point I would say is that auction obviously concluded before the transitional auctions for the prior years and you’ll know that we cleared more capacity in those auction. So as we evaluated with the market did by way of bidding, we did modify or bidding behavior somewhat. So I think again, I don’t see us changing, think about the risk reward relationship and there are projects that we know and megawatts are cleared that have since been announced to be shuttered. So ultimately, there is going to be demand in subsequent auctions for the modest amount of capacity, net of FERC mitigation sales that we’ve got and the amount that we want to reserve for our own insurance, I am using my [indiscernible] so you can’t see four asset performance in the future, even though we’ve got assets that have a really good track record of reliability. Abe Azar Great. And shifting gears a bit, you mentioned that FERC were affiliate waivers as we have seen the company have not given out. Do you think the current proposed iteration impacts the market the same way, and if so, where and how do you plan to challenge? Paul Farr Well, maybe a couple of thoughts. I don’t think that even at the state level there is a resolution before the capacity auction, results are in – well, not just the result, you know the bidding activity is done the 17 th , and then the results come out May 24, so nothing is going to be finalized in two weeks. So they’ll have to do it accordingly and how they see risk reward there, I don’t think by changing the fact that there is no affiliate contract, the substance at the end of the day and the result is the same. Uneconomic generation is subsidized and it has an impact on wholesale pricing in the market, and that’s a FERC jurisdictional issue. We will to the extent that these things are filed, we will likely have to with our peers engage peers that are viewing subsidies as unwarranted and impermissible will bring another challenge back at the state and federal level, again in certain if they pursue. Abe Azar Okay. Thank you. Operator The next question is from Srinjoy Banerjee of Barclays. Please go ahead. Srinjoy Banerjee Hi. Thank you for taking my questions. Paul you could have been asked previously in the call, but just hypothetically and going into the debt language, it doesn’t change your controls, is it just a 25 which have a change of control? And then specifically, are there any callouts depending on you may hope hypothetically acquire the group? Paul Farr Is that $600 million and about little north of $200 million of IRB, industrial revenue bonds that are outstanding that would have a potential change of control acceleration, if there were to be a rating downgrade as a result of potential transaction. Jeremy McGuire That’s the rating of the issue itself not of the company. Paul Farr Correct. That’s all the…. Srinjoy Banerjee Right. Oaky. And then there are any callout as specific that you may acquire the group? Paul Farr Sorry. I missed that last piece. Srinjoy Banerjee There was a callout or exceptions to that change you can control being apply specific that you may acquire the group. Paul Farr No. Jeremy McGuire No. Srinjoy Banerjee Okay. Thank you. Paul Farr Sure. Operator There are no additional questions at this time. This concludes our question-and-answer session. Paul Farr Okay. Thanks Kate, and thank you all for joining us on the call today. We look forward to further dialogue as we get into potentially some road shows, and then later in the year as we get to the normal conference schedule. Thanks all and have a good day. Operator The conference is now concluded. Thank you for attending today’s presentation. You may now disconnect. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com . Thank you!

FirstEnergy (FE) Charles E. Jones on Q4 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Operator Greetings and welcome to the FirstEnergy Corp. Fourth Quarter 2015 Earnings Conference Call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. A brief question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Meghan Beringer, Director of Investor Relations for FirstEnergy Corp. Thank you. You may begin. Meghan Geiger Beringer – Director-Investor Relations Thank you, Adam, and good morning. Welcome to FirstEnergy’s fourth quarter earnings call. We will make various forward-looking statements today regarding revenues, earnings, performance, strategies and prospects. These statements are based on current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by such statements can be found on the Investor section of our website under the Earnings Information link and in our SEC filings. We will also discuss certain non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures are also available on our website. Please note that on the Investor Relations page of our website we have also included a slide presentation that will follow this morning’s discussions. Participating in today’s call are Chuck Jones, President and Chief Executive Officer; Jim Pearson, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Leila Vespoli, Executive Vice President, Markets and Chief Legal Officer; Donnie Schneider, President of FirstEnergy Solutions; Jon Taylor, Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer; Steve Staub, Vice President and Treasurer and Irene Prezelj, Vice President, Investor Relations. Now I’d like to turn the call over to Chuck Jones. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Thanks, Meghan. Good morning, everyone. I’m glad you’re able to join us. I’m excited to share the results from an important and productive year for FirstEnergy. In 2015 we made tremendous progress on major initiatives across our company. We put a number of obstacles behind us and completed critical work necessary to implement our regulated growth strategy going forward. At the same time, we consistently met our financial commitments to you. Last night we reported operating earnings of $0.58 per share for the fourth quarter and $2.71 per share for the year. These results, which reflect improved operations at our Competitive business, as well as growth in our Transmission business are above our initial guidance range for 2015, and in line with the revised estimates that we provided during our third quarter call despite the mild weather we experienced in the fourth quarter. For the first quarter of 2016, we have provided operating earnings guidance of $0.75 to $0.85 per share. As we will discuss later, we intend to provide additional guidance once we have an outcome in our Ohio Electric Security Plan. Before we move to Jim’s financial review, I’ll take a few minutes to discuss the key events from 2015. First, we removed regulatory uncertainty and important steps to position our regulated utilities for growth with the conclusion of rate cases in West Virginia, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Resolving these cases allows us to plan for additional infrastructure and reliability investments at those utilities. In Pennsylvania, we took that next step by filing Long Term Infrastructure Improvement Plans for each of our four operating companies in October. These plans, which were approved by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission last week, outline a projected increase in capital investment of nearly $245 million over five years to help strengthen, upgrade and modernize our Pennsylvania distribution systems. Yesterday, we filed for approval to implement a distribution system improvement charge at each of the four operating companies, which will allow us to recover quarterly costs associated with the capital projects approved in the LTIIPs. In Ohio, we achieved an important milestone for our latest Electric Security Plan by reaching a settlement agreement with the staff of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and 16 other parties, including EnerNOC, an energy management solutions provider, Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy, a low income customer advocacy group, and IGS Energy, an independent energy supplier. The agreement outlines the ambitious steps to safeguard Ohio customers against retail price increases and volatility in future years, deploy new energy efficiency programs, and provide a clear path to a cleaner energy future by reducing carbon emissions. Our settlement includes an eight-year retail rate stability rider associated with the proposed Purchased Power Agreement. This provision will help protect customers against rising retail prices and market volatility while helping preserve vital base load power plants that serve Ohio customers and provide thousands of jobs in the state. The PPA includes the Sammis Plant in Stratton, Ohio, the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in Oak Harbor, Ohio, which recently received approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a 20-year license extension, and a portion of the output of two OVEC plants. The procedural schedule for our Ohio case is nearly complete, with hearings concluded, initial briefs filed, and reply briefs due next Friday. A decision from the PUCO is expected in March. Clearly, there is a lot of talk about the PPA as all interested parties seek to have their voices heard. We firmly believe that our plan serves the best interests of Ohio customers and Ohio communities while supporting competitive markets in the state and PJM. This generation will continue to be offered into PJM’s energy and capacity markets, and the PPA will have no impact on our standard service offer or customers’ ability to shop for their retail electric supply. In fact, we expect that the output from these plants will be treated no differently than the 20% of regulated generation that currently clears in the PJM markets, and that 20% does not include imports into PJM, which from MISO would be primarily regulated generation. I’m sure you’ll have lots of questions about the legal and regulatory process, and Leila’s standing by to share our perspective during the Q&A. We believe our plan is the right one for Ohio, and we remain very optimistic in the outcome, both in Ohio and at FERC. Let’s turn to our Transmission business. We just passed the halfway point of the first phase of our Energizing the Future, transmission investment initiative to meet the reliability needs of our customers and communities. We remain on track to meet our target of $4.2 billion in spending during the 2014 through 2017 timeframe. Consistent with our plan, we spent $2.4 billion in 2014 and 2015, including $986 million last year, on projects to address service reliability, grid modernization and growth. We completed major initiatives to address last year’s Northeast Ohio plant deactivations, and brought online critical new infrastructure to support midstream gas operations in our region. Work in 2016 is expected to include $1 billion in investments on projects such as synchronous condensers at our Eastlake Plant, new line construction projects in West Virginia and New Jersey, Static Var Compensator projects in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and West Virginia, and several new substations, line rebuilds and reconductoring projects. While expansion in the shale markets has cooled, we expect investments over the next several years of about $150 million for work that is already in the pipeline. We also addressed several matters in 2015 that support future investment in this important long-term growth platform. During the fourth quarter, FERC approved our settlement for a forward-looking formula rate structure at our ATSI subsidiary which permits more timely recovery of our investments. In addition, in June we filed to create a new subsidiary named Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, or MAIT. This subsidiary would hold the transmission assets of Met-Ed, Penelec and JCP&L and facilitate new investments that can improve service reliability for those customers. Our proposal is on FERC’s agenda for tomorrow and we are seeking approval from both the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission and the New Jersey Bureau of Public Utilities by the middle of the year. These structural changes are important steps to ensure timely recovery of our investments and set the stage for continued growth through our Energizing the Future transmission initiative. Turning to our Competitive operations, the PJM capacity market reforms approved by FERC have already begun to have a positive impact on the capacity auction process, although the markets continue to fall well short of being compensatory for long-lived capital assets like base load generation units. Our revised competitive strategy, focusing on stabilizing the business by reducing risk, also produced positive results. In 2015, we sold 75 million megawatt-hours while significantly reducing our exposure to weather-sensitive load and executing a rigorous commitment to economically dispatching our units. As a result, we mitigated the impact of severe weather in the first quarter of 2015 and achieved adjusted EBITDA of $949 million. This is in line with the revised guidance that we provided in October and reflects solid operational results as well as the impact of our Cash Flow Improvement Project. We are holding off on providing adjusted EBITDA guidance for 2017 and 2018 until our Analyst Meeting following the PUCO decision in Ohio. However, we are reaffirming both our 2016 adjusted EBITDA guidance range for the Competitive business of $950 million to $1.05 billion, and our expectation that the business will be cash flow positive each year through at least 2018. Before I move from our Competitive segment, I’ll mention that given the significant decline in the global coal market, we impaired our investment in the Signal Peak mine, resulting in a $362 million pre-tax noncash charge, which Jim will cover in more detail. Finally, I’ll spend a few moments discussing our Cash Flow Improvement Plan and other financial matters. We took a very important step to improve our financial metrics and balance sheet in 2015 through the launch of the Cash Flow Improvement Project. This initiative began in the spring, with a goal to capture meaningful and sustainable savings opportunities and process improvements across the company while continuing to fully meet the needs of our customers, our organization and our employees. I’m very pleased with the results of this effort to-date. We are on track to capture $155 million in savings this year and $240 million annually by 2017, up from our initial goal of $200 million over the timeframe. The results from this initiative will allow us to essentially hold our O&M flat through 2017. We put a lot of risk behind us in 2015, including key initiatives that provide our company with greater strength and flexibility as we pursue our regulated growth plans. I’m also gratified by the response from the rating agencies. In December, citing our shift in strategy and more credit friendly business risk profile, Fitch revised its outlook from stable to positive. Days later, Moody’s affirmed its Baa3 rating with a stable outlook for FirstEnergy Corp., FES and Allegheny Energy Supply, citing our Ohio ESP settlement. Over the past year, I’ve gotten to know many of you and I’ve shared my leadership philosophy, including my commitment to make our company more transparent. I hope you’ve seen that in action over the past year. I’ve told you one of our primary objectives is to improve the quality of our earnings. This year, two significant noncash adjustments got in the way. The annual mark-to-market for pension and OPEB will remain an annual adjustment, either up or down, and the impairment of the Signal Peak coal mine is required, given the current market for coal and the fact that this isn’t a core asset for us. Outside of these two items, earnings quality in 2015 was very solid, and is supported with operational cash flows that showed a $700 million improvement over 2014. We are making solid progress, and once we have an outcome in our Ohio ESP, we should be in a position to provide 2016 full-year earnings expectations and shed more light on the next couple of years, including our regulated growth projections and any future equity needs to support our growth initiatives. It remains our priority to continue strengthening our balance sheet and further de-risk our Competitive business. These steps will help ensure we are well positioned to pursue the next period of regulated growth and success, benefiting our 6 million customers and the local economies we serve, our investors and our employees. Now I’ll turn the call over to Jim for a brief review of the quarter. As always, we reserved plenty of time for your questions before the end of the hour. James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Thanks, Chuck, and good morning, everyone. As always, I will remind you that detailed information about the quarter can be found in the consolidated report that was posted to our website yesterday evening. We also welcome your questions during the Q&A or following the call. Our fourth quarter operating earnings of $0.58 per share compares to $0.80 per share in the fourth quarter of 2014. On a GAAP basis, we recorded a loss of $0.53 per share for the fourth quarter of 2015 compared to a loss of $0.73 per share during the same period last year. 2015 fourth quarter GAAP results include special items totaling $1.11 per share. I’ll spend a few moments on two of those items before moving to the review of operating results. The first of these is the impairment charge related to our investment in the Signal Peak mine. As Chuck mentioned earlier on the call, given the weak market for coal globally, in the fourth quarter we wrote off our investment in Global Holding, the parent company of Signal Peak, resulting in a noncash pre-tax charge of $362 million or $0.56 per share, which reduced the value of this investment to zero. As some of you may remember, back in 2011, FirstEnergy sold a portion of its ownership interest in Signal Peak, receiving $258 million in cash proceeds and recognizing a $370 million after-tax gain which included a sizeable step-up in the one-third interest we retained. Presently, the mine remains operational and FirstEnergy continues to provide a full guarantee on Global Holding’s $300 million term loan. Since this investment is no longer a strategic fit for FirstEnergy, we have moved the earnings associated with Signal Peak from our Competitive segment to Corporate/Other for all periods. The second special item is the $0.35 per share annual pension and OPEB mark-to-market adjustment, another noncash item. As discussed in our third quarter call, we anticipated this charge given the plan’s investment performance, which was partially offset by a 25 basis point increase in the discount rate. I will note that for 2016 we have $381 million in required minimum pension funding, with $160 million already contributed to the plan last month. Let’s spend some time walking through the fourth quarter drivers by business units, followed by a brief review of the full year. In our Distribution business total deliveries decreased 6% in the quarter or 2% on a weather-adjusted basis. Residential sales decreased 10.6% and commercial sales decreased 3.4% compared to the fourth quarter of 2014. Our region saw the mildest fourth quarter temperatures in at least 35 years, with heating degree days that were nearly 30% below both last year and normal. The decrease in customer use also reflects the adoption of energy efficient lighting and the impact of other energy efficiency measures. We continue to analyze these efficiency trends and we plan to discuss the expected impact on our load forecast over the next few years when we hold our Analyst Meeting. Sales to industrial customers decreased 3.9% in the quarter as a result of lower usage from our steel, mining, chemical, electrical equipment and manufacturing customers, partially offset by increased usage from the shale gas and automotive sectors. Distribution results were also impacted by higher operating expenses, which included planned reliability spend in the quarter, primarily at JCP&L. In our Transmission business fourth quarter operating earnings increased as a result of higher revenue associated with a higher rate base and ATSI’s forward-looking rate structure, which became effective in January 2015, partially offset by a lower return on equity at ATSI as part of its comprehensive settlement that was approved by FERC in October. In our Competitive business, we recorded strong fourth quarter operating earnings as higher commodity margin was offset with higher operating expenses. The impact of lower contract sales was offset by higher capacity revenues, lower purchased power, fuel and transmission expenses, and increased sales to the wholesale market, reflecting our more open position. Operating costs for the Competitive business were higher in the fourth quarter of 2015, primarily due to expenses related to the nuclear refueling outage at Beaver Valley Unit 2. Finally, at Corporate, a higher effective income tax rate and higher interest and operating expenses reduced operating earnings by $0.08, in line with our expectations. Now I’ll take a couple of minutes to discuss full year results and review the key earnings drivers for 2015. Operating earnings were $2.71 per share compared to $2.56 in 2014. GAAP earnings were $1.37 per share in 2015 compared to $0.71 in the prior year. At our Regulated Distribution utilities, 2015 operating earnings were in line with our guidance. The net benefit of resolved rate cases and generally favorable weather was offset primarily by higher operating expenses associated with planned reliability maintenance. Total distribution deliveries decreased about 1% compared to 2014. In the Industrial segment sales declined primarily due to decreased steel and mining production. Sales to residential and commercial customers were essentially flat compared to the prior year. In the Regulated Transmission segment, operating earnings increased primarily as a result of a higher rate base and a forward-looking rate structure at ATSI in the company’s Regulated Transmission business. In our Competitive business, operating earnings increased significantly, primarily due to improved commodity margin related to higher capacity prices. Adjusted EBITDA was $949 million in line with our expectations. You’ll recall that we began the effort to reposition our sales portfolio in the second quarter of 2014. Our total retail customer count at the end of 2015 was 1.6 million, a decrease of 445,000 customers from December 31, 2014. We sold about 75 million megawatt hours in 2015, including 68 million megawatt hours of contract sales and an additional 7 million megawatt hours of wholesale. We currently have about 61 million megawatt hours committed for 2016 and for 2017 about 38 million megawatt hours are committed, or about half of our expected generation resources. The Ohio PPA would add approximately 23 million megawatt hours on an annual basis, which would essentially close our sales positions through the first half of 2017. In the Corporate segment, 2015 operating earnings were consistent with our guidance, reflecting higher interest and operating expenses as well as a more normal effective income tax rate. 2015 should be recognized as a pivotal year for our company. We were able to raise the operating earnings guidance that we provided, reduce risk and build a solid platform for regulated growth. We’re confident that our efforts will help us reach our goal of creating long-term value for FirstEnergy shareholders. Now I’d like to open the call up for your questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We will now be conducting a question-and-answer session. Our first question comes from the line of Stephen Byrd from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Stephen Calder Byrd – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Hi. Good morning. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Good morning. Stephen Calder Byrd – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC I wanted to discuss transmission spending opportunities. In your fact book I think it’s slide 45, you talk about a review of the reliability in your ATSI system. And maybe that should be phrased more broadly, but just wanted to check-in in terms of as you assess transmission needs, replacement of 69-kV lines, 138-kV lines, what is your sense in terms of the potential for additional spending to enhance reliability in transmission in particular? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Well, Stephen, we’ve talked about this a little bit in the past. Our team has identified in excess of $15 billion worth of projects that we could execute, all on our existing 24,000 miles of transmission lines. And that’s our focus. And what we do with those projects is we prioritize them in the best way to drive benefits for customers. And my view is the best investments we can make are the ones that customers are willing to pay for and that you all are willing to invest in. So the opportunity is there for us to make these kind of investments for a long time; the ability to add on an annual basis to that is a little bit challenged by the availability of a transmission construction work force in our country. So I wouldn’t expect that you would see a huge increase on an annual basis, but you could extrapolate out quite a bit into the future how long we can continue to execute this program. Stephen Calder Byrd – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC That’s very helpful. That makes sense. And wanted to shift over to the Ohio PPA discussions. I’m sure there will be many questions on this. At the FERC level, I guess comments are due February 23 or thereabouts, and I know this is obviously not your preferred outcome, but if the FERC case were to go in opposition to the PPAs, could you talk a little bit about what the implications might be, understanding again that that’s not your preferred outcome? Leila L. Vespoli – Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer Oh hi, Stephen. This is Leila. So I don’t think it would be the likely outcome either, but – so let me spend a couple of seconds just kind of recount for the group what that would have actually entailed to get to that place. So right now we have an affiliate waiver and the basis upon which it was granted, those items have not changed. If you think about it, Ohio still, the customers are not captive. They can shop. There hasn’t been a law change. That means that the Ohio Commission is still in order to approve the PPA would have to find that the ESP is better than the MRO. They would still be protecting customers. So if you look at those kind of things, again I don’t think that it’s something that the FERC should rescind, if you would. But if they were to do that, what would happen – they would likely apply the Edgar rule. So you could look at the different provisions of how they look at that. There’s several ways to comply with the Edgar rule and one of them looks at non-price terms and conditions. So we would be looking at a hearing dealing with our PPA, and I think there are a lot of things that could be said around the non-term price and conditions that would allow the pricing to stand as well. Stephen Calder Byrd – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Understood. Thank you very much. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Gregg Orrill from Barclays. Please go ahead. Gregg Gillander Orrill – Barclays Capital, Inc. Yeah. Thank you. Two questions. The first one is regarding the Competitive business guidance for 2016. And I guess it was the same as it was in the third quarter look, despite the fact that wholesale power prices are down. Could you talk about what the drivers there were? Donald R. Schneider – President, FirstEnergy Solutions ( FES ), FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. Sure, Gregg. This is Donnie. If you take a look at our slide 104 of the fact book you can see the EBITDA guidance. And as you clearly indicated, the fall-off in prices, we reflected that in our open position. We’re down about $3 there. But we’ve also lowered our costs, especially our fossil fuel. We went back and took another hard look at some of the things we’d done in CFIP. We were able to lower that. Net of those two things, the lower revenue from the decline in the open position, net of what we’ve been able to do on the cost side, our commodity margin’s only down about $15 million, which is well in the range of our EBITDA. Gregg Gillander Orrill – Barclays Capital, Inc. Okay, thanks. And then regarding the equity needs, can you talk about your thoughts there in light of some of the write-offs and funding needs that you have? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Well, I’ve said pretty consistently that we have set a goal of strengthening our balance sheet and getting to where we need to get with the rating agencies without having to use any equity to do that. And I just don’t believe that that is the intent of shareholder equity. We’ve worked very hard this past year. I talked about the results of CFIP. We’ve also made improvements in other parts of our operation, and then we’ve got the entire Ohio ESP to get a resolution on before I think we’re in any position to talk about what future equity needs might be. We talked about $245 million of incremental investment in Pennsylvania distribution. Under the Ohio ESP there’s an extension of the DCR rider plus potential opportunities to invest in increasing the smart distribution network in Ohio. Along with transmission with ATSI, transmission with MAIT, what we need to do and what we plan to do is communicate to you what type of regulated growth rate we’re going to strive for going forward, once we have these last remaining questions done. And then any equity needs are going to be driven off of that. They are not going to be driven off of a need for equity to deal with any of the financial issues that we’ve been trying to wrestle to the ground this last year. They will only be used for growth, and that’s our intent. Gregg Gillander Orrill – Barclays Capital, Inc. Thank you. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Paul Ridzon from KeyBanc. Please go ahead. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. What’s your current thinking around when the Ohio Commission will rule, and kind of what’s your outlook for potential that – that schedule getting delayed? And if it were delayed beyond the PJM auction, how would it impact your bidding behavior? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Well, as I said in my comments, we’re expecting an answer from the Ohio Commission in March. And so I don’t think it’s going to affect our bidding behavior one way or another. Our Competitive generating business bids in our Competitive fleet. We have regulated generation in West Virginia already that is bid by a regulated generation group. The two do not talk, as required by FERC’s Standards of Conduct. This generation will get bid in by one of those two groups, depending on which side of the fence it’s on. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Can you remind us what the original investment in Signal Peak was? James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer We made an original cash contribution, about $150 million. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. And you sold a piece for what, you said $230 million? James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Yes. That’s – we sold 50% of our interest and we had a cash proceeds of about $234 million. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Okay. Thank you very much. I’m good. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Dan Eggers from Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Daniel L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Hey. Good morning, guys. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Hey, Dan. Daniel L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) First question just on – a couple of cash flow questions for you guys, first off. How should we think about bonus depreciation affecting kind of the cash flows coming back in? And how does that get treated at the different utilities/transmission assets as far as adjusting rate base? James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Dan, this is Jim. Bonus depreciation, we were already in a large NOL position through the 2018 and 2019 period, so this is just going to extend that beyond 2021. Obviously these years will change somewhat with the approval of the PPA scenario. On the earnings side, it’s really a modest impact from a rate base reduction. We’ll see a little bit on the transmission side and certain of our other jurisdictions that have formula like rate recovery such as the DCR in Ohio. But I would say the impact to our earnings rate base is going to be minimal. Daniel L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) So should we assume – what kind of cash tax rate are you guys assuming through 2021? Are you at an AMT or sub-AMT level then? K. Jon Taylor – Chief Accounting Officer, VP & Controller Hey, Dan. This is Jon Taylor. We’re at the AMT level. Daniel L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Okay. Got it. And then I guess on the pension side, did I read it correctly from the last quarter slides, this quarter slides, that your pension expenses are up about $55 million in 2016 versus 2015 on a pre-tax basis? James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Yeah, Dan. Two things that are driving that; first is we had a 25 basis point decrease in the return on assets. So we took that down from 7.75% to 7.5%. And then we also saw a 25 basis point increase in the discount rate, which would increase our interest costs. So the two of those was about $50 million. Daniel L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Okay. Got it. And I guess if we look at the kind of, from the K, the five-year funding plans or obligations for pension are up about $600 million through the five-year running period from last K to this K. Do you guys see any funding obligations around that? Or is it – because this is kind of beyond 2016 we’ll wait and see what happens in the interest rate environment between here and there? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Dan, what we have out there, and you’re right, our five-year required contributions are about $500 million higher than what the five-year required contributions were in the 2014 10-K. Our actuary Aon, they recalibrate that annually. And at this point these are fundings that we would be required to make. As we said, we have a $381 million contribution required in 2016. We’ve already made $160 million in January. 2017, we have a $439 million pension contribution. That’s down somewhat from where we were in the 2014 10-K where we had $555 million, but again that’s associated with our actuary recalibrating when our payments are required and some of those payments were moved out to a future year. Daniel L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Okay. Thank you. And I guess just last one on the ESP side in Ohio. Does it become a friction point where you have to have a decision in order to implement rates before ESP3 goes away? And how much time or how much cushion do you guys need between PUCO making a decision and you guys being ready to implement? Leila L. Vespoli – Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer So, yes. So it does become that point, but I think it’s going to be a moot question because I fully expect the Commission to act in March. Daniel L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) So a decision in March gives you plenty of time. Leila L. Vespoli – Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer Correct. Daniel L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Okay. Very good. Thank you. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith from UBS. Please go ahead. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Hi. Good morning. Can you hear me? Leila L. Vespoli – Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer Yeah. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Yeah. We can here you. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Excellent. So let me just follow up on what Dan was asking there. First, on the bonus depreciation point, can you elaborate a little bit more on the earnings impact rather than the cash flow? And think about what it does separately to the Transmission and the Distribution side as you think about perhaps the next round of rate case and/or FERC filing? James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer At this point, Julien, I would say that the impact on each of the segments would just be pennies. It would not be material at all. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Got it. Could you elaborate why that would be, just be clear, just as you think about? Is that principally because you haven’t filed, or you don’t necessary have a meaningful distribution case contemplated? James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Yeah. At this point on the Distribution side, it would only impact the utilities that we have formula-like rates considering the DCR in Ohio. We have rates that are in effect in all of our other jurisdictions will likely be looking to go in for rates in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, but that will not be – we won’t see changes to our rates probably until the 2017 timeframe at this point, but we’ll give you more clarification on that when we have our Analyst Day Meeting. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC And just to clarify Analyst Day expectations, if there is indeed an issue at FERC, I suppose a, you would expect to host your Analyst Day would be in terms of providing guidance, should we continue to expect EBITDA guidance kind of status quo as you laid out? If the 206 is successful. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Yes. Well, I think here’s where we’re at. We’re going to wait till we get the outcome in Ohio. Once we have that then we’re going to give you a little clearer guidelines on what we’re expecting in terms of our Analyst Meeting. One way or another we’re going to be giving you guidance for 2016 that includes the ESP or doesn’t include the ESP based on where we’re at, at that point in time. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Got it. And then lastly on the Signal Peak assets, what’s the situation in terms of the servicing the debt, just the guarantee there? If you can just elaborate in terms of the assets itself? James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Okay, Julien. This is Jim. From servicing the debt, the mine continues to service that debt. The only time that we would have a change there is if we become more of a full-time owner of the mine if we would have control of over 50% of that. The first step we would have to do is likely consolidate that debt on to our balance sheet. Right now it’s not consolidated because we’re only a 33% owner. And then ultimately if there was a capital call that the other owners were not able to fulfill that would also likely require us to make that capital call. At the end, of that $300 million, $100 million is purely ours because we own a 33% interest in that and once we understand fully what happens to the mine, if it would happen to shut down then we would be responsible to fill that obligation to the banks. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC The balance of the obligation. James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer That’s correct. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Great. Thank you so much. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Paul Patterson from Glenrock Associates. Please go ahead. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Good morning. How are you? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Good morning. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Just on, a quick question here. In terms of the PPA associated generation, how much of that if you could remind me, cleared in the 2018/2019 auction? Donald R. Schneider – President, FirstEnergy Solutions ( FES ), FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. This is Donny, Paul. So Sammis and Beaver Valley it all cleared in the 2018/2019 auction. I’m sorry, Sammis and Davis-Besse, it all cleared in the 2018/2019 auction. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. And then you guys brought up sort of an interesting issue here in terms of how your generation in the PPA would be similar to regulated generation, et cetera. And I don’t recall when the Harrison Plant acquisition by the regulated affiliate in Virginia was – or West Virginia, excuse me, was being purchased, this much of an issue in terms of opposition, et cetera, from generators, et cetera. Why do you think in this case it’s being so much more of an issue than it would be in the Harrison case when it sounds to me, and correct me if I’m wrong, the economics would kind of be similar in terms of the impact on the market? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director I am at a complete loss for why it is such a big issue for others, because I do think it is financially the same as what happened with Harrison. These units will no longer supply retail load. They will no longer supply polar load. They are not going to influence the competitive market in any way. So I’m at a complete loss for why it has generated such adamant opposition other than potentially misery loves company. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. Leila L. Vespoli – Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer And if I could add on just a little bit to that. So if you think about the parade of horribles that EPSA and others highlighted in their complaint to FERC, they talked about if you let these generating units look regulated, have in effect what they called an out of market subsidy, that would crash the marketplace. Well, if you think about PJM, as Chuck alluded to earlier, 20% of PJM is already regulated. And that doesn’t even include the FRR entities. And if you think about what they were talking about, the bidding aspect of this, it’s public information that prior to capacity performance three-quarters, so 75% of the megawatts in the PJM capacity auctions bid at zero. So they bid at price takers. And after CP it was about roughly half. But if you think about it with the new penalty, that what you associated with that penalty should kind of be your new zero. So I would suggest that the new price takers is actually even higher than 50%. So what that would suggest is some of the generators who actually filed this and complained so loudly saying that it was going to crash the market, they themselves actually bid into the capacity market at zero. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. Fair enough. And then just on the… James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Hey, Paul, and just to be clear on the capacity, I said it all cleared. In actuality when you look at our fact book on slide 119, you’d see that there were 525-megawatts in ATSI that did not clear. And… Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC I’m sorry. Go ahead. James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer A slice of that may be at Sammis and Davis-Besse, but essentially it all cleared. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC What do you – why would a slice of it not (44:20), I guess? James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Well, to the degree we bid all of our units on a curve, there could be a slice that didn’t clear. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. That would be Sammis and Davis-Besse? James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Yeah, generally we bid all of our units on a curve, Paul. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. But I mean I guess what I’m wondering, though, is that of the PPA-affiliated plants, some of it may have cleared and some of it may not have cleared. Is that correct? James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer It would not look any different than the rest of our unregulated plants, Paul. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. Just to get back to Julien’s question on the – just to make sure I understand on the Global Holding guarantee, the $300 million. It wasn’t clear to me exactly how much on the hook you guys are if the Signal Peak mine becomes uneconomic or unable to – and you don’t get the capital calls from third parties. How much would be the total risk that you guys may or may not have? I’m just – it wasn’t clear completely. James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer The total amount would be $300 million, less any types of proceeds that we could get from the sale of the mine. So if we cannot sell the mine for anything, the maximum would be $300 million. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. James F. Pearson – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Assuming that there is some value to the mine, we would be able to use those proceeds to reduce that amount of exposure. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Great. Thanks so much. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Anthony Crowdell from Jefferies. Please go ahead. Anthony C. Crowdell – Jefferies LLC Hey. Good morning. Just two quick questions I guess on the PPA is first, do you think FERC rules before the May PJM auction? And second, you had mentioned the waiver earlier, that you have a waiver between your utility and competitive generation. Is the waiver unique to a particular PPA or is it I guess for any PPA that goes between your utility and competitive businesses? Leila L. Vespoli – Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer This is Leila. So it covers all the transactions between the utilities and the affiliates. And again, the basis upon which it was granted, the circumstances haven’t changed. The Commission still retains the ability to protect customers. And I apologize, I forgot your first question? Anthony C. Crowdell – Jefferies LLC Just do you think FERC rules before the auction in May? Leila L. Vespoli – Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer Oh, whether it will rule, I’m sorry. Yes. Nothing’s carved in stone and they don’t have to. EPSA asked for expedited treatment, but most people believe that they will act before the auction and probably act on the filed paper as opposed to holding a hearing. That would be my best guess. Anthony C. Crowdell – Jefferies LLC Just quickly then, has FERC ever reversed policy and revoked a waiver? Leila L. Vespoli – Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer I don’t know the entire history, but I could tell you what FERC has done with regard to captive customers and shopping. FERC on several occasions has been asked to kind of look behind the curtain and opine whether a state’s particular flavor of retail choice is what they would agree with or not. And FERC has consistently said no, as long as they’re not captive customers, as long as they can shop, then we’re not going to try and second guess what commissions do. Anthony C. Crowdell – Jefferies LLC Great. Thanks for taking my questions. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Praful Mehta from Citigroup. Please go ahead. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Thanks. Hi, guys. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Good morning. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Hi. Sorry to go on the PPA question again, but I’m just trying to understand the other side. And I know this is clearly not the preferred path, but if the PPA does get cancelled for whichever partner or how it gets cancelled, I’m just trying to paint a picture first from an equity needs perspective and also from a strategic fit perspective. As in, if you do see the PPA getting cancelled, is there any view on how the equity need requirement changes, especially to support the credit? And secondly, strategically do you see this business as still a fit within FE? Or do you look to do an exit in some form at some point? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Well, first off we have not communicated any earnings guidance for full year 2016, whether the PPA gets done or not, and I’m not going to do that here this morning. What I’ve said is we will deal with that outcome when we have it, and we will communicate at that time what our earnings guidance for 2016 is, what our future growth plans for the utilities are, what our future equity needs might be, if anything, to support that growth. So I think you’re just going to have to be patient and wait for the outcome, and then we’ll tell you where we’re at at that point in time. And beyond that I’ve consistently said I think that Generation, Transmission and Distribution are all critical assets in terms of serving customers. And right now I don’t see any strategic change there for us. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Fair enough. And on the second question, if I look at the generation of the Competitive business and I look at the… Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director And I would remind you that in my remarks I told you that this business is generating positive EBITDA, positive cash flow through 2018 without any benefit from the Energy Security Plan. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Gotcha. And that’s a great lead-in actually to my second question which is, as I think about that positive free cash flow, I guess an important part of that is just the different channels that you sell your generation through. And LCI looks like an important piece of that puzzle. The range that you generally provide for LCI is in the zero to 20-terawatt hours of sales in that LCI direct. 2017 looks like it’s just at 5 terawatt hours right now. And clearly it’s early days and you’re waiting for the PPA. But is there – the reason why I’m focused on it is, the LCI price versus the spot price, there’s like almost a $20 per megawatt hour difference. So I’m just trying to put a lower bound on that LCI sale, as in, at a minimum what level do you see achieving at LCI or LCI channel sales in the 2016/2017 timeframe? Donald R. Schneider – President, FirstEnergy Solutions ( FES ), FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. So this is Donny. I think actually if you look at slide 104 in the fact book it shows LCI, MCI and mass market we’ve got 16.4 terawatt hours closed already for 2016 delivery. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) No, I’m looking at 2017 and LCI for 2017 is 5 terawatt hours which is what I’m looking at. Donald R. Schneider – President, FirstEnergy Solutions ( FES ), FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. Oh, yeah sure. Yeah. We’ve got a ways to go there. LCI customers generally are shorter terms contracts compared to government aggregation for example. So it would not be unusual to be able to close 10 terawatt hours or 15 terawatt hours in a year prior to the delivery year. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Got you. And do you expect those prices to be at similar levels to where you currently cleared which is around $54 per megawatt hour, $55 per megawatt hour? Donald R. Schneider – President, FirstEnergy Solutions ( FES ), FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. That’s more difficult to say, because what you got to keep in mind embedded in that price is the price of capacity. So a customer in ATSI in the 2015/2016 timeframe is going to look different than a RTO customer and that’s going to look different than a customer in the 2017/2018 timeframe. So it’s very hard for us to say kind of what price we would end up locking those in at. What I would tell you is we would have consistent margins. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Got you. That’s very helpful. Thank you. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Charles Fishman from Morningstar. Please go ahead. Charles Fishman – Morningstar Research Good morning. This will be quick I think. In comparing the fact sheets, it looks like the transmission spend you’re projecting a little up for 2016, lower in 2017. But nothing has changed with respect to Energizing the Future. I mean the overall project is pretty much on track from the way you initially set it up a couple of years ago, correct? Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director That’s correct. Charles Fishman – Morningstar Research That’s the only question I had. Thank you. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director All right. Charles E. Jones – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Okay, well there are no more questions in the queue. I’d just like to thank you all for your continued support. I look forward to getting our answer from Ohio here in a few weeks and then look forward to meeting you all face to face at the Analyst Meeting following that. Thank you. Operator Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. This does conclude our teleconference for today. You may now disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation, and have a wonderful day. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com . Thank you!