Tag Archives: author

Korea Electric Power (KEP) Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Korea Electric Power Corporation (NYSE: KEP ) Q2 2015 Earnings Conference Call August 5, 2015 3:30 AM ET Executives Weon-Gun Ko – Vice President and Treasurer Changyoung Ji – Senior IR Manager Analysts Pierre Lau – Citibank. Jiyoon Shin – KTB Securities Jae-Hyun Ryu – Daewoo Securities Heedo Yun – Korea Investment & Securities Minho Hur – Shinhan Finance Investment Joseph Jacobelli – Bloomberg Intelligence Josh Bae – UBS Kang Seongjin – KB Investment Securities Operator [Foreign Language – Korean] Good morning and good evening. First of all, thank you all for joining this conference call. And now we’ll begin the conference of the fiscal year 2015 second quarter earnings results by KEPCO. This conference will start with a presentation, followed by a detailed Q&A session. [Operator Instructions] Now we shall commence the presentation on the fiscal year 2015 second quarter earnings results by KEPCO. Weon-Gun Ko [Foreign Language – Korean] Good afternoon. This is Weon-Gun Ko, Vice President and Treasurer of KEPCO. On behalf of KEPCO, I would like to thank you all for participating in today’s conference call to announce earnings results for the first half of 2015. [Foreign Language – Korean] We will begin with a brief presentation on the earnings results, which will be followed by a Q&A session. Today’s call will be presented in both Korean and English. [Foreign Language – Korean] Please note that the financial information to be disclosed today is on a preliminary, unaudited and consolidated basis in accordance with K-IFRS. Any comparison would be on a year-on-year basis between 2014 and 2015. Business strategies, plans, financial estimates and other forward-looking statements included in today’s call will be made based on our current expectations and plans. Please be noted that such statements may involve certain risk and uncertainties. [Foreign Language – Korean] Now Senior IR Manager, Mr. Changyoung Ji, will begin with an overview of earnings results of the first half of 2015, first in Korean and repeat it in English. Changyoung Ji [Foreign Language – Korean] Now we will provide the overview in English, starting with operating income. In the first half of 2015, KEPCO recorded a net operating income of KRW 4.33 trillion. Taking a closer look, operating revenues increased 4.1% to KRW 28.79 trillion. This was attributable mainly to 2.1% increase in power sales revenue totaling KRW 25.89 trillion, and 38.2% increase in revenues from the overseas business amounting to KRW 2.11 trillion. Moving on to main operating costs, cost of goods sold. SG&A expense decreased 4.4% to KRW 24.47 trillion. Fuel costs decreased 25.9% to KRW 7.98 trillion. Power generation is affected by the low power demand, decreased 4.2%, and unit cost of fuel declined by 22.6%. Meanwhile, purchased power cost increased 3.5 % to KRW 6.19 trillion. Unit cost of purchased power decreased 20% because of the decrease of S&P, caused by the increase of new highly efficient power plants, and purchased volume increased 29.3%. Depreciation cost rose 5.3% to KRW 3.55 trillion, mainly due to the newly constructed substations and new facility addition by power plants. Now let me explain KEPCO’s non-operating segment. Net financial loss was KRW 1 trillion in the first half of 2015, which was improved by KRW 125 billion. As a result of foregoing, we recorded a consolidated net income of KRW 2.57 trillion in the first half of 2015. This concludes the overview of KEPCO’s earnings results for the first half of 2015. [Foreign Language – Korean] Now let me move on to the Q&A session. Q&A session will be hosted by Mr. Weon-Gun Ko. Weon-Gun Ko [Foreign Language – Korean] This is Weon-Gun Ko. I’m joined with our IR committee members in charge of major business areas at KEPCO. We are prepared to take any questions. [Foreign Language – Korean] Since we are presenting in both Korean and English, all the Q&As will be interpreted. Please make sure your questions and answers are brief and clear. [Foreign Language – Korean] Please begin. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Foreign Language – Korean] [Operator Instructions] The first question will be given by Pierre Lau from Citibank. Please go ahead sir. Pierre Lau Hi. Good afternoon, KEPCO management. Congratulations to your good results. I’m Pierre Lau from Citi Bank. I have three questions. The first question is what is your generation mix from nuclear and coal respectively in 2015 for the full-year? Second question, what is your forecast of your unit coal and LNG costs, practically also in 2015 full-year? And finally for 2015 full-year, how much electricity that you expect to purchase from IPP? Thank you. Weon-Gun Ko [Foreign Language – Korean] To answer your first question on the generation mix for the 2015 full-year, we believe the LNG will be 11% and coal will be 49% and nuclear will be 37%. [Foreign Language – Korean] And as for the unit cost for the fuel for the generation, it is as follows. For coal, it is KRW 102,001 per ton and for LNG, it’s KRW 827,000 per ton and for oil it’s KRW 576,800. [Foreign Language – Korean] And to answer your third question on our electricity purchase from IPP, we plan to purchase 19% of our power from IPP, and the overall budget in 2015 will be KRW 11 trillion. Pierre Lau Okay. Thank you. For the unit coal costs, would you mind me take the number? Weon-Gun Ko [Foreign Language – Korean] It is KRW 102,001 per ton for coal. Pierre Lau Okay. It’s KRW 102,000. Weon-Gun Ko KRW 102,000 per ton. Pierre Lau But I calculate the number in the first half was only seems to be much lower than that, less than KRW 1,001. So do you expect coal cost to be higher in second half this year compared to first half? Weon-Gun Ko [Foreign Language – Korean] As of July 1, we are going to be affected by the coal tax by the government. Therefore per kilogram the impact would be KRW 24 from KRW 18 per kilogram. Pierre Lau Okay. Thank you. Operator [Foreign Language – Korean] The following question is by Jiyoon Shin from KTB Securities. Please go ahead sir. Jiyoon Shin [Foreign Language – Korean] I have two questions. My first question is rather similar to the previous question that was asked before me. For the LNG unit cost for the first half you mentioned that it’s KRW 810,000, and for the second half of the year your guidance is KRW 660,000. So throughout the year the overall guidance for LNG unit cost amounts to KRW 820,000. So do you – so it means that there will be foreseeable increase in the second quarter of the year to come up with that guidance number. Given that we are affected by the consumption tax that will increase from KRW 18 per kilogram to KRW 24, that still get us rather high level of LNG unit cost number. So I would like to hear more on that. Given that the oil price is declining, and in November and December there will be also additional downward trends for the LNG price. So how would you explain this trend? And the second question is on the overseas business, which has very high revenue generated in the term. I believe it is mostly coming from the UAE business under KEPCO, and in the first quarter it was announced that there has been about KRW 620 billion generated from the UAE business. And second quarter then gives us – it should be over KRW 1 trillion. So I just like to confirm what has driven this growth of the UAE business? Weon-Gun Ko [Foreign Language – Korean] To answer your first question, we had rather conservative assumption when it comes to LNG, which was $62 per barrel. And in the third quarter our forecast that the LNG price would drop to KRW 770,000 per unit and in the fourth quarter then it goes up again to KRW 800,000 per unit. So the price drop is not happening as fast as we have anticipated and we bought bulk of LNG in the first quarter at a price of KRW 879,000 at the highest and that’s where we had the most purchase of LNG for the year. That’s why if you annualize that, that gives us about KRW 820,000, which was an accumulated number that goes back to the first quarter. [Foreign Language – Korean] To answer your second question on the UAE business, for the first half of this year, our revenue for the UAE business is KRW 1.7329 trillion and year-on-year – in the previous year it was KRW 1.1372 trillion. So there has been increase of about KRW 600 billion year-on-year. [Foreign Language – Korean] Our annual guidance for the UAE business is KRW 3.4 trillion. [Foreign Language – Korean] And as you have mentioned for the second quarter alone, our revenue from UAE business is KRW 1.1 trillion. [Foreign Language – Korean] I hope that answered your question. Jiyoon Shin [Foreign Language – Korean] A follow-up question to my first question is you mentioned that the LNG price is $62 per barrel. Is that annual number or annual guidance for the LNG price? Weon-Gun Ko [Foreign Language – Korean] Yes, our guidance for the oil price is $62 per barrel and that’s correct. [Foreign Language – Korean] And because oil price continues to go down, our fact strategy team is revealing to adjust our assumption for the oil price and lower that to $58 per barrel rather than $62. Operator [Foreign Language – Korean] The following question is by Jae-Hyun Ryu from Daewoo Securities. Please go ahead sir. Jae-Hyun Ryu [Foreign Language – Korean] On a stand-alone P&L, it seems that your net asset is higher for the stand-alone than the consolidated basis. What has driven that change and what is the reason behind that in the second quarter? My second question is what is the utilization that you are foreseeing for the second half of the year for the nuclear, coal and LNG valuation? [Foreign Language – Korean] And also another follow-up question is that for the second half of the year, could you also share your guidance and the overall trends by comparing the consolidated financial statement as well as the stand-alone financial statements? Weon-Gun Ko [Foreign Language – Korean] To answer your first question on the stand-alone P&L. The most of the driver was coming from the sales of the electricity. Unit price for electricity went up by 0.4%, whereas the sales volume went up by 1.4% resulting in increase of KRW 300 billion on our bottom line. Also the S&P price was dropped by 25% and therefore our power purchase cost was lowered by KRW 2.4 trillion, which is the largest sector driving up the performance. As for the guidance for the 2015, for the stand-alone P&L, we believe the operating profit to be KRW 3.4 trillion and with recognition of sales of assets which was our own headquarter in September, you could see annual number for the net profit would be KRW 9.1 trillion. On consolidated basis, our operating profit is expected to be KRW 8.3 trillion, whereas our net profit is expected to be KRW 11.4 trillion. [Foreign Language – Korean] As for the generation utilization, as per the nuclear power plants, E&C overall utilizations would be 84.8% for year 2015, which is similar to the previous year which was at 85%. With the third quarter and fourth quarter this year, our expectation is that it would be 82.7% and 88.8% respectively. And as for the coal-fired power plant, we expect mid-80% in utilization. We have a confirmed number for the first half of the year for the coal-fired power plant, but there are certain uncertainties involved for the second half of the number. So that’s our projection for now. For LNG power plant, we expect it to be the early 14% utilization or the mid-30% utilization for the year. Operator [Foreign Language – Korean] The following question is by Heedo Yun from Korea Investment Securities. Please go ahead sir. Heedo Yun [Foreign Language – Korean] I have two questions. First question, if you look at your consolidated P&L for the second quarter under the line item, other operating profit, it recorded KRW 2.36 trillion and there has been increase of about KRW 670 billion. I know this may have been influenced by some of the changes coming from the provisioning required for decommissioning the nuclear power plant which took effect since the July 1. So could you elaborate on what is driving that? And also my second question is that last week you have submitted the total cost or a tariff report to the government to adjust tariff moving forward. So could you share with us the timeline moving forward? And Mr. Treasurer, would you be kind enough to share with us your perspective on whether it is possible for additional tax decrease? Weon-Gun Ko [Foreign Language – Korean] Out of the KRW 3.3 trillion, we’ve seen increase of KRW 870 billion increase year-on-year. And if you break those numbers down, it was slightly driven by increased facility or equipment purchase costs for our UAE business as the business appreciated for significant amount of period, and that number adds up to KRW 410 billion. And also we are adjusting numbers for provisioning for the decommissioning of the nuclear power plant. We are setting aside the waste disposal costs for the low and intermediate radioactive waste treatment and we are currently adjusting the discount rate and interest rate that is affected in that liability. So that number added about KRW 139.8 billion to the number. And also we are setting aside liability or provisioning for the IPS, which is another KRW 140 billion, which totals to KRW 3.3 trillion. [Foreign Language – Korean] On your question on the potential tariff discount moving forward, we have had a one-time discount already when it comes to our electricity price. So in the second half of this year, of course we’re going to adjust our tariff depending on the total cost and also the overall power sales profit. And we have submitted that based on our management accounting in fiscal year 2014. So it has been submitted to the government but nothing has been determined as of this point on the total cost. When the results come out after government reviews this, we will be adjusting the tariff looking at the overall cost, as well as the overall sales profit from electricity sales, but nothing has been determined yet. But we’ve had this one-time discount of our electricity in July already. So any additional discount or decrease in tariff will be something that will lead to discuss with the government once everything becomes more concrete. Operator [Foreign Language – Korean] [Operator Instructions] The following question is from Minho Hur from Shinhan Finance Investment. Please go ahead sir. Minho Hur [Foreign Language – Korean] So last year there was plan to fix the cost for your fuel disposal but as far as I am aware, it has been just delayed to June of this year, but it seems that that cost still has not been determined yet. When do you believe that the disposal cost would be clear or ways would be determined and when if it is determined, how much of the cost do you expect? Weon-Gun Ko [Foreign Language – Korean] So the cost requirement for the nuclear waste disposal has been amended as of June 30 and it will be taken into effect since the second half of this year but in next two years. There hasn’t been any significant changes to the amendment. However, for the low and intermediate nuclear waste disposal, the cost would be change per barrel and it used to be about KRW 11,930,000 per barrel, but the number is going to be increased by about KRW 200,000. So the overall cost therefore will be increased from current KRW 603.3 billion to KRW 643.7 billion moving forward. So we believe the cost impact would be somewhere around KRW 250 billion to KRW 300 billion per barrel, per dron [ph] that is for the unit cost for the radioactive – for the low and intermediate radioactive waste. Operator [Foreign Language – Korean] [Operator Instructions] The following question is by Joseph Jacobelli from Bloomberg Intelligence. Please go ahead sir. Joseph Jacobelli Good afternoon. And thank you very much for the time and this presentation. Couple of quick questions with regards to your debt management going forward. So we’ve seen the level coming down in last couple of quarters. Do you have any specific targets with regards to either your net debt to equity by 2015 and by 2016, or long-term debt to equity whichever number you feel comfortable with? And the other question is, could you give us a quick update on your nuclear build-out over the next few years? Any more delays or are any plants coming in a little bit more quickly than looks this year? Weon-Gun Ko [Foreign Language – Korean] On your first question on the debt ratio, our goal or target for the consolidated basis for 2015 is 164% and for 2016 is 149% and for year 2017 is 133%. On a stand-alone basis, our target for 2015 is to lower the debt ratio below 100% level. [Foreign Language – Korean] As far Shin Wolsong 2, we have gone live as of the July 24 of this year and for Shin Kori #3, our target date for operation is first half of 2016, and for Shin Kori #4 nuclear power plant is targeted to go live by first half of 2017. Operator [Foreign Language – Korean] The following question is by Josh Bae from UBS. Please go ahead sir. Josh Bae Yes. Hi. Thank you for the opportunity. I have two questions. First, I think you mentioned consolidated operating profit target of KRW 8.3 trillion for this year. Could you please share with us what the FX and oil price forecasts you’re using for this target? Second question, just to follow-up on the previous question regarding the Shin Kori #4. I think you were previously expecting this nuclear plant to come online sometime in 2016. Is there a particular reason for the delay to first half of 2017? Thank you. Weon-Gun Ko [Foreign Language – Korean] As for the assumption that we were using for our financial guidance for 2015 is we assume that the electricity sales will grow by 1.8%, whereas the foreign exchange rate against dollar would be KRW 1,121 per dollar, and for oil price we expect it to be $62 per barrel in Dubai price. And for bituminous coal, our assumption is $75 per ton. [Foreign Language – Korean] As for your second question on Shin Kori #4, it is being delayed because there has been some incompliance on the technology side that some valves, so some of the components, for example the valves needs to be replaced because it failed to meet the technology qualification. Therefore the operating date for Shin Kori #4 has been delayed to the first half of 2017 instead of our initial schedule which was July of 2016. Operator [Foreign Language – Korean] [Operator Instructions] The following question is by Kang Seongjin from KB Investment Securities. Please go ahead sir. Kang Seongjin [Foreign Language – Korean] I have a question on the overall power purchase cost. It seems that the power purchase unit cost for your GENCO has gone down significantly in the second quarter. What is your expectation for the third quarter, and could you also share with us your perspective on the adjustment coefficient when you also explain the unit cost trend you will be followed? Weon-Gun Ko [Foreign Language – Korean] As far this year if you look at the adjustment coefficient for the GENCOs reflecting on the last year’s number, the S&P price was very high in the first half of the year and very low in the second half of the year. So there has been fluctuation if you look at the whole year. And I have to score at the overall profit and loss of GENCOs over the period. So what we have decided to do this year is that we are going to split the adjustment coefficient being calculated separately for the first half of the year and the second half of the year. So what we see as a result is that the S&P is high in the first quarter, therefore the GENCOs profitability appears to be very high in the first quarter, whereas in the second quarter the KEPCO’s profitability appears to be high. We have recalculated the adjustment coefficients at the end of June again. And in the second half of the year, we believe the fluctuation of the S&P will rather be stable. So in the second half of this year, the coefficients or settlement types – unit types will be high and stable. So all in all, we are going to see stabilized number with higher settlement price. Operator [Foreign Language – Korean] [Operator Instructions] The following question will be given by Joseph Jacobelli from Bloomberg Intelligence. Please go ahead sir. Joseph Jacobelli Just a quick follow-up question with regards to several coal costs. Given we’ve seen coal prices very low for quite some time and unlikely to get any – go any higher. Will this price trend of coal influence your decision in terms of future capacity planning or will you just say for example taking 1% coal-fired power plant by – to gas-fired power plant to a coal-fired power plant, or are you trying to secure longer term contracts for coal, or are you trying to diversify some of the coal costs – coal sources? Thank you. Weon-Gun Ko [Foreign Language – Korean] Last month we have announced the seventh basic plan for the electricity supply and demand by the government. And there LNG makes this so much similar. It has increased by about 0.3% and for coal, we assume that the coal price will go down and its mix would be about 32%, whereas the nuclear power plant we are adding two more nuclear power plants and that will take up about 28.5% in terms of our generation mix. As for the coal-fired power plant, we have initially planned for adding for a coal-fired power plant in our sixth basic plan for electricity supply and demand but that has been withdrawn. [Foreign Language – Korean] And as for the GENCOs, they have – when they plan for the purchase of coal, their target is to have 80% of the coal purchased under the long-term contract with their suppliers. So even if there is drop in coal price, they would not necessarily move to diversify their coal purchase sources in East [ph]. The GENCOs are looking into various method and ways to have competitive pricing, sourcing price for their coal. Joseph Jacobelli Thank you. Operator [Foreign Language – Korean] The following question is by Jae-Hyun Ryu from Daewoo Securities. Please go ahead sir. Jae-Hyun Ryu [Foreign Language – Korean] I have one short question on dividend payment. Now that we are wrapping up the first half of the year, has there been any internal discussion on the dividend payout for the end of the year? One potential idea is that because you have the sales of your headquarter assets, are you reviewing to use that fund to include that in your dividend payout? I know it’s rather early to have a view on that, but could you mention or potentially share anything with us? Weon-Gun Ko [Foreign Language – Korean] On our dividend policy with dividend forecast for 2015, I regret to say that there has not been any concrete measure that has been determined yet. Our intention is to maintain our historical dividend payout ratio which was 30%. Of course for this year, because of our after-sales we have increased special profit and that may then lead to special dividend, but nothing has been determined yet and we are in the process of discussing that with the government. When we consider the special profit into our dividend policy, then that will significantly drive up our dividend payout. So our basic stance is to maintain our historical dividend payouts, but that’s something that we are still discussing with the government. But what we are keeping in mind is that we will act on behalf of the investors’ interest and in leading that discussion with the government. Weon-Gun Ko [Foreign Language – Korean] All right. We will conclude this conference call. Once again thank you for joining us today. Thank you. Operator [Foreign Language – Korean] [Operator Instructions] This concludes the fiscal year 2015 second quarter earnings results by KEPCO. Thanks for the participation.

Duke Energy (DUK) Lynn J. Good on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Duke Energy Corp. (NYSE: DUK ) Q2 2015 Earnings Call August 06, 2015 10:00 am ET Executives Bill Currens – Vice President-Investor Relations Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Analysts Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities (NYSE: USA ) LLC (Broker) Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Operator Good day and welcome to this Duke Energy Second Quarter Earnings Conference Call. Today’s conference is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Mr. Bill Currens. Please go ahead, sir. Bill Currens – Vice President-Investor Relations Thank you, Shannon. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Duke Energy’s second quarter 2015 earnings review and business update. Leading our call is Lynn Good, President and CEO, along with Steve Young, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Today’s discussion will include forward-looking information and the use of non-GAAP financial measures. Slide 2 presents the Safe Harbor statement, which accompanies our presentation materials. A reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures can be found on duke-energy.com and in today’s materials. Please note that the appendix to today’s presentation includes supplemental information and additional disclosures to help you analyze the company’s performance. As summarized on slide three, Lynn will begin with an update on our principal strategic, operational and financial activities since our last call, then Steve will provide an overview of our second quarter financial results, including updates on economic activities within our service territories, as well as conditions in Brazil. With that, I’ll turn the call over to Lynn. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining us. Before I start today, I’d like to take a moment to introduce Doug Esamann. Doug recently joined our senior management team and will oversee our Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky and Florida utilities. Doug has over 30 years of experience with Duke Energy, most recently as the President of our Indiana utility. Doug’s depth of regulatory experience as well as his customer and strategic focus complements our leadership team. We look forward to introducing Doug to many of you over the coming months. Now, to the quarter. We are midway through 2015 and continue to execute our operational and strategic growth objectives while positioning the company to meet our financial objectives for the year. This morning, we reported second quarter 2015 adjusted EPS of $0.95, which is consistent with our plan. Our regulated and commercial businesses have performed well over the first half of the year. Additionally, we have completed the sale of the Midwest Generation and the purchase of the NCEMPA assets ahead of schedule. This has allowed us to effectively offset the challenging business environment in Brazil. As a result, we remain confident in our ability to achieve our full-year 2015 earnings guidance range of $4.55 to $4.75 per share. In June, we completed our $1.5 billion accelerated stock repurchase ahead of schedule. Further, last month, we announced that the Board of Directors increased the quarterly dividend to $0.825 per share doubling the annual growth rate to around 4%. This increase reflects our confidence in the strength of our core business and our cash flows. Our balance sheet provides continued support for growth in the dividend. For the past 89 years, the dividend has demonstrated our commitment to delivering attractive total returns to shareholders. I am pleased with the company’s operational performance during the quarter, particularly our response to the extended heat wave in the Carolinas in June. Temperatures were in the upper 90s for much of the month and our system met the increased demand for our customers. In June, we used a record monthly amount of natural gas, approximately 25 Bcf, surpassing the previous month high of 20 Bcf set in July of 2014. Additionally, our nuclear fleet delivered a record second quarter in terms of net megawatt hours of generation. Nuclear capacity factor was around 95% during the month of June. Lastly, our field operations teams met customer needs during the stress of the summer heat and storms. Our ability to meet extreme demand conditions demonstrates the quality of our operations. We’ve made significant headway on other strategic and regulatory priorities, which I’ll briefly cover on slide five. These priorities include investments in new generation, infrastructure and a focus on environmental compliance. Beginning with our investments in new generation. Just last week, we closed on the $1.25 billion acquisition of jointly owned generating assets from the North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency. We closed ahead of schedule, after receiving the required approval sooner than expected. This reflects the mutually beneficial nature of the acquisition and the widespread support we received here in North Carolina. We immediately began supplying power to the 32 municipalities through a long-term wholesale contract. In 2015, we expect a $0.04 earnings per share benefit based upon an expected full year EPS impact of around $0.07 to $0.08. During the second quarter, we also announced the $1.1 billion Western Carolinas Modernization Project. This project includes the early retirement of our Asheville coal plant, which will be replaced by a new 650 megawatt combined-cycle gas plant. We will also build new transmission assets that will improve reliability in the region. Finally, we will install solar generation at the site. The new gas plant is expected in service by the end of 2019 and the entire project will likely be completed by 2020. Before construction begins, various regulators including the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Carolinas Utility Commissions will need to approve the plan. Our commercial renewables business continues to deliver on its capital growth projects. In April, we completed the 200-megawatt Los Vientos III project in South Texas, which is now delivering power under a long-term contract with Austin Energy. In July, we announced acquisitions of an additional 70 megawatts of solar capacity in California and North Carolina. Our commercial renewables business now has more than 2,000 megawatts of capacity in operation. In July, FERC approved our application to acquire the 599 megawatt combined-cycle Osprey gas plant in Florida from Calpine. The Florida Public Service Commission also voted to approve the acquisition. We remain on track to close by January of 2017 when our existing PPA with Calpine terminates and we have a need for additional generation capacity. Also in Florida, we announced an agreement to purchase a 7.5% stake in the Sabal Trail gas pipeline from Spectra Energy for $225 million. Similar to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, the Sabal Trail investment will be a part of Duke’s Commercial portfolio. The pipeline is expected in service by the end of 2017 and will serve the growing natural gas needs in the state, including our 1,640 megawatt Citrus County combined-cycle plant, which is expected to be online in 2018. Duke Energy Florida and Florida Power & Light have entered into 25-year capacity agreements with the pipeline. Moving to Indiana, in May, we received an order from the Indiana Commission on the transmission and distribution infrastructure plan. The Commission denied our proposed $1.9 billion investment because they would like to see greater detail. We are working on a revised plan, which we expect to file with the Commission by the end of 2015. Modernizing our electric grid will provide great benefits to customers in Indiana, ultimately increasing reliability, decreasing the duration of power outages and improving customer communication. In the second quarter, we made significant progress on coal ash management activities. In May, we began moving ash at our River Bend site in North Carolina after receiving state permits. We are now excavating ash at three sites in the Carolinas. In June, we announced recommendations to fully excavate 12 additional ash basins in North Carolina, bringing the total ash in the Carolinas we have slated for excavation to about 30%. The remaining ash basins are being further studied to determine appropriate closure methods. We are pursuing solutions that balance safety, environmental stewardship and cost effectiveness. Given our efforts over the past year, we are ahead of the curve in adapting to changing regulations our industry faces with ash management. On the subject of environmental rules, on Monday, the U.S. EPA finalized a Clean Power Plan, a regulation aimed at reducing carbon emissions from existing power plants 32% by 2030. The guidelines issued this week are more than 1,500 pages long and among the more complex rules in recent history. This rule sets state specific reduction targets and builds upon the substantial progress we have already made to reduce our environmental footprint. Since 2005, we have reduced our total carbon dioxide emissions by 22% through retirement of older coal units, the transition to cleaner burning natural gas, as well as investments in renewables and energy efficiency. Our plans continue to move us toward a lower carbon future. We will work constructively with our states to identify solutions that preserve the reliability and affordability our customers expect. As we continue to modernize our system, managing energy diversity will be an important consideration. As I look back over the first half of 2015, I am pleased with what we’ve accomplished on multiple fronts across the business. I’m even more pleased with the groundwork we’re laying for the years ahead. We’re making strategic long-term investments that will benefit our customers and communities in addition to supporting growth for shareholders. We’re developing and executing strategies that will position the company well in a rapidly changing industry. Now, I’ll turn the call over to Steve to discuss the quarter in more detail. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Thanks, Lynn. Today, I’ll review our second quarter financial results and discuss the economic conditions in our service territories. I will also provide an update on the accounting and expected costs for our coal ash management activities and review our results in Brazil. Let’s start with the quarterly results. I will cover the highlights on slide six. For more detailed information on segment variances versus last year, please refer to the supporting materials that accompany today’s press release. As Lynn mentioned, we achieved second quarter adjusted diluted earnings of $0.95 per share compared to $1.11 in the second quarter of 2014. On a reported basis, 2015 second quarter earnings per share were $0.78 compared to $0.86 last year. A reconciliation of reported results to adjusted results is included in the supplemental materials to today’s presentation. Regulated Utilities adjusted results declined by $0.09 per share, primarily due to a prior year favorable state tax settlement, planned timing of O&M cost and higher depreciation and amortization. O&M cost increased this quarter due to the planned timing of outages across the generation fleet and approximately $0.05 due to nuclear outage cost levelization impacts recognized in the prior year. This is the last quarter in which we expect nuclear outage cost levelization to be a significant driver over the prior year results. We are on track to achieve our targeted full-year O&M budget and continue to look for opportunities to reduce costs. These negative drivers were partially offset by higher margins, resulting from growth in wholesale contracts and weather normal retail sales. We had favorable weather in the quarter as a significant heat wave gripped the Carolinas in June. Weather added around $0.03 over last year’s second quarter and $0.06 compared to normal conditions. We also experienced higher earnings of $0.03 this quarter from pricing and riders, primarily due to increased energy efficiency programs. International’s quarterly earnings declined $0.13 over last year, due to factors we continue to monitor, including the economic conditions and lower demand for electricity in Brazil. As you will recall, International also had a favorable income tax adjustment of $0.07 in last year’s quarter, associated with the reorganization of our operations in Chile. Our Commercial Portfolio, formerly Commercial Power, is primarily made up of our commercial renewables business. In the second quarter, we incurred slightly lower earnings, due to lower wind production. This decrease in wind production was experienced broadly across the United States. Turning to slide seven, I’ll now provide some insight into the second half of 2015. And the key drivers that give us confidence in our 2015 guidance range of $4.55 to $4.75 per share. Through the first half of the year, our adjusted earnings per share of $2.20 is consistent with our plan. The regulated business has experienced favorable weather, and has seen strong growth in wholesale contracts and weather normal retail sales. The sale of the Midwest Generation fleet, as a whole, has been favorable to our plan in the first half of the year. These positive drivers have helped offset continued weakness at International. In order to achieve our full-year 2015 earnings guidance range, we expect higher EPS contributions in the back half of the year, over what we earned in the comparable period last year. There are a few primary drivers that support this. First, we expect continued growth in contracted wholesale volumes, as well as organic growth in retail demand over the last half of the year. Second, we experienced unfavorable weather last year in the third quarter. Assuming normal weather for the remainder of this year provides an uplift of $0.05. Third, the early completion of the NCEMPA asset purchase will provide an additional earnings per share impact of around $0.04. Earnings from our Commercial renewables business should also see an improvement in the second half of the year. We are on track to put over 200 megawatts of additional wind and solar capacity into service later this year, which would bring 2015’s total additions to more than 400 megawatts. Related to O&M cost, we expect third quarter O&M to be higher than the prior year, while fourth quarter should be lower. As a result, O&M shouldn’t be a significant driver in the second half of the year. Similarly, we expect International’s earnings contribution in the second half of 2015 to be comparable to last year. This is not a full list of drivers for the rest of the year, but these represent variances that are likely to occur based on current expectations. As you are all aware, the third quarter is historically our strongest quarter. We will be in a position to provide more insight into the year after we see those results. Moving on to slide eight, I’ll now discuss our retail customer volume trends. On a rolling 12-month basis, weather normalized retail load growth increased by positive 0.1% driven by strong second quarter growth of positive 1.7%. This was the first quarter we have experienced positive growth across all customer classes in over a year. Although, one quarter does not make a trend, this recent uptick is encouraging. Within the residential sector, we continued to experience strong growth in the number of new customers, approximately 1.3% over the same period last year. The growth in the Carolinas and Florida regions has been particularly strong, at around 1.5%. The Carolinas and Florida also saw usage per customer level off, after trending lower over the past several quarters. We continue to see favorable trends in the key indicators for the residential sector including, employment, median incomes and household formations. In fact, the 6 states we serve captured over 20% of the additional nonfarm job growth over the last year. The commercial sector grew by 0.3% on a rolling 12-month basis. This sector continues to benefit from declining office vacancy rates, and expansion in the medical and restaurant subsectors. We’ve also experienced some growth in the tourism related businesses, in certain markets. The industrial sector grew by 1.3% on a rolling 12-month basis. This growth was led by metals, transportation, construction and chemicals. Additionally, we are starting to see textiles in the Carolinas build momentum. We will continue to monitor the impact of the strengthening U.S. dollar on manufacturing activity. Our economic development teams remain active, successfully helping attract new business investments into our service territories. So far this year, these activities have led to the announcement of another $1.7 billion in capital investments, which is expected to result in over 5,000 new jobs, across our six states. We are encouraged by the continued strengthening of the economy, particularly in the Southeast. We remain on track to achieve our full-year 2015 weather normalized load growth of between 0.5% and 1%. Moving on to slide nine. Let me update you on our coal ash management activities. First I’ll cover adjustments to our asset retirement obligations related to coal ash basin closures. As you’ll recall, in the third quarter 2014, we recorded an approximate $3.5 billion ARO, reflecting our best estimate to comply with the newly enacted Coal Ash Management Act or CAMA. In April, the U.S. EPA published its final Coal Combustion Residuals Rule in the Federal Register. The EPA’s final rule is consistent with our compliance plan for basins in North Carolina under CAMA. However, the final rule did create a legal obligation related to ash basins outside of North Carolina and existing landfills across our system. Therefore during the second quarter, we recorded an additional $1 billion obligation representing our best estimate of cost to comply with the new Federal EPA rules. As of June 30, we now have total ARO obligations of $4.5 billion, which represents our best estimate to comply with state and Federal rules. These costs will be spent over the next several decades. We will continue to refine this estimated liability as plans are finalized. Next, let me summarize our cash spending assumptions for our coal ash activities. In February, we estimated $1.3 billion in spending from 2015 to 2019, to close the initial high-priority sites under CAMA. During the quarter we announced our recommendation to fully excavate 12 additional basins in the Carolinas. Our estimate of cost to close these additional basins ranges between $700 million to $1 billion. Ultimately, we expect these costs will increase our five year capital spending plan that was disclosed in February. However, we are unable to predict the precise timing under which we will incur these costs until the final risk classification is set by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Coal Ash Commission. We will continue to provide updates as our plans become finalized. There is still work to do with our remaining basins and we will keep you updated as we continue to refine our estimates. Taking a look at slide 10. Let me provide an update on our International business. As we entered the year, we anticipated challenges at International due to one, the prolonged drought conditions in Brazil, causing thermals to dispatch of hydros for the entire year. Two, unfavorable Brazilian foreign exchange rates. Three, declining earnings contributions from our interest in National Methanol, which sells products that are correlated to Brent crude oil prices. And four, a prior year Chilean tax benefit. We also assume no energy rationing and around 2% growth in demand for electricity. During 2015, reservoir levels continue to be low. Rainfall has recently been above average in the Southeast region of Brazil, where our assets are located. Reservoir levels stood at about 37% at the end of July, higher than the 20% level they started the year. However, they are still low for this time of the year. These conditions have caused the system operator to continue to dispatch thermals ahead of hydros. Additionally, the government is continuing to encourage customers to voluntarily reduce electricity consumption. The economy in Brazil continues to weaken as evidenced by S&Ps recent change in outlook for the country’s credit ratings. The softer Brazilian economy, higher tariff prices for end users and the voluntary conservation measures have placed additional pressure on electricity demand so far in 2015. As a result, we now expect 2015 electricity demand in Brazil to be lower than 2014. Taking this all into account through the second quarter of 2015, International’s earnings have declined by $0.26 per share, compared to last year. As you will recall, our original full year forecast of International contemplated about $0.12 per share of lower year-over-year earnings. We do not expect these levels of year-over-year weakness to continue into the second half of 2015. We expect the third and fourth quarters to be more comparable to the second half of 2014 for the following reasons: First, the system operator began to change the dispatch order to the detriment of hydro generators in the second quarter of 2014. So in the second half of 2015, generation dispatch order will be similar to what it was in the second half of 2014. Second, the shaping of our contract should create a less significant short position in the second half of the year than we saw last year. Finally, we have seen recent declines in the market settlement prices or PLD. In June and July, these prices fell below the established ceiling of R$388, averaging approximately R$300 per megawatt hour. These lower spot prices should provide some relief as we continue to cover our short position through market purchases, helping offset the impact of lower demand. Our International team continues to manage well in this difficult environment, concentrating on items within their control. We actively are managing our ongoing contracted levels and focusing on our cost management during this downturn. However, we do not expect International to meet its original financial plan for the full year. Before moving on, let me mention a recent development in Brazil that has received some media attention. There have been recent discussions aimed at providing some financial relief to the hydro generators. These discussions are in the early stages and it is difficult to speculate on how they may play out. We’ll keep you updated as events unfold. Slide 11 outlines our financial objectives. The balance sheet is strong and our credit ratings are in line with our target levels, allowing the company to access the financial markets on reasonable terms. We are executing our plan to access $2.7 billion of international cash over several years. In June, we returned approximately $1.2 billion to the U.S. The strength of our balance sheet and cash flows helps fuel our growth strategy, support the dividend and maintain low cost rates for our customers. Our dividend continues to be a very important piece of our shareholder value proposition. In July, we were pleased to announce an increase in our quarterly dividend growth rate from 2% to approximately 4%. In 2010, we have been working to reach our target payout ratio of 65% to 70% of adjusted EPS. Now that we are at the high end of that ratio, we will continue to target dividend growth more in line with our long-term earnings growth targets. Let me provide an update on our earnings growth objectives, both short term and long term. We are on track to achieve our 2015 guidance range of $4.55 to $4.75 per share. Near-term headwinds at the International business have been offset by strength in Regulated Utilities and early execution on some of our strategic initiatives. On a longer term basis, we continue to target earnings per share growth of 4% to 6%, underpinned by the strength of our domestic businesses. We are executing on our strategic growth initiatives, which provides a foundation for growth through 2017 and beyond. Our International business however, continues to face unfavorable macroeconomic trends such as poor hydrological conditions and a weakened economy in Brazil. As we look beyond 2015, the extent and duration of these challenges is uncertain. We will learn more as the year progresses, and we’ll evaluate the longer term impacts as we finalize our financial plans for 2016 and beyond. We remain committed to delivering long-term value for our investors. With that, let’s open the line for your questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. And we will first go to Daniel Eggers with Credit Suisse. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Hey. Good morning, guys. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hi, Dan. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Hello, Dan. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Hey. On the load growth numbers in the second quarter, I guess both customer gains, weather adjusted usage, both looked pretty good and kind of broke from trend that we’ve seen the last couple quarters. Should we read much into things getting better and this being perpetuated or this is just kind of the – some of the volatility that comes with quarterly adjustments in numbers? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Well, Dan, as we said, I’m always careful when I just look at one quarter’s results. I think we have to always have that in the back of our mind. We are seeing some pretty good trends here, though on a few factors that I will mention. The growth of customers into the Carolinas and Florida has been ramping up from 1% now to 1.5% and that’s got to be a good metric there for the future as we move forward. We’re also seeing some favorable statistics when we look at new housing starts in our service territories, meaning new homes are starting to get actually built. We’re also starting to see a lower number of rejections of mortgage applications which say that people are having the funds to buy a home or a place to live, some of those statistics are certainly compelling. We’re always cautiously optimistic on one quarter, but there are some good results here. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer And Dan, one thing I would add that Steve talked about in the script, we’ve been tracking lower usage per customer kind of quarter-after-quarter and actually, saw a leveling-off of that reduction this quarter as well, which is another thing that I would point to as a bit of a new trend for us. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) When we think about the load growth and you guys were at 0.5% to 1%, this year, I know you’ve kind of talked about 1% being more of a normalized long-term target. How important is getting to that 1% number to the utilities being able to support their end of the 4% to 6% growth target? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer It’s important, Dan. As you know on our sensitivity, a 1% increase in our organic load growth would translate to about 2% earnings growth, and it is essential to us to see growth in our service areas. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) The trends you’re seeing right now, are they giving you encouragement that 1% is feeling a little bit better after maybe feeling a bit shaky the last couple quarters? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Well, as I mentioned, I think some of these trends behind the good quarter we had in the second quarter do make us feel well. As Lynn mentioned, the usage decline stopping per customer and some of the raw data on employment, median household income starting to pick-up and get a bit of traction in our service territories, do give us some comfort there. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Okay. I’m sure, that folks are going to ask about it, but just on the international side. Looking past this year, are you guys thinking that things that are happening this year are structural or do you think they’re situational to these market conditions? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Dan, I think there are a combination of things going on. The hydrological conditions, I believe were seasonal, right. So, if we have a strong rainy season that starts in the fall, continuing into 2016, we may see a situation where dispatch order changes. I think the regulatory body in Brazil has learned a lot about the changing generation mix and how that fleet has reacted in this environment. So, over maybe a short-term to medium-term, we could be some mitigation of some of the pressures there, or changes in regulation that could be helpful to the hydro operators. I think the long-term issues are more around the Brazilian economy. And does the Brazilian economy get traction again and start growing at a pace that would be more consistent with what we have seen over the last decade. So, I think you’ve got a combination of shorter-term and medium-term to longer term issues. And so, our focus is to be as transparent as we can on what we see, and we’ll continue to update you as the year progresses. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Very good. Thank you, guys. Operator Next question comes from Shar Pourreza with Guggenheim Partners. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Good morning. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hello. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Hi, Shar. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Steve, I think you sort of touched on this in your prepared remarks, but on the injunctions in Brazil, is there preliminary, is there any procedural process that we could follow to see how things are transpiring? And then the second question is Brazil does have relatively high rates. So is there any talk on how – the potential of passing these costs onto customers? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Yeah, Shar, on the injunctions, in talking with our teams in Brazil, I don’t know that there is a set timeframe or schedule that you can look to to determine resolution of this. I think these initial injunctions and discussions around the market, by various stakeholder groups are a positive step. But we expect that it will take quite a bit of time to resolve this issue, and get new processes and settlements in place. So that’s just the nature of the way these negotiations often go in Brazil. So I wouldn’t look for a timeframe there. Regarding Brazilian retail rates, they did jump up quite a bit over the past year. And certainly that is something that is on the minds of Brazilian politicians, as to how do we deal with the cost of this out of dispatch situation due to hydrology issues. And right now, the hydro generators are bearing a lot of that burden, and the customers have borne some burden as well. That’s part of the debate that will be worked upon over the next year or so in Brazil. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Got it. Got it. And then on slide 11, you added a new footnote, footnote 3. Just curious, this footnote, is it basically inferring that the 4% to 6% is embedding some of the challenges you’re seeing in the International business, or it’s sort of pending some of the challenges that you’re seeing in International business? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer You know, Shar, what I would say is, given the depth of the challenge we’ve experienced during the first six months, and the fact that we’ve seen hydrological conditions really coupled with some of the complexities around other economic factors including Petrobras, and other things going on in Brazil. That the duration of this challenge is uncertain to us as we look past 2015. So when we look at the back half, we believe the back half of 2015 will be reasonably comparable to 2014. We’ll be anxious to see how the rainy season begins, but we need more information and time to look at our forecast for 2016 and 2017. And so, we wanted to just provide some transparency on that, and that’s the – really consistent with the remarks we shared with you today. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Got it. Got it. And then just lastly, on the weaker wind resources was a little bit of a theme this quarter. Is this something that we should think about from a structural standpoint just given that the El Nino cycle is just starting or is this something that’s sort of a bit of an normally? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer I don’t know that I’ve heard anybody profess to understand the wind patterns that well, Shar, that they could predict them. So I don’t know that it’s anything more than an anomaly now. We’re heading into the second half of the year where the wind traditionally picks up. So we’ll get a better idea after that. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Excellent. Thanks very much. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Next question comes from Greg Gordon with Evercore ISI. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Good morning. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Greg. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Hey, Greg. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI So, I just wanted to go over some of the things you said just to make sure I understand them in terms of looking on actually slide 14, which is your original assumptions put up against your year-to-date results. It looks like you’re basically telling us that if International is flat in the second half versus the second half last year, that you’re $0.10 behind plan. On the other hand, you’re saying you’re $0.04 ahead of plan at the utility because of the early close of the NCEMPA acquisition and then you’re also – see better results in the second half versus the second half of last year in the Commercial business because of the 400 megawatts of new renewables and that’s how you sort of get back to plan. Is that a reasonable summary of what you said or am I missing something? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer I think you’ve hit on some of the elements there. Assuming normal weather over the last half of the year, and we have had warm weather in July, you get a pick up there. Certainly, the wholesale contract associated with the NCEMPA acquisition provides about $0.04 there. We’ve also seen growth in our retail load year-over-year, even at modest percents that can add several cents to it. If it stayed like the second quarter’s results, it would be more than that. Our wholesale business has also picked up through new contracts with co-ops and munis in the Carolinas and in Florida in particular. So, those are some of the things that we look to to continue provide growth over the second half of the year. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer And, Greg… Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Great. I understand that. I guess to clarify my question, many of those things were baked into the $2.95 billion budget. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Yes. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI I assume normal weather was baked in there. The wholesale pickup was – you were very, very clear on in your disclosures on the expectation there. So, I’m just focused on what’s changed from the plan. I guess you’re a little bit ahead of normal going into July which is good, NCEMPA closed early which is good. So, I’d really like to circle back to your answer and focus on what’s changed that’s not in the plan. $0.04 from NCEMPA… Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer So, let me give it a try. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Okay. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Yeah, Greg, let me – so, if we step back from this, as we started the year, we expected the back half to be stronger than the first half from the get-go. And then, if you look at the first half of the year, the weakness in Brazil has basically been offset by strength in the regulated business. We had weather that was strong and comparable to last year, even a bit ahead. We had an early closing in the Midwest Generation sale, which gives us incremental. When you go to the back half, we expect the back half to be stronger, wholesale growth, retail growth. Our O&M outage was more in the first half than the second half. And then, we have the sweetener of the NCEMPA transaction closing. And so, the weakness that we offset in the first half with weather and strong results, we don’t expect to see in the back half because we think Brazil will be comparable to 2014. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Great. And that 400 megawatts… Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Does that help? Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI …of new renewables coming in, in the back half of the year is baked into your $185 million plan or is that stuff…? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer It is. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Yes, it is. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Okay. Great. That’s much clearer. Thank you very much. Have a good morning. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Next question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Hi. Good morning. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hi, Julien. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Hi, Julien. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC So, perhaps to follow-up on Greg’s question just a little bit and be clear. First, where do you stand in the context of 2015, if you can specify? And then, perhaps more broadly as you think about the 4% to 6%, is there any thought or expectation to update that and specifically rebase at any point or how do you think about that given where you stand on hydro and obviously 2015 is – could be a weather event related, but I’d be curious if you want to just elaborate on the 4% to 6% at this point too? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer So, Julien, we are on plan through the first half. And for the reasons we just discussed, we’re confident we’ll remain within the range of $4.55 to $4.75. In terms of guidance, our current thinking is that we will approach that in the same way we always do. So, you’ll have February of 2016 for 2016 and for the longer-term outlook. We will continue to update you in third quarter on any further developments we see in any part of the business as we also normally do. So that’s the schedule we’re thinking about at this point. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Got it. But perhaps just more specifically, rebasing, is there any thought process of rebasing the base year of that 4% to 6% at all? And then, perhaps the second bigger picture question if you will, with regards to the Clean Power Plan and I know, obviously incredibly complex as you already alluded to. Could you elaborate how the company is positioning to capture opportunities there and obviously you’re involved in many of the key angles that would benefit in theory from the CPP, but could you elaborate how you are thinking about taking advantage of each of those respective niches? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer And on rebasing, Julien, we’re anchored in 2013 at this point. We will rebase at some point. We haven’t made a final decision on that and we’ll update guidance in February of 2016. The Clean Power Plan appreciates those questions and we are continuing to digest, we do not have a definitive plan in any of our jurisdictions. Of course it will impact our IRP planning, and impact our thinking on state-by-state. As I’m sure you’re aware, the plan did change emission reduction targets. So we have more stringent targets in the Midwest. We have moderately less stringent targets in the Southeast, North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida. There’s a notion being introduced of a market trading platform, which is new, which we’ll need to evaluate, and then the compliance period with these incentive credits and so on, in 2020, 2021, I think, will also be something that we digest. So, we’re beginning to understand the elements, I think there is flexibility here. It will be important to involve a stakeholder and state process. These are the states’ implementation plans ultimately. But we believe that much as we’ve delivered consistent carbon reductions over the last 10 years, we’ll be looking for a way to continue progress in that direction, at the lowest cost to our customers. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Great. Thank you. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Next question comes from Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Yeah. Good morning. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hi, Steve. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Hi, Lynn. A couple questions. First, just specific details. So, I think you guys said, you expect it to be $0.12 down in 2015 in International versus 2014 and in the first half, you’re down $0.26. So, assuming it’s flat the rest of the year, that means you’re kind of off by about $0.14 from plan. Could you maybe just break up, what makes up that $0.14, how much is it below average? How much is it the hydro versus some of the other, the economy or currency or other things, at least a rough cut of that? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Yeah, Steve. The bulk of that is – and you’re just talking about International, the delta in International? Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Yes. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer From the original expectations versus where we’re at now, is that correct? Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Yes. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Yes. The biggest difference that we’re seeing is the impact of informal rationing, if you will, and the weak economy, those two impacts on the demand for power in Brazil. When we set up our assumptions in February, we stated we had no assumption of informal rationing and we had over 2% demand growth. And now what we’re seeing is that the demand is actually slightly negative. Because thermals are dispatched first, all of that delta, all of that swing comes out of hydros. And of course, we’re a hydro owner here. So that is the big difference that we did not have in the $0.12 downtick for International back in February. And we stated we didn’t have any view on rationing in the numbers if rationing came about or lower demand, the results would be lower. So that is by far the bulk of the difference in International. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Steve, one thing I might just point out, Chile, the Chilean tax adjustment that was reflected in second quarter of 2014 is $0.07 of that $0.26 that was planned. We were aware of it. And the additional weakness is in Brazil and NMC [National Methanol Company], the oil prices have deteriorated slightly, but we saw a lot of that at the beginning of the year. And then all the conditions, we’ve talked about here on further weakening in Brazil is where the larger challenge has originated. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. So when we think about beyond 2015 and if we made the jump that hydro might actually normalize. The issues outside of that are primarily related to the economy, I assume somewhat currency and are those two main issues? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer I think those are two main issues, Steve. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. Any thoughts to reconsider strategic alternatives for the business? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Steve, that’s a question we’ve spent a fair amount of time on as you imagine. We thought our process and I still believe our process last year was a good one, very thorough. We were looking at growth, we were looking at cash and we solved the cash, which we believe is important to supporting the dividend. We’ve already brought home, $1.2 billion of that $2.7 billion. There is no question we’re operating in a challenging environment, and all of the factors we talked about today are something that the team in International is focused on. I am pleased with the way they’ve responded to these challenging conditions. And at this point, I don’t have anything further to share on how we think about this business strategically, but we’ve certainly learned a lot about volatility in this business as a result of these recent events, and that’ll factor into our planning in the future. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. And then one last question maybe at a high level. Between the balance sheet and position you have now, and things like the securitization coming in Florida some point soon, how much available cash or balance sheet capacity do you have for investment in growth opportunities, right now? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Well, we have a solid balance sheet and we have a number of growth opportunities, where our capital spend is typically in the neighborhood of $7 billion a year. So, there is… Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC I’m sorry. I want to make sure – I mean above kind of what you’re planning to do right now? So, like if you had opportunities that go above the current investment plan? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer We do. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC And how much upside? Yeah. Okay. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer We haven’t quantified that specifically. The one thing I would say, Steve, is if you look at the leverage in the business, the utilities are situated relative to their cap structure that they earn on, capacity sits at the holding company and we’re probably at 27%, 28% of HoldCo debt. There’s probably capacity at HoldCo, up to 30% or maybe a little bit above, depending on how the credit rating agencies look at that. So, can’t quantify it any more specifically than that, but we’re committed to our ratings. We think we have an incredibly strong balance sheet with flexibility, to address and we think the business requires. And we’ll continue to manage that accordingly. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC And how much will you get from securitization? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer We will get about $1.3 billion from the securitization process. We’re targeting the first quarter of 2016 to get those funds. About half of those funds will be used to displace Florida – Duke Energy Florida OpCo debt, the other half of the funds will come up to the parent. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. Thank you. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Next question comes from Chris Turnure with JPMorgan. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Good morning. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Good morning, guys. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Hello. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC You kind of mentioned in your prepared remarks and then in response to an earlier question that, it’s too early to tell what’s going to happen potentially with GSF reform (49:07) in Brazil and I can definitely appreciate that. But, do you have at least a sense as to what the EPS impact would be there, if we went from say a 20% now to a 10% or a 5% protection type level, just versus normal in any given full year? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer We don’t have any sensitivities on that, Chris. There is a lot of variables here? Where is our contracted load? What is the PLD price? So there is just variables there that are too multiple for us to try to put a metric on. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer And I think… Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Okay. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer …as we get to a point of clarity on the way the courts and the way the regulation will change, we’ll be in a position to give you a better sense of timing, what our contracted position is, where we we’re forecasting PLD. But it’s premature to do this at this point, because there are too many moving parts. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Okay. Fair enough. And then, just kind of going back to the 2016 and beyond picture, it’s still pretty early here to talk about any potential growth guidance changes. But I just wanted to address maybe balance sheet capacity like we were talking about in the last question or just your ability to do other things outside of what you’ve already talked about, whether it’s accelerating more repatriation of cash or doing other securitizations outside of the Florida one that you already have in plans or maybe pulling forward Carolina’s rate cases earlier than the kind of 2017 to 2018 timeframe than you’re currently thinking about right now? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer In connection with our planning process, Chris, we’ll look at every element of the business to ensure we’re delivering as much value as we can. I think we’ve demonstrated an ability to identify investment projects that are beneficial to customers and also delivering returns to shareholders. We do have flexibility in the balance sheet for additional investment. So, we’ll be evaluating all of those alternatives in connection with our business planning process. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Okay. But at this time nothing is seeming more likely than not or nothing’s standing out in your mind? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Yeah. Nothing that I would share at this point. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Okay. Great. Thanks. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Next question comes from Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Hey, guys. Just wanted… Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hi, Michael. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. …to revisit – hi, Lynn. Just wanted to revisit a few things on the Regulated side of the house. First of all, can you remind us for the spend you do on coal ash in North Carolina what the cost recovery process is, meaning, how do you actually – how and more importantly, when do you actually get this in rates? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Yes, Michael. There is no definitive plan for collection of the coal ash in rates. We spent about $100 million to-date on this and that will ramp up over the next several years. And the way this will work, we’ll start spending and acting on our plans in conjunction with CAMA over the next several years. And then at some point, an appropriate point, we can go in for a rate case, and we can incorporate coal ash spend into that rate case. So we have flexibility there, there is no set timeframe for this. And you might look in time and think about the next rate case, being associated with the completion of a large power plant, a combined cycle or a completion of a lot of nuclear work in Duke Energy Progress area. That might put you in the later part of the teens, for going in for a rate increase. At that point in time, we would probably request an increment in base rates for coal ash recovery. And the Commission would then begin to monitor coal ash cost recovered through rates versus coal ash spent and adjust it from there, this is not like a normal capital project, where you spend over in a short intense period and then are completed, the spend will go on for a long time. So I think it will have that type of nature of recovery to it. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. There is precedent in North Carolina for more real-time recovery of environmental cost, thinking back to like Clean Smokestacks from a number of years ago, just curious, is there an opportunity, whether via a regulation or via legislation – and I’m not sure which one it would require – to get more real-time recovery of coal ash spend and more kind of the certainty of recovery over time? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Yeah, Michael. I’ll take that one. I think North Carolina has demonstrated over a long period of time recovery of mandated cost and certainly coal ash, whether it’s at a state level or Federal level, those are required costs of decommissioning the plants. I don’t see in the next year or two, any change in the recovery mechanism that Steve just described and given the magnitude of the spend that we’re talking about, I think that’s reasonable. So, we’ll be addressing it in connection with the general rate case and evaluating what else might make sense over time. I think about Clean Power Plan, I think about – we have trackers for renewables. There are a variety of events that could trigger consideration of other forms of recovery. But I don’t see coal ash as being one that would – we would approach as a single item at this point. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Got it. One last question on utility O&M. Did I hear correctly that what you’re basically saying is, O&M levels in the second half of 2015 will be flat to second half 2014? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Yes. That’s correct, Michael. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. When you look at broader O&M, what are you – at the Regulated businesses and especially in the Carolinas – what do you see as potential – you’re a couple of years out post-merger, but continued cost saving opportunities to where instead of flat, it’s even potentially down? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Some of the cost savings opportunities that we are now pursuing are the rollout of work management systems. We’ve already done a lot the corporate work. We’ve rolled out work management systems in the fossil area. We’ve done a lot of nuclear work. But now we’re rolling out into T&D and that’s more dispersed in asset location and employee workforce. So, that’s an area that is ripe for some benefits. So, we’ll continue to roll these projects out and have some opportunities here to offset some of the cost increases that we face, such as cyber security, normal inflation, Fukushima and that kind of thing, but I do believe there are efficiency opportunities still out there. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Got it. Thank you, Steve, and much appreciated. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Next question comes from Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hi, Jonathan. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Good morning, guys. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Good morning. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Sorry to revisit this, but you’ve said a couple of times, you want to be clear about and transparent about what you’re saying on growth. And I just on this – we’ve already talked about the footnote on the slide around long-term earnings growth. You also changed the word you’re using from deliver to target. And I’d hate to read too much into that, but I just – Lynn, are we saying that if International kind of doesn’t rebound post-2015 in a decent way that you may not be able to stay at the low end of the 4% to 6% or are we not saying that? I’m not feeling I heard the clarity. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Yeah. And you know, Jonathan, I’m not trying to reset guidance range at this point. But I am trying to flag for you that we see uncertainty in the International business that is difficult sitting here in early August of 2015 to predict duration and extent. And so, a rebound, if we see a rebound in 2017, that’s certainly positive. But it’s more challenging today than I would have said to you it was in January of this year and that’s what we’re trying to signal or trying to say. And we’ll continue to update you as we see rainy season starting to develop and we see any potential changes in the regulatory scheme, the injunctions and other things, but it’s more challenging based on what we see right now. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Great. Thank you. And again, apologies for the revisit. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer No. That’s fine. Great. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer All right. Operator Next question comes from Ali Agha with SunTrust. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Thank you. Good morning. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hello. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Good morning. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Hi. Listen, with regards to the securitization proceeds, Steve, you said half of them will be used for OpCo debt reduction, half going to the parent. Any thoughts on how that other half gets used? The reason I ask is on the original settlement agreement you were going to be earning an ROE on it, granted it was a 30% reduction, but there was earnings coming from that and so is there a dilutive potential given securitization that may not have been part of the original plan. Is that a fair way to think about this? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer You’re correct there. We are giving up the equity return that was baked into the Crystal River 3 recovery mechanism from the settlement in 2013, albeit it was a haircut return. Whether it’s dilutive or not depends upon the redeployment of the proceeds here. And again we will be looking for growth opportunities to help replace that equity return loss. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey So at this point you would not assume that that is used for any HoldCo debt reduction. It probably goes into some rate base kind of investment? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Well, it will move into our general funds and help fund growth. Ideally we’d like to find an investment to put it right into, but certainly it will be utilized to reduce HoldCo debt that then helps fund other acquisitions, other purchases, other investments more efficiently. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer And Ali, what I would say to that, we haven’t earmarked a specific investment for those funds, but there have been a lot of questions today about holding company capacity for additional investment, this would be part of that. And so our objective will be to deploy that in a way that maximizes the value. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Yeah. And Lynn, what’s the latest on the Edwardsport investigation in Indiana? Is that still out there? I thought it should have been done by now. What’s the latest? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer So there is a rate proceeding in front of the Indiana Commission, Ali, on the regulatory every six month rider mechanisms as well as the fuel clauses. And we would expect an order from the Commission before the end of the year, perhaps even as early as the third quarter. So, that does remain out there. In the slide deck we’ve given you kind of a chart of what the open proceedings are, I think it’s on slide 21 just to give you a sense of where these are. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Okay. Yeah, I thought it was a summer timeframe, I guess it’s a little later. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer I think it’s a little later. Yeah. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Okay. And last question, the timeline for some of you investments, you’ve made that investment in the pipeline and you’ve got the other bigger pipeline out there. Are you thinking, Lynn, when you update your long-term growth rates perhaps next year, that you may stretch it out over a five-year period as opposed to the three-year periods that we’ve been doing currently, given that some of the stuff won’t hit until later in the decade? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Ali, it’s a good question, we debate the period internally. We had a longer term one, we moved it to three years, five years is a possibility. But I think the point you’re making is a good one, which is infrastructure investment occurs over a longer period of time. So, we haven’t made a final decision on that, but we are – we will evaluate it. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Okay. Thank you. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Great. Thanks so much. Operator And ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude today’s question-and-answer session. I’d like to turn the conference back over to Ms. Lynn Good for closing remarks. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thanks, everyone for being on the call, for your interest and investment in Duke Energy. We are scheduled for a third quarter call on November 5, and look forward to seeing many of you in the coming months. Thanks again. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude today’s conference. We do thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect. Have a great rest of your day.

WGL Holdings’ (WGL) CEO Terry D. McCallister on Q3 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

WGL Holdings (NYSE: WGL ) Q3 2015 Earnings Conference Call August 6, 2015, 10:30 AM ET Executives Douglas Bonawitz – Head of Investor Relations Terry D. McCallister – Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of Executive Committee, Chairman of Washington Gas Light Company and Chief Executive Officer of Washington Gas Light Company Vincent L. Ammann – Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of Washington Gas Light Company and Senior Vice President of Washington Gas Light Company Adrian P. Chapman – President, Chief Operating Officer, President of Washington Gas Light Company and Chief Operating Officer of Washington Gas Light Company Gautam Chandra – Senior Vice President of Strategy, Business Development and Non-Utility Operations Analysts Operator Good morning, and welcome to the WGL Holdings’ Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2015 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, I would like to inform you that this conference is being recorded and that all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will open the conference call for questions and answers after the presentation. The call will be available for rebroadcast today at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time, running through August 13, 2015. You may access the replay by dealing 1 (855) 859-2056 and entering pin number 91131626. I will now turn the conference over to Mr. Doug Bonawitz. Sir, you may begin. Douglas Bonawitz Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining our call. Before we begin, I would like to point out that this conference call will include forward-looking statements under the federal securities laws. Forward-looking statements inherently involve risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those predicted in such forward-looking statements. Statements made on this conference call should be considered together with cautionary statements and other information contained in our most recent annual report on Form 10-K and other documents we have filed with or furnished to the SEC. Forward-looking statements speak only as of today and we assume no duty to update them. This morning’s comments will reference a slide presentation. Our earnings release and earnings presentation are available on our website. To access these materials, please visit wgl.com. The slide presentation highlights the results for our third quarter of fiscal year 2015 and the drivers of those results. On today’s call, we’ll make reference to certain non-GAAP financial measures, including operating earnings of WGL Holdings on a consolidated basis and adjusted EBIT of our operating segments. A reconciliation of these financial measures to the nearest comparable measures reported in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or GAAP is provided as an attachment to our press release and is available in the Quarterly Results section of our website. This morning, Terry McCallister, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer will provide some opening comments. Following that, Vince Ammann, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer will review the quarterly results. Adrian Chapman, President and Chief Operating Officer, will discuss key issues affecting our business and the status of some of our principal initiatives. In addition, Gautam Chandra, Senior Vice President of Strategy, Business Development and Non-utility Operations, is also with us this morning to answer questions. With that, I’d like to turn the call over to Terry McCallister. Terry D. McCallister Thanks Doug, and good morning, everybody. I am pleased to be able to report to you that WGL is on track to deliver strong results and record earnings per share in fiscal year 2015. Our non-GAAP operating earnings for the first quarter is shown on Slide 3 in our presentation were $10.7 million or $0.22 per share compared to $0.8 million or $0.02 per share in the third quarter of 2014. On a non-GAAP basis, consolidated operating earnings for the first nine months were $159.8 million or $3.39 per share. This compares to $147.8 million in the prior year or $2.85 per share. The increase in operating earnings in the third quarter were driven primarily by strong results in our retail energy-marketing segment as shown on Slide 5. Our commercial energy systems and midstream energy services segments also reported improved results year-over-year. At the utility, our customer base continued to grow as average active customer meters increased by approximately 13,000 meters year-over-year for the third quarter representing a 1.2% growth rate. Regulated utility and its customers benefited from asset optimization results in the quarter. We also saw increased earnings in the segments from rate recovery related to our accelerated pipe replacement programs. On the utility regulatory front we received positive news regarding our recent filings to expand both our Maryland STRIDE and Virginia SAVE accelerated pipe replacement plan. We’re also excited about our announcement in May regarding an investment in gas reserves, serve our utility customers in Virginia. Adrian will talk more about these developments shortly. On the non-utility side of the business, as previously mentioned, our retail energy-marketing business performed well. With electric margins significantly higher than third quarter of last year. Here we have continued to execute plans that we’ve laid out on past call, we’re focused on large commercial and government accounts where longer term strategic relationships could provide additional value. Also, our pricing practices now include managing the risk of higher PJM cost. We forecasted at the end of 2014 that business has continued on the path back to historical levels of profitability. The result in this segment during fiscal year 2015 has exceeded our expectations and partly reflect specific market opportunities unique to this fiscal year. Over the long term, we’re still targeting adjusted EBIT for the retail marketing segment in the range of $50 million to $55 million per year. Given our results through the first nine months and our earnings outlook for the remainder of the year, we are raising our consolidated non-GAAP earnings guidance by $0.20 per share, to a range of $2.90, to $3.10 per share for fiscal year 2015. I’m now going to turn the call over to Vince, who will review our third quarter results by segment. Vincent L. Ammann Thank you, Terry. First, I would like to remind you that beginning with the first quarter of fiscal year 2015, we’ve made a change to our practice of discussing earning results at the segment level. While we continue to use operating earnings per share at a consolidated level, we are now using non-GAAP adjusted earnings before interest and taxes or adjusted EBIT to discuss results at the segment level. This change provides more clarity by allowing us to discuss the performance of each business unit, prior to the impact of interest expense, taxes and accretion and dilution. Turning first to our utility segment. Adjusted EBIT for the third quarter of fiscal year 2015 was $6.5 million, a decrease of $1.4 million compared to the same period last year. The drivers of this change are detailed on Slide 6. Higher results from our asset optimization program added $5.2 million in adjusted EBIT. Higher revenues from our accelerated pipe replacement programs added about $1.2 million in adjusted EBIT. The favorable effect of changes in natural gas consumption patterns in the District of Columbia added $1.5 million in adjusted EBIT. These items were offset by higher O&M expenses driven primarily by higher labour, marketing and employee incentives cost, partially mitigated by lower employee benefit cost. These impacts collectively reduced adjusted EBIT by $6 million. Higher appreciation expense also reduced adjusted EBIT by $1.9 million, reflecting growth in our investment and utility plan. Other miscellaneous items reduced adjusted EBIT by $1.9 million. Turning to the retail energy-marketing segment adjusted EBTI for the third quarter of fiscal year 2015 was $18.7 million, an increase of $13.7 million compared to the same period last year. On Slide 7, you will see that the increase was driven primarily by higher electric gross margins with higher natural gas gross margin also contributing. Electric margins increased by $9.9 million, mostly driven by lower capacity charges from the regional power grid operator PJM as well as slightly higher sales volumes. These positive benefits were slightly offset by increased PJM capacity costs that took effect in June 2015, which impacted the timing of margin recognition for fixed price retail contracts. Electric volumes increased 4% in the third quarter versus the prior year, primarily due to warmer weather and the recent growth in our large commercial market. As Terry discussed earlier, our retail energy marketing business, has increased its focus on large commercial and government account relationships. In the natural gas business, gross margins were $4.4 million higher, due to lower natural gas purchase cost and favorable gas supply and pricing opportunities. Natural gas volumes decreased 3% in the third quarter versus the prior year, primarily due to a decline in the mass market customers. This decline is also related to our increased focus on commercial and government account relationships. Next, I’ll move to the commercial energy systems segment. Adjusted EBIT for the third quarter of fiscal year 2015 was $7.8 million compared to $5.7 million in the same period last year. The increase reflects growth in distributed generation assets in service, partially offset by higher operating expenses. During the third quarter, our commercial distribution generation assets generated over 45,000 megawatt hours of clean electricity which was sold to customers through our purchase agreements. We remain on track to invest at least $150 million from commercial solar and other distributed generation projects during fiscal year 2015 with a potential to exceed that amount by 10% based on the timing of the projects in the pipeline. Next, I’ll move to the midstream energy services segment. Results for the third quarter of fiscal year 2015 reflect an adjusted EBIT loss of $1.4 million, compared to an adjusted EBIT loss of $4 million in the same period last year. The improvement is associated with storage transactions that occurred in this quarter. Results for our other non-utility activities reflecting adjusted EBIT loss of $1 million compared to a loss of $1.9 million, the same period of prior fiscal year. Improvement is primarily related to lower business development expenses in the current period. I’ll now move to discuss the interest expense on a consolidated basis to the third quarter. Interest expense increased to $13.1 million, during the third quarter compared to $9.5 million in the prior period. The increase was primarily driven by increased long term debt issued by both Washington Gas and WGL. As Terry stated earlier, we are increasing our consolidated non-GAAP operating earnings estimate as shown on Slide 8. We are forecasting non-GAAP earnings in the range of $2.90 to $3.10 per share. The increase is primarily due to strong performance at our utility and retail energy marketing businesses. Utility results are higher than expected, primarily due to asset optimization opportunities. On the non-utility side, we anticipate that excellent results on the retail energy marketing business will offset lower earnings from our midstream energy services business. I’ll now turn the call over to Adrian for his comments. Adrian P. Chapman Thank you, Vince and good morning, everyone. I’m pleased to provide you with an update on our operations and regulatory initiatives. In Maryland, we filed an application with the public service commission for approval of an amendment that expands our currently approved STRIDE plan. Washington Gas requested approval to add one additional program applicable to gas distribution system replacement and four additional programs applicable to transmission system replacements at an incremental investment of $31 million over the remaining four years of the STRIDE plan. This was our first inclusion of transmission pipe related replacement. On May 27, the chief public utility law judge issued a proposed order approving with modification the proposed amendment. Proposed order allowed accelerated recovery of cost related to transmission system replacements, located in Maryland, but excluded from the accelerated recovery program costs related to transmission system replacements, physically located outside of Maryland. This decision was contrary to how common transmission related costs have been recovered in rate case. Washington Gas appealed that portion of the decision to the full commission. On July 2nd, the PSC affirmed the proposed order, which approves an incremental capital expenditure of $18 million over the remaining four years of the plan. On July 30th, Washington Gas filed an appeal with the circuit court of Montgomery County to challenge the PSC decision to deny recovery through the surcharge mechanism of cost related to transmission system replacement projects located outside of Maryland. Notwithstanding the transmission related cost under appeal, we do have approval to spend an additional $4 million to $5 million per year on distribution and transmission replacements through 2018. In Virginia, we submitted an application to the state corporation commission in February, requesting approval to amend our current save plan to expand the scope of some existing programs to include new distribution facility replacement programs and to add new programs to replace transmission facilities similar to those proposed in Maryland. Washington Gas proposed investing an additional $75 million to replace, eligible infrastructure. The Company requested approval for the amended SAVE plan through December 31, 2017, which is the expiration date of the previously approved SAVE plan. On June 5th, the SEC approved the amended SAVE plan, however the commission excluded a small portion of the proposal to replace transmission facilities and the portion of the proposal to include new distribution facilities in the accelerated replacement program. The SEC in Virginia approved an incremental capital expenditure of $66 million through 2017, the new incremental billing factor which put in place on August 1st. Also in Virginia, a new law allows local distribution companies to recover a return of and a return on investments in physical gas reserves that benefit customers by reducing cost, price volatility or supply risk. On May 6th, Washington Gas entered into a 20-year agreement with Energy Corporation of America to acquire natural gas reserves through non-operating working interest in 25 producing wells located in Pennsylvania for $126 million. The purchase of the reserves is conditional upon approval by the Virginia SEC. Washington Gas filed an application with the SEC on May 12th for approval of the gas reserves purchase agreement, this part for the natural gas supply investment plan. Under the procedural schedule established to consider the application testimony from the Virginia SEC staff is due on August 26 and a public hearing is scheduled on September 30. Under the law, the SEC must issue a final decision of the application within 180 days or by November 8. Finally, I’m also pleased to announce that we’ve recently reached a new five-year collective bargaining agreement with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 96, that was effective June 1st and will continue through 2020. This contract, which covers approximately 520 employees strengthens our ability to work together with our unions to achieve excellence for our customers, investors and employees. I would like to now turn the call back to Terry for his closing comments. Terry D. McCallister Thank you, Adrian. I’d like to now highlight a few recent developments and provide an update over the status of our midstream and distributed generation investments. First, an update on our investments in the Constitution Pipeline project. We continue to wait for a permit from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. We remain optimistic that construction can begin in the next few months. As of June 6, WGL Midstream, had invested approximately $26 million on the Constitution Pipeline project. Next, I’ll turn to our investment in the Central Penn line. The Central Penn line is a greenfield pipeline segment of Transco’s Atlantic Sunrise Project. This project is on track and the development activities are proceeding as expected. The Central Penn line has a projected in service date in the second half of calendar year 2017. WGL Midstream will invest approximately $412 million in the Central Penn line project. As of June 30, our subsidiaries had invested approximately $22 million. Next I’ll provide an update on our investment in the Mountain Valley pipeline project. Mountain Valley pipeline is a 300 mile pipeline in West Virginia and Virginia, and will help meet the increasing demand for natural gas in the mid-Atlantic and Southeast markets. The project is on track and development activities are proceeding as expected. Mountain Valley pipeline has a projected in service date in the second half of calendar year 2018. WGL Midstream will investment between $230 million and $245 million on the Mountain Valley pipeline project. As of June 30, WGL Midstream has invested approximately $6 million. Finally, an update on additional opportunity to invest in infrastructure that we first announced last December. As we discussed with you previously, we have an option for a 30% interest in a $400 million plus gathering system in West Virginia. This gathering system will help move gas out of production field to West Virginia to an interstate pipeline system where transportation to the mid-Atlantic region. The anticipated in-service date is now late 2015 or early 2016. We continue to evaluate additional midstream opportunities similar to the projects announced to date as we pursue our strategy to provide infrastructure solutions to move gas from producing areas to consuming areas. Turning to our commercial energy systems business, we continue to add our portfolio of distributed generation assets. As of June 30, we have 115 megawatts of installed distributed generation. We also have an additional 40 megawatt currently under contract or in construction. In total, these projects represent over $520 million in capital investment and we continue to see a robust pipeline of future projects. I want to highlight one solar project in particular this quarter as it represents our first project in the State of Colorado. WGL Energy Systems recently signed an agreement to build and operate a 1 megawatt solar project in Fort Collins, Colorado. The project is expected to be in service by December 2015 and WGL Energy Systems will own and operate the solar project for 20 [ph] years as per our agreement. In July, Washington Gas celebrated the opening of the first of three plans public CNG fuelling stations for compressed natural gas vehicles. The new station located at Washington Gas facility in Frederick, Maryland will be operated and maintained by Trillium CNG. Later this summer Washington Gas and Trillium expect to open a second public fuelling station in Forestville, Maryland and a third station is being planned for the District of Columbia. We’re proud to add this service to the spectrum of energy answers we offer at WGL. In addition, WGL Energy Services, recently teamed up with SolarCity to offer our residential customers in Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia the opportunity to choose clean, renewable energy by installing a custom-designed solar energy system. Through this innovative marketing partnership our customers in these areas may now choose to install a SolarCity solar system at no upfront cost and pay less than traditional electric utility bills. This residential solar option will complement our existing operating business segment which includes wind power for electricity and carbon offsets matched to natural gas usage. We will provide detailed fiscal year 2016 guidance during our year-end conference call in November. However, based on the progress we’ve made in a number of important areas we feel confident and we’re on track to deliver the earnings growth goal in our long-range financial plan. That concludes the prepared remarks and we’ll now be happy to answer your questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator And our first question comes from the line of Michael Gallagher. Michael Gallagher Congrats on the really strong quarter. I’ve only got two questions. First, the performance from retail marketing was impressive. Just wondering, how we should think about fiscal 2016. Are these results sustainable or are they a potential headwind next year? Vincent L. Ammann Michael this is Vince. We’ve provided some guidance there, that there were some market opportunities that we saw this year that allowed us to really exceed our expected results, probably even exceeding the long term goal of $50 million to $55 million certainly at the high end of that range. So, we’re probably looking at a 2016 that will be slightly less than what we’re able to achieve this year. Gautam, if you have anything more to add? Gautam Chandra Yeah Michael, I will just add, I think we’re still looking at what we initially kind of projected. And a couple of years ago, we’ll bring this headwind back to its historical level, the $50 million to $55 million, we still see that as very achievable, going into next year, but probably not. I wouldn’t forecast the additional margins we would realize this year into next year. Michael Gallagher Then on Central Penn, I’m wondering if you’ve determined yet where the interconnect is going to be in Southern Pennsylvania. Vincent L. Ammann I think we have a pretty good idea, but I don’t think the partners have announced that yet. Terry D. McCallister Yeah, I don’t think that’s public information yet. Michael Gallagher Okay, that’s all I had gentlemen. Thanks. Operator [Operator Instructions] Again, I would like to remind everyone that you can listen to a rebroadcast of this conference call at 1 p.m. Eastern Time today, running through August 13, 2015. You may access the replay by dealing 1 (855) 859-2056 and entering your pin number 91131626. Douglas Bonawitz Thanks everyone for joining us this morning. If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to call me. It’s Doug Bonawitz at (202) 624-6129. Have a great day.