Tag Archives: california

U.S. Geothermal’s (HTM) Management Discusses on Q4 2014 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

U.S. Geothermal Inc. (NYSEMKT: HTM ) Q4 2014 Earnings Conference Call March 17, 2015 11:00 AM ET Executives Douglas J. Glaspey – President and Chief Operating Officer Kerry D. Hawkley – Chief Financial Officer Jonathan Zurkoff – Treasurer and Executive Vice President of Finance Analysts James P. McIlree – Chardan Capital Markets, LLC Operator Greetings, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the U.S. Geothermal’s 2014 Year-End Earnings Results Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now pleasure to introduce your host Mr. Doug Glaspey. Thank you, sir. You may begin. Douglas J. Glaspey Thank you, operator, and good morning, everybody. Thank you all for joining us on today’s call and for your continuing interest in U.S. Geothermal. My name is Doug Glaspey, I am the President and Chief Operating Officer. Dennis Gilles, our CEO is not able to join us today, he is recovering from recent surgery, we do expect to have him back in the office next week. Joining me on today’s call will be Kerry Hawkley, our Chief Financial Officer and Jonathan Zurkoff, our Executive Vice President of Finance. Jonathan will be presenting Dennis’s prepared comments summarizing the highlights of the year. Before we go any further I would like to make a note that on our March 4, news release regarding earnings call there was a typo some people have noticed that, its was a 100 megawatts production for our growth strategy to 2020, our plan has not changed it is 200 megawatts of growth by 2020. So I just want to make sure everybody understood that we hadn’t changed our strategy. The Company’s performance in 2014 was strong with our operating revenue up 13% compared to 2013. Adjusted EBITDA was up 12% over 2013 and net income up approximately 263% over 2013. Our plans continue to outperform industry standards for operational availability and we are focused on brining the next phase of growth to our shareholders. Kerry Hawkley will now provide you with a summary of our financial results for 2014. Kerry? Kerry D. Hawkley Thank you, Doug. And good morning to our listeners on this call. Before beginning, we would like to remind you that the information provided during this call may contain forward-looking statements relating to current expectations, estimates, forecast and projections about future events that are forward-looking as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements generally relate to the Company’s plans, objectives and expectations for future operations, and are based on management’s current estimates and projections of future results or trends. Actual future results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties. During the call we will present non-GAAP financial measures such as EBITDA, adjusted EBITDA, and adjusted net income, reconciliation to the most directly comparable GAAP measures and management’s reasons for presenting such information is set forth in the press release that was issued last night. Because these measures are not calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP, it should not be considered in isolation from our financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP. I’ll now discuss the financial statements of U.S. Geothermal for the year ended December 31, 2014. On our balance sheet, total assets are at $232.9 million. Our total liabilities are $102.0 million. Non-controlling interests are at $46.4 million, and our net stockholders equity is now at $84.5 million. On our statement of operations our 12-month net income of $11.6 million in 2014 is comparable to the $1.9 million for the same period last year. And adjusted net income for 2014 eliminating the deferred tax asset gain in the impairment loss for Granite Creek is $1.8 million. For the year revenues were up $3.6 million or 13% over 2013. Energy production was up 29,401 megawatt hours or 9.5%. Plant production expenses were up $1.8 million, primarily insurance and maintenance costs. Drilling costs in 2014 that were capitalized were at El Ceibillo, San Emidio Phase II and Crescent Valley. The interest expense at San Emidio $319,000 over last year, primarily because a portion of the interest in 2013 was capitalized. This will have a direct impact to the net income attributable to U.S. Geothermal since San Emidio 100% owned by U.S. Geothermal. Our stock-based compensation is up $583,000 due to options in shares granted to our employees, executives, and directors in April of 2014. These costs are non-cash and align the interest of our employees, officers and directors with shareholders. We incurred exploration drilling costs during the year of $449,000 at our Gerlach Project. We’ve recognized a loss of $452,000 on an impairment associated with our decision to abandon the development of our Granite Creek Project. We also recognized a gain of 10.3 million on a deferred tax assets that we have recorded based on our more likely than not criteria. Adjusted EBITDA for 2014 was $17.2 million, versus $15.3 million in 2013. Our statement of cash flow, cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the year were $28.7 million. 12 months, cash generated by operations were $12.8 million. Notes payments reduced our total debt by $4.6 million. Payment to our non-controlling interest partner Enbridge were $15 million. We acquired the WGP Geysers project for $6.8 million, inclusive of legal cost. We capitalized drilling at San Emidio, El Ceibillo and Crescent Valley this year and that totaled $3.7 million in. Through the exercise of warrants and options we received $1.6 million in cash, so at the end of the year our cash and cash equivalents were $13.0 million. Please note that our exploration development budget for 2015 requires approximately $5.5 million in cash from U.S. Geothermal, which can be funded internally by cash flows from operations. On our statement of changes in stockholders equity, we’ve added the net income of $11.6 million during the year should be noted that the accumulated deposit is now reflected net of tax or $19.3 million. Shares of common stock issued upon exercise of stock purchases warrants were $2.6 million, shares of common stock issued upon exercise of stock options were $1.1 million. We granted 559,000 shares of common stock to our employees, executives, and directors in Q2 that had a one-year restriction. We just have cash of $15 million that was distributed to Enbridge, we issued 693,000 shares in Q4 to acquire 100% of the shares of Earth Power Resources. So at the end of the year 12/31/2014 are issued an outstanding shares in our totals of 107.0 million shares. Now as we mentioned briefly in the third quarter earnings call regarding our provision for income tax we have now met to more likely to not criteria set for recording the deferred tax asset on the balance sheet. During the fourth quarter, the company discontinued the 100% valuation allowance on our deferred tax asset. The impact to the financial statements net of tax on the income in 2014 was $10.3 million. In other words, we have been profitable now for over two years and we anticipate being profitable going forward as our projects are reliable and the revenues are predictable. Our deferred tax assets will offset future taxes and same as cash. Also in response to the apparent confusion noted during the last earnings call we have added additional disclosure on Page 85 in the MD&A regarding the net income attributable to the non-controlling interest and the net income attributable to U.S. Geothermal and its shareholders, which we hope provide you the clarity thought. The table on Page 85 shows the contribution our three operating projects provides the net income attributable to U.S. Geothermal and it also shows the cost associated with our exploration activities, corporate costs, the deferred tax asset gain and the impairment loss. You will see that Neal Hot Springs contributed $5.9 million, San Emidio contributed $0.5 million, Raft River contributed 300,000 for a total contributed to U.S. Geothermal of $6.7 million from these three projects. From that exploration activities and corporate overhead cost $4.9 million if you exclude the deferred tax and impairment adjustments. This last category includes the Company’s cost of existence including the listed on two stock exchanges legal accounting and professional fees, filings with government agencies, stock-based compensation in the costs of evaluating and developing new projects. These costs are almost 100% U.S. Geothermal costs and reduce the net income attributable to U.S. Geothermal. However as we grow the company by adding income generating projects in the future, this category will not increased significantly from current levels. Allowing the net income from the new projects to increase the bottom line almost dollar per dollar, we believe that company as well-positioned to take advantage of many future opportunities. Thank you for your continued interest in U.S. Geothermal and I will turn the call back over to Doug. Douglas J. Glaspey Thank you, Kerry. I will now provide the highlights of our operations performance for this fourth quarter and for the full-year 2014 as well as the summary of our current development activities. Generation for the fourth quarter from all three plants was 96,831 megawatt hours, and that’s compares 96,508 megawatt hours in the fourth quarter of 2013. Generation for the year 2014 totaled 339,086 megawatt hours, compared to 309,687 megawatt hours for 2013, which represents a 9.5% increase in generation year-over-year. The fourth quarter is typically one of our best generation quarters of the year as you all know, due to the cooler winter temperatures. But I will note, that while the East has had a very cold winter, the West is actually had a relatively mild winter. At Neal Hot Springs, generation for the quarter was 54,472 megawatt hours with average hourly generation of 25.08 net megawatts hours for hour of operation. The facility operated at 98.3% availability for the fourth quarter and 98.5% availability for the year, excluding scheduled maintenance hours. Generation for 2014 at Neal was 183,394 megawatt hours, compared to 155,428 megawatt hours in 2013 an 18% increase year-over-year at Neal Hot Springs. We’re proud to say that the geothermal reservoir at Neal continues to outperform our reservoir model, with over two years of stable temperature and flow rate. At San Emidio, our generation for the quarter was 21,745 megawatt hours with average hourly generation of 9.93 net megawatt hours per hour. Operating availability was 99.2% for the fourth quarter and 98.5% for the year, again excluding scheduled maintenance and hours. Generation for the year was 76,894 megawatt hours compared to generation of 76,697 megawatt hours in 2013. You can see that San Emidio has reached its plateau on this particular case, we think we will see a little bit better generation this year because of the addition of Well 6121 that was added in September and it increased the brand temperature feeding the plant by 3.3 degrees. San Emidio plant of course continues to run very smoothly, we’re very pleased with the plant and the reservoir remains within its projected parameters. At Raft River generation was 20,614 megawatt hours for the quarter with an average hourly generation of 9.59 net megawatts. Raft River operated at 97.3% availability during the fourth quarter and 99.5% for the year. Generation for 2014 was 78,798 megawatt hours compared to generation of 77,561 megawatt hours in 2013. Raft River which is our oldest facility continues to operate at consistent, high availability, with stable generation. I will note that Raft River will have an extended maintenance outage of 14 days in the second quarter of 2015 and it will be undergoing its first turbine overhaul since the plant started in 2008. We are very pleased with the performance of all three plants during the fourth quarter and for all of 2014. Our operations team has produced outstanding operation availability at all of the facilities which equates to our high level of power generation. On the development front, at San Emidio Phase II, the project continues to be dependent upon successful drilling and expansion of the currently known geothermal resource. Before we make the decision to move forward with building the second power plant we have to be successful with drilling additional production and injection wells that will support that second plant. We drilled two new wells in the South Zone during 2014 and expanded the high temperature anomaly farther South from the current well field. We did not plan commercial permeability in either one of those wells, we did find increasing temperature and it’s an important indicator of an active geothermal system. This temperature data is in effect an arrow pointing toward a potential source of the geothermal flow path farther South and we are going follow up on it. The South Zone area is held by federal leases and it takes anextraordinary amount of time to permit drilling activities on these lands. We are currently in the process of permitting a series of temperature gradient wells to extent our information on the area. And if the temperature gradient wells outline an attractive targets, we’ll follow up with observation wells or slim holes as they are known, to explore for the source of the high temperature fluid. This is an iterative process and it takes time, but after finding fluid temperatures of over 321 degrees in the South Zone it’s well worth following up. During the year we also constructed cross tie pipeline between the Phase I plant and the Phase II project area that was built in the third quarter and began producing fluid from well 61-21 early in the fourth quarter. This was all part of a long-term flow test for the South Zone. This well remains in production as we collect reservoir data and the plus side is it also increased our generation from the Phase I plan. Through the year we continued on with the interconnection studies with the Phase II plants and received the first phase study called the System Impact Study back from NV Energy on December 24. We might recall we’ve already have 16 megawatts of reserve transmission of San Emidio and we are requesting an additional 3.9 megawatts in order to accommodate a second full-size plan. The System Impact Study indicated that the additional 3.9 megawatt of transmission can be added to the NVE transmission system with a cost of approximately $270,000. A second phase study called the Facilities Study was started by NV Energy in January 2015. Now this series of studies for transmission happens at all of our projects it’s a FERC mandated process and all of the utilities have to go through it, we have to pay for everyone of these studies. So it just one of the areas in power generation that we have to go through. NV Energy issued a request for proposal on October 1, for 100 megawatts of renewable energy that would be contracted in 2015 for consumption in Southern Nevada. We responded to the RFP with a proposal for San Emidio Phase II on November 12. In early December NV Energy asked the Nevada Public Utilities Commission to allow them to combine the 2014 and 2015 renewable RFPs for a total of 200 megawatts under request. This request was approved and subsequent to the end of the year, we resubmitted our proposal for the Phase II plant and were notified on March 3 that our bid was advanced to the initial shortlist for Geothermal projects. NV Energy schedule indicates that the anticipate selecting the final shortlist projects before the end of April. At El Ceibillo and Guatemala, early this year we completed nine temperature gradient wells at El Ceibillo. The wells were shallow from 650 to 1,300 feet deep and we found temperatures ranging from a 176 to 413 degrees Fahrenheit, extraordinarily high for this shallow of a well. Results, from these wells effectively moves a high temperature resource target area approximately half a kilometer Northwest of our initial target zone. This change in our target location required us to acquire additional service leases before we could enter into our next phase of drilling. Keep in mind that while we have a concession to exploit the Geothermal resource from the Guatemalan government, we also need to have leases for surface access from private individuals. After extensive negotiations we were able to finalize a lease on an additional 80 acres of land that covers us new target area on October 15. Once the lease was signed, we prepare to drill pads for our planned well EC2, which will be a car hole design exactly like the EC1 well we drilled in 2013. The planned depth for EC2 is 2,330 feet deep, at 600 to 1000 meters based on our temperature gradient wells we do have a target in mind as far as depth also for temperatures, so we are anxious to get started on this next well. Our next hurdle, however before we resume drilling is to secure approval from the Guatemalan government to modify our development schedule under the terms of the concession. Based on the new schedule and the subsequent delays for approval you might recall we’ve been seeking this approval for over a year. Our online data’s moved out from the second quarter of 2018. Again this schedule is contingent on the drilling, finding the commercial resource on the project, which we are optimistic about but given the results obtained from our recently completed temperature gradient drilling program. Also at El Ceibillo our memorandum of understanding for a PPA that was held by the project was based on our original development schedule for the project. We met with the purchaser through the year who is one of the largest power brokers in Central America. But due to the delays and approval of the modified development schedule with the Guatemalan Ministry of Energy the purchaser declined to extend the agreement. We are continuing discussions with them and are approaching other power consumers in Guatemala and Central America. Central America still has a growing demand for power especially base load type resources. So we believe there is a very good market in the area. At our WGP Geysers Project, we are continuing to pursue two paths for development of the project. To secure a new power purchase agreement for the sale of electricity and if we’re successful in doing so, we will construct a new power plant and sell energy or to produce steam for sale to one of the other power plant operators in the Geysers. We keep the project ready for either development path; a 12 month extension for the Sonoma County Conditional Use Permit to construct the power plant was applied for and approved in June. We are currently preparing to file a new Conditional Use Permit application in 2015 to maintain our readiness. We also filed a new transmission interconnection request to the California independent system operator so that the project can be placed in the transmission queue. Again, we have to go through these transmission studies to make sure our power plant built on the site can be interconnected into the transmission system, so we can deliver our power to a purchaser. Since the four production wells were drilled in 2008 and 2009 the previous owner did not conduct long enough flow tests for bankable reservoir model. An Air Quality Permit was obtained for extended flow test Sonoma County Air Quality Board and we have scheduled a flow test of the existing wells during the second quarter of 2015 that time is coming up very rapidly. Additionally, we’ve been doing engineering optimization studies of the power plant design, the new reservoir model will reflect the hybrid plant design and includes both water cooling in the summer and air cooling in the winter. Hybrid cooling will provide a significant increase from a traditional 20% increase into 65% in the volume of water available for injection back into the reservoir providing longer term stable steam production. This kind of optimization is critical to maximize the power generation from the property. Three California base requests for proposals for renewable energy PPAs were used at late 2014 and early 2015, submitted the WGP Geysers all three. We were not short listed on the first two and are waiting the results of the third. Direct bilateral discussions are also being held with both power purchasers and steam sale purchasers. The results of the flow test we have scheduled for this spring and the bankable reservoir model will play a key role in making the best decision on how the project is developed. Moving to the exploration front, at Crescent Valley in Nevada which is one of the properties we acquired in the Earth Power Resources acquisition, in late November we conducted a gravity survey in the area with Hot Springs and strong faulting with intense solidification that already had a number of temperature gradient wells drilled that exhibited high results. We located and permitted a well on private property an initiated drilling in December starting construction to qualifying the project for the 30% investment tax credit. The well is currently at just over 900 feet deep and we expect to complete it within this next month. Additional program of deep 1000 foot temperature gradient wells over much larger area are also planned for 2015. So we’re just starting to explore Crescent Valley it’s a great looking prospect. At Gerlach we completed well 1810A to a depth of 2889 feet that was completed in November. This well was a follow up on a historic well that was reported to have encountered a significant loss circulation zone at depth but had no temperature information. Gerlach is some of the largest Hot Springs in Nevada and geothermometer temperatures of 338 to 352 degrees Fahrenheit which made it an excellent exploration target. The well founds some modest production mid-depth but no permeability deep in the well and the maximum temperature found in the well was 275 degrees Fahrenheit. We are reviewing the results of further work at Gerlach but it will be dependent on additional funding from the joint venture. I will now turn the meeting over to Jonathan Zurkoff to provide Dennis’s remarks. Jonathan? Jonathan Zurkoff Thank you, Doug. I will summarize our notable highlights for 2014. First on our consolidated financial performance revenues were up 13% coming in for the year at $31 million, compared to $27.4 million for the 2013 period. Adjusted EBITDA of 12% for the year at $17.2 million compared to $15.3 million in 2013. EBITDA was up for the year yielding $14.9 million, compared to $14.5 million for 2013. Net income up 263% with the total for the year at $14.9 million compared to $4.1 million in 2013. Cash flow from operations was $12.8 million for the year compared to $10.6 million for 2013, an increase of approximately 21% and long-term debt reduced by $4.8 million. Looking at the financial performance attributable to U.S. Geothermal that is after eliminating minority interest which represents our partner share Neal Hot Springs and Raft River. Our net income for the year was up 497% with the total for the year of $11.6 million compared to $1.9 million for 2013. Adjusted net income for the year was $1.8 million versus $1.9 million in 2013, adjustments include both the one-time gain from the recognition of the deferred tax assets and a one-time impairment for the write-off of the development cost associated with our Granite Creek project. We ended the fourth quarter with cash and cash equivalents of $13 million a $2.3 million increase over the prior quarter, relative to operating performance generation for the year was up 9.5% over the last year, mostly resulting from the higher unit availabilities. Our fleet-wide average operating availability for the year was an impressive 98.7% on equally impressive 96.2% with planned maintenance outages included. On the growth side, at our El Ceibillo project and Guatemala we continue to work with the Ministry of Energy and Mines and are very pleased to report that we now have lowered movements on our request to modify the construction schedule and there are Geothermal concessions. We are ready to drill our next well after we obtain final approval of our new schedule from the Energy Minister. Our team in Guatemala is also holding discussions with our former as well as potentially new off-takers for the energy and we are examining, other new prospects in the country. The acquisition of Earth Power Resources was completed on December 12, bringing three additional high quality geothermal prospects into our development pipeline. We began work immediately on the Crescent Valley project by starting the drilling of a production well before year-end, qualifying this project for a 30% investment tax credit which became available with the federal tax extender legislation that was past late last year. At San Emidio II we completed well 6121 installed the production pipeline and continue to produce well 6121 in the South Zone to the Phase I plan. We are also permitting an underground it drilling in the South Zone to verify and expanded resource. Further we have interconnection studies continuing with NV Energy we have submitted two proposals to NV Energy for the 2014 and 2015 request for proposals for 200 megawatts of renewable energy, and we’ve been notified that our proposal have been short listed. At WGP Geysers, we are approaching potential off-takers for the power from the proposed power plant, we’ve responded to request for a proposal as well as started bi-lateral discussions with interested parties and continued discussions for an alternative possible steam sell . A flow tested existing wells is planned for this spring, which will provide valuable information on this resource as it’s needed to optimize the design of either a power plant or pipeline to deliver steam. Capital and operating costs for both potential operating scenarios are being refined and budgetary bids have been received. We have also reapplied for a transmission interconnection agreement. We continue evaluating a number of other potential acquisitions that could drive our growth both in the near-term and now to our long-term portfolio. Regarding our development budget for 2015, expense activities for our early stage exploration projects are budgeted at $1.5 million. Capital expenditures on our more advanced development projects have been budgeted for up to $3.9 million. These budgets are based on our current portfolio and maybe altered depending on the results of early stage work or new opportunities. On the legislative front in late 2014, Congress passed a tax extender result that will allow us to potentially use a 30% investment tax credit on our projects and start a construction prior to the end of 2014, we believe our Geysers project, our San Emidio II and our Crescent Valley projects are currently qualifying. There are also indications that congress will take up an energy bill in 2015. In California which is the largest geothermal market in the United States, Governor Brown announced a new goal of 50% renewable energy by 2030. The California PUC will also be implementing newly passed AB 2363 which requires the establishment of rules for inclusion of integration cost for renewable. Intermittent technologies such as wind and solar will likely have to include the permitting cost for these resources. Moving on to guidance, our guidance for 2015 is based solely on our existing operations and does not include any impact that may be provided by acquisitions we are currently evaluating. These figures are forecast only and considered forward looking statements. Our guidance for 2015 is as follows. Our revenues $28 million to $33 million, Adjusted EBITDA $15 million to $19 million, EBITDA $12 million to $16 million and net income of $1.9 million to $5.9 million. So Doug, I’ll turn it back to you. Douglas J. Glaspey Thank you Jonathan. In summary with our strong cash flow from operations, we continue to have adequate cash on hand to support both our ongoing operations and early stage developments efforts and we continue to add cash to our balance sheet in preparation for our next construction project or acquisition. We also believe we are appropriately prepared to be responsive to many of the additional growth opportunities that we are currently evaluating. In closing, we have now had nine consecutive quarters of positive EBITDA and cash flow. Our fleet of power plants continues to perform well. We are pleased with the performance of our resources, we are pleased with the new growth opportunities recently added to our portfolio and optimistic regarding the other growth opportunities we are currently evaluating. We thank you for your continuing support and operator, I would now like to open the call for questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. [Operator Instructions] We have a question from the line of [indiscernible] Private Investor. Please proceed with your question. Unidentified Analyst Yes, hello. Douglas J. Glaspey Yes, Steven we can hear you. Unidentified Analyst On Neal Hot Springs you are talking about adding a hybrid system there, adding water. What kind of megawatt improvement would that make? Douglas J. Glaspey Steven you are exactly right we are going to be evaluating the possibility of using the wet cooling in the summer months. I think everybody understands that Neal Hot Springs is an air cooled facility, and in the hot summer hours can dip as low as seven to eight megawatts. We think we can double that with water cooling, so it would be similar to other projects in the summer time. I don’t have a number for you for a total impact of megawatt hours for the year. But we think it’s substantial and, of course it’s something we can do on the surface that doesn’t take drilling. So we should be drilling a water well early this hopefully within the next month or so to see if we can find a suitable water resource that would supply that cooling system, and then we are going to test several different possibilities conventional water cooling towers and mist cooling are the two we are going to looking at and hopefully by the end of this season we’ll have an idea of if we can add that water cooling. But thank you for the question its one of the ways we can increase generation without spending a lot of capital. Unidentified Analyst I had another question on the Geysers and the flow test, or fewer on your on your presentation where you make whatthe 38 megawatts. If you did that, would you be able to be more competitive on your megawatt price and the bidding for PPA with a bigger plan? Douglas J. Glaspey Yes, thank you Steven the of course of the size of the plan has an impact typically on capital cost per megawatt hour that 38 megawatt size is the growth generation from the currently permitted plant. So that’s one of the things that flow test is going to tell us this spring – exactly what size plant we can build and operate over the long-term we don’t just look at what the short-term generation is of course. We are going to be looking at time periods of 20 years to 25 years and that’s the number we are seeking from the flow test this year. Unidentified Analyst Okay and then on your net income guidance that’s just U.S. Geothermal that’s excludes the non-consulting interest right? Kerry D. Hawkley That is correct. Unidentified Analyst Okay. All right well thanks a lot and everything looks good. Keep up the good work. Douglas J. Glaspey Thank you. Kerry D. Hawkley Thank you, Steven. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jim McIlree with Chardan Capital. Please proceed with your question. James P. McIlree Yes, thanks and good morning. Douglas J. Glaspey Good morning. James P. McIlree When do you think that you would arrive at a decision on Geysers, which direction you would go either the electricity or the steam? Douglas J. Glaspey Good morning Jim. My expectation is certainly before the end of this year and I would like to have that decision somewhere around mid-year. James P. McIlree And so if it were – let’s take year-end instead. So if it were year-end decision what does that imply in terms of when it comes online starts generating revenue? Douglas J. Glaspey If it was a year-end decision we would have at least two years of construction. Kerry D. Hawkley If it was a power plant. Douglas J. Glaspey If it’s a power plant. If it’s a steam sell it could potential be as short as nine to 12 months. James P. McIlree And similar question for the Crescent Valley and Gerlach efforts. A timeframe as to when those could be online if all goes well. Douglas J. Glaspey Little bit longer timeframe, we still have to define resources of those projects and lets say we’re successful this year, so by the end of the year we have resource defined, we have a PPA in hand and you are looking at, at least two years of construction, before you would be online and generating electricity. James P. McIlree And is there any additional information you can provide as to why the Guatemala power buyer side is not renewed at contracts for the MOU. Kerry D. Hawkley Well I think there is probably several reasons Jim, the power situation in the country has changed a little bit and it’s a little uncertain right now, there was a large coal fired power plant that was supposed to be built in Guatemala that is only partially been built now, they have had a lot of trouble with their hydro facilities, actually they are having a bit of a drought down there as well so hydro has not turned out to be as consistent as they would like. So I think its really more uncertainty than anything else. You might recall too that that MOU covered flat priced PPA, so one of the things we’re looking at with them is shaping that PPA price overtime putting an escalator in it which it didn’t have before. So I think there is a number of issues that I guess I can’t tell you exactly why, but those are my feelings. James P. McIlree Okay, great. That’s very helpful. Thank you. Kerry D. Hawkley Thanks Jim. End of Q&A Operator [Operator Instructions] It seems there are no further questions at this time. I would like to turn it back to management for closing comments. Douglas J. Glaspey Great, I would like to thank everybody again for being on the call. We’re looking forward to a very exciting 2015, we’ve got a lot of things that we’re evaluating and as far as new projects are concerned we have a lot of work to do on our existing development and exploration projects. So keep a close eye on us and we look forward to talking to you next quarter. Thank you very much. Operator Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today’s teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.

Portfolio Construction In The Utility Sector

Diversification within the sector is easy to obtain, as there are plenty of utilities to choose from. There is no need to pay management fees or to gain exposure to unrealized mutual fund capital gains for either a utility ETF or mutual fund. Net ROIC, or ROIC minus WACC, is an interesting matrix in utility stock research and should be considered. Chuck Carnevale published a great article on SA last week. It focuses on the “overlooked dangers when investing in utility stocks” and should be read by all utility investors. Thanks to Mr. Carnevale for his continuing series of educational articles on investing and on his current review of the ten industrial sectors. There were several comments concerning the process of developing a portfolio of utility stocks. My initial assumption begins with the belief that developing a portfolio of utility stocks is not difficult and is preferred to buying an open-end or closed-end mutual fund or an ETF. According to ETF database, there are 21 flavors of utility ETFs; according to Closed End Fund Advisors, there are 12 choices of utility closed-end funds; and according to Morningstar, there are 18 open-end utility mutual funds selections, increasing to 65 when various stock classes of each are included. These ETFs and funds have various specialties from country specific international funds to return of capital income funds. I like Mario Gabelli’s discussion of the utility sector and his belief the industry consolidation that is decades old will continue. According to his latest annual report, there are 60 publicly traded US electric utilities and 30 natural gas utilities, which represent 50 more than needed. More of Mr. Gabelli’s comments can be found in the 2014 annual report (pdf). Most utility investors should read his comments as it offers a unique view of the sector. The basic tenet of developing a diversified portfolio of utility stocks is to understand the differences of each and to have a broad base to start. While utilities are usually lumped together, there are subtle differences between the various utility companies. Much like a series of funnels, each criterion will further limit the selection process. For example, the initial basic screen would be the type of utility as follows: Diversified utilities – companies with assets crossing several utility types, such as a merchant power producer, which also owns regulated utilities or a utility servicing both electric and natural gas customers. Merchant power utilities – companies with a primary focus on generating electric power that usually is sold in the unregulated markets. Regulated utilities, electric – electric companies who have traded a geographical monopoly for regulated prices set either by state or Federal regulatory bodies. Regulated utilities, natural gas – natural gas companies who have traded a geographical monopoly for regulated prices set by state. Regulated utilities, water – water companies who have traded a geographical monopoly for regulated prices set by state regulatory bodies. Each of these sub-sectors has their own attributes and issues. For example, historically the highest yielding stocks fall in the regulated electric utility sector while the lowest are usually found with natural gas and water stocks. The largest area of unregulated assets falls in the merchant power industries where electricity is generated and sold using short-term spot, medium-term auction, or long-term purchase power agreement processes. It is important for investors to realize the amount of control regulators have over the performance of shareholders’ investments. Regulated assets can be split between state regulated and federally regulated with the feds usually controlling the transmission of high voltage electricity and major natural gas pipelines. Most of the federally regulated assets usually reside in much larger utilities. For example, American Electric Power (NYSE: AEP ) operates the largest network of federally regulated electricity transmission assets. The only independent federally regulated transmission utility is ITC Holdings (NYSE: ITC ). State regulatory agencies usually set the pricing terms for the balance of other assets. The federal government wants higher capital investments in the transition and electric grid business and to accommodate these goals, federal regulators allow a higher return on investments than many states. Each state offers a slightly different calculation for the allowed return. A great industry research resource is the Edison Electric Institute, a trade group offering in depth information on regulators. EEI.com offers a host of financial trends from rate cases, allowed returns, dividends, and credit ratings. For example, eei.com offers a 24-year chart of the average allowed ROE for state regulated assets, updated quarterly. As shown, since 2012, the allowed returns has been pretty stagnate at 10% and below 10.5% since 2006. The following chart is from EEI’s 2014 third qtr. rate summary review pdf. As part of their company specific credit analysis, S&P Credit offers additional insight into the regulatory environment by state. With profitability capped by regulators, a company’s credit risk profile should include how “friendly” the regulators are. In 2008, S&P Credit published the following map of their utility regulatory environment assessment. The states were categorized effectively four categories and no assessment. (click to enlarge) In 2014, S&P updated the list and reduced the effective number of categories to three as follows: (click to enlarge) Personally, I find the transformation of assessment categories quite interesting. The usefulness of the list seems to have been diminished as 88% of states listed are in the middle category. With state regulators having great influence over the profitability of utilities under its jurisdiction, it is important to appreciate the underlying regulatory environment. The more friendly the environment, the better the potential for improved shareholder returns. If regulated returns are relatively flat, earnings and dividend growth would then need to come from a larger regulated asset base and a growth in demand. A larger regulated assets base is generated through higher capital investment in projects that are approved by regulators. Over time, the amount of capital expenditures by utility companies will drive earnings higher by an average of 4% to 6% annually. According to a study by eei.org, the electric utility industry alone will need to invest $1.5 trillion to $2.0 trillion in infrastructure over the next 15 years. Of this amount, 58% could in regulated transmission and distribution investments and 30% in new and updating power generation. The underlying growth in utility demand is 1% to 2% annually, with utility demand following underlying economic growth. Trends in geographical industrial expansion translate into organic profit growth by utilities. For example, the economy of the southeast is usually considered a faster growth area than the Great Lakes region and this will show up in higher earnings growth potential for utilities servicing Florida than Detroit. Below is a chart of electricity demand from 1950: Some investors could be seeking regulated electric utilities, for higher yield, with state regulated assets in the southeast, due to a potentially friendlier regulatory environment and underlying economic growth. A potential list of these stocks would include Southern Company (NYSE: SO ), SCANA Corp (NYSE: SCG ), and Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK ). A list of utilities within a specific state’s jurisdiction is usually published at the regulators website. For example, California offers a map of the state outlining the service territory of the major providers. A similar list can be developed for each sub-sector. Some investors may want geographical diversification and when researching, different states could be reviewed. For example, natural gas utilities servicing Florida, Iowa, Colorado and Kentucky (those listed as having friendlier regulatory environments) include privately held MidAmerican Utilities and EQT Corp (NYSE: EQT ). Water utilities offer a much narrower choice with all companies being either small or mid-caps and the vast majority of water districts are still owned by municipalities. The largest independent US water utilities, by market cap, are American Water Works (NYSE: AWK ) and Aqua America (NYSE: WTR ). Unregulated merchant power producers are directly affected by the commodity price of electric power, and both can be volatile. In the Northeast and eastern Midwest, power is sold mainly using a 3-yr rolling auction process while in the south power is usually sold using long-term purchased power agreements of upwards of 20 years. For example, below is a 15-year chart of the 1-year forward price of power at PJM’s Western Hub, from Erie, PA to Washington DC, as offered by consulting firm Enernoc. (click to enlarge) Natural gas fueled Calpine (NYSE: CPN ) and smaller geothermal Ormat Technologies (NYSE: ORA ) are two examples of merchant power producers. E&E Publishing offers an in-depth article from last fall that differentiates two major merchant power producers with diverse business models — Dynegy (NYSE: DYN ) and NRG (NYSE: NRG ). After a list of potential stocks is developed, determining the most suitable comes next. It is important for the portfolio not only to include multiple segments of the utility sector, but several choices within the segment as well. The final choices should fit into the risk profile and investment strategy of each individual investor. For example, dividend growth investors may want to focus on the 3-yr or 5-yr growth of dividend while income investors may select stocks with the highest current yield. However, there are a few specific attributes that all investors should review and include analysis of return on invested capital. Return on invested capital ROIC is an important fundamental attribute for capital-intensive companies such as utilities. Return on equity ROE evaluates management effectiveness based on profits generated in relationship to equity deployed while ROIC evaluates management effectiveness based on the total capital structure at their disposal — equity and debt combined. While not the only criteria to consider, over the long term higher than average ROIC means management has the proven their ability to generate profits better than competitors did. The average ROIC is around 5%. However, it is important to appreciate that a high ROIC does not guarantee higher stock returns, just that the management team is potentially better at generating profits than others are. Another matrix is the appreciation of returns on capital vs. the cost of capital. The best companies over time generate returns on their total capital structure in excess of the cost of the same capital. ThatWACC.com offers the complex calculations of WACC, or weighted average cost of capital, by ticker symbol. The goal is to find management teams that generate a positive Net ROIC, or ROIC minus WACC. For example, Exelon (NYSE: EXC ) has generated a 5-yr average ROIC of 7.4% and has a WACC of 4.7%. By comparison, Duke Energy has a 5-yr average ROIC of 4.3% and a WACC of 3.3% and PPL Corp (NYSE: PPL ) has a 5-yr average ROIC of 6.4% and a WACC of 4.8%. There are many utilities that do not generate ROIC in excess of their WACC. Some investors are drawn to quality management teams. S&P offers a rating of 10-year performance of earnings and dividend growth called the “Quality Rating.” These two attributes are critical for many investors, and ratings range from A+ to D-, with B+ considered average. The only A+ rated utility company is Entergy (NYSE: ETR ). Below are utilities rated A. AGL RESOURCES INC. GAS AMERICAN STATES WATER CO AWR AQUA AMERICA INC WTR CHESAPEAKE UTILITIES CORP. CPK ITC HOLDINGS CORP ITC NEXTERA ENERGY INC NEE NORTHWESTERN CORP NWE PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS CO INC. PNY WISCONSIN ENERGY CORP WEC YORK WATER COMPANY ( THE ) YORW Some investors look at dividend yield as a measure of value. When the current yield is at a level that is higher than its average 5-yr yield, the stock can be considered to be ripe for purchase. For example, according to reuters.com, the 5-yr average yield for Southern Company is 4.46%, and is right at its current yield of 4.57%. Fastgraphs.com offers a new intriguing option, which is a history of dividend yields. Below is a chart of SO’s dividend yield, courtesy of fastgraphs.com. (click to enlarge) As shown by the red line, the yield on SO has been up and down. The average peak in yield going back to 1996, and its corresponding low stock prices, is 5.3%. The yield has peaked 5 times over the previous 20 years, and a buy in price at the average peak could be considered a historically good entry point. As Mr. Carnevale points out, current valuations are extended and yields are subdued compared to historic numbers. There has been a pullback in most utilities over the past month, and especially since the recent employment numbers came out, fueling thoughts of a turn in the interest rate cycle. The current utility stock slide has brought some selections back to more reasonable valuations. Based on history, utility stock prices are more sensitive to interest rate declines at the top of the rate cycle than interest rate increases from the bottom of the cycle. More on this can be found in my article from last July titled, Utilities and Rising Interest Rates: Fact or Fiction. Author’s Note: Please review disclosure in Author’s profile. Disclosure: The author is long AEP, EXC, SO, ITC. (More…) The author wrote this article themselves, and it expresses their own opinions. The author is not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). The author has no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Calpine Corp.: A Different Kind Of Utility

Summary Operates diversified, modern natural gas-fired power plants. Company pays no dividend yield, only share repurchases. Management exercises prudent control of debt and input costs. Calpine Corp. (NYSE: CPN ) has a portfolio (including partnership interest) of over 88 power plants generating in excess of 26,000 megawatts of power in North America, primarily in California, Texas, and the Eastern seaboard. As an added benefit, these are modern, clean energy plants using natural gas and geothermal to produce power, resulting in lower carbon emissions – 95% of the company’s power generation was done with natural gas. This marks it as an industry leader going forward as natural gas is expected to be a leading generator of power in the United States in the coming years, as coal continues its decline and natural gas is discovered in shale plays. While the company consumed 793 billion cubic feet of natural gas in 2014 (10% of all natural gas used for power generation), the EIA estimates the US has over 350 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves at the end of 2013. Prior Bankruptcy, Current Cost Control In 2005, Calpine filed for bankruptcy protection in one of the largest bankruptcies in US history as natural gas prices had soared, a new glut of competing power plants came online, and the company’s debt load of $22B became unmanageable due to poor structure. Calpine’s prior leadership team was poor and mismanaged the company in its debt and hedging practices. The company emerged from bankruptcy to begin trading again in 2008. I think it is important to note that the market today is much different than it was then – Calpine’s current outstanding debt is half of what it was, has been financed at lower interest rates, and the natural gas market has fundamentally changed. (click to enlarge) As noted, the company has done a great job in recent years of paying down and refinancing debt. Total interest expense has fallen from $813M in 2010 to $645M in 2014, a decrease of 20%, as total revenue has grown 22% in that same time frame. Long-Term Outlook, Coal to Gas Switching Depending on the fluctuating spot prices of coal and natural gas, power plants using one or the other frequently set the price of wholesale energy. Most often in the past decade, but as natural gas prices have fallen it has become more commonplace that natural gas sets the price. When this switching occurs, demand and total generation volumes increase for Calpine. If you look back to 2012 when this occurred often, you’ll find elevated levels of operating income. Forward markets for natural gas prices suggest this may happen again in 2015. Fundamentally, in the intermediate/long term, coal to gas switching may become even more prevalent as environmental regulations and political pressures force coal-fired power generation to reduce levels of pollutants like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen monoxide through expensive retrofits. Costs will increase for these market participants and natural gas power plants may overtake coal as the primary form of energy generation in the United States. Wait, No Dividend? Utilities are known for and sought out by income investors for the income that their dividend payouts provide. Retail investors frequently screen stocks by dividend yield and history to choose stocks. CPN does not pay one – but not for lack of profitability or cash flow. Thad Hill, CEO, stated in the Q4 2014 Earnings Release , 2014 wrapped up in a fine year for Calpine, we are proud to report adjusted EBITDA of $1.949 billion, adjusted free cash flow of $830 million and adjusted free cash flow per share of $2.03. So what gives? CPN provides returns to shareholders in the form of share buybacks solely. Thad Hill further states, Finally, we have continued to return money to our shareholders by completing $277 million of buyback since the last quarterly call in November. As our stock price moved down with the recent commodity price sell off, we took advantage of it and stepped up our share repurchase program. Since beginning the program in 2011, we have repurchased approximately 25% of our outstanding shares for $2.4 billion. $1.1B of those share repurchases have been done in the last year. Operating using a model of only share repurchases gives management added flexibility in deploying capital. Who better to know when the shares are undervalued than management? Or when that capital may best be used to fund a timely acquisition that has a greater expected NPV than through shareholder returns? Ownership/Short Interest CPN also has high institutional ownership (95%). This ratio is one of the highest I could find among utilities – only El Paso Electric (NYSE: EE ) and ITC Holdings (NYSE: ITC ) have higher rates, at 98.9% and 95.1%, respectively. Institutional ownership here is key – considering the vast amount of resources, talent, and research that these institutions provide their researchers, their investment decisions generally carry great weight with retail investors. In this case, retail investors have not followed, most likely due to the earlier highlighted issues of the lack of a dividend and prior bankruptcy. Analysts have a similar opinion to institutions. 75% of analysts rate the stock a strong buy/buy, with none rating it as underperform/sell. The average target price is $25.00 – nearly 20% upside from current prices. *Sourced from Yahoo! Finance Short interest in CPN (4% shares held short) is within the top quintile of utilities. Its short interest is similar to utilities that have no free cash flow or those with higher P/E ratios and lower growth prospects. Having no dividend is a double edged sword – no short wants to get stuck covering a dividend over ex-date, so short interest in the sector is usually mild even when the sector trades overvalued. The company’s lack of a dividend yield gives shorts the advantage of not being forced to cover at high prices before ex-date or feeling the sting of that negative dividend payment hit their account. 2015 Guidance (click to enlarge) The company guides $2.10-$2.60 a share in free cash flow/share – 3.5% increase over 2014 on the low end and 28% on the high end. This is forecast to be a record year in cash flow availability for the company, with plenty of available cash for repurchases and acquisitions. As of the February earnings release, the company had already repurchased $125M in shares in 2015 – on pace for another year of over $1B in repurchases – which would retire 12% of the float at the current share price. As the current share price sits below the average share price of repurchases in 2014, so I expect these buybacks to continue as management continues to believe current prices are an excellent investment opportunity. Conclusion A purchase in Calpine is a purchase of a company with a historical stigma and no steady income stream to shareholders. But it is also a purchase in a company that analysts and institutions have committed big to and one that is set to benefit strongly from a coming shift in energy production from coal to natural gas on the heels of the American resurgence of power in oil and natural gas production. I see fair value today at $26.00/share – more than 20% upside from current prices. Disclosure: The author is long CPN. (More…) The author wrote this article themselves, and it expresses their own opinions. The author is not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). The author has no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.