Tag Archives: author

SJW Corp (SJW) CEO Richard Roth on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

SJW Corp (NYSE: SJW ) Q2 2015 Earnings Conference Call July 30, 2015 13:00 ET Executives Suzy Papazian – General Counsel Richard Roth – Chairman, President & CEO James Lynch – CFO Analysts Michael Gaugler – Janney Montgomery Operator Welcome to the SJW Corp. Second Quarter 2015 Financial Results Call. [Operator Instructions]. I would now like to introduce your host for today’s conference Suzy Papazian, General Counsel. Please go ahead. Suzy Papazian Thanks Operator. Welcome to the second quarter 2015 financial results conference call for SJW Corp. Presenting today are Richard Roth, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer; and James Lynch, Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin today’s presentation, I would like to remind you that yesterday’s press release and this presentation may contain forward-looking statements. These statements are based on estimates and assumptions made by the company in void [ph] it’s experience, it’s circle trends, current conditions and expected future development as well as other factors that the company believes are appropriate under the circumstances. Many factors could cause the company’s actual results and performance to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. For description of some of the factors that could cause actual results to be different from statements in the presentation, we refer you to the press release and to our most recent Form 10-K and 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, copies of which may be obtained at www.sjwcorp.com All forward-looking statements are made as of today, and SJW Corp. disclaims any duty to update or revise such statements. You will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of the presentation. As a reminder, this webcast is being recorded and an archive of the webcast will be available until October 26, 2015. You can access the press release and the webcast at our corporate website. I will now turn the call over to Rich. Richard Roth Thank you, Suzy. Welcome everyone and thank you for joining us. On the call with me today are Jim Lynch, our Chief Financial Officer and our Palle Jensen, our Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs. SJWs second quarter performance reflected lower usage as a result of water use restrictions imposed due to the California drought, while San Jose water company continues to provide high quality and reliable water service the company has as required by the California Public Utility Commission implemented a drought contingency plan that includes water allocations and drought surcharges for only the second time in the company’s 149 year history. San Jose, water company drought contingency plan established it’s monthly allocation for residential and landscape customers based upon 2013 average use less 30%. The reduction requested by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Clara counties water resource management agency. In contrast the drought in Texas is officially over as a result of record rainfall in 2015 that helped refill parched reservoirs and aquifers [ph]. SW, Texas [ph] our Texas water utility continues to experience robust organic customer growth since it’s acquisition in 2006 SJWTX has grown from approximately 7000 to 12000 connections owing to an aggressive acquisition program and strong organic customer growth. The pace of organic growth continues to accelerate with June marking a single month record for new connections with strong customer growth, a robust portfolio water supplies and rates in place at least for 2017, we’re pleased with this small but growing part of our SJW. San Jose Water Company’s 2015 general rate case application continues to be processed by the CPUC. Evidentiary hearings to address all remaining unsettled issues took place in June and we expect the timely decision that will establish new rates for 2016 through 2018. In the event of the timely decision is not received San Jose Water Company has filed to activate the interim rate mechanism that would provide the company with interim rate relief, retroactive to January 1st, 2016. Jim Lynch will now discuss more detail, SJW second quarter and year-to-date results as well as other financial matters. After Jim’s remarks I will provide additional information on our regulatory filings and other key operational and business matters. Jim? James Lynch Net income for the quarter was 7.5 million or $0.36 per diluted share. This compares to 6.8 million and $0.34 per diluted share for the second quarter of 2014, year-to-date net income was 12.2 million or $0.59 per diluted share compared to 7.8 million or $0.38 per diluted share for the same period in 2014. Second quarter revenue increased to $72.4 million, a 3% increase over the second quarter of 2014 and for the first six months of 2015 revenue was a 134.5 million or an 8% increase over the first six months of 2014. Our quarterly and year-to-date results reflect the impact of new rates authored by the California Public Utilities Commission last August. The rate increases contributed $11.8 million in new revenue in the second quarter and 20.8 million year-to-date. In addition year-to-date results include 1.9 million an additional first quarter revenue related to the California Commissions decision on the effective date of our 2014 rates. Second quarter and year-to-date results also reflect the impact of lower usage in our California service area as a result of drought related conservation activities. As Rick mentioned the Santa Clara Valley Water District said it’s 2015 water usage target at 30% below 2013 usage levels. This was followed by the CPUCs authorization in June of 2015 to activate San Jose water companies water shortage contingency plan that includes mandatory usage reductions and drought surcharges. Overall customer usage declined 13% in the second quarter resulting in a $9.3 million reduction in revenue compared to the second quarter of 2014. Year-to-date customer usage declined 10% resulting in a $13.2 million revenue reduction compared to the same period in the prior year. Compared to 2013, our usage in our California service area is down approximately 23% through the first six months of 2015. The water shortage contingency plan provides for the establishment of a drought memorandum account to track drought surcharges. Amounts collected in the account will be used to offset future amounts recorded in the company’s mandatory conservation revenue adjustment account or MCRAM, recall that the MCRAM was established to track revenue shortfalls along with the mandatory conservation memorandum account or MCMA account to track operational and administrative cost associated with implementing the water district 2015 and 2014 conservation goals. In March of 2015, the company filed it’s first filing under the MCRAM for the recovery of approximately 9.6 million in authorized revenue lost due to conservation net of the MCMA accounts. The filing covered amount accumulated in the accounts from March 31st 2014 through December 31, 2014. The company will recognize amounts requested in the filing net of certain supply cost balances once collection is authorized by the CPUC. We anticipate authorization will occur during the second half of the year. Future amounts accumulated in the accounts will be recognized once recovery or refund is determined to be probable. The drought memorandum account MCRAM and MCMA will remain in effect until state order drought water restrictions are lifted. Turning to water production second quarter operating results benefited from the use of approximately 550 million gallons of surface water from San Jose Water Company’s Lake [indiscernible]. This compares to less than 60 million gallons used in the second quarter of 2014. Through the first six months of 2015, we used 1.5 billion gallons compared to 92 million gallons in the same period of 2014. The increased surface water supply resulted in a $1.2 million reduction in water production expenses for the quarter and 3.3 million year-to-date. We do not anticipate any meaningful benefit from surface water supplies through the remainder of 2015. Production cost also benefited from lower usage in both our California and Texas service areas. In California due to the drought and in Texas due to higher than normal rainfall experienced in our service area during the first half of the year. As a result of this drought and usage we experienced lower production cost of 7.4 million for the quarter and 8.9 million year-to-date. This benefit was partially offset by the impact of increases in purchase water expense and ground water production charges of 2.3 million for the quarter and 3.8 million year-to-date. Non-production operating expenses included an 800,000 increase for the quarter and $1.6 million increase year-to-date in pension cost. The increase was driven primarily as a result of the decline in the discount rate from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2014 and new mortality table is used to calculate the expense. In addition both the quarter and year-to-date include higher cost incurred in connection with our 2015 California general rate case and conservation activities in our California service area. Another point of note in the second quarter of 2014 the company recorded a $2 million gain on the sale of certain investment securities and a $880,000 tax benefit on the recognition of enterprise owned tax credits. No similar amounts were recorded in 2015. Turning to our capital expenditure program we added approximately 21 million in utility plant during the second quarter which brings our 2015 total to $37 million or approximately 30% of our 2015 utility plant capital expenditures including our Montevina plant retrofit project we are on target to add approximately a $125 million in utility plant in 2015 growing rate base in both our California and Texas service areas. From a liquidity perspective year-to-date cash flows from operations increased by approximately $20 million or 80% due in large part to higher income and the collection of a $6 million income tax receivable that was generated at the end of 2014. In addition we experienced a $6 million benefit from the collection of true-up revenue recognized in 2014 in connection with our 2012 California rate case decision. We recall that $46.5 million in net true-up revenue is being collected over a 36 month period that commenced in October of 2014. At the end of the quarter we had $76.8 million available under our bank lines of credit for short term financing of utility plant additions in operating activities. The borrowing rate on credit line advances during the second quarter averaged 1.5%. With that I will stop and turn the call back over to Rich. Richard Roth Thank you, Jim. In response to the governor’s and the state water resources control board’s mandatory state wide reduction of 25% for urban water systems. On May 11, 2015 San Jose Water Company filed with CPUC to activate schedule 14.1, an allocation based “water shortage contingency plan with staged mandatory reductions and drought surcharges.” Based upon a 30% reduction from 2013 usage. The activation of schedule 14.1 allowed San Jose Water Company to comply with current CPUC requirements and align restrictions with those mandated by local government agencies thus achieving greater consistency and limiting customer confusion. Although Governor Brown’s executive order caused for a state-wide 25% water reduction, the 30% requested by the Santa Clara Water District the regions water resource management agency more appropriately reflects local water supply conditions. Schedule 14.1 was approved by the CPUCs water division and became effective on June 14th. Subsequent to the approval the office of [indiscernible] advocates requested a review of San Jose Water Company’s drought contingency plan as they did with other Class A water utilities drought contingency plans. Our review request requires the water division to issue a resolution finding the program just and reasonable and we will be subject to approval by the full commission. CPUC action on RAs request will likely not occur until late August at the earliest and until that time the program remains in place as adopted. As you mentioned we have in place the mandatory conservation revenue adjustment memorandum account or MCRAM to track revenue lost due to reduced customer usage resulting from formal declaration of water conservation requirements. This memorandum account provides a high degree of assurance that any loss of revenue, net of production cost resulting from mandatory conservation rules may be required through an [indiscernible] at such time that the memorandum account balance exceeds 2% of annual authorized revenue requirement. Additionally drought surcharges collected under schedule 14.1 will be credited to the loss revenue memorandum account to offset revenues shortfalls associated with reduced water usage. Drought surcharges in excess of lost sales will ultimately be refunded to customers after the drought in the manner authorized by the CPUC. The net effect of the MCRAM is that servicing water company has a strong revenue protection for sales loss due to the drought and related mandatory conservation rules. Both the California and Texas droughts have increased public awareness of the need for investments necessary to ensure adequate, reliable water supply, as well as the need to replace aging infrastructure. San Jose Water Company and SJW have been industry leader in making necessary and prudent investments in utility plan. SJW’s capital improvement plans is approved by the CPUC and the Public Utility Commission of Texas provided necessary rates to support investments totaling $108 million and rate based capital expenditures in 2015. These prudent capital outlays will replace mains, wells, reservoirs, and other critical infrastructure. To further emphasize this important point, SJW has from 2010 through June 30, 2015, and thus approximately $471 million in utility plan. Furthermore, SJW expects to invest subject to regulatory approval, an additional $662 million as part of our core capital improvement programs for 2015 throughout 2019 to ensure our water systems continue to deliver safe reliable and high quality water service to our customers. These investments directly correlate to an increase in rate base, the earnings for investor owned utilities. Additionally, in July, San Jose Water Company signed a definitive agreement to rebuild the Montevina Water Treatment Plant by employing a progressive design build approach along for operational flexibility. The company will be able to continue to optimize the use of available surface water during construction. Rate recovery is processed via annual advise set of filings and through completion in 2017. This project is on track to add a total of $62 million to utility plan. Structural water supply challenges are requiring SJW to quickly and effectively adapt to new mandates in usage patterns. SJW recognizes the critical need to engage in farm customers and other stakeholders of these mandates, how conservation efforts impact rates and the value of water. To that end, San Jose Water Company is executing a comprehensive customer communications program that speaks to these needs via a variety of communication platforms. Web based communications offer an effective and efficient tool to deliver timely and relevant customer information. San Jose Water Company is now six weeks into its draft contingency plan and we are pleased with the positive impacts our enhanced communication efforts are producing. San Jose Water Company recognizes that it is widely important to deliver exceptional customer service at all times, especially during the drought when we have asked our customers to increase their conservation efforts. Accordingly, we are continually analyzing and refining our business processes to find the resources required to comply with hiding regulatory oversight, address structural water supply challenges and continue to provide excellent water services at a reasonable price. Although there may be some regulatory lag in receiving final authorization to collect revenue due to loss sales, I believe SJW will emerge from the drought a better and stronger company, both financially and operationally. In dealing with the current drought, SJW has been forced to be operationally more flexible and innovative switching between various water supplies adapting to different levels of search water quality and effectively operating our water systems in widely varying conditions. Additionally, SJW recognizes that customer communication must now be a core competency. We are clearly on our way to building a first class customer communications function using multiple communication modalities. We are also making significant progress in increasing the speed and efficiency of customers interactions. Digital transactions now comprise the vast majority of all transactions at SJW. In summary, SJW are much from our experiences dealing with the drought which has furthered our capabilities to succeed and transfer demanding and difficult business and regulatory environments. Our systems are efficient and in good conditions, our investments have been prudent, and our business model is intelligent and durable. Over the long haul, SJW should continue to enjoy sustained growth and profitability, earnings and dividends for our shareholders. With that, I will turn the call back to the operator for questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. [Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from Michael Gaugler from Janney Montgomery. Your line is now open, please go ahead. Michael Gaugler Good morning, everyone. Richard Roth Good morning, Michael. Michael Gaugler Rich, something you didn’t really touch on and I guess it’s probably just because of the drought, is the real estate operations. And I want to appreciate an update there on what you’re thinking in terms of that line of the business? Richard Roth Sure. Michael, we’re in the process of gradually getting out of the business of real estate. We have some properties that are already in the process of being marketed and sold, and other ones for variety of reasons would be sold over the course of time. I think the critical factor here is just when the market is right, we don’t have to sell these assets but we will sell those assets when the market is right and when an attractive offer comes along. So, we think that the proceeds from the real estate will likely be reinvested in utility plan. We think that’s our core competency and so we’ll be gradually moving out of that business. Michael Gaugler Okay. That’s all I have. Thanks, Rich. Richard Roth Thanks. Operator Thank you. [Operator Instructions] And I’m not showing any further questions at this time. I would now turn the call back to management for any closing remarks. Richard Roth Thank you, and thank you everyone for listening. And we look forward to talking to you at the end of the third quarter. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participating in today’s conference. This does conclude today’s program. You may all disconnect. Everyone, have a great day. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com . Thank you!

DTE Energy’s (DTE) Management on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

DTE Energy Company. (NYSE: DTE ) Q2 2015 Results Earnings Conference Call July 24, 2015, 06:30 PM ET Executives Anastasia Minor – Investor Relations Peter Oleksiak – Senior Vice President and CFO Jeff Jewell – VP and Controller Mark Rolling – VP and Treasurer Analysts Julien DuMoulin-Smith – UBS Dan Eggers – Credit Suisse Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Partners Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Matt Tucker – KeyBanc Andrew Weisel – Macquarie Capital Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates Operator Good day everyone and welcome to the DTE Energy Second Quarter 2015 Earnings Release Conference Call. Today’s conference is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Anastasia Minor. Please go ahead. Anastasia Minor Thank you Heather, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to our second quarter 2015 earnings call. Before we get started, I would like to remind you to read the Safe Harbor statement on page two, including the reference to forward-looking statements. Our presentation also includes reference to operating earnings, which is the non-GAAP financial measure. Please refer to the reconciliation of GAAP net income to operating earnings provided in the appendix of today’s presentation. With us this morning is Peter Oleksiak, our Senior Vice President and CFO; Jeff Jewell, our Vice President and Controller, and Mark Rolling, our Vice President and Treasurer. We also have members of our management team with us to call on during the Q&A session. I would like to turn it over to Peter to start our call this morning. Peter Oleksiak Thanks Anastasia, good morning everyone and thank you for joining us today. As usual I like to start the call by giving a quick update on Detroit Tigers. Good news, the Tigers have won 47 games. Bad news is that they have lost 48. Despite the first half July weather here in Detroit area has been colder than normal; the Tigers have cooled off as well this month. We are hoping that the summer heats up, so do the Tiger bats and I’m still holding out some hope for a play-off berth. Unlike the Tigers here at DTE, we certainly have had a successful first half of the year, and I believe we are well positioned to continue the success in the balance of 2015. As all of you saw in our earnings release we are raising our 2015 EPS guidance on strong year-to-date results. Jeff and Mark will be going through the second quarter results in more detail, but before we move onto that, I’d like to do a quick overview of our business strategy as well as some highlights what’s happening at DTE and Michigan. Slide five provides an overview of our business strategy, and investment thesis. Our growth plans for the next 10 years at both utilities are highly visible. Our electric utility growth is driven by environmental spend in the near-term and renewal of our generation fleet and upgrading the distribution system in the longer term. Our gas utility growth is driven by infrastructure investments and the main line pipe replacement. Our two utilities are deploying capital in very — in a constructive regulatory environment and we’re working hard to earn this constructive environment every day. I’ll be updating you on some of the regulatory proceedings our utilities are currently working through. Complementing our utility growth, our meaningful growth opportunities and our non-utility businesses which provides diversity in earnings and geography. Our highly engaged workforce continues to be the key to our success. Last quarter I told you about the third consecutive Gallup Great Workplace Award and just recently DTE Energy received the Development by Design Award from the Gallup organization. The award recognized DTEs focus on creating personnel team and organizational success through employee training programs. So we definitely continue to make strides in our employee engagement efforts. We have a strong focus on continuous improvement and feel we are distinctive in the industry on our approach and outcomes. The combination of these two employee engagement and continuous improvement enables us to deliver both sustainable cost, savings track record and to consistently earn authorised returns at both of our utilities. We are also very focussed on operational excellence and customer satisfaction that we believe also are distinctive in our industry. We have certainly seen positive results on this front, as currently DTE gas is ranked highest by J.D. Power among our peers for residential and business customer satisfaction. And earlier this month, we found out that DTE Electric was ranked second in overall customer satisfaction with electric utility residential customers in J.D. Power’s 2015 study. Our dividend continues to grow as we grow earnings and the goal is to maintain a strong BBB credit rating. This strategy provides about consistent 5% to 6% annual EPS growth. Slide six provides some highlights of progress in 2015. First in our list is the announcement they will be increasing our operating EPS guidance for this year. We are increasing from an EPS midpoint of 460 to a midpoint of 472; this is driven by a strong performance in our gas storage and pipeline business as well as their energy trading operations. I’ll provide a more detailed overview of guidance in a few minutes. Keeping in line with our commitment to grow our dividend with earnings we have recently increased our dividend. Our annual dividend per share was increased from $2.76 to $2.92 which is a 5.8% increase. Regarding Michigan’s Energy policy, I feel there is positive momentum for the constructive legislation by the end of the year. This continues to be a priority of the Governor when he called up publicly the need to get legislation done this year. Back in March, representative Aric Nesbitt introduced legislation and recently the Senate lead, Mike Nofs introduced legislation but the process is definitely moving along. I’ll touch more on the Energy Policy in a few minutes. I also want to give a quick update on the various rate proceedings for our two utilities. Our electric utilities self up [Indiscernible] rates on July 1 for the ongoing general rate proceeding. We expect to receive a final order by the end of the year. We also implemented our new cost of service rates which resulted in a rate reductions for many of our business customers. For DTE Gas, we expect to receive an order this year for our expanded infrastructure recovery mechanism that, if approved will allow us to double our annual miles of our main line replacement program. We continue to make significant progress in our non-utility businesses. In our gas stores and pipeline business, Millennium had a successful open season and we are working through final contracts now. We expect an expansion of greater than 0.2 BCF. In addition, we are constructing a new eight mile lateral off Millennium to serve a proposed 650 megawatts combined cycle plant with approximately a 0.1/b day of natural gas. These projects are expected to be in service in the fourth quarter of 2017. This is another major milestone that helps firm our future year growth. The next is pipeline project. It is always moving forward nicely towards its fourth quarter 2017 in service date. The first FERC scoping meetings are complete and were relatively routine. We recently signed a number of Tampa Interconnection agreements that could provide potential aggregate load across northern Ohio upto 1.3 BCF per day. This demonstrates strong market support for the project and also strengthens the longer term earnings potential for the play. We filed our resource reports in June with a focussed schedule, and our next major milestone will be to file the FERC application in the fourth quarter of this year. We are also now very focussed on optimizing our reduced emissions fuel business. Currently we have REF facilities operating at eight sites and are in a process of relocating underutilized facilities to a ninth site, which should be operational in the fourth quarter. In addition, in this quarter we are operating a third party REF facility. This operating agreement runs — will run through 2020. We continue to work towards further optimization of this business line as this has been a great return business for us which has generated significant cash flows to help fund our non utility growth projects. So you can see, we’ve had a successful first half of the year giving us confidence to reach our earnings goal in 2015. Let me now move to updates in the Michigan improvements and the economy. Turning to slide seven, we are highlighting the progress the Michigan and the City of Detroit are making. I know many of you are interested in how the local economy is doing and we continue to see economic momentum in the state. Michigan’s unemployment rate in June is 5.5% and this rate has been around 5.5% the last three months roughly in line with the national average. Michigan’s unemployment rate hasn’t been at this level since 2001. Michigan is identified by the Site Selection magazine that been the seventh most competitive state for job creation as well as the number one state for new manufacturing jobs since 2009. We continue to see and the other economic indicators including increases in residential customer and business customer accounts and our forecast shows this trend continuing. I do want to highlight the city of Detroit’s economic progress. One indicator that we show on this slide is the Detroit’s Metro area, its’ ranking number eight in the U.S. for a number of new or expansion projects. The City has come a long way since the bankruptcy and with a strong leadership we have in place I’m confident that the city will continue to move forward. DTE as well as other city partners are working with them to help continue this momentum. You will see on slide eight that the additional changes in state have taken place as the Michigan Public Service Commission has welcomed Norm Saari as the new commissioner replacing outgoing Commissioner Greg White whose term has ended. Commissioner Saari has a deep background in public policy and governmental and community affairs, both in state government and direct utility experience. This is Governor’s Synder third appointment and the Governor has been great at talent selection. The Commission has held Michigan regulatory environment Q1 the most constructive in the country. We believe, that Commissioner Saari will continue this supportive environment. Moving onto slide nine, I’m now going to turn to an update on the energy policy. We have mentioned earlier, Governor Snyder has made it clear that energy policy is an important legislative priority for him this year. He called off the need for legislation in his state address and provided more detailed goals in his energy message in March, highlighting this significant transformation and the generation sources that our state will undertake over the next 10 to 15 years. And over the last few months, both the House and the Senate and Energy leaderships had introduced proposed legislation to address needed changes in the state. Representative, Aric Nesbitt, who chairs the House Energy Policy Committee introduced legislation in March that’s consistent with the Governor’s goals of reliability and adaptability. He also recommended the elimination of the retail access program we have here in Michigan which we support. Senator, Mike Nofs, who chairs the Senate Energy and Technology Committee, introduced legislation in June which is also similar to the Governor’s goals. He is recommending to maintain a 10% gap on a retail open access, but with a onetime election to enter into long term capacity commitment with an alternative supplier or to return to the utility. A customer could choose the return of the utility with three year notice and as the one time permanent election to return to the utility. We expect legislation to be completed this year and we are confident that Michigan has strong leaders in place that understand energy and utility dynamics and will provide constructive legislation for Michigan’s future. All of the proposals on that legislative joint board represent a positive move forward. In a moment, I’ll turn the call over to Jeff to review the quarter’s results, but before that I want to highlight, provide some highlights of our outlook and guidance increase. On slide 10, this slide shows our EPS history with our target of 5% to 6% growth. As I mentioned before, we expect to grow our dividend with earnings evidenced by our recent increase. The chart shows a revised 2015 guidance midpoint of $4.72 as well as our EPS guidance midpoint of $4.66 for growth segments. The 5% to 6% future growth that I mentioned is of a new guidance growth segment — point of $4.66 per share. And our commitment is to grow both earnings and our dividends and we are just doing that. Let me get into a little more detail on page 11. We are increasing our 2015 EPS guidance range to $4.54 to $4.90 for DTE Energy. This is a $0.12 increase in the midpoint from our prior range of $4.48 to $4.72. Our EPS guidance range for growth segments is now $4.54 to $4.78. Our guidance increase is driven by strong start of the year in our gas stores and pipeline segment with increased pipeline and gathering earnings. 2015 operating earnings guidance for this segment has increased from a range of $80 million to $88 million to a range of $90 million to $98 million. The majority of this increase is due to strong underlying performance in the business and therefore we expect the majority of this favourability to flow into 2016. For Energy trading business, we’ve raised our guidance, earnings guidance to a range of 0 to $20 million for 2015. Energy Trading is now part of our growth segments and our original guidance is set at zero as we do not rely on this business to achieve our earnings target. As this year is progressing we are recognizing the strong economic performance and have adjusted our 2015 guidance accordingly. Trading does have seasonality tied to the physical part of its business and those contracts may mostly make money in the first and fourth quarter. And with that, I’d like to turn the call over to Jeff Jewell, our Vice President and Controller to provide more details on the second quarter earnings results. Jeff Jewell Thanks, Peter and good morning, everyone. I will be discussing quarter to quarter earnings results on page 13 and on page 14; I will review our electric sales in order to provide more insight into what we are experiencing. Now turning to page 13. For the quarter, DTE Energy’s operating earnings were $137 million or $0.76 per share and for reference our reported earnings were $0.61 per share. You can find a reconciliation of the second quarter reported operating earnings on slide 26. For the quarter-over-quarter results, our growth segments second quarter operating earnings in 2015 were lower by $4million or $0.03 per share. The electric segment was lower by $18 million. This was primarily due to increased costs associated with rate base growth cost and unfavourable weather partially offset by lower O&M. The gas segment was lower by $3 million, driven by unfavourable weather in the second quarter of 2015. Gas Storage & Pipelines earnings were $7 million above the prior year. This increase was primarily due the volume growth in the Bluestone Pipeline and Gathering Assets. Our power and industrial project segment was up $5 million versus 2014. Quarter-over-quarter favourability was primarily driven by strong performance across the business line. Our corporate and other segment came in favorable by $5 million versus last year. This variance is mainly due tax related timing differences. The overall growth segment results for the quarter were $134 million or $0.75 per share. At energy trading, operating results for the quarter came in at a positive $3 million with economic net income of $19 million, both the power and the gas business lines contributed to these results. Please refer to page 24 of the appendix to review the energy trading standard reconciliation page, which shows both economic and accounting performance. Now let’s turn to page 14 to discuss our electric sales results. For the first half of the year, temperature normalized electric sales were down 0.7%. We are very encouraged by the drivers of this change year-to-date and for the future. This net change reflects both the underlying economic growth in all sectors and that energy efficiency is making positive impacts to reduce customer average usage. The economic increases are being driven by population growth, occupancy rate strength, income growth and manufacturing at auto production levels that have surpassed pre recession levels. Energy efficiency which is producing positive results for our customers is a key component of our overall operational and financial plans and a key priority for the Governor. This efficiency translates into reductions in the average energy bill for our residential customers, which is one of the key components of our long term strategy to create affordability headroom as we embark on a very intensive capital investment program. Therefore we are changing our sales forecast as we anticipate our load growth over the next few years to be close to flat as underlying economic growth and energy efficiency play off. That concludes the update on our earnings and sales for the quarter. I’d like to now turn the discussion over to Mark, who will cover cash flow and balance sheet metrics. Mark Rolling Thanks, Jeff and good morning to everyone on the call. In addition to the solid earnings results that Jeff just described, we delivered solid cash flow and capital investments for the first half of the year as well. And all of that is underpinned by the strength of our balance sheet Slide 16 lays out our cash flows and CapEx through the first half of the year. Cash from operations is $1.2 billion which is up slightly over last year and in line with our plan. We saw a strong cash flow performance throughout all the business units and are reaffirming our full year cash from operations guidance of $1.7 billion. We invested $1.1 billion of CapEx in the first half of the year, and on the right side of the page you can see the breakout by business unit. DTE Electric is higher due primarily to the acquisition of the gas peaker back in the first quarter, partially offset by the timing of wind investments between years. And there are some year-over-year timing differences at our nine utility businesses as well. The total year-to-date CapEx is on check with our plan and consistent with our full year guidance of $2.5 billion to $2.6 billion. Finally, to fund this CapEx program and to pay down commercial paper balances, we issued $800 million in loan from debt financing in the first half of the year. Now I’ll move to slide 17 with a look at our balance sheet metrics. In short, our balance sheet remains strong and we project ending the year within our targeted range for both leverage and FFO to debt. We issued $200 million of equity back in the first quarter which fulfilled our equity needs for the year. And there is no change in our plans to issue $800 million to $900 million of new equity through 2017. We continue to take advantage of the low interest rates by issuing $300 million of 7-year debt to parent company which is where we fund most investments at our nine utilities. Earlier in the quarter, we met with the rating agencies and they all re-affirmed our current ratings and outlook which demonstrates our commitment to maintaining a strong BBB credit rating. And lastly, after renewing our credit facility back in April we ended the second quarter with a comfortable $2.2 billion of available liquidity. And now, I’ll hand the discussion back over to Peter to wrap up. Peter Oleksiak Thanks Mark. Let me finish the presentation with a quick summary on slide 19 and then we can open the line for questions. We had a very good quarter as well in the first half of the year and we are confident that this year’s performance will allow us to achieve a increased 2015 EPS guidance, increase our annual dividend 5.8% to $2.90 per share keeping our dividend growth in line with earnings. We anticipate successful outcomes this year for both our utility regulatory filings as well as Michigan Energy’s policy reform. Our balance sheet and cash flow metrics remain strong, and our investments in our utility and non-utility businesses support our target 5% to 6% EPS growth going forward. I’d like to thank you all for joining our call this morning. And I invite you to join us for our Investor meeting in Detroit on September 28. We have a great line up of speakers for our meeting, and plan to give you insight and to continue the evolution of the Michigan Detroit development and the economic growth that supports our long term plan. Formal invitations will be delivered in the coming weeks and our business update will be available at the webcast from our investor’s site. Now I’d like to open it up for any questions that you have, so Heather, you can open up the line for questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Certainly. [Operator Instructions] And we’ll take our first question from Michael Weinstein with UBS. Julien DuMoulin-Smith Hi, good morning it’s Julien. Peter Oleksiak Good morning, Julien. Julien DuMoulin-Smith So first, a quick question here on the sale side. Just curious what is the nature of the idling you have alluded to here on the Industrial side just perhaps if you could expand upon what your expectations are there? And then perhaps related to that on the — in terms of future rate case filings, how are your expectations for lower sales and efficiency driving expectations there as any changes? Peter Oleksiak So on the – for the idling that occurs mainly in our automotive related segments. There are model turnover, so they are creating brand new vehicles and new models and you’ll see that from time to time. That is really what that’s related — that is really one time in nature and some as if — that the level of new models that are — which is great news for our auto companies that are being produced here. For the energy efficiency, I guess, first I just want to talk about that a little bit. We’re really pleased with the level of energy efficiency in our service territory. And we’ve been really working hard at this over the last five years and I believe we are on the leading edge of some our some [Indiscernible] energy efficiency is special in delivering tools to our customers to save energy. You recall if you actually saw the March energy addresses the Governor gave, he actually held up his Smartphone and have the DTE inside app there. So we’ve actually kind of correct the code of our AMI technology and how do we deliver that real time to our customers to use yourself. Even though energy efficiency increases, maybe over time the electric rate overtime but it does lower customer bills, which provides headroom for rate increases needed to cover new capital investments. So, I know your question Julien was what does that do from our rate case strategy? Our rate case timing really tied to the capital investment we have over and above depreciation, so that’s really going to be tied. It really doesn’t impact the timing of that. And what we are seeing actually when — that it will provide headroom for us from a total customer ball perspective to give recovery of that new capital investment. Julien DuMoulin-Smith Excellent. And just turning to the midstream side quickly. Can you talk about an update on your existing partnerships, specifically on the exit side? And then separately just broadly speaking, strategy as it relates to gathering versus perhaps pipes, etcetera, you have other partnerships and there as well. I would be curious how that is evolving and the nature of the business? Peter Oleksiak Yes on the ownership side and I know the private question is around on the Enbridge and the ownership of pipe. So Enbridge is still considering ownership, but they have been very public and very supportive of the pipe. You know our current disclosure assumes the one third ownership, so they don’t participate in whatever larger ownership of a great project. So they are still in the process of considering ownership in the project. On the gathering side and is evidenced by this year-to-date results and our guidance increase and we’re seeing great results on our gathering business. This is a business that we started in 2012 with a partnership with Southwest energy, so as we’ve been going down our learning curve and cost curve it’s really helped us with that relationship and that’s a business that we liked as well because as we get into new projects like Nexus the idea there is to do a very similar blueprint of what we’re seeing in Millennium now that if you work with producers, get gathering and laterals, that will beat international. So we’ve continued to look at those opportunities and then I do believe in the future they will be there for us related to NEXUS. Julien DuMoulin-Smith Excellent. And sorry, just a clarification. In terms of Enbridge’s timeline for a decision, do you have any sense? Peter Oleksiak Yes. I really don’t – I know they’ve been public about it. They are mainly an oil based company, an oil pipe, but they are trying to grow their gas piece of the business and they’ve been public around that. But I would imagine they’re going through that process right now and they probably want to maybe making a decision at some point. Julien DuMoulin-Smith All right. Well, thank you very much. Congrats again. Peter Oleksiak Thank you. Operator We’ll take our next question from Dan Eggers with Credit Suisse. Dan Eggers Hey, good morning, guys. Peter Oleksiak Good morning, Dan. Dan Eggers On the guidance bump for the quarter and kind of resetting the baseline going forward, what structure are you seeing is giving you more confidence to lift the starting point for growth from here? Peter Oleksiak Yes. On the midstream we are seeing and mainly within the gathering segment and the drilling related to Southwestern. So what we saw in the first half is that there is some upside. Some of this was acceleration of drilling which is positive as well, because Southwestern is allocating our capital and drilling to this region even with the relatively low gas price environment, most of the increase is tied to the higher well performance. That oil performance in volumes will continue to flow. So that is a permanent increase for us. And the great thing about this and this is where we talk about our strategies of having these interconnect assets that it really amplifies income. So we’re seeing those volume increases then occur on Bluestone then occurs on the Millennium Pipeline as well. So we’re feeling really comfortable with those volume increases that are tied to the well performance there. Dan Eggers So that step-up is what is giving you confidence in the sustainability, it is not an assumption of sustained higher trading value? Peter Oleksiak No, no. That’s tied to our midstream segment. Dan Eggers Okay. Got it. And then how should we think about what you guys are going to do to be able to earn your ROEs at electric given this lower demand growth or the flat demand growth outlook between rate case periods? Peter Oleksiak We will be planning that, so some of that is that we have a forecast that test year here. So we are forecasting and we’ll continue forecast energy efficiency. One of the things we’re looking at right now from a load perspective is that we are anticipating a flat load at this point in time. At one point in time we were anticipating probably 0.5% type of increase, but once again we’re pleased with the results as we’ve been really focus on energy efficiency, so we have upped our energy efficiency. And if you look at the legislation, that is proposed in the governors — his areas of priority, energy efficiency is going to be a key component as we think to our generation planning and our integrated resource planning process. So we’ll continue to forecast, so we really is getting the right dominator. Dan Eggers Just one more, sorry Peter, go ahead. Peter Oleksiak I guess the supplement that we have proven track record around cost management as well, but something it will continue to [Indiscernible] between rate proceedings as well. Dan Eggers Okay. And then I guess just one more on the NEXUS side. Can you walk through what you are seeing, quantifying the gathering opportunities, how much capital can go into that? And what is the level of interest for incremental projects you are hearing from customers at this point? Peter Oleksiak Yes. It’s far too early to say what the capital plans will be, but we do see they are out there. There was a recent report that came out that the Utica region reserve forecast has gone up again. So every forecast that’s come out on the Utica Shale it goes higher and higher, so we know that there will be there. And as we’re proving out our gathering business plan in Southwestern that’s really helping us as we’re talking to producers in the region as well. But its too early to say, but I would say that there is a lot of opportunity there and will help as you think through the midstream segment not only in this five-year projection we provided there, but beyond that five-year period gathering will be a piece of that. Dan Eggers Got it. Thank you, guys. Operator We’ll take our next question from Shahriar Pourreza of Guggenheim Partners. Shahriar Pourreza Just on the Enbridge ownership stake in NEXUS, is there a point when DTE makes a strategic decision to take on the additional ownership? So like the Enbridge ownership has been open for some time, is there sort of a deadline that you have internally within the Company? Peter Oleksiak We don’t really have a firm deadline with them and as I mentioned we like them when they are in, if they are in the project and if they’re not. So, its something that we don’t — we’re not really pushing at this point in time from a – if they’re not in the project we have a larger percent ownership of a great pipe. If they are in the project, it does from a strategic perspective they have ownership interest in Vector and they have demand that’s off takes on the backend with their LDC, it helps from a long-term strategic perspective, but there is no firm deadline at this point in time for them. Shahriar Pourreza Got it. And then as you approach year end with the Open Access Policy, any idea how it’s going to shake out with obviously three different competing proposals? Peter Oleksiak Actually I would characterize the proposals as complementary and they are all focusing on the same thing. So, all the proposals on the table are really aimed at eliminating – there are two major flaws we have right now with the retail access program in Michigan, one of them is free option to move back and forth on utility to retail open access backed utilities, so all of the proposals address that. There is either one-time election to the utility if you’re going out on to the market you need some type of capacity. The range right now is 3 to 5 years in the proposals. The capacity does address the second flaw we have which is there is a heavy subsidization that’s happening right now with our bundled customers to retail open access. So really does have put in more level fair playing field around that as well. So the economics with the customers on retail access will change and because of they really get into more of the true cost are being on the program. And this permanent, more permanent type of election as well will impact the decision. So it’s really too early to know how much of the 900 megawatts will come back. And if there’s election too come back you know the timing of that return will be tied to individual contracts with those customers. Shahriar Pourreza Got it, got it. And just one last question on the guidance in Energy Trading, it looks like the top end of the guidance assumes an additional $5 million in earnings. Could we — is it fair to assume that is sort of a fourth quarter recognition just given the way the segment recognizes earnings historically? Peter Oleksiak Yes. I would say that, you actually — from time to time you may experience even a slight loss in the third quarter, because lot of contracts and earnings are tied not to physical fields with gas and power delivery in the first and fourth quartet. Shahriar Pourreza Excellent. Congrats. Thanks Operator We’ll take our next question from Greg Gordon of Evercore ISI. Greg Gordon Thanks. I have a question with regard to gas service area sales. If you look at the Q2, 2015 numbers versus Q2, 2014 numbers, you had a really big negative swing in residential, commercial, industrial, but then a very positive comp on end user transportation. Is the former just weather driven and what’s the latter being driven by? Peter Oleksiak Jeff, do you want to handle that one. Jeff Jewell Yes. That’s exactly what we’re seeing. It’s just a combination of — from the weather, obviously the weather is what driving the quarter over quarter, year-over-year and in the end trend [ph] forward to seeing more volume on that front just from additional load in those things. Greg Gordon Okay. That was my only question. Thank you. Peter Oleksiak Thanks, Greg. Operator We’ll take our next question from Matt Tucker with KeyBanc. Matt Tucker Hey, guys. Good morning. Just noticed with the revised guidance that you widened the range a little bit, can you just talk about the key sensitivities you had in the second half and what kind of gets you to the high or low end of the range? Peter Oleksiak Yes. The widening of range, a lot of that is tied with the energy trading segment, now that we do have a range for that, so that’s really what that you tie there. The key sensitivities, for us just continued strong performance. On the utilities, a lot of that will be tied to what’s happening on the weather fronts and then the weather would be load as well as storm related activities. The gas utility as well, there is fourth quarter heating load, some variability that will occur there as well, so the utilities, a lot of it at this point in time is tied to weather and weather-related type of income. In our non-utilities just continued strong performance. For our midstream segment we have upped guidance for that segment, so we’re comfortable now with that range for our Power and Industrial segment that you look at it from a year to-date perspective. They are roughly $50 million with the top end of guidance at 100, so they continue the performance. We’ve seen in the first half, they potentially could be near the upper end of guidance for that segment. Matt Tucker Got it, thanks. And just a follow up to that. I guess we’re about three weeks into July. How has the weather been I guess so far this quarter? And were you able to factor that into the guidance? Jeff Jewell Yes. We factor that into the guidance. And so far the first half like Peter mentioned in his opening comments, the first part of July was a little cooler, but then so far here in the last week or so its been above and so we’ll just see how that plays out, but yes, all that’s been contemplated in our guidance. Matt Tucker Thanks. And then just on the lower load growth expectations going forward, you’ve kind of addressed this, but just big picture, how does that affect your long-term expectations? And does it affect your earnings guidance for DTE Electric, the long-term earnings guidance you’ve provided and are there kind of offsets that we should be considering? Peter Oleksiak Now there’s no impact at all to the earnings guidance for the utility. The utility business at this point and where the money and earnings are tied to with the new capital investment. Power generation replacement strategy we talked about that was on the coal retirement, but also our distribution company. We’re going through a big replacement in upgrading plan. We’re going to sharing some that at our Analyst Day here in September as well. So the flat load for us and we are relatively modest even to begin with prior to this new change of 0.5% and one thing we’re looking at right now is, and the metric we’re really going to moving towards the total bill. What’s happening with your total bill? The way it works for customers is — this is power supply cost that is a past-through that goes away when the usage is down, right. We have a base rate increase tied to the distribution investment and charges. The customers are experience decreases in the total bills even when rates are increasing, if their usage is down. Matt Tucker And if I could just ask one more. How confident are you that there will be energy policy legislation this year? And are there any kind of key dates we should be thinking about? Peter Oleksiak That combination can be with a political process, but I know the governor has been pretty strong around signaling. He wanted to be done by the end of the year, even recently Senator Nofs has been out there publicly saying he wants it done by the end of the year. They are – so all the signals and momentum is for this to get done at this year. Matt Tucker Thanks a lot. That’s all from me. Peter Oleksiak Thanks, Matt. Operator We’ll take our next question from Andrew Weisel with Macquarie Capital. Andrew Weisel Hey, good morning everyone. Peter Oleksiak Good morning, Andrew. Andrew Weisel First question on retail open access. You touched on this, but I want to ask in a slightly different way. If we take the Nofs proposal at face value, I am sure things will change. But if it were exactly as written, how much of the load do you think would come back and how quickly? Peter Oleksiak It’s really too early to determine from the details of that. I would imagine for him, he did have – you need to – if you’re going to stay on the program, first of all there’s an election. If you take the election back to utility its one time, so that is this free option going away, we’ll probably have some of the retail open access customers take a pause and wanted to – whether they return or not. And if they do stay in the program, they’re going to have to get capacity and Nofs proposal I believe was that from a three-year perspective. So each customer has individual economics and the changes through economics. That and coupled with market prices and our sense is that market prices will be increasing as supply, demand and supply tightens as well. So that’s really I guess round about, Andrew, it’s really too early to say. I can say I would imagine some of the 500 [ph] megawatts, but probably would be coming back given the changes, the structural changes that will be occurring with all the proposals that are out there. And the timing of that, it could be relatively quick, but lot of that will be tied to the individual contracts with these retail open access customers. Andrew Weisel And how long do those contracts typically run? Peter Oleksiak We don’t really have insight into that. Andrew Weisel Okay. Fair enough. Next question is on energy efficiency. The new expectations you have for load growth, is that based on the — again the Nofs proposal, or is that some other DTE view of what energy efficiency programs will look like going forward? Peter Oleksiak It is the DTE Energy forecast. Some of that is — we’ve been working hard at this for five years as I mentioned. In many ways I think, in many cases I said, we’re leading edge. So it is realizing the adoption of these energy efficiency programs. They are occurring even faster which is great for us and our customers. So it really tied to what we’re seeing there and the projecting of that going forward. Now both, the Nofs and the Nesbitt [ph] proposals versus having a mandate kind of working that and integrating that part of the integrated resource planning process. And the governors that’s really public around energy efficiency. That’s going to be part of our generation planning, will be what level will be covered off and energy efficiency. And as you know even the clean power plan, the EPA requirements gives you credit for energy efficiency. Andrew Weisel Okay, great. Then lastly, I know decoupling is something — electric decoupling is something being floated in these proposal legislations. What are your views on that? And in light of what we just talked about with the load growth forecast, would your preference be for full decoupling or something only for energy efficiency? Peter Oleksiak We will work through those details, but I can say broadly that we are supportive of energy decoupling. Andrew Weisel Fully or partially? Peter Oleksiak We’re still working through that. I’d say that this first I think we’re having some it is as we’re thinking through there’s probably merits to both either one of those different proposals. Andrew Weisel Okay. Thank you very much. Operator [Operator Instructions] We’ll take our next question from Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research. Steve Fleishman Yes. Hi, good morning. Just one other question on the Gas Storage and Pipelines upside. So, you guys typically give kind of like a five-year look on these businesses, and I know you mentioned you expect this to continue into 2016. All else equals, is this something that you see as kind of benefiting the five-year look? Peter Oleksiak Yes. It definitely helps. I would say firm up that five-year projection. Steve Fleishman Okay. When you say firm up, it was still that little bit of — I guess it was the white part or whatever in the bar chart. Is that what you mean by that? Peter Oleksiak We are still going – we’re in the midst right now where our longer term planning process, we’ll be providing an update at our Analyst Meeting. Steve Fleishman Okay. And then I know going to the P&I business, I think in some meetings we’ve had, you have talked about co-generation being maybe a potential growth area. Any updates on opportunities there? Peter Oleksiak No, it really is –we do see if you think through the opportunities set there — this cogeneration is one, so we continue to work through those opportunities. There are some projects we have in place right now and are getting into service. They’re probably not a lot of updates since the last meeting but we continue to be optimistic on this side and getting the projects for this segment to grow as we indicate in terms of this five-year growth prospects. Steve Fleishman Okay. Thank you. Peter Oleksiak Thanks, Steve. Operator We’ll take our next question from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Paul Patterson Good morning. Peter Oleksiak Good morning, Paul. Paul Patterson Just a few quick ones following up on the energy efficiency. With the flat growth, how much of this is based on sort of your efforts at energy efficiency? In other words, if we were to take out your efforts of energy efficiency, what would you guys estimate the impact of sales growth to be? Peter Oleksiak Yes. Without the energy efficiency, it is roughly about — Jeff, you’d said, about a 0.5% Jeff Jewell Yes. Peter Oleksiak We look through and what we’re doing right now. We are in the new era right now with this energy efficiency, because historically you look at your load growth tied directly to economic activity. So we still look at that, but now with the energy efficiency that’s after that. So our customer counts are increasing, so that’s one thing we look at and the overall level activities within the businesses is really the usage that defining [ph]. Paul Patterson Do you see any difference between an IRP versus the mandate in driving energy efficiency going forward? Those have been two differences in legislations. Peter Oleksiak I would say no, because the IRP really that’s going to be like one-stop shop for us. Right now, really the movement is potentially away from these mandates where we have a mandate for RPS or mandate for energy efficiency which is all tied to generation-related spend to have it in one place. So in that IRP process they will discussions and agreements on energy efficiency as well as renewable spend. So I would say it doesn’t, it’s really just change the location of where the discussions and the process for the discussions will be occurring. Paul Patterson Is there any — of all the proposals and the legislation that you guys outlined very nicely in the presentation, is there any one that we should think of as being a significant difference in terms of what your earnings outlook would be or would change the — where you would be in the range if you [Indiscernible]? Peter Oleksiak I think they are all are relatively close. Paul Patterson Okay. Peter Oleksiak Aric Nesbitt has the elimination of retail open access program. We support that the most. But all the proposals are addressing. And probably the one area that I think we’re focus on as you are as well as the retail open access but all the proposals address the unfairness of the current program. Paul Patterson Okay. And then with NEXUS there have been some suits associated with access for surveying purposes and what have you. Is there — are those significant events? Or I mean, they seem to be happening in local courts. Are these sort of run of the mill stuff or is there…? Peter Oleksiak It is. I think the FERC community meetings and that process is really going well, and so we feel pretty good — really good about that process and it was relatively routine. A lot of that is really determining the final path of the pipe, so those meetings are necessary and as we finalize that path, it definitely help us as we drive towards our fourth quarter application filing. Paul Patterson Okay. And then just on the Gas Storage and Pipelines, it sounds like you guys were having a very good 2015 but that it may be a little bit of a slowdown in 2016. I don’t know if I heard that correctly. Could you just elaborate that? That was in your prepared remarks. I just wanted to understand what the outlook is going forward with Gas Storage and Pipelines? Peter Oleksiak It is and what I have indicated is that we’re seeing the first half of the year increase in our gathering and pipeline business that a majority of that will flow through. Some of that is acceleration of drilling which is also positive to the Southwest and is really resourcing and allocating drilling resources here in the region. But we have our new growth segment, our EPS midpoint we are now saying we’re going to grow 5% to 6% off of that, so we… Paul Patterson Okay. Okay, so although — so in other words, generally speaking obviously you guys feel very confident in raising your guidance and also your growth rate. And we shouldn’t think about anything I guess materially sort of dragging — in other words it doesn’t seem like — you are not pulling anything from 2016 into 2015 that is going to affect your long-term growth rate, is that the way to think about it? Peter Oleksiak Yes. The growth rate is off our new growth segment guidance midpoint. So as we took a look at that 2016 and what we’re seeing here in the midstream segment as overall what was happening in the businesses and we were feeling comfortable and confident of not only raising the midpoint of guidance this year, but saying their 5% to 6% will be on that new growth segment. Paul Patterson Okay, great. I appreciate it. Thanks a lot. Operator And it appears there are no further questions at this time. I’ll turn it back over to our speakers for any additional for closing remarks. Peter Oleksiak Once again, I’d like to thank everybody for joining us on the call today. And if you all could say – and I’m trying to root on my Tigers a little bit, I would appreciate that. And also want to once again remind you on September 28 we have our event here in Detroit. So if you can kind of save that date, and look forward to seeing you there. Have a good day. Operator That does conclude today’s conference. Thank you for your participation.

American Electric Power Company’s (AEP) CEO Nicholas Akins on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

American Electric Power Company (NYSE: AEP ) Q2 2015 Earnings Conference Call July 23, 2015 09:00 ET Executives Betty Jo Rosza – Managing Director of Investor Relations Nicholas Akins – Chairman, President & CEO Brian Tierney – CFO Analysts Daniel Eggers – Credit Suisse Stephen Byrd – Morgan Stanley Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research Paul Ridzon – KeyBanc Jonathan Arnold – Deutsche Bank Paul Fremont – Nexus Brian Chin – Bank of America Merrill Lynch Anthony Crowdell – Jefferies Ali Agha – SunTrust Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Operator Welcome to the American Electric Power Second Quarter 2015 Earnings Call. [Operator Instructions]. At this time I would like to turn the conference over to our host, Managing Director of Investor Relations Betty Jo Rozsa. Please go ahead. Betty Jo Rosza Thank you Nick. Good morning everyone and welcome to the second quarter 2015 earnings call for American Electric Power. We’re glad that you were able to join us today. Our earnings release, presentation slides and related financial information are available on our website at AEP.com. Today we will be making forward-looking statements during the call. There are many factors that may cause future results to differ materially from these statements. Please refer to our SEC filings for a discussion of these factors. Joining us this morning for opening remarks are Nick Akins, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and Brian Tierney, our Chief Financial Officer. We will take your questions following their remarks. I will now turn the call over to Nick. Nicholas Akins Thanks Betty Jo. Good morning everyone and thank you for joining AEP’s second-quarter 2015 earnings call. AEP once again had a strong quarter performance. At the risk of being redundant there are several reasons for this positive performance. The strength of geographic and state jurisdictional diversity, the passion and culture of AEP employees to continue our journey of efficiency gains through lean optimization activities, positive regulatory outcomes through our focus on operating company performance, continued expansion of our transmission business, increases in all three customer segments; residential, commercial and industrial; and continued positive performance by the unregulated business despite lower than forecasted power prices. These results continue to illustrate the disciplined execution of our business segments to produce consistent earnings performance for our shareholders. That’s what is expected from the next premium regulated utility, our tagline at last year’s EEEI financial conference. The second quarter GAAP and operating earnings came in at $0.88 per share, compared with second-quarter 2014 GAAP and operating earnings of $0.80 per share. For year-to-date with the positive performance of the first quarter as well, AEP’s earnings stands at GAAP $2.16 per share and operating earnings at $2.15 per share. As you already know, two days ago the board of AEP authorized dividends to be paid to shareholders of $0.53 per share making this the 421st consecutive quarter of dividends being paid in the history of AEP. It was Plato who said, there is no harm in repeating a good thing. So in light of that, as we did last year, we are raising our guidance for 2015 from $3.40 to $3.60 per share to $3.50 to $3.65 per share and increasing our capital spend and transmission another $200 million from $4.4 billion to $4.6 billion. We are also reaffirming our 4% to 6% earnings-per-share growth rate based upon our original guidance. 2015 is stacking up so far to be another great year for AEP, but we still have 1/2 a year to go. We aren’t popping the champagne corks or anything like that. But we are leaving the second quarter with a smile of quiet confidence as we enter the second half of 2015. As we have maintained for the last two years, 2016 is a significantly challenged year because of Ohio issues of deregulation and capacity auctions, but we have and continue to chip away at the deficit because of actions taken to continue our expected earnings growth profile. Let me address a few areas before Brian takes over with the details. While customer load remains somewhat tenuous if you’re looking quarter to quarter, during the second quarter all three customer classes, residential, industrial and commercial, increased; particularly commercial load. Continued industrial growth is interesting given it’s primarily driven by the oil and gas sector. We usually hear of new rig counts decreasing but that doesn’t necessarily translate to load decreases, however. We continued to see production and load increasing in the shale regions primarily due to continued optimizations of the oil and gas fields including the additions of compressor load. While overall load increases have been slightly less than forecast, the mix between customer classes continues to impact financial outcomes. We will continue to watch the load sectors closely as we gauge the robustness of any potential overall economic recovery. We continue to be pleased with the progress of our continuous improvement and cultural aid initiatives through Lean and our Power Up and Lead programs that enable a culture and an expectation of continuous efficiency improvements, with decisions made as teams in all levels of the organization. Regarding Lean activities, we are now complete with 15 plants, with one remaining and have extended into areas such as Cook Nuclear Plant and centralized repair shops as well. We’ve completed 20 of 31 distribution districts with 10 remaining for this year and one that will extend into the first quarter of 2016. Three of five transmission areas across the AEP have completed Lean reviews, with the remaining anticipated to complete by the end of the year. Additionally Lean activities are in progress in other areas such as IT, supply chain, inventory management, fleet operations, customer and distribution services and others. This activity has and will continue to be a very important part in engaging our employees to achieve not only our 2016 objectives but also to redesign our business processes and supporting culture for the future. Starting with the rate case activities, we have completed cases at APCO in West Virginia and in Kentucky. We also initiated rate case at PSO in Oklahoma. The West Virginia rate case outcome met our expectations of improved revenues to support the quality of service to our customers and improvement in the recurrent expectations with investments made at APCO. The order authorized an increase in rate with an ROE of 9.75% with additional revenues for vegetation management, confirmation of the base rate transfer of the Mitchell plant, resolution of the consolidated tax issue, among other areas that really set a positive tone for the future. Regarding Kentucky, the rate case outcome there again was constructive for future investments. The $45 million rate increase authorized included 10.25% ROE for several riders regarding certain Mitchell and Big Sandy activities including incremental vegetation management. Also importantly, it allowed the recovery of North Zip compliance costs, signaling the recognition by the commission of the importance of these types of expenditures. It also settled the issues related to the fuel cost recovery case that was before the court. While with these two cases completed along with the formula base rate adjustments at I&M and SWEPCO we have now secured the forecasted rate changes for 2015. Additionally we filed a base rate case at PSO to recover generation and environmental related costs, as well as other cost adjustments with the request of 10.5% ROE. Rates in that case are intended to be effective in first quarter of 2016, so overall a great story regarding regulatory performance. As you all know by now, FERC had approved the capacity performance model that PJM had proposed and last night threw a wrench in the plans for at least a supplemental auction being held next week. But regardless, the upcoming base residual auction will ultimately help define the forward view of generation value. The supplemental auction remains important for our risk-adjusted 2016 performance. We’ll be participating in all of these auctions, of course not saying how. But we are hopeful to see improvement in valuations of our generation. These auctions will affect the financial outlook for unregulated generation, in particular baseload generation and will begin to answer some of our 2016 risk-adjusted assumptions. More clarity on the subject will be provided when we get 2016 guidance at the EEI Financial Conference. The forward view of generation will also be an important data point as it relates to our evaluation process of the unregulated generation. The process continues with these instructive and perhaps substantial data points that we have been discussing with our board for a couple of years now. Chuck Zebula and his team have done an outstanding job compartmentalizing the risk of this business and are positioning the business in a positive way regardless of the outcome. PJM and FERC have done their jobs in at least making some progress in allowing for a potential path for improved generation value. The only holdout is the Public Utility Commission of Ohio on the PPA question. We would not have presented the PPA option through the Commission if we did not think it was important. It’s important for Ohio and its energy policy, Ohio jobs, taxes, economic development and in fact, the future of the generation business in Ohio. Governor Kasich once give me some advice. Don’t get so buried in the financial expectations of the company that you lose sight of doing the right thing. If we take a look back at AEP’s proud history of owning and operating generation in Ohio, we have always supported the economic engine for growth whether it be the assets themselves, the ancillary assets such as transmission, the supported economic developed or the development of domestic Ohio fuel to support the generation. So what’s happened in the last few years in Ohio? Well, for AEP over $0.5 billion in write-offs, the incremental loss of capacity revenue or approximately $200 million, each and every year in the last three years and a state that is left short of generation capacity to serve Ohio customers. Not a good story for generation investment in this state because we serve 11 state jurisdictions of almost all regulated jurisdictions as well as significant transmission across the country, we have managed the loss of Ohio revenue pretty well. That’s the value of diversity. But this is really about the customers in the state of Ohio. It’s about volatility of electric pricing, particularly in extreme heat or extreme cold that impacts all customers’ pocketbooks. It’s about Ohio’s energy and financial future by developing its own resources such as natural gas and maintaining existing resources. Continual delays are not the answer. It’s time for the PECO to do the right thing. Moving on to another subject, we continue to participate in the EPA dialogue regarding the clean power plan. We’ve talked at length in previous earnings calls about the challenges the proposed rule produces for the state utilities and other stakeholders so I will not cover that ground again. I will say that I believe through conversations at the White House and the EPA that there is an understanding of the major issues involved, namely the aggressive front-end 2020 emission targets and timeline and the reliability applications. What they ultimately do about it in the final rule we don’t know. We will continue to work with our states to understand the final ruling implications and engage in the succeeding deliberations to achieve an ultimate result that is reasonable and rational and its impact on customers costs and reliability of supply while maintaining to achieve environmental progress. Let’s turn to the next page. The famous equalizer graph, there is a couple of start things in the equalizer graph that I will get into here but from an Ohio power situation, the ROE for AEP Ohio decreased this quarter primarily due to lower earnings driven by increased PJM and property tax costs and lower margins due to seasonal rate adjustments. However we do expect the AEP Ohio subsidiary will finish the year in line with the 12% ROE forecasted. For APCO you just heard about the rate case in West Virginia and the outcome there. So rates were implemented in June or 2015, so we expect to see higher ROEs for APCO for the balance of the year and that will continue to improve. The primary drivers – and Kentucky is one of those areas 0.6% does not look too good. But the primary drivers for the decrease in ROE were the $36 million regulatory provision that was reported for the fuel cost recovery disallowance related to Mitchell, plus an additional $7 million that was recorded in 2015. Also Off-System Sales have been off slightly in Kentucky as well, but we expect the ROE will grow to approximately 5% by the end of 2015 and should be in the 9%-10% range by the end of 2016. We should see a measurable progress here in the next year and a half. I&M continues to do well. It’s on track to grow earnings and achieve its authorized ROE range. They are in the middle of several capital investment programs particularly in generation with Rockport SCR, solar installations, nuclear lifecycle management and its well transmission projects, so we continue to see that one improve. PSO did improve modestly as a result of higher retail margins primarily on increased rider revenues and lower O&M expenses. A base rate case, I mentioned earlier, has – had been filed July 1, 2015, so we expect continued recovery there as well. And SWEPCO, the transmission cost recovery in Texas and a formula-based rate true-up in Louisiana as well as a true-up in increased wholesale customer rates were the primary drivers for SWEPCO’s ROE improvement during the second quarter. However the ROE continues to be under pressure because of the Arkansas portion of TERC and we continue to analyze our alternatives and timing associated with addressing the 88 megawatts of TERC that are still outstanding. AEP Texas we expect the ROE&A there to continue to decline somewhat through 2015 as distribution has raised their CapEx and the need to infuse equity to replace tax obligations due to related deferred taxes from the securitization. The AEP Transmission Hold Co. is doing well. Its Hold Co. returned 11.9% is still in line with its authorized return so it continues to do well. So from an equalizer standpoint the numbers are reasonable. The overall has come up, it will continue to come up and Kentucky which is the one that is showing extremely low, will make rapid progress so we’re in good shape there. The transformation of our industry is occurring. AEP will continue to position itself to succeed. If I could borrow from Jim Collins, the famous business author, of Good to Great, Great by Choice and other books, what our investors have witnessed over each quarter of the last four years has been the beginning of AEP’s version of the 20 mile march. With dogged determination, disciplined execution and AEP ingenuity, we will be successful as the next premium regulated utility. Brian, I will turn it over to you. Brian Tierney Thank you Nick and good morning everyone. Let’s begin on slide 5 with a review of the major drivers affecting the earnings comparison for the quarter. This year’s second quarter operating earnings were $0.88 per share or $429 million compared to $0.80 per share or $390 million last year. This solid performance for the company was driven by our regulated businesses where we are investing for our customers, executing on our regulatory plans and spending O&M wisely. With that overview let’s review the major earnings drivers by segment. Earnings per share for the vertically integrated utilities segment was $0.43, up $0.12 from last year. Key drivers in the quarterly comparison include rate changes which added $0.11 per share and are related to the recovery of incremental investment to serve our customer. This improvement includes the effect of annual true-ups related to FERC formula rate customers. Warmer temperatures in 2015 and higher normalized margins each added $0.01 per share to the quarter versus last year. The growth in normalized sales is primarily driven by improvements in the commercial class. I’ll talk more about load and the economy in a few minutes. The vertically integrated segment also benefited from lower O&M expense, adding $0.02 per share for the quarter. Partially offsetting these favorable items is a $0.03 per share decline in off system sales margin which was driven by much lower power prices this year. The transmission and distribution utilities segment earned $0.16 per share for the quarter, down $0.02 from last year. The $0.02 per share decline in normalized margins is due in part to the elimination of seasonal rates in Ohio beginning in 2015. This will reverse over the balance of the year. This segment was also adversely affected by $0.01 per share from higher O&M expense primarily due to higher transmission costs in Ohio. These two unfavorable items were partially mitigated by earnings on incremental. investment and distribution facilities to benefit customers in Ohio. The Transmission Hold Co. segment continues to grow, contributing $0.13 per share for the quarter, an increase of $0.03 per share over last year. Year-over-year the Transco’s net plant grew by approximately $1.2 billion, an increase of 57%. The generation and marketing segment produced earnings of $0.16 per share, off $0.04 from the second quarter of last year. As expected we’re beginning to see the adverse effect of lower Ohio capacity revenue. You will remember our 2015 forecast included a capacity revenue decline of $0.35 for the year beginning in June. Despite this decline, the segment benefited from favorable hedging activity which helped offset the impact of weaker market prices. AEP River Operations declined $0.01 per share quarter over quarter, reflecting a decline in barge revenue due to high water conditions in May and June. Corporate and other earnings were unchanged from last year’s results. On slide 6 we have a view of year-to-date operating earnings compared to last year. Operating earnings for the period end at $2.15 per share or $1.1 billion, compared to last year’s $1.95 per share or $950 million. Similar to the quarterly comparison growth from our regulated businesses is driving results with the competitive businesses performing close to last year. Weather had no impact on the year-to-date comparison. Earnings per share for the vertically integrated utilities segment were $1.03 per share this year up $0.15 from last year. The major drivers for the segment include the favorable effect of rate changes for $0.15 and the effect of the Virginia rate legislation adding $0.03 per share. Remaining drivers were discussed at length during our first-quarter call; as a reminder these include lower normalized margins, primarily due to lower residential sales in the East, the effect of lower power prices this year on both our Off-System Sales margin net of chairing and PJM expenses and lower O&M this year primarily driven by a decline in employee-related expenses. The transmission and distribution utility segment earned $0.36 per share for the first six months, down $0.02 from 2014 consistent with the second quarter. We’re on track to achieve the segment’s earnings target for the year. The Transmission Hold Co. segment earnings through the first half of the year are at $0.21 per share, up $0.06 for the same period in 2014. Similar to the quarter, increased investment is driving the year-to-date results. The generation and marketing segment matched last results through the first half of the year. As I mentioned we’re seeing the adverse effect of lower capacity revenue but our trading and retail activities have offset this impact. And finally AEP River Operations remains favorable for the first six months driven by lower cost in the first quarter. In summary when you look at our performance for the first half of 2015, you see our regulated utilities executing on their investment and rate recovery plans while demonstrating cost discipline with day-to-day operations. Our competitive businesses, despite being challenged by the decline in capacity revenue, have produced earnings at last year’s level as the commercial and retail teams continue to take advantage of the available opportunities. This combination has allowed us to exceed last year’s results by $0.20 per share. Strong results from the first half of the year and a stable outlook for the balance of the year serve as the basis for raising the operating earnings guidance range to $3.50 per share to $3.65 per share. Now let’s look at slide 7 to review the normalized load performance for the quarter. Starting in the lower right corner, weather normalized load grew by 0.009% compared to last year. With growth spread across all our major retail classes. This brings our year-to-date normalized growth within 0.003% of last year’s results through the second quarter. In the upper left quadrant residential sales are up 0.003% compared to the second quarter of 2014. The growth in residential sales is largely coming from customer growth which is also up 0.003%. Most of the customer growth is happening in our Western territory, especially Texas, where residential counts are up 1.2% versus last year. Year-to-date residential sales are down 2.2% versus last year; this is mostly a result of the weak normalized growth reported the first quarter. Remember that last year’s first quarter normalized load was unusually impacted by the polar vortices. Looking to the upper right corner of the slide, commercial sales were up 1.9% for the quarter. Here we saw growth in commercial sales at every operating company except for Kentucky Power. Once again the strongest growth in the commercial sales is happening in the West, where we also saw the strongest growth in non-farm employment. Finally in the lower left quadrant, industrial sales growth moderated again from the previous two quarters but still grew by 0.006% compared to last year. We continued to see robust industrial sales growth from customers in oil and gas related sectors despite the recent decline in oil prices. Outside of the oil and gas sectors, our industrial sales were down 3.2% compared to last year. As many of our export manufacturing customers are starting to feel the impact of the strong dollar and weaker global demand. With that let’s review the most recent economic data for AEP’s service territory on slide 8. Starting with GDP you can see that the estimated 1.7% growth for AEP’s service area is about 0.5% less than the estimated growth for the U.S. This is not surprising given the impact of falling oil prices, especially in our Western footprint. As you know, AEP’s service territory covers five of the seven major shale areas that the EIA has noted are responsible for 95% of domestic oil production and all of natural gas production growth since 2011. While the entire nation benefits from lower fuel prices, the regional economies supporting these shale plays experience the direct impact of the lost oil and gas jobs in those areas. In fact this quarter marks the first time in over four years where AEP’s Western GDP growth fell below that of the East. In the bottom left quadrant you can see that the job market within AEP’s service area to improve in step with U.S. employment recovery. Here job growth within AEP’s Western territory exceeds the Eastern service area. The sectors showing the strongest job growth for the quarter included construction, leisure and hospitality and education and health services. We should point out that the sector which saw the biggest decline this quarter is the natural resources and mining sector which is not surprising given the decline in oil prices and active rig counts. Now let’s turn to slide 9 to update you on the domestic shale gas activity happening within AEP’s footprint. We continue to see significant industrial load increases in the parts of our service area located in and around major shale formations as illustrated in the upper left chart. It’s remarkable that we saw 10% growth in electricity sales to oil and gas related sectors despite oil prices that are down 45% from last year, rig counts being down nearly 60% and 8000 fewer oil and gas workers than we had at the end of 2014. In the upper right chart Oil and Gas loads spread across all major shale plays within AEP’s service territory with the strongest growth located around the Woodford, Eagle Ford and Marcellus Shales. If we dissect the oil and gas growth into its components that is upstream, midstream and downstream activities, as shown in the bottom left chart, you see that the strongest growth is coming from the midstream pipeline transportation sector which grew by over 34% in the second quarter. This is mostly due to the expanding infrastructure being built in West Virginia, Ohio and Texas to support the Marcellus, Utica and Texas shales. In our upstream sector, oil and gas extraction, volumes are up nearly 6% while the downstream petroleum and coal products sector grew by just under 2% this quarter. I should point out that we expect a number of new oil and gas related expansions to come online over the next 18 months. In contrast to the growth in our oil and gas sectors, I’d like to focus your attention to the red bars on the upper left chart. This shows the trend in our industrial sales excluding the oil and gas related sectors. You can see that the rest of our manufacturing sales are not growing as they were last year at this point. Down 3.2% in the second quarter. In fact through June, 6 of our top 10 industrial sectors are down from last year’s results. The only sectors showing growth are the three oil and gas related sectors along with transportation equipment manufacturing which benefits from low oil prices. The stronger dollar and weak global economy have developed into headwinds for many of our export manufacturing customers. For example, sales to chemical manufacturers were down almost 9% this quarter, while primary metals volumes were down 10%. This is something we will continue to monitor closely as we work through the balance of the year. On a lighter note, let’s turn to slide 10 and review the company’s capitalization and liquidity. Our debt to total capital is very healthy at 54.3%. Our credit metrics, FFO interest coverage and FFO to debt are solidly in the BBB and BAA1 range at 5.6 times and 21.5% respectively. Our qualified pension funding has improved and is now fully funded at 101%. This improvement was driven by our reduction in liabilities from increased interest rates which more than offset a small decline in pension assets. The company also made a $92.5 million contribution to pension assets in June, as planned which is equal to the company’s estimated annual service costs. Since our OPEB funding stands at 122%, no funding will be needed in 2015. Finally our liquidity stands at $3.2 billion and is supported by our two revolving credit facilities that extend into the summers of 2017 and 2018. At this point I would like to point out some of the opportunities our Treasury group has taken advantage of during the quarter. First, at Appalachian Power Company, they redeemed a high coupon issuance and refinanced at a much lower market rate. Secondly the Treasury team extended to April 2017 the $500 million AEP generation resources term loan with a flexible lower-cost facility. And finally, the team partnered with local banks in the Indiana and Michigan service areas to grow that company’s local bank facility to $200 million with an expiration in May of 2018. The company has worked very hard over the last several years to strengthen its balance sheet. As you just heard, our Treasury group is active in the debt markets and working with our banking partners to secure low-cost capital to put to work for our customers. This when combined with our strong operating results give us the confidence to increase our capital spend by $200 million this year. Let’s see if we can wrap this up on slide 11. Clearly the first half of 2015 is off to a strong start for our customers, shareholders and employees. Conditions have been favorable and our operating commercial and corporate groups have made the most of the opportunities available to them. Based on our strong results to date and our outlook for the balance of the year, we’re comfortable raising our operating earnings guidance range to between $3.50 per share and $3.65 per share. Based on our operating cash flows, our strong balance sheet, and our continued access to low-cost capital we’re confident in increasing our capital investments this year by $200 million. This incremental spend will be in our transmission businesses, both at the Transmission Hold Co. and at our utility operating companies. And finally, we are reaffirming our 4% to 6% growth range. We have some challenges related to Ohio deregulation and an unsettled economy but we’re managing our way through with disciplined O&M spending, the continuous improvement initiatives that Nick mentioned and increased investment in our regulated businesses. With that I’ll turn the call over to the Operator for your questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions]. Our first question today comes from the line of Daniel Eggers with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Daniel Eggers Nick, I know you cannot control the government and all regulators but certainly delays in Ohio and the [indiscernible] last night pushed that timeline the clarity on the generation business but can you walk through how you and the board are approaching a decision on monetization. What datapoint you guys think you need to see before you are comfortable formalizing that decision? Nicholas Akins Dan, clearly we were looking at the capacity auctions to look at the long-term value generation. The supplemental auctions are by and large sum of the risk-adjusted items and filler in for 2016 and 17 during those years, but in particular 2016. If those supplemental auctions continue to occur before certainly before in September, October time for an even then we will have a good handle on what we 16 looks like. But the base residual auction is clearly the important one in terms of long-term valuation of generation and we continue to expect those valuations to improve. Our board has been along with us all along the way. As a matter fact we had a board meeting with them this week. And when over the issues involved and the primary issue was the upcoming auctions that would be a large part of presenting to us our options relative to the strategic valuation of generation. That is the key component. As far as the PPA is concerned that will continue on. It’s really hard to tell when the pew co-will focus on that. I would say that we continue to push for the PPA obviously but the main determinant right now with the board is the capacity auction. Once we get that we will have a major data point for the board and we can continue our process of the strategic evaluation. Daniel Eggers And on guidance and we’re going into the summer but if you look at generation now above your full-year guidance and transmission and the run rate equals your full-year guidance, what are some of the things we should think about tempering the second half results to stay within this elevated band and how particular on some of the segments. Nicholas Akins I think you have O&M spent obviously that there is timing issues with O& M. As far as the remaining they could be storm related activities, many things we hedge on. I know that sounds like sandbags to a certain point but it’s not that. It’s really we’re trying to risk adjust some of these issues that can occur. Brian? Brian Tierney Yet another big driver is that PJM capacity revenue declined $0.35 almost all that is in the back half of the year. Five cents of that was in second quarter but the remaining $0.30 is back half of the year. Daniel Eggers I guess maybe, just the other way how much O&M do you think you can incrementally pull forward from ’16 into ’15 just to give you a little more breathing room for next year given some of the other built-in challenges there already? Nicholas Akins We pulled some already the sequential beyond what we did last year. It’s around 14 million. It’s getting harder and harder to do that obviously. You can pull some input you cannot pull everything in. I’m seeing that as more limited right now. Operator Thank you. Now we will go to the line of Stephen Byrd with Morgan Stanley. Your line is open. Stephen Byrd I wanted to touch on transmission, you’re making great progress in terms of incremental spend. I wondered if there were further opportunities that you saw or if you could maybe give us more color on the outlook there to create additional opportunities. What sort of – what are the drivers here as we should think about your ability to grow transmission even further. Nicholas Akins There is a lot of color here. We have a lot of incremental spending that we can do in transmission. Right now transmission you think about it we have over 2000 projects going on right now. And those are small projects and larger projects in all that kind of thing. But it shows the bandwidth of what transmission is doing with look at the investment profile for transmission particularly for AEP in it continues to be – it’s a huge footprint that we are able to invest in from Transco perspective and from an individual operating company perspective. We mentioned this last time. Just the rehabilitation of the existing grid we are challenged to keep up without that alone put an additional enhancements and we really want to do that because it improves the quality of service ultimately to our customers. And so we have a lot of runway left a lot to transmission. No question about it. Stephen Byrd And switching back to clean power plant, after we see the final rule from EPA could you just talk about sort of the process overall. I know you’ve a bunch of things to think through but how should we think about how you might respond over time in terms of what that will mean for your overall spending plan and how the grid will look and make the power plant etcetera. Can you talk at a high level as to how we should view that for you? Nicholas Akins Sure. Obviously it depends upon what the final rule looks like. If you look at the categories – if you’re having to adjust natural gas dispatch versus call dispatch example that is one thing. That ultimately impacts the fuel cost to customers. As a result when you do that kind of switching, but in terms of infrastructure, we’ve made the plan – our initial approach to this is going to be we get the final rule and if the EPA is fully aware of the issues involved from a reliability standpoint but also from a implementation standpoint and if they wind up being respectful to the state of the resource process that they go through and allow time for that to occur and targets are more rational instead of – 11 states have over 75% of the requirement in 2020 and many states there’s over 50% of requirement in 2020. That has to change. It’s too early and it is too aggressive emission reduction targets. If they come off of that and have a rational plan to allow technology to continue to improve and we can actually wind up at a better place at the end of the day in 2030 then that would be a good outcome. In that case we could be able to work with the state. They obviously care about what we think in terms of liability standpoint and the infrastructure that we put in place and how quickly we can do it and that kind of thing. But it is a state plans. And the states have to have time to review those plans and then we start taking actions based upon or our individual states want us to go. In my mind it depends upon certainly the president because the president is driving the bus on this thing. And the EPA obviously is looking at the issues – all the issues involved and if there is moderation associated with the targeted implementation and being respectful of the state process that need to occur and the infrastructure and timing of infrastructure and having reliability provisions that make sense, then we can get about the process of investing from an AP perspective. We’re in the middle of a transformation anyway. The industry is in the middle of a transformation. We’ve already reduced our emissions by 15% since 2005. And that process continuing with the advent of natural gas shale gas activity in the advent of renewables putting in solar and doing wind farms, but energy efficiency and better technologies are coming into play as well. There are real opportunities for us to invest in the right things for the future and actually balance out our energy portfolio which is a good thing for this company and the country as a matter fact. Stephen Byrd And assuming that again the EPA rule does give you a realistic path as you pointed out is that the past that is – you really couldn’t achieve, should we be thinking about resource plan that can be filed and overall plans over time that you would submit that would be out how you see the best path forward and what that would involve in terms of spend an asset mix? Nicholas Akins Yes that’s right. We be working with the states to file the resource plans and then we was start the actions associated with it. This is a little different than the March reroll per customer approval was planned specific endpoint specific the new index we need to do. This it has got tentacles in many aspects of the electric utility business itself. And it will take some dialogue and serious dialogue and contemplation of how to address these types of issues to me state jurisdictional perspective. And will be a part of that process will follow our resource plan and we will go from there, just like we always have. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research. Steve Fleishman You’re for the couple times to the 2016 risk-adjusted assumptions. Could you just clarify exactly what you mean by that? Nicholas Akins When you go into forecasting a year you are looking at what loads doing and obviously load is moving around on us. The customer mix is moving around on us. Capacity auctions were contemplated whether PPA would occur during that period of time and then of course looking at any transmission investment and those kinds of things that we need to evaluate. Those are important pieces but I think probably [indiscernible] thing we can do is come up with a plan and budget that risk-adjusted many of these items and some of them are externally driven. Significantly externally driven like the capacity auctions and the PPAs approach in Ohio. So as we go forward in the year, we obviously like to get more information that we can make – really make a quality forecast of what 2016 looks like. I think made a lot of progress. Because we know what we’ve done relative to the continuous improvement enhancements that have occurred that crescendo over time. And we expect that in our benefit in 2016. These external items are more difficult to tell and really what happened last night is another indication of how things can get adjusted at the last minute. So it’s difficult to scale but I think in the next two 22 to 3 months we will see a lot of clarity. Brian Tierney And even with all those factors that make mentioned, Steve, as with that we 16 we’re still into the operating earnings guidance range that we’ve given for that previously of $3.45 to $3.85 per share. Steve Fleishman Okay. As part of this trying to judge how much you need to manage cost and move stuff around depending on how these play out? Is that also what currently you’re referring to? Nicholas Akins Yes absolutely. We’ve been moving costs from 2016 into 2015 and 2014. And now we’re reaching the point of conclusion where we understand those cost components going into the year. It really is about load forecast and ladies external issues that we are doing with. But those will play themselves out in the next couple of months. Steve Fleishman Okay. And maybe this is a bit of a commentary in the question but just I know you continue to focus very much on the auction outcomes and maybe a lesser extent PPAs in Ohio for the decision on generation. But there are a lot of other things that affect the value of the portfolio commodity prices, stock market, financing conditions, all those kinds of things. How much do you need – how are you weighing kind of answers to some of these questions versus just there can be periods of time where it’s hard to get transactions done. Nicholas Akins Obviously the answer is rate environment. We continue to deal with and certainly with Janet Yellen is trying to do with interest rates in the future. Might have an impact but as far as the sector itself and our performance within that sector, we feel very good about the past that we’re taking and that is to take risks out of our business. And to make sure that we are able to invest in those things that provide quality returns to our shareholders. And. That is what we control. And we have to be very disciplined at it and there may be external things that occur around the world or nationally that could impact it but typically though even if you look at commodity prices I think where we’re at right now is somewhat of a tenuous economy because we see residential commercial and industrial moving back and forth all during the year. It’s like you’re in a waiting stage. Who knows what will happen but you could have and energy economy take off or you could have an energy economy that stagnates but these based on public policy whether you exporting or we two other things. It would have an impact on the commodities themselves. And I think it’s important for us to be knowledgeable about those kinds of issues so that we can manage our business around aggressiveness met shoulders consistent returns. And that’s what we’re doing. Steve Fleishman Last question, the page with the credit metrics particularly the FFO to debt or the EBITDA metrics clearly shows you are way stronger than your targets. Can you give some thought on what’s the ultimate goal? I assume your goal is not to stay dramatically above the targets. Nicholas Akins It’s to be within those targets, Steve. Part of that rationale is why we increased the CapEx for the balance of the year and of course will be looking at what we expect those metrics to be in 2016. And adjusting our apex forecast accordingly. Brian Tierney A lot of this is about making sure that the business is on firm and sound financial footing so that we can make continual judgments about where he put our capital. And we have this huge hedge out there called transmission that we are able to essentially do acquisitions all-time. And it’s a good place to be but at the same time we improved our currency value we improved our position from a risk tolerance perspective. And it is an opportunity for us to reposition this company for the future. We just retired 3500 MW of coal-fired generation. So you are starting to see a rebalancing of the portfolio to address what customers truly want in terms of resources we believe a balanced set of resources is important including cold but we’ve got to get through the process of ensuring that we’re advancing from the other technologies and addressing customers concerns relative to quality of service and that’s what we’re doing. Operator Thank you. We will now go to the line of Paul Ridzon with KeyBanc Paul Ridzon The 200 million of incremental transmission capital, how is that going to be divided between holdco and the utilities? Brian Tierney About $80 million of that will go to the Transco and remainder will go to the integrated utility operating companies. Paul Ridzon Could you give more flavor as to what went better than planned to allow you to raise guidance at this point in the year? Nicholas Akins I think we covered that during the meat of the call to a large degree. Rate increases and whether were stronger than what we had forecasted. The regulated businesses are doing very well and the competitive businesses are doing about as well as last year. Cash flow is ahead of expectation and you put all of those things together in that gives us the confidence to raise the operating earnings guidance and raise the CapEx that we talked about Brian Tierney And the continuous improvement activities, they are starting to culminate across the Board. So it’s cost control, it’s certainly the underlying fundamentals of the business are very positive and it gives us the confidence to raise the earnings. Operator Next we will go to the line of [indiscernible] Unidentified Analyst Can you talk about the scale of the open position at AEP generation resources as you look out over the next few years or how to think about that as a sensitivity? Nicholas Akins They are trying to stay in a hedged position of about 60% -70%. I think they’ve done that to pretty good effect really since early last year when the business started. And that allows them to do a couple things. Allows them to hedge in what some of the earnings are going to be at prices that they find attractive and they do that through both retail – they also auction they have to serve FFO vote and their normal trading activity. But then it also leads them with an open position to take advantage of what could be higher prices like they have during the Polar Vortex sees of last year. Take advantage of that. And to cover things like unit outages or load spikes or price spikes that can happen in the short term. They don’t want to be sold out and fully committed. They want to have a significant portion hedged and a portion to cover from on expected short-term opportunities Brian Tierney Chuck and his team continually evaluate that but the 60 to 70% has been a target for a very long time now. It’s for that reason – we are risk-averse from that standpoint because that business is really focused on making sure it continues to be an airtight business that has like I said earlier, Easton a great job of compartment slicing the risk. And that is a part of that ability for them to do that. Nicholas Akins The assets that Chuck has in that business are great assets and the risk management they’ve applied to that is this has been phenomenal through some really pretty volatile circumstances over the last year and half. We really proud of the way they are managing that business and they’ve done it very to good effect financially. Brian Tierney Really when we look at it’s not internally what the issues are because we can control what happens all to have Power Generation operates from operational excellence perspective. And how we manage risk within that envelope. The real issue is what happens outside with the regulatory commissions, FERC, Ohio and elsewhere. But certainly yesterday was another indication. Markets moving toward a certain set of conditions for the auction and it gets changed at the 11th hour and that is a concern because you never know what the rules of the game are and they can change at the last minute or change afterwards. And that is troubling. I think consistency – we have consistency internally. It’s consistency externally that we need. Unidentified Analyst Is it presents us to say that you are bullish about power prices? Nicholas Akins I wouldn’t say that’s presumptuous. I really believe we have taken substantial amount of capacity that’s been retired and we believe that capacity prices will improve. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank. Jonathan Arnold Any update on the River Ops transaction that you talked about last quarter? Nicholas Akins The process we’re going through terms of valuation continues. That’s really all that we can report at this point. Operator And we will now go to the line of Paul Fremont with Nexus. Your line is open. Paul Fremont I guess I wanted to follow up on the PECO [ph] decision yesterday to get further consideration at some point in the future of your rehearing request in the [indiscernible] proceeding. Nicholas Akins It just looks like it is some continued delay really. We don’t seem to be getting answers or schedules or the things we need to be able to get the answers we’re looking for. They seem to be putting some of the decisions further out into the future and as Nick said we need some clarity and we don’t seem to be getting it. Brian Tierney I don’t know far you can delay these things. It’s an issue where there needs to be an answer and I’m just concerned that we are either waiting until after the capacity auctions or whatever. Ohio needs to be concerned about – yesterday was another indication if you’re going to depend upon from the federal side to address the market issues that changes will occur that you didn’t – you may not anticipate. And I think from a generation perspective we’ve got to make sure that Ohio continues to develop and certainly with the natural gas out there that nothing will happen until there is some resolution so you’re in a hold pattern. We’re not going to make any investments in central station generation in Ohio. I have not seen many others step up to the plate. I know there’s maybe one or two units that are being built out there but keep in mind you’ve retired thousands and thousands of megawatts and you’re short in Ohio. And so the delays need to come to an end. Operator Thank you. We will now go to the line of Brian Chin with Merrill Lynch. Brian Chin Just a brief one on your earlier balance sheet comments, clearly the metrics are looking a little better debt to cap numbers of strategy around and even the pension funding numbers looked really solid. Given all of that does it make sense on the margin to reconsider capital deployment towards maybe looking at the dividend policy as opposed to truly looking at transmission CapEx? And marginal changes there to think about? Nicholas Akins The real question is what happens to the dividend. Brian Tierney In so many words, yes. Nicholas Akins Yes. Usually we review the dividend policy in the October timeframe and our board certainly will be considering the dividend policy. We still maintain our 60% to 70% range we stated earlier and the dividend will be commensurate with the earnings profile looks like. We stand by that. There’s no reason to see it will change but obviously we look at the baseline of the business and with the forward long-term view would looks like and the board will reevaluate and do that in October timeframe. Operator Thank you. We will go to the line of Anthony Crowdell with Jefferies. Anthony Crowdell I guess this is a softball question. Do you think Governor Kasich entering into the race slows decisions down in Ohio? It looks like [indiscernible] with the endgame is where they are looking to punch you but do you think this slows things down or speeds things up or has no impact? Nicholas Akins My bet would be no impact because Governor. Kasich obviously has confidence in the commission and certainly Andre Porter is chairman has taken over there and my belief is that he is going to leave it to the commission to decide what this Ohio policy looks like. I don’t see his running for office of the president to slow things down. I guess the real question is will the PCO actually speed up? That is something that they need to address. Anthony Crowdell Do think they are waiting for – Brian had used that football metaphor for they keep punting. Are they punting to a certain calendar date or a certain time whether it’s PGM is resolved or is that their target or is not really sure? Nicholas Akins Only they can answer that. It’s one thing to have one delay but to have delays of several cases occurring, that’s really not a good message. And to said energy policy in the state, you’ve got to have the courage to step up and make a decision. Brian Tierney And see them score touchdown or field goal rather than punt again. Operator We will now go to the line of Ali Agha with SunTrust. Ali Agha I just wanted to make sure I heard your original commentary correctly, with regards to your thinking on the generation business. So as you said these Ohio PPA [indiscernible] most likely now we’re looking at that maybe in 2016. But if I’m hearing you right should we still expect your final decision on the merchant business this year in the remaining months of this year? Or is that also going to be dependent on when this PPA rider stuff now comes out? Nicholas Akins I think certainly the capacity performance and the base residual auctions are significant piece of that discussion. We’re going to have to see – what the lay of the land is after that is concluded to visit with our board and determine what the next steps are. But that doesn’t stop us from pushing ahead with the PPA proposals regardless of the outcome. But certainly I think Ohio could send a great message by proving those PPAs. It remains to be seen whether we’re going to actually wait. This can’t go on for a long time. We’re after certainty for our investors and from a shelter perspective, we cannot have this overhang because it really not only confuses us on how to invest in the unregulated generation or lack of investment, but it also is so convoluted that it is difficult to understand exactly what it is you have in terms of valuation of that generation. And so the steps being taken particularly with the clean power plan and other things that are occurring I think those units will survive the clean power plan because there absolutely needed. They are great units and they are 2/3.1/3 gas. A lot of fuel switching occurs between coal and gas. So they are valuable units but they just need to be reflected that way. I just think it’s something we’ve got to get a handle on. As far as timing is concerned, we want to make that decision as quickly as we possibly can. But we have to do what is right for the shareholders and we have to do on analysis based upon what we can determine the best we can with the value of that generation on the forward basis will be. If you get a great capacity performance number, then that may diminish the need for PPA. But I still think PPA is needed. It’s an important part of the hedging for customers in Ohio. It’s important part of that generation being maintained in Ohio with the jobs taxes and everything else I’ve talked about. We’re not going to – we have not and will not give up on the PPA approach with the commission. They need to answer that question. It would be great if the answered it relatively quickly so we can get on with the business at hand. But certainly those two items are still outstanding and we’re hopeful that at least one of them will get resolved very quickly, so that we can start filling in the blanks. Ali Agha And from a logistics point of view, Nick, there would be no constraint for you to exit the merchant business while this PPA rider application was still outstanding ask Nicholas Akins We don’t believe there is a constraint because the real value of the PPA is again to maintain the generation in Ohio and make sure that economically there is still there and regardless of the outcome of the disposition of that business. Ali Agha And last question, is it fair to assume that previously you had looked at scale and spin off as two trajectories. Is still look a little more likely outcome than spin off? Is that fair to say? Nicholas Akins We don’t know that yet. We’ve all these events look at things like the tax efficiency and other parameters before we can really make a decision on sale versus spin. Or for that matter keep but certainly sale and spin which you mentioned. Those are areas where we have to look at the economics and it depends on – you’ve got to be offered a sale price that overcomes the tax efficiency of the spin and there is other things involved with it from a business perspective as well. I would say both are still part of the decision process. Operator Thank you. And we will go to the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS. Julien Dumoulin-Smith A quick question if you look at all and get some clarity around transmission spending, [indiscernible] has been The gems been evaluating reduction in the forecast but from what I understand you are investing below the [indiscernible] level as in its basic transmission investments at the lower KV. How do think about the impact of potential reduction in PJM load forecast relative to your investment plans near term and long term it’s actually in the context of having more proceeds from any prospective sale of the River Ops or [indiscernible] etcetera. Nicholas Akins I don’t anyone knows what the load forecast is at this point and certainly we don’t know the level of investment needed from a transmission perspective. We are in the process of redefining this electric grid. And we have retirements that occurred on one of the transmission has been built because of the retirements but also there continues to be optimization across the grid as a result of their will be more optimization after the clean power plan gets resolved. The changes occurring in PJM now are more about generation and certainly reliability and less so about load. And so I wouldn’t put much context in terms of a forward-looking transmission plant. We’ve seen over and over how transmission plans change with varying degrees and sometimes we get irritated by that because we plan transmission like PATH and things happen. But if you look at the underlying fundamentals of transmission, the grids is changing dramatically. The flows on the grid are going to change dramatically. So when you look at the four power transmission system you can be bullish about that and then the underlying which you mentioned the lower KV levels be some transmission and those levels, there is a massive amounts of rehab work and follow-up work to forward purchasers and at least be done. And we happen to have the largest transmission system in the country so that bodes well for the investment potential for AEP. Julien Dumoulin-Smith Perhaps just to clarify if you will, in the increase in transmission spend off late and just thinking about the sensitivity if there were to be a shift in the RTEP [ph], it seems that you guys have historically had some element of comfort around projections given that they don’t primarily seem to flow out of the [indiscernible] process, if you could elaborate a little bit. Just getting some sense of how hedged are you presently to changes either way in RTEP. Nicholas Akins We have a bunch of big buckets and a lot of those big buckets are not RTO dependent. Brian Tierney Our transmission spend and forecast is not dependent on a RTEP load forecast. I would not put a lot of stock in a RTEP load forecast anyway. Operator We will go now to the line of [indiscernible]. Unidentified Analyst Couple of ones, first one with the transmission auction have you guys heard from PJM or do you guys have any idea when the new schedule might be or when we might get more information on that? Nicholas Akins Yes we will know soon. I think certainly PJM will have to speak about the ins and outs of that but we suspect it will be within maybe a month or three weeks delay or something like that. I don’t think it’s a substantial thing. Still have to observe the same performance criteria when they did in. I think it should be a large delay. Unidentified Analyst If it might be before the PRA? Nicholas Akins I don’t know about that. They will have to answer that obviously but I don’t think we’re talking about moving into fourth quarter or anything. Unidentified Analyst Let’s hope not, just another quick one for you. In terms of the potential asset sale or spend which you guys be open to idea of accepting other entities currency like a stock deal? I’m sorry guys would prefer cash if short sell the Junco would you guys be open to the idea of maybe taking the equity of whatever one of the players out there that has been acquiring these things? Nicholas Akins Paul, at this point is worth evaluating. I think everything would be on the table. We wouldn’t say no to that if we felt that was the highest value for our shareholders. Brian Tierney I think we haven’t closed off on any of these parameters that we keep talking about because frankly we don’t have the full answers yet. Unidentified Analyst On the delays that have been happening in Ohio etcetera, have you sensed any change in tone or issues that have come up or any flavor as to the environment there with respect to this? Or is this regulatory stuff that happens in a lot of major proceedings that are not exactly run-of-the-mill? Nicholas Akins Obviously the PUCO I speak for supplement issue but it is a major issue. You can’t get around that. I’m sure there’s a lot of deliberations occurring over in their camp and it’s part of the regulatory process. Many times I think it support for policymakers to understand the business disruptions that occur relative to either waiting for decisions or not making decisions let alone the wrong decisions. We really do need some consistency and delivering on orders and rulings on a timely basis. I think it’s particularly important to the industry and particularly important to electric utilities in Ohio. Unidentified Analyst Okay but you have noticed a significant shift I guess or any change in what’s going on there other than normal back-and-forth and what have you? Or have you? Nicholas Akins I don’t think there’s been a significant shift or anything. I think there’s a lot of dialogue going on. We have dialogue going on these issues in the Ohio business Roundtable and the close partnership and of course at the commission as well. It is an important issue but I haven’t sensed a change. I think it’s a very deliberative approach. Operator The final question will then come from the line of [indiscernible]. Unidentified Analyst We have touched a lot on PGM and PPA. Fix it over to transmission back again. Could you talk about what you guys are thinking any update on potential alternative structures? I know last time you talked about the restructure doesn’t make sense for you guys. Any updated thought process on that? And the second non-related question that could you talk about what you are – I know demand looked pretty good on normalized basis. Angel more insight into with respect to you see pattern to what you’re seeing there are what sort of aside from just a general economy improving that striving the growth or demand improvement there? Nicholas Akins Brian, covered the economy piece of it. As far as transmission is concerned we have in changed our approach to the transmission business we’re still heavily investing in it and we still want to make sure that we continue to do it in a positive way from a state perspective. We haven’t changed our approach from that perspective. Brian? Brian Tierney I think on the customer usage side a large part of what is driving residential in particular is customer counts. We are seeing average customer usage hang in there. We’re not seeing decreased to the degree some others are. But it is customer count that is driving it. I’ve been this job for five and half years maybe more and I’ve been talking about 5.3 million customers that whole time. I’m finally through to be able say we’re rounding at 5.4 million customers. Customer counts particularly in the West helping us out. It’s largely driven by is not the talk about macro factors but a lot of it is shale gas and with the economy are doing well. We are seeing increased usage. In places like Kentucky Power that is being particularly hard-hit by mining shutdowns in the like we’re seeing customer counts decrease and used down. It really does unfortunately follow the macroeconomic factors that we are seeing and we are blessed to have the shale gas plays in our service areas and that’s really driven a lot of the load increases that we’ve seen. Betty Jo Rosza Thank you everyone for joining us on today’s call. As always the IR team will be available to answer any additional questions you may have. Nick, would you please give the replay information. Operator Today’s call will be available for replay beginning today at 11.15 and running through July 30 until midnight. You may access the playback system by telling 1-800-475-6701 and entering the access code 364235. The dial-in number again is 800-475-6701 and International 320365 320-365-3844 with access code of 364 364235. That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for your participation for using AT&T executive teleconference. You may now disconnect.