Tag Archives: director

South Jersey Industries’ (SJI) CEO Mike Renna on Q1 2016 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

South Jersey Industries, Inc. (NYSE: SJI ) Q1 2016 Earnings Conference Call May 06, 2016 11:00 AM ET Executives Ann Anthony – Treasurer Marissa Travaline – IR Mike Renna – CEO Steve Clark – CFO Greg Nuzzo – SVP South Jersey Energy Solutions Analysts Michael Gaugler – Janney Montgomery Scott Dan Fidell – U.S. Capital Advisors Andrew Gay – Motion Group Chris Ellinghaus – Williams Capital Group Operator Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the First Quarter 2016 South Jersey Industries Earnings Conference Call. My name is Sheila, and I will be your operator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen only mode. We will conduct a question-and-answer session towards the end of this conference. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this call is being recorded. I would like to turn the conference over to Ann Anthony, Treasurer. Please proceed. Ann Anthony Thank you, Sheila. Good morning and thank you for joining us as we present South Jersey Industries’ first quarter results for fiscal year ‘16, as well as an update on our business. Joining me on the call today are Mike Renna, President and CEO of SJI, along with Steve Clark, our CFO, and Marissa Travaline, our Director of Investor Relations. We also have several additional members of our senior management team available to help address questions following our prepared comments. Our earnings release was issued to the media this morning and is also available on our Web site at www.SJindustries.com. The release and the associated 10-Q provide an in-depth review of earnings on both a GAAP and non-GAAP basis using our non-GAAP measure of economic earnings. Reconciliations of economic earnings to the comparable GAAP measures appear in both documents. Let me note that throughout today’s call we will be making references to future expectations, plans and opportunities for SJI. Actual results may differ materially from those indicated by these statements as a result of various important factors, including those discussed in the Company’s Form 10-K and 10-Q on file with the SEC. Also, as a reminder, our 2015 per share numbers have been adjusted to reflect the impacts of the stock split that occurred in May of 2015. With that said, I will now turn the call over to our CFO, Steve Clark, to present SJI’s first quarter 2016 results. Steve Clark Thank you, Ann, and good morning everyone. Thank you for joining us. To begin, our first quarter 2016, economic earnings totaled $57 million as compared with $58.9 million in 2015. Economic earnings per share for Q1 2016 were $0.80 as compared with $0.86 for the prior-year period. Strong utility growth, combined with a more than 50% jump in the contribution from our commodity businesses within South Jersey Energy Group, drove economic earnings for the quarter. And with the Revel and Energenic restructuring transactions behind us, the operational contributions from our energy services business has improved considerably. What is noteworthy about the recent quarter’s performance is the fact that it was achieved with nearly $8.5 million less in investment tax credits for ITCs than in the first quarter of 2015. This reduction is consistent with our strategy of substantially reducing investment in solar development, which we discussed on our year-end call in February. With that said, now I’ll review the performance of each of our business lines. South Jersey Gas’ net income of $44.4 million for the first quarter exceeded prior-year results of $42.6 million as a result of strong customer growth and the benefits from infrastructure investments made to reinforce system safety and reliability. There is no difference between SJG’s GAAP net income and economic earnings. In the first quarter, the efforts of our business development team added almost 1,800 new customers in our utility. This helped to bring our current customer count to 375,585 as of the end of the first quarter. For the 12 months ending 3/31/2016, our customer base grew by 1.8%. Conversions have driven the majority of that growth by a margin of roughly 2:1, but new construction has also picked up over the last year. We are encouraged by the signs of life in that market. We anticipate that relative energy prices, combined with our aggressive marketing efforts, will help fuel long-term customer growth. Regulated infrastructure investments made by SJG through two key programs, the accelerated infrastructure replacement and storm hardening and reliability programs, provided incremental net income of $1.9 million for the quarter. First quarter 2016 investments under these two programs totaled $21.3 million. The AIRP, which replaces aging bare steel and cast iron gas mains throughout our system, and the SHARP, which replaces low-pressure gas mains along the Barrier Islands with high-pressure mains, helped to reinforce and better protect our system. We anticipate infrastructure investments totaling $66 million for the full year in 2016. And we expect those investments to add $4.8 million in incremental net income for the year. Turning to another major infrastructure initiative, I don’t have much new to report on the proposed pipeline that provides natural gas to the former BL England electric generating station. As you may recall, we received final approval from the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities in December, allowing the project to proceed. Briefings are due on the appeals in June and oral arguments are scheduled for September. We remain optimistic that we will be able to move forward on this project late this year. In March, South Jersey Gas participated in the official ribbon cutting for a compressed natural gas station in Paulsboro, New Jersey represents a joint project with Wawa, a leading gas station and convenience store chain operating in six states spanning from Florida to Pennsylvania. With seven CNG stations currently open to the public in our service territory and five more planned by SJG in the next year, we look forward to helping mainstream this technology, allowing greater numbers of drivers to realize the cost and emission benefits this fuel alternative can provide. Turning to SJI midstream’s PennEast pipeline project, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission released a notice of schedule for environmental review in March, which helped identify another milestone for the Partnership. This document establishes December 16, 2016 for the completion of the Commission’s environmental review of the project. Design, engineering and environmental assessments continue moving forward on the approximately 118-mile FERC-regulated pipeline, which is targeted to be placed in service during the second half of 2018. Now we will move to the non-utility side of our business, which is comprised of two business segments, South Jersey Energy Group and South Jersey Energy Services. For the first quarter our non-utility businesses generated a combined $12.6 million of economic earnings, as compared with $16.3 million in the first quarter of 2015. Once again, what is compelling here is the first-quarter 2016 results were only $3.7 million lower than first-quarter 2015, despite the fact that investment tax credits were $8.5 million lower than they were in the first quarter of 2015. Additionally, we achieved this performance during a quarter where the weather was considerably warmer than in the same period in the prior-year period. Looking at these businesses individually, our commodity, marketing and fuel management activities at South Jersey Energy Group contributed $12.2 million of economic earnings for the first quarter of 2016, as compared with $7.8 million in the first quarter of 2015. Optimization of storage and transportation assets produced significant year-over-year improvements, complement by the performance of three active fuel management contracts. The positives more than offset a $1 million decline in economic earnings from our retail commodity marketing activities due to the very mild winter we just experienced. We anticipate that the remainder of 2016 will benefit from two additional fuel management contracts coming online in the second quarter and from the contributions of several large new retail commodity contracts. Our other non-utility business, South Jersey Energy Services, contributed $500,000 to economic earnings in the first quarter of 2016, as compared with $8.6 million for the same period in 2015. Although the variance is very significant, 2005’s sic 2015 results reflect the benefit of $10.2 million of ITC, while the first-quarter 2016 results were achieved with $1.7 million of ITC. Improved year-over-year operating performance at our solar and landfill gas-to-electricity projects came despite lower locational margin pricing, was partially offset by the impact of a very warm winter on our CHP holdings. Disregarding the effect of investment tax credits, operations from this area of the business improved by over $400,000 for the quarter. And with that I’ll turn the call over to Mike. Mike Renna Thanks, Steve. Good morning, everyone. A year ago we introduced a set of four clear strategic objectives, the first of which, to grow economic earnings to at least 150 million by 2020, is the foundation of our plan. I want to emphasize that the 150 million represents earnings from our core business lines in other words, earnings without the benefit of investment tax credits. Effectively, we aim to double operating performance in five years, with 72% to 82% of our economic earnings coming from regulated opportunities, we anticipate, both within our utility and from FERC-regulated projects within our midstream business. We expect that strong customer growth will continue adding to this segment of our business, along with the benefits of infrastructure investment. The contributions Steve highlighted within South Jersey Energy Group from our commodity and fuel supply management business lines are expected to continue growing and replacing the earnings on the scale back of ITC, ultimately contributing close to 20% of economic earnings by 2020. Finally, improved operating performance within our recently reorganized energy production portfolio will provide a contribution of 2% to 4% as we approach 2020. The second tenet of our strategy is to improve the quality of our earnings. As we approach the end of the decade, as I mentioned, 72% of 82% of economic earnings will come from our regulated business lines, and the balance will be derived mainly from contracted assets that reflect a low-risk, fee-based multi-year approach to growth in our wholesale, retail and energy production businesses. This emphasis on regulated and contracted assets is intended to help drive a third key component of our strategy, which is reducing the risk across our portfolio to ensure that we provide not only high quality but also consistent and reliable earnings. And, finally, as we grow, we intend to do so with a stronger, less levered balance sheet. As our investment profile changes and aligns with increased opportunities, around both the utility and regulated projects, we expect to invest more than $600 million over the next two years in our regulated businesses. We plan to fund that growth through a mix of operating cash flow, debt, and equity that will help us maintain a flexible capital structure. We believe this flexibility will allow us to be agile in response to the many growth opportunities in front of us. I am very pleased with the progress we’ve made to date. In addition to strong growth in our utility, we again benefited from improved performance in our wholesale commodity business, improvements driven by the optimization of our storage and transportation assets, and our three active fuel management contracts. We expect to continue this momentum as we begin serving two additional merchant generation facilities in the second quarter and four additional projects, like our recently announced Lordstown Energy Center, lay the groundwork for future growth. The restructuring of our energy project portfolio within South Jersey Energy Services has led to improved operating performance, as we shed our ownership interest in non-core landfill gas to energy assets, while retaining four New Jersey facilities that serve Borgata hotel and casino property in Atlantic City with green electricity under a long term power purchase agreement. And, of course, the write down of our interest in the energy facility at the former Revel Casino last year has put the impacts of that project behind us and allowed us to focus on improving CHP assets, like the facility that has served the Borgata for more than a decade. Looking at the full year, we anticipate strong customer growth, contributions from our AIRP and SHARP programs, as well as our investment in a natural gas liquefier in McKee City, which, when combined with strong performance from our commodity marketing businesses and improved operating performance across our portfolio of energy production assets, will result in double digit growth in our core businesses, meaningful growth in the range of 15% to 18%, which nearly offsets the significant reduction in renewable project investment we’ve already highlighted. It’s important to note that nothing has changed with respect to our 2020 targets. And our plan, as we stated all along, focuses on core operations, in other words, our 2020 target of $150 million never contemplated any contribution from ITC. With the regulated investment opportunities in front of us, and the impact of the recent bonus depreciation extension, we are simply accelerating our plans to scale back investment in renewable projects to focus on executing on our strategy of growth through our core businesses. As we continue to execute on our strategy, and factoring in our intended plans for capital investment and reduced ITC, we are anticipating 2016 economic earnings per share between $1.29 and $1.35. Beyond 2016, as I said earlier, I’m very encouraged by the progress we’ve made to date, and I’m highly confident that we are well positioned to deliver on all four of our 2020 targets. At this time I will turn the call back to the operator for the Q&A portion of our call. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions] And your first question comes from the line of Michael Gaugler of Janney Montgomery Scott. Please proceed Michael. Michael Gaugler I was wondering if you could provide an update on the potential move to Atlantic City for the headquarters. I know that’s a big chunk of tax credits that you’ve indicated could be available in the past. The reason I’m asking is, simply, in light of the challenges the city if facing right now, perhaps there’s even a better deal to be had. Mike Renna The better deal to be had is a Camden. And we’ve identified Atlantic City as the optimal place for us to expand our business. Quite frankly, not to drag this out, but our current corporate headquarters in Folsom is space constrained. And we happen to sit in an area where we’re both tyne land and deed restricted, so we do not have the ability to expand our footprint here, which is really the catalyst for why we were looking at potentially relocating a significant part of our business. Simply put, for me, I like the idea that, while everybody else is looking to flee the city, we are heading in. I think that with Stockton and South Jersey Gas as the anchors of the Gateway project, it sends a strong signal that Atlantic City’s future is bright. And its future is also, it’s necessary for a diversification of their economy. So, we’re very proud to be a part of it and, yes, there are very significant tax credits and we’ll be realizing them over 10 years. And, quite frankly, I don’t know that Atlantic City, or the state, for that matter, has the money to sweeten the deal at all. Michael Gaugler Okay. Is there a timeline on the move at this moment? Or just exploratory? Mike Renna I’m hoping to get it done before I retire. Things move a little bit slowly in Atlantic City, but we’re hoping to break ground this year, correct, Gina? And we would assume probably 18 to 24 months of construction. So somewhere late 2018. Michael Gaugler Okay. And then just one other I had. You had referenced Mike, midstream opportunities and investments there. And certainly you’ve got a nice one coming up in PennEast. How are you feeling near term about potentially putting a couple more in the portfolio? Are there projects on the drawing boards that look viable? And are you concerned at all about, what we’ve seen in the Northeast in terms of pushback against new midstream assets? Mike Renna A couple of questions. First, yes, we do have a business development group that reports up through Greg Nuzzo, so we’re evaluating different opportunities in the space. I think that there are opportunities for expansion of PennEast potentially down the road, as well. So I’m very bullish on the opportunities that we have in front of us. But again, we are in preliminary stages of development, so it’s a little bit premature to put anything out there other than the fact that yes we are actively looking at opportunities. As far as the Northeast, I think it’s something that’s relatively unique in the United States to this area of the country. Obviously the West Coast has very similar activism but– I’m very encouraged, or very confident, in the project simply because this is a unique project. It is really being driven by demand. Where a lot of the pipelines are being driven by the producers, this is being driven by the market. And the fact that it’s fully subscribe at the BCF, it’s fully subscribed, demonstrates that there is a real need for this product and for this project to go through. So, despite the fact that it’s in the Northeast, and despite the fact that there is a very small but vocal opposition to it, I am highly confident that it will be successful. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Dan Fidell of U.S. Capital Advisors. Please proceed. Daniel Fidell Just a couple of questions from me. First, more of just a clarification question, with the acceleration in the solar wind down, it looks like solar is 13 million or so for the year, targeting, versus 38 last year, how should we be thinking about contributions going forward? You had mentioned 2% to 4% coming from that bucket going forward, but should we assume zero in the next year? Mike Renna In 2017, yes, I would assume zero. I would not expect us, unless something changes dramatically in the market in terms of economics, that we would be making any further investment in renewable energy products. Could there be an opportunity for us to be involved in a CHP project if the conditions were right? Yes. And there’s an investment tax credit attached to CHP projects. But I think as you know, that’s a smaller percentage and that would really probably be the only place we would realize anything from ITC. Daniel Fidell Okay. Great. And just in terms of financing, you had mentioned as part of the 2016 guidance, I think, in the release talking about the finance, you talked about the need for equity and debt as part of the growth funding for the plan. Can you give us maybe a little bit more color of what you’re including in terms of expectations for equity financing into the 2016 guidance number? Mike Renna Dan, I think you’ll appreciate that we’ve got a lot of opportunity in front of us. And the opportunities are in our regulated business lines which is we have discussed before, that is really the foundation of our plan going forward, As I mentioned, we are going to get to 72% to 82% — not that I want to be precise — in terms of contribution from regulated assets. Right now we are just evaluating different financing strategies to support our growth opportunities and we intend on being opportunistic in the timing and the nature with which we meet those needs. Steve Clark And, Dan, this is Steve. When you step back and look at how we’ve laid out our expectations — and we’ve talked in the past about the things that we see in front of us is opportunities to invest in — what a lot of it entails is a lot of our front investment. We are going to put a lot of money in the ground before cash starts flowing from it, so we’ve got to be very cognizant of that as we implement those. Daniel Fidell Okay, great. And then the last question is more about growth opportunities you see in front of you in two tranches. First is, you talk about 600 million or so in investment opportunity,’16 and ’17, and then longer term the 150 million economic earnings per share number by 2020. I don’t know if you can address a sort of each of them maybe in some way sort of on the near term, the 600 million or so, without going into necessarily specifics, or as much as you can, can you kind of bucket that a little bit in terms of big chunks of where that’s — the $600 million will likely flow from? Steve Clark Dan, just to respond to that, as we look at our utility, as an example, I think we’ve got in our forecast about $220 million of CapEx just at South Jersey Gas Company. And I believe next year we’re at that same range or a little bit higher than that next year. So you’ve got $450 million targeted right there. We certainly are looking at, basically the rest of it would be opportunities with regard to our FERC-regulated midstream opportunities. As we look at the kinds of things that we’re doing at the utility, and you take them even out beyond 2017, obviously our focus is on continuing to improve the quality of our system. We’ve had a regulatory environment that has supported folks in New Jersey from making those good decisions to improve and enhance their systems. And that’s exactly what we’re looking to do. When we’re talking about these numbers, it’s really focused on the regulated businesses, and the vast majority of it falls on the utility. Mike Renna Just a follow up on Steve’s, there is no significant planned capital expenditures in our traditional non-utility businesses. And that, I think, echoed in the fact that we’re considerably — or whatever word you want to put on it — reducing our investment appetite in renewable projects this year, and not anticipating any next year. And, again, we don’t have any big development projects in front of us on the CHP side. So, all, if is not all the vast majority, of this spend is in regulated businesses. Daniel Fidell Last question for me and I’ll hop back in queue, just wondering if you’ve got — you mentioned the CapEx spend for ’16 or ’17 but do you have a spend through the 2020 period, a general level of total CapEx that we can peg to? Should we assume sort of a normalized rate that you are guiding here for, 300 million roughly or so annually through the period up to 2020? Steve Clark We’re probably a little heavier now through the middle of the phase, but we’re probably looking at as much as $1.5 billion through that 2020 period. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Andrew Gay of Motion Group. Please proceed Andrew. Andrew Gay In terms of what changed with the guidance from last quarter in terms of the percentages from each segment, did your expectation of overall earnings change, or was it just shifting between the segments? Just trying to understand what drove some of the shift, like the utilities a little less now as a percentage. Steve Clark Primarily just refining things. As we’ve moved forward, it’s just looking at how the winter played out. Obviously, it was a very warm winter so you move a couple things around there. But I don’t think there was anything really significant in the adjustment. Andrew Gay So, then, at the utility, did I hear you right that net income there is up year on year? Steve Clark Yes, that is correct. Andrew Gay And then in terms of the uncollectibles at the utility, you had highlighted them on the fourth quarter call that they were a drag in last year. Do you have any guidance on what that is looking like for this year, just like a year-on-year benefit? Steve Clark We did expect it to be conservatively better this year. We thought we had addressed a lot of the issues last year. We are expecting, and will obviously have to continue along a little bit further into the year, but we are expecting that we will also see benefit out of the fact that we had an extremely warm winter. And while that prevented some of our non-utility businesses from taking advantage of what are typically market opportunities in cold winter periods with a lot of cold weather volatility, within the utility the real benefit is it’s a lower bill for our customers to pay, and it makes it easier for them to pay. We think that’s a net positive to us so we’re expecting a significantly better situation from a receivable collection standpoint this year than we were last year. Andrew Gay Okay. And the 15% to 18% core business growth that you had mentioned, I apologize, I missed what you exactly said there, is that 15% to 18% expectation for this year? Steve Clark Yes. Andrew Gay Okay, for this year. And then, just lastly, I know that you want to be you want to be somewhat sensitive to discuss the amount of equity and timing, but just in terms of the 2020 goal, 150 million goal for net income, any sense of the share count that we should be assuming out there once you get the cash flows and the upfront CapEx and everything is all taken into account? Steve Clark I think probably the biggest issue there is going to be timing of cash flows. But our view on this is that there is going to be, from a significant investment there’s going to be a significant amount of cash that comes rolling in. Ultimately the issue is that you would have expected, as you look out at a 2020 program that we are talking about, and with a lot of the investment that we are talking about, any of the real capital needs and that would also fall in the category of equity capital you expect that to be much heavier at the beginning of the period than it would at the end. And clearly at the end we wouldn’t expect any real equity requirements at the end of that period. Andrew Gay Okay. And just lastly from me, has anything changed in terms of why you’re talking about equity upfront? Given the contracted regulated nature of a lot of the cash flows that will come online, there could have been a thought to let the credit metrics slip a little in the front years because you will get the benefit of those cash flows in the back years. Are you getting pressure from rating agencies? Or this was the plan all along and there hasn’t been a change? Just if you could give a little color on that thought process. Mike Renna It’s been the plan all along. A key component of our plan was to strengthen our balance sheet. We believe it’s the prudent thing to do. But, again, we’ve got tremendous amount of investment opportunity in front of us. As we look at all of these different opportunities, we’re making decisions — discrete decisions — on how best to finance these opportunities. And doing so mindful of — again, we talked about strengthening the balance sheet and minimal dilution, so those are all part of how we are factoring in our decisions. Operator The next question comes from the line of [Steven Ambrosi] (ph) of Castleton Investment Management. Please proceed Steve. Unidentified Analyst Most of my questions have been asked. Just quickly, do you guys have plans in the five-year look-forward to do another general rate case in New Jersey? And can you talk about timing on that and when that would be? Mike Renna We do have plans. When you experience the kind of CapEx that we’re planning on in the utility, it is certainly something that you make plans for. As far as timing goes, no, we have not refined the timing in New Jersey. There are a lot of factors that go into it, particularly off your gubernatorial cycle or election in New Jersey. So, we tend to look at everything from — obviously, business needs are paramount but at the same time we try to factor in some of the social type of impacts. Unidentified Analyst Okay. There was a lot going on before — the BL England comment, what was the comment you made on that in the script? Can you just talk about where that is, where the process is there? Steve Clark Sure. We got approved back in December. It went through a long process to go through the Pinelands. And the Pinelands had taken action to move forward on it, and it required a final approval, in essence, by the Board of Public Utilities. That happened back in December. There were a number of, in essence, appeals that were filed by different groups who were opposing the pipeline for a variety of different reasons. Those are being addressed right now. The expectation, I think I indicated that briefs were due in June, and that the expectation is that the arguments would be heard in September. So, the thought always was, once that got approved that we would have to go through the appeal process. We don’t think the appeals have any merit and we are expecting this thing to continue moving on. Hopefully we’ll be moving forward with it again by the end of the year. Unidentified Analyst What are they appealing on the basis of? Steve Clark There’s a variety of approaches they’re taking. [Audio gap] Some of it had to do with the fact that the BPU was approving it. It had to do with the way that thing was approved. There are certainly people who — well, let’s get right down to brass tacks — one of the processes here as we are dealing with all of the argument again fracking and against fossil fuels and the like, part of the plan is delay. If you can’t kill it, if you delay really, what the process here is, is that they’re going to throw a lot of stuff against the wall and if it creates a delay that’s great. Steven Ambrosi Okay. That’s all I had. Thanks very much, guys. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Chris Ellinghaus of Williams Capital Group. Please proceed. Chris Ellinghaus A couple of questions. One, can you give us some color on where variance in ITC recognition this year might come from? Stephen Clark Chris, when you say the variance, are you talking about the first-quarter variance? Chris Ellinghaus No, in terms of you said up to $13 million. What could make it be less? Mike Renna It’s a couple things. If we don’t have investment opportunities that meet our internal rates, certainly that would be one driver. We’re not going to invest in a sub optimal decision simply because we’ve got an ITC number out there. Second, if we have stronger than anticipated or expected performance in any one of our other business lines that would, again, be a more attractive use of our capital and generate a higher return on our capital. That would be, really, the other thing. Off the top of my head I can’t really think of anything else besides just better investment opportunities. Chris Ellinghaus Okay. Steve, can you give us any elaboration on what you did for equity in the first quarter? Stephen Clark We brought in $9 million, I believe it was, in equity in the first quarter. I’m sorry, I take that back. I’m sorry. It was $5.5 million, but through our DRIP, I think as of April 1, we got another $4 million. So, it was $9 million total as of April 1. What will show up in the quarter numbers is $5.5 million. Chris Ellinghaus Okay. And, Mike, as far as that 15% to 18% number that you quoted us for this year, how are you defining, just so I’m clear, what are you calling core? Is that simply ex ITCs or is that really a different definition? Mike Renna It is ex ITCs and ex any one-time events. So, it really is just the operating profits from Gas Company, Energy Group, and Energy Solutions Chris Ellinghaus Okay. Great. That’s clear. Steve, or anybody, can you just walk us through the supply management contracts and when you expect the un-operating ones to begin? Stephen Clark Sure. Let me introduce you to Greg Nuzzo. This is his maiden voyage on an earnings call. But he is best equipped to give you an update on our fuel supply business. Greg Nuzzo We have three operating contracts now currently contributing, and we have two more coming online this year. There will be five in total that will contribute to 2016. Chris Ellinghaus Both of those are Panda’s? Greg Nuzzo The two additional our Panda’s, Moxie and Liberty, yes. Chris Ellinghaus And the Ohio contract, when does that begin? Greg Nuzzo That’s the Lordstown deal that will begin in 2018. Chris Ellinghaus Is that the most detailed as far as timing goes that you have? Greg Nuzzo In terms of timing for that particular deal? I think in total we have nine that we have under contract. We have two more coming online in 2017, and two additional ones coming on in 2018. Chris Ellinghaus Okay. Great. Thanks for the color, guys. Operator [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the call over to Mike for closing remarks. Mike Renna Thanks. Before we wrap up, as always feel free to contact Marissa Travaline, our Director of Investor Relations, our Ann Anthony, our Treasurer, if any follow up questions arise. Marissa can be reached at 609-561-9000, extension 4227, or by email at mtravaline@sjindustries.com. Ann can be reached at extension 4143, or by email at aanthony@sjindustries.com. Again, thank you for joining us today and for your continued interest and investment in SJI. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation in today’s conference. This concludes the presentation. You may now disconnect. 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!

Exelon (EXC) Christopher M. Crane on Q1 2016 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Exelon Corp. (NYSE: EXC ) Q1 2016 Earnings Call May 06, 2016 11:00 am ET Executives Dan L. Eggers – Senior Vice President-Investor Relations Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Jonathan W. Thayer – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP Joseph Nigro – Executive Vice President, Exelon; Chief Executive Officer, Constellation, Exelon Corp. Analysts Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Operator Good morning and welcome to the Exelon Corporation’s Q1 2016 Earnings Conference Call. My name is Prasanthi and I’ll be facilitating the audio portion of today’s – and active broadcast. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. For those of you on this stream, please take note of the options available in your event console. At this time, I would like to turn the show over to Dan Eggers, Senior Vice President of Investors Relations. Dan L. Eggers – Senior Vice President-Investor Relations Thank you, Prasanthi. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining our first quarter 2016 earnings conference call. Leading the call today are Chris Crane, Exelon’s President and Chief Executive Officer; and Jack Thayer, Exelon’s Chief Financial Officer. They are joined by other members of Exelon’s senior management team who will be available to answer your questions following our prepared remarks. We issued our earnings release this morning along with the presentation, both of which can be found in the Investor Relations section of the Exelon’s website. The earnings release and other matters which we discuss during today’s call contain forward-looking statements and estimates that are subject to various risks and uncertainties. Actual results could differ from our forward-looking statements based on factors and assumptions discussed in today’s material, comments made during this call, and our Risk Factors section in the earnings release, and the 10-Q, which we expect to file on May 10. Please refer to today’s 8-K, the 10-Q, and Exelon’s other filings for a discussion of factors that may cause results to differ from management’s projections, forecasts and expectations. Today’s presentation also includes references to adjusted operating earnings and other non-GAAP measures. Please refer to the information contained in the appendix of our presentation and our earnings release for a reconciliation between the non-GAAP measures to the nearest equivalent GAAP measures. We’ve scheduled 45 minutes for today’s call. I’ll now turn the call over to Chris Crane, Exelon’s CEO. Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Good morning. Thanks for joining us this morning. Once again we had a great quarter financially, where we closed near the upper end of the range even with the milder weather. And operationally, our utilities and plants continue to operate at high levels. The big news for the quarter is we closed the Pepco Holdings transaction in March. We are excited to have Pepco utilities as part of the Exelon family. We know this has been a long journey and it took much longer than any of us anticipated, but we appreciate the patience of our investors as we pursued the merger. Our employees who worked tirelessly from the inception to the completion of the deal and the many stakeholders who’ve supported was critical to getting the deal done. PHI is an important piece of our strategy to become a more regulated company with more stable earnings streams. While we are still in the early stages of integrating PHI, PHI’s earnings outlook is consistent, if not better, than what we showed you at EEI. It brings meaningful benefits to our customers, communities in Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, including bill credits and reliability investments. More than $500 million in total commitments have been made and will be achieved due to this merger. We’re now focused on integrating Pepco into Exelon. We will bring our management model and our best practices to improve the experience of our customers. The transaction confirms Exelon’s role as a leader in the industry. We serve 10 million customers, more than any other utility company. We will spend nearly $23 billion in capital across our utilities and generating business over the next three years, which is the second-highest among our peers. We are the largest pure T&D by rate base and within the top five when including rate base generation. We are the second-largest generator of electricity in the country, the largest competitor by a factor of nearly two, while producing power at the lowest carbon intensity of any large generator. We are the leader in the retail electric provider in the country serving 139 terawatts. The culture of the industry leadership is found throughout our organization, positioning us very well for the future. Switching to operational performance. Our first quarter operating performance was strong and we’re on track for a strong year. At our legacy utilities, our SAIFI and CAIDI are on track to meet reliability targets; we are in top quartile in both. At the GenCo, our nuclear plants ran at a capacity factor of 95.8%, our solar and wind assets outperformed their energy capture targets. Switching to Illinois in the nuclear plants. While there is much to celebrate this quarter, we also need to make tough decisions on the future of Clinton and Quad Cities nuclear stations in Illinois. The board has given me authority to go forward with early retirements for Clinton and Quad Cities plants, if for Clinton adequate legislation is not passed during the spring legislative session that is scheduled to end May 31, and if for Quad Cities adequate legislation is not passed and the plant does not clear the upcoming PJM auction. Otherwise, we plan to retire Clinton on June 1, 2017, and Quad Cities on June 1, 2018. This is consistent with planned refueling outage and capacity market obligations. We committed to our employees, our shareholders and the communities to try to find a path to profitability for our distressed assets. This is because these plants are vital to the communities that they are located in and provide economic and environmental value to the state. The state’s own analysis showed that closing Clinton and Quad Cities would result in $1.2 billion in lost economic activity and 4,200 jobs lost, and a significant reduction of supply of reliable electricity for Illinois residents and businesses. We worked hard over the last few years to find a path to sustainable profitability. To bring $120 million in strategic capital to these plants, we’ve pursued legislation and regulatory market changes. We’ve been successful in some areas: the PJM market reforms that were put into place last year, the cost reductions that we’ve achieved, and the large number of stakeholders who have worked so hard to help in this fight. We have strong allies in our cause, our employees, our plant communities, the bill sponsors and co-sponsors, our partners in labor, and our vendors among others. I want to thank them all very much for their support and regret the impact on this decision that we have on them. But for reasons outside of our control, we have not seen progress in Illinois policy reforms, also the Supreme Court stay creates uncertainty regarding the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. Power prices have fallen to a 15-year low in PJM, causing the economics of Clinton and Quad Cities to further deteriorate. These plants have lost $800 million in cash flow from 2009 to 2015. Just to be clear, we are not covering our operating costs or our risks, let alone receiving a return on our invested capital. We’ve done all we can up to this point and we continue to work through the spring legislative session to enact the much needed reforms. However, without adequate legislation we no longer see a path to profitability and no longer can sustain the ongoing losses. On a more positive note, we continue to see a pathway to reform in New York where Governor Cuomo, the legislature, the Public Service Commission have recognized a need to preserve the state’s nuclear plants. New York is quickly moving forward to implement a clean energy standard that will allow us to continue to operate our challenged Ginna and Nine Mile plants. I’ll turn the call over to Jack to discuss the first quarter results further. Jonathan W. Thayer – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP Thank you, Chris, and good morning, everyone. My remarks today will cover our first quarter results, 2016 guidance, update our gross margin disclosures and provide an update on developments since Q4. I’ll start on slide eight. As Chris stated, we had a strong quarter financially and operationally across the company. For the first quarter we delivered adjusted non-GAAP operating earnings of $0.68 per share, near the top of our guidance range of $0.60 per share to $0.70 per share. This compares to $0.71 per share for the first quarter of 2015. Exelon’s utilities delivered a combined $0.37 per share. During the quarter, we saw unfavorable mild weather at PECO and ComEd versus planned, which was partially offset by lower bad debt expense at BGE. There are only eight days of PHI included in our results, which had a minimal impact on the quarter. Generation had a great quarter, earning $0.34 per share. We had strong performance from our nuclear assets with better capacity factors than budgeted. And while weak power prices and lower volatility were a drag, our Constellation team delivered strong results. Our generation to load matching strategy continues to provide value and we benefited from a lower cost to serve our customers. For the second quarter, we are providing guidance of $0.50 to $0.60 per share. This compares to our realized earnings of $0.59 per share for the second quarter of 2015. The appendix contains details on our first quarter financial results compared to the first quarter of 2015 results by operating company on slide 16 and 17. Turning to slide nine, we are affirming our full-year guidance range of $2.40 to $2.70 per share which now includes the contribution from PHI and assumes an average of 926 million shares outstanding for 2016. This should help calibrate your segment models. On slide 10, we are still working through a comprehensive financial plan now that we have closed the PHI deal, but want to address the pieces that we can today. We are reaffirming our earnings growth at our legacy utilities of 7% to 9% per year from 2015 to 2018. On PHI, we are still working through the plan, but see the contribution equal to or better than what we showed you at EEI and consistent with sustaining our 7% to 9% utility growth target. On slide 11, to meet these growth targets we are going to be busy on the regulatory front. The PHI utilities have been out of rate cases for at least two years. We are continuing to invest $800 million per year to improve reliability and customer service leading to the low-earned ROEs that we show on slide 30 in the appendix. However, by the third quarter, we plan to file distribution cases in all of PHI’s jurisdictions and expect decisions in all cases by the middle of next year providing needed revenue release. Atlantic City Electric and Pepco Maryland have already filed their cases. ACE filed an electric distribution base rate case on March 22 with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities requesting an $84 million revenue increase and a 10.6% return on equity. It also included PowerAhead, a five-year $176 million grid resiliency plan. On April 19, Pepco requested a rate increase of $127 million with the Maryland’s Public Service Commission. The rate cases include smart meter recovery and a two-year $32 million grid resiliency plan. In addition to reducing the number and length of outages, Pepco’s five-year smart grid program is generating nearly $4 in customer benefits for every $1 invested. In addition, ComEd made its annual formula rate filing with the Illinois Commerce Commission. ComEd requested a revenue requirement increase of $138 million reflecting approximately $2.4 billion in capital investments made in 2015. Those investments, which included $663 million for smart grid-related work has helped strengthen and modernize the electric system, resulting in record power reliability and customer satisfaction, operational savings, and new ways to save on electric bills for ComEd customers. More details on the rate cases can be found on slide 33 – slides 34 through 37 in the appendix. Slide 12 provides our first quarter gross margin update. In 2016 total gross margin is flat to our last disclosure. During the quarter we executed on $200 million of power new business and $100 million of non-power new business. We are highly hedged for the rest of this year and well-balanced on our generation to load matching strategy. Total gross margin decreased in the first quarter by $150 million in 2017 and $200 million in 2018, as PJM power prices moved approximately $1.60 to $2.10 lower since the beginning of the year. We ended the quarter approximately 5% to 8% behind ratable in both of these years when considering cross-commodity hedges with a majority of modeling concentrated in the Midwest to align to our fundamental view of spot market upside at NiHub. Power prices have risen since the start of the second quarter and we are timing our hedging activity to lock in the value of the recent price increases while remaining well positioned to capture our fundamental view. On slide 13, I wanted to give you a quick update on some tax implications that are associated with the completion of the PHI merger. With the inclusion of PHI, we expect to realize $700 million to $850 million of additional cash from 2017 to 2019 related to legacy NOLs and the impacts of bonus depreciation. However, now, as a very modest cash tax payer for 2018, we have less ability to take the domestic production activities deduction, or DPAD, in 2018 which effectively increases our overall consolidated tax rate by as much as 200 basis points or the equivalent of $0.06 to $0.08 per share in 2018. Although this is a one-time negative impact to 2018 ExGen earnings, it comes with significant positive cash flow and we expect to return to normalized tax rates in 2019. With the variability of interest rates, I’d like to remind you that ComEd’s allowed ROE is based on a 30-year treasury rate plus 580 basis points, and thus sensitive to moves in this rate. Every 25 basis point move in treasury rates results in a $0.01 move in EPS. Before turning the call over to Chris, I wanted to raise a few scheduling points. We’ll be hosting an Analyst Day on August 10 in Philadelphia and we’ll get details around shortly. Therefore, we will not be having a second quarter earnings call and will release earnings before Analyst Day. I will now turn the call back to Chris for his closing remarks. Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Thanks, Jack. Just closing out on slide 14, the capital allocation philosophy. I want to cover that before we turn it over to Q&A, and take a moment to reiterate our capital allocation philosophy. Balance sheet strength remains a top financial priority. We have a strong strategy to deliver stable growth, sustainable earnings, and an attractive dividend to our shareholders. We will be growing that dividend at 2.5% each year for the next three years, starting with the dividend payable in June. From a capital deployment perspective, we will continue to harvest free cash flow from the generation business to invest primarily in our utilities to benefit our customers, invest in long-term contracted assets which meet our return requirements, and return capital to our shareholders. This is the right strategy for our markets and our assets. Thanks and we’ll open the line up now for your questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator And we do have audio question from Stephen Byrd (17:13). Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Hey, Steve (17:15). Unknown Speaker Start on the Illinois legislation. And wonder if you could speak to the breadth of support that you have for the proposal. And then also if you could just go through the mechanics of if it was implemented, how it’d work? So we can start to think about modeling the impacts. Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Joe, you want to cover that? Joseph Nigro – Executive Vice President, Exelon; Chief Executive Officer, Constellation, Exelon Corp. Sure. Steve (17:36), the support is the same support we had for the original bill, labor, the host communities. And in addition, we now have the support of some groups that represent climate scientists and others that are concerned with greenhouse gas emissions. In terms of how the program would work, let me just start with a policy analogy that I think all of you are familiar with. Existing state RPS programs for renewables provide compensation of qualified resources through renewable energy credits, RECs. The REC value is the difference between available wholesale revenues and the costs needed to keep the existing renewables in operation and get new renewables built. All this is done in order to get the benefit of greenhouse gas reductions while protecting customers. If wholesale revenues go up, the needed REC payment goes down. We see that happening every day in REC spot markets. The ZEC program is designed the same way. It’s a payment for the state value of zero emission credits from nuclear plants which represents the difference between the needed revenues and the costs of operating the plants. In the case of the New York and Illinois programs, the way it would work is that experts at the Commissions will determine on a prospective basis the cost of operating the plants plus risks, less available market revenues. And where there is a delta between that, in other words where the costs and risks are not covered by available market revenues, the ZEC program will kick in and provide compensation for greenhouse gas avoidance. The program is not a PPA or a contractor difference. If revenues or costs are different, there is no true-up. And – so, Steve (19:26), I think if you have additional questions, perhaps after the call we could work with Dan and Emily to set up a meeting, go through more programmatic details. Unknown Speaker That’s great. That’s a great start. Thank you. And then just shifting over to renewables more broadly, could you just speak to your degree of appetite for more acquisitions? It sounds like you’ll be a full taxpayer, I believe, in 2019, if I have that correct. But just broadly, what degree of opportunities do you see out there in renewables? Is this an area that you would expect that you’ll see further growth in? Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director It is definitely throttled based off of our tax capacity and we are looking at that now. You do get a certain amount of dilution with delaying the benefits of the tax attributes of the project, so we have some projects in the pipeline now and are re-evaluating others to see if they’re – they would be viable to go forward in the near-term. Unknown Speaker Understood. Thank you very much. Operator And your next question comes from the line of Steve Fleishman. Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Hi, Steve. Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Hi. Good morning. A couple of – first, a logistical question. The Ginna $101 million that you mentioned that you’re getting, is that – is kind of a trued-up amount including past years, is that in your guidance for this year? Or is that kind of like a one-time item or how are you treating that? Jonathan W. Thayer – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP Steve, that’s in our guidance. Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. Including any back from prior periods? Jonathan W. Thayer – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP That’s correct. Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. And then a question just – is there any way you can give us some sense on the cash flow or losses from Clinton and Quad Cities, let’s say, in your guidance for last year or something of that sort? Jonathan W. Thayer – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP So we’ve stated that it’s greater than $800 million since 2009. There are some variables in there on cash savings going forward or cash losses going forward, power prices coming down, cost cutting initiatives; and we do have an element of overheads that would not be as controllable. So you would see the run rate to be similar to what has happened in the past. Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Steve, you know, on this point – so for 2017, the cost exceeded available market revenues or at current marks (22:12) by $140 million. But I think importantly and Joe raised this point, it’s not the whole picture. The closure also avoids millions of dollars in basis and unit-contingent risks that we face by operating the plants. And stated differently, in order to reverse course we need Illinois as well as New York to provide a structure that allows us to cover our cash costs plus normal operating risks in order to reverse this course. Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. And $140 million that’s kind of cash flow? Does that include like CapEx, or is that just kind of cash flow without CapEx? Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director That’s cash flow. Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. One last question just on the – in the event legislation doesn’t happen and you need to shut the plants, what – is there any cost related to that? Jonathan W. Thayer – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP As you saw in the K, and we reiterate in the Q, there is some unfunded liabilities on the decommissioning trust. Those numbers are in there at full 100% ownership of the plants. And so the way that we would have to handle that is – you know, you can start out with parent guarantees, but you have to have it funded over a 10-year period, I think 60% by the end of the fifth year, and then the rest by the end of the 10 years. Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. Those numbers in the K are still good then, so that we just can use those? Jonathan W. Thayer – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP They’re updated in the Q. Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director That’ll be coming Tuesday. Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. Thank you. Operator And your next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Hey, good morning, guys. Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Good Morning. Jonathan W. Thayer – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP Good Morning. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Just to clarify one thing on the current proposal that I think was emerged last night around the legislation. So originally this applies to all nuclear plants in the state, but is it correct that this would just be Clinton and Quad? And can you just explain how that works in terms of the discussion of the ZEC structure? Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Joe? Joseph Nigro – Executive Vice President, Exelon; Chief Executive Officer, Constellation, Exelon Corp. Sure. Jonathan, all plants could apply, but quite obviously the only plants that would receive revenue under this program would be those where the costs exceed the revenues. And so there is – it’s a 20 terawatt-hour cap which has enough room in it to accommodate Clinton and Quad Cities. And our expectation is that Exelon would seek to have those two plants participate. The other plants would not participate. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay. And that’s sort of nuanced in how the legislation’s worded effectively? Joseph Nigro – Executive Vice President, Exelon; Chief Executive Officer, Constellation, Exelon Corp. That’s correct. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay. Joseph Nigro – Executive Vice President, Exelon; Chief Executive Officer, Constellation, Exelon Corp. It’s the same offer to you, Jonathan; if you’d like, after the call, we could sit down and work through some of the details. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay. That’ll be great. And is there any… Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director And, Jonathan, just to interject just to make the clear point, they would provide the opportunity to be compensated for cost plus risk. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay. That was one thing. The second thing, in your fourth quarter deck, you have this forecast around leverage ratios and the like going out through 2018, which, I believe, was assuming that Pepco would not happen. This was of the ExGen. Can you give us a sense of how that progression would look if you kind of market to the – with Pepco scenario? Jonathan W. Thayer – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP Sure. So, Jonathan, we still anticipate reducing leverage of ExGen by $3 billion over the five-year planning period, albeit this is not to the extend that we would have under the standalone scenario, because ExGen’s free cash flow is now being deployed to help fund PHI’s capital spending program. And we’ll provide more detail on the puts and takes of that at the Analyst Day in August. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. So $3 billion is kind of the new ExGen delevering number? Jonathan W. Thayer – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP That’s right. That’s over the next five years, we have a large maturity. And I believe it’s 2019, that we would look to retire at maturity. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay. So that’s over five years? Jonathan W. Thayer – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP That’s correct. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. And then the 2.3 ExGen debt-to-EBITDA that you were looking at for 2018, roughly what does that look like now? Jonathan W. Thayer – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP It, over the five-year period, would go to right around three times. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. So that’s again over five years, rather than three years? Jonathan W. Thayer – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP That’s correct. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay, great. Thank you. And then I guess you mentioned in the prepared remarks the prices have rebounded… Jonathan W. Thayer – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP So, Jonathan – sorry, just let me correct, 2.7 times at the end of the five-year period. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. So whereas you have 2.3 times in 2018, it’s now 2.7 times after five years? Jonathan W. Thayer – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP Yes. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay, great. Thank you. And then you mentioned that prices have rebounded. So can you give us a rough sense of how the kind of gross margin mark would look if you use more like today’s prices? Joseph Nigro – Executive Vice President, Exelon; Chief Executive Officer, Constellation, Exelon Corp. Yeah. Jonathan, good morning. It’s Joe Nigro. I think if you look at our hedge disclosure at the end of the quarter and then factor in the changes since the end of March, you would see all of that drop in 2017 and 2018 being recovered. We’ve seen an appreciable move, as you know, in prices since the end of March. We’re actually higher in NiHub than we were at the end of the year. We’re higher at West Hub than we were at the end of the year, so we would have recovered all that drop and probably adding to it. We calculated that a couple of days ago, but the market has continued to move higher, so we probably have seen it actually go over where it ended the quarter. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Great. Okay. That’s it. Thank you very much, guys. Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Thanks. Operator And your next question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Yeah. Hi. Good morning. Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Good morning. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC So perhaps to follow up on the same theme, can you elaborate a little bit on the balance of the nuclear portfolio that is ex-Clinton, ex-Quad? How you think about their cash flow profile? And if you don’t get this legislation, what the prospects are for further rationalization? I don’t mean to jump the gun too much here, but just talking about the future a little bit more? Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director So there’s varying cash flows by assets depending on their location. They are positive at this point. If you look at the other units that are more challenged, you’re looking at Ginna and Nine Mile. One – we know about Oyster Creek and it’s coming up in 2019, the other one that has a real focus on it right now is Three Mile Island. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Got it. And specific to Illinois, is there any commentary around – so let’s say we don’t get it in 2016 or 2017, does that trigger another set of reviews? Again, not to push it too much. Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director At this point we’ll have to watch the capacity auction clearing in the out years. It’s tight on energy at some of the assets, but they are positive. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Got it. Okay, great. And then turning back to the utilities real quickly, can you comment, or I’m curious, if you will, what the earned ROEs embedded at Pepco for 2016 – just what’s the baseline on the Pepco side as far as you see it post the close? Jonathan W. Thayer – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP Julien, in terms of – I think we included it on slide, I believe it’s 30, the earned for 2015. Obviously, while we’re in the pendency period during the rate cases that – obviously, there’s regulatory lag, so we’re going to see that decline, but we’ll have a much deeper dive in the PHI as part of the August 10 meeting. You can see on slide 29 the rate base statistics and I think can work through some assumptions on regulatory lag using that information. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Got it. And perhaps not to jump the gun too much on the Analyst Day, but what is the thought process on the baseline for a future regulated CAGR? Jonathan W. Thayer – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP I think the thought is the 7% to 9% that we confirmed on the call and PHI is absolutely consistent with that expectation. We, as we mentioned, are seeing improvement relative to what we forecasted or projected at EEI using PHI’s internal forecast. And Dennis and team continue to work to identify further opportunities around efficiency as well as regulatory policy to work to get those earned and allowed ROEs in line with the success we’ve experienced within Maryland, Pennsylvania and Illinois. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Got it. You wouldn’t roll it forward though? Jonathan W. Thayer – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP I’m not certain I understand what do you mean roll it forward? Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC The 7% to 9%, just roll it forward to CAGR off a 2016 base? Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director We’ll address that at the Analyst Day. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC All right. No worries. Thank you. Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director I mean, embedded in there is 7% to 9% through 2018, so just thinking it through, it’s in there. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Got it. Thank you. Operator And your next question comes from the line of Brian Chen (32:25). Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Hey, Brian (32:30). Unknown Speaker Going over to slide 13, the EPS impact that you’ve laid out in that top table, I just want to verify that that is not including the use of capital from that positive cash flow impact that you’ve got on the second row right? Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director That’s right, Brian (32:46). Unknown Speaker Okay. Great. And then I just want to verify that Quad Cities didn’t clear in the 2018 and 2019 auction, correct? So the closure of Quad Cities shouldn’t have any sort of residual obligation that you have for the 2018, 2019 capacity through (33:03)? Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director That’s correct. Unknown Speaker Great. Thanks a lot. Operator And your next audio question comes from Praful Mehta. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Hi, guys. Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Good morning. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Good morning. So just on the leverage a little bit, just to ensure we understand both at the holding company level and at ExGen. You’ve kind of talked about the ExGen debt and what you see over the 20 – the five year period. How are you looking at holding company debt given the leverage you’ve assumed post Pepco transactions? Is there any objective to delever a little bit at the holding company as well? Jonathan W. Thayer – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP So Praful, as you’ve heard us comment in the past, we do target at 20% FFO to debt on a consolidated basis and that was one of the benefits of adding PHI to the Exelon family. And so we will certainly be looking at our leverage ratios at the GenCo. I think you’ll also see us consider to the extend we have available cash at the holding company as well, we just need to see as we get further out what the realized power prices are and what the free cash flow coming off of the GenCo is in those five years. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Got you. And just so if you think about from the sources/uses perspective, the source is primarily out of ExGen coming to fund CapEx at the utilities and then deleveraging both at ExGen and the parent. Is that a fair way to think of it or is there some cash generation coming out of the utilities as well over the next two year, three year period? Jonathan W. Thayer – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP I would say, on a net basis, utilities are consumers of cash. So you’re correct. That ExGen cash flow as well as debt raise at the utilities is the primary source for funding the significant CapEx that we see, $25 billion over the next five years at the utilities. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Got you. Thank you. And then just finally, we saw that the power new business and the to-go business, the EBITDA, or the growth margin of that is going from $250 million in 2016 up to about a $1 billion by 2018. Could you just give us a little bit of context of what’s driving that significant ramp-up in that side of the business? Joseph Nigro – Executive Vice President, Exelon; Chief Executive Officer, Constellation, Exelon Corp. Yeah. Hi. It’s Joe Nigro. That’s pretty standard shape that we have. If you go back and look at disclosures over the years, you would expect to see much less new business in the prompt years – in the prompt year, in this case 2016, than you would in the out years, for example, in 2017 and 2018. Embedded in that power new business is things like the execution of our retail business and the margins associated with that. So as we get closer to the swap period more and more of those contracts get layered in, we begin to reduce that bucket of power new business. I mean, there’s other elements of our business that follow that same timing shape, so this isn’t unique in the sense of seeing a ramp up between the prompt year to two years forward and we’re very comfortable with the numbers that we’ve put out there. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Got you. Thank you so much guys. Operator And this does conclude today’s conference call. You may now disconnect. Christopher M. Crane – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Thank you. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com . Thank you!

Clean Energy Fuels’ (CLNE) CEO Andrew Littlefair on Q1 2016 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (NASDAQ: CLNE ) Q1 2016 Results Earnings Conference Call May 5, 2016, 04:30 PM ET Executives Tony Kritzer – Director of Investor Communications Andrew Littlefair – President and Chief Executive Officer Robert Vreeland – Chief Financial Officer Analysts Eric Stine – Craig-Hallum Rob Brown – Lake Street Partners Pavel Molchanov – Raymond James Operator Greetings and welcome to the Clean Energy Fuels first quarter 2016 earnings 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 my pleasure to introduce your host, Mr. Tony Kritzer, Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Tony Kritzer Thank you, operator. Earlier this afternoon, Clean Energy released financial results for the first quarter ending March 31, 2016. If you do not receive the release, it is available on the Investor Relations section of the company’s Web site at www.cleanenergyfuels.com where the call is also being webcast. There will be a replay available on the Web site for 30 days. Before we begin, we’d like to remind you that some of the information contained in the news release and on this conference call contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Words of expression reflecting optimism, satisfaction with current prospects, as well as words such as believe, intend, expect, plan, should, anticipate and similar variations identify forward-looking statements, but their absence does not mean that the statement is not forward-looking. Such forward-looking statements are not a guarantee of performance and the company’s actual results could differ materially from those contained in such statements. Several factors that could cause or contribute to such differences are described in detail in the Risk Factors section of the Clean Energy’s Form 10-Q filed May 5, 2016. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this release. The company undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements or supply new information regarding the circumstances after the date of this release. The company’s non-GAAP EPS and adjusted EBITDA will be reviewed on this call and exclude certain expenses that the company’s management does not believe are indicative of the company’s core operating business results. Non-GAAP financial measures should be considered in addition to results prepared in accordance with GAAP and should not be considered as a substitute for, or superior to, GAAP results. The directly comparable GAAP information, reasons why management uses non-GAAP information, a definition of non-GAAP EPS and adjusted EBITDA, and a reconciliation between these non-GAAP and GAAP figures is provided in the company’s press release, which has been furnished to the SEC on Form 8-K today. Participating on today’s call from the company is President and Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Littlefair, and Chief Financial Officer, Bob Vreeland. And with that, I will turn the call over to Andrew. Andrew Littlefair Thank you, Tony. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us. I’m going to keep my remarks focused on the most important takeaways from what we feel was a strong first quarter. We reported first quarter revenue of $95.8 million, which is a 12% increase over the first quarter of last year. Additionally, we reported $29.8 million of adjusted EBITDA versus negative $5.6 million in Q1 of 2015. The first quarter of 2016 included $6.4 million of VETC and a gain of $15.9 million from buying back some of our converts at a discount. However, even when these real benefits are backed out, our adjusted EBITDA was still positive at $7.5 million, an improvement of over $13 million from the first quarter of 2015. We delivered 77.5 million gallons to our customers. This is a 3% increase over the 75 million gallons we delivered during the first quarter of 2015. On the year-end earnings call, I told you that a primary focus for 2016 would be to conserve cash and de-leverage the balance sheet. To that end, we repaid $60 million of the $145 million convertible notes due in August 2016. In addition, given favorable pricing, we have been opportunistically repurchasing our 2018 convertible debt in the open market through privately negotiated transactions. In the first quarter, we repurchased $32.5 million; and so far in the second quarter, we have repurchased an additional $31.5 million. All told, we have repurchased $64 million of our 2018 convertible notes, leaving $186 million due in October 2018. Our total convertible debt reduction is $124 million. Also to date, in 2016, we have raised $32.4 million of proceeds from public stock sales. At quarter-end, we had $163 million of cash and investments on our balance sheet. Additionally, we reduced our SG&A by 15% year-over-year, while growing our volume and revenues. We are on track with our reduced CapEx budget of $25 million for 2016, which is 50% less than last year, so we are executing on our plan to conserve cash and reduce our debt. From an industry perspective, the pressure for companies to become more sustainable continues to grow. We see natural gas fueling as an economic and realistic solution that a company can utilize to achieve greater sustainability. And we are working with a variety of fleets and shippers like Kroger and Unilever as well as trucking companies, waste companies and municipalities. Fleets continue to look to fuel with natural gas. Here is a noteworthy example. The United States Postal Service is pursuing an initiative to reduce their carbon footprint by 20% by 2020 and have concluded that natural gas is the alternative fuel of choice for their third-party contracted carriers. These carrier carriers are responsible for the majority of all USPS transportation emissions. As part of their contract renewals, the Postal Service is starting to require its outside carriers to use natural gas where it is cost-effective. We are currently working with five other major carriers, who combined have 75 natural gas tractors fueling at several of our highway stations. Additionally, the USPS is considering replacing some of their own Class A tractors and straight trucks with natural gas. Turning now to our renewable fuel business, we continue to see increased interest in demand for our renewable fuel offering. Through our robust network of stations, we have established a pathway to Redeem, our renewable green gas, into vehicles. This is the best way to realize the full value of renewable fuel, which contributed $11 million of revenue in the first quarter. I want to emphasize that our expanding infrastructure has enabled us to benefit from this rapidly growing renewable market and differentiates us from our competitors. Companies like UPS, Ryder, Republic Services and many transit agencies use Redeem and understand its significance. Another important industry innovation, the Cummins Westport low NOx engine has already captured a lot of interest, and these engines are available to order. As a reminder, this low NOx engine reduces NOx 90%. And when combined with our Redeem renewable fuel, it has 90% less carbon. It is cleaner than running an electric vehicle that is plugged into the grid. In the industry, this new introduction is referred to as game changer. Turning now to our station construction, we benefited, during the first quarter, from an increase in full station projects. Currently, we have over 60 projects under contract and in the pipeline. We continue to believe our robust construction pipeline is a solid indicator that our customers continue to make investments in expanding their fleets and remain committed to their sustainability goals. Our virtual pipeline subsidiary, NG Advantage, showed impressive growth, delivering close to 8.6 million gallons to their customers. I’m also pleased to report that we recently signed a follow-on supply deal with Hawaii Gas, which is contracted to purchase over 14 million LNG gallons over the next five years. All told, it was a strong quarter. And I believe it is a testament to our diverse product offering and recurring revenue base. Our largest customers continue to buy new trucks and invest in their natural gas operation and we continue to gain new customers across our markets of transit, refuse and trucking. Our adjusted EBITDA continues to trend positively and we are taking strategic actions to de-leverage our balance sheet and we’re being disciplined with our capital. And with that, I’ll turn the call over to Bob. Robert Vreeland Thank you, Andrew. Good afternoon to everyone. As Andrew mentioned, we have a strong quarter with continued volume growth, a 12% increase in revenue, and adjusted EBITDA of $29.8 million. Starting with volume of 77.5 million gallons, a 3% growth rate over the first quarter of 2015, impacting this growth rate was a decline in RNG volume of 3.5 million gallons. Most of that decline is the result of no longer owning and operating our former Dallas bio-methane plant, which we sold and then operated through mid-April of 2015. Exclusive of those gallons, our volume growth was 8% year-over-year. As Andrew mentioned, NG Advantage had strong year-over-year growth as did our refuse sector, while the other sectors were level with a year ago. LNG volume was down 2.9 million gallons, principally from lower bulk LNG sales. Bulk LNG sales can be uneven throughout the year as LNG demand is influenced by various external factors, such as, more recently, the slowdown in E&P industry, the variable demand of large industrial customers, and weather. We remain active and compete well in the bulk LNG marketplace as evidenced by our new deal with Hawaii Gas. Our Redeem gallons, which are included in our CNG and LNG fuel gallons, increased 70% year-over-year to 15.2 million gallons for the quarter. Our 12% increase in revenue in the first quarter was driven by a better effective price per gallon on higher volume, increased construction project revenue, and the alternative fuel tax credit referred to as VETC. Our Compression sales were down year-over-year as we remain in this challenging global oil environment together with a strong US dollar, although the related gross margin contribution from our Compression business was better than a year ago despite the lower revenue. Our adjusted EBITDA of $29.8 million was driven by a strong gross profit margin, continued reductions in SG&A spending, and a gain from our opportunistic convertible debt repurchase. Our strong gross profit margin was driven substantially by the impacts of selling our Redeem fuel and the associated environmental credits, which helped take our gross profit margin per gasoline gallon equivalent to $0.36 per gallon compared to $0.28 for the first quarter of 2015. Both quarters include the state and federal environmental credits, the LCFS and RINs. The combined credits amounted to $11 million in the first quarter of 2016 compared to $3.2 million in 2015. The economic benefits from the environmental attributes of both natural gas and Redeem remain strong and have more than offset the pressure on retail fuel margins from this low oil and diesel price environment. And finally, on gross margin, we benefited from our increased station construction project sales and the VETC revenue. Our 15% reduction in SG&A to $25.6 million was $4.6 million lower than a year ago and $1 million or 4% lower than the recent fourth quarter. This has been a continuing trend and is the result of the actions we’ve taken given the low oil price environment. And as Andrew mentioned, we recorded a $15.9 million gain on the repurchase of $32.5 million of our 2018 convertible debt. The higher revenues and gross profit margin and lower SG&A, along with the gain on debt repurchase, led to GAAP net income of $2.8 million in the first quarter of 2016 compared to a net loss of $31 million a year ago. And it also lead to an improvement of $35.4 million in adjusted EBITDA from a year ago. Looking forward, we anticipate our Redeem sales to benefit our results, VETC will be recorded each quarter in 2016 relative to volume, and we continue to expect positive quarterly adjusted EBITDA for the balance of 2016. And with that, operator, we’ll open the call to questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from Eric Stine with Craig-Hallum. Please go ahead. Eric Stine Hi, everyone. Nice quarter. Andrew Littlefair Thank you, Eric. Robert Vreeland Thanks, Eric. Eric Stine I want to start with Redeem, especially given the impact that had in this quarter. How do you think about that long-term – limiting factors to growing volumes there? I know part of it is that, right now, what, California and Oregon that have LCFS, have the standards where you can participate. But do you see other states going down the road of California? And ultimately, where do you think that those Redeem volumes can go? Andrew Littlefair Thanks. I think the short answer, Eric, is the – we’ve had tremendous growth in the Redeem business, and so it won’t be easy to keep up on that growth. But it will continue to develop, and so I think you should count on what we’re doing. So what you saw in the first quarter should continue. I really think that in terms of renewable fuel, we’re really at a beginning point as we’ve got a few different – I know you attended the ACT Conference out here. I really believe that the transportation industry, passenger car, and also those in goods movement, I think this being sustainable fuels and sustainable technologies, I think we’re just at the beginning of what’s going to be a very long move toward cleaner fuels and cleaner innovation, cleaner technology. So I think, over time, you’ll see us continue to grow Redeem. Washington State is now looking at Low Carbon Fuel Standards. We’re selling Redeem in Texas now. The Northeast has kind of come in and out of something that feels a little bit like Low Carbon Fuel Standards. Some states will be more progressive than others. But I think you’re going to continue over time to see more and more regulations that incent and begin to put more values on carbon. And so, I think the good news is for our industry and for our company is that we have this renewable fuel, we have the network to be able to dispense it and the pathway to be able to get it into vehicles. That gives us a huge leg up compared to some of the others in this business. And I think that having the technology, the new Cummins Westport engine which I know was highlighted at this big conference out here just this week, it’s a low NOx engine which is very important for tailpipe emissions, but it also – when it’s combined, as I said in my remarks, with Redeem, it’s really cleaner than the grid which is a big deal. So I think we are well-positioned and I think it will be important, Eric, as we go forward. Eric Stine That’s volumes. But in terms of pricing, what I’m looking at or reading, it seems like the thought is that the pricing, the carbon price per ton, that trend, while there may be some near-term volatility, the trend there is higher too. Andrew Littlefair Yes, Eric. And that’s right. So there’s two – there’s definitely two components to that. There’s the volume and then there’s the pricing of the environmental credits. And that environment has been strong and continues to be strong at the moment. Now, like you said, there’s always the chance of some volatility. But just the way – with the standards that have been set and the obligated parties and all of that, it’s making that kind of a strong market. Eric Stine Yeah, okay. Maybe just thinking about your fleet activity, yesterday, at ACT, clear impression that people thinking that the market is probably flat this year, maybe down a little bit, but just curious, are you seeing any movement in your pipelining other than maybe the timing getting pushed out a little bit? Have any fleets dropped out of that pipeline? What are you seeing right now? Andrew Littlefair Eric, when you look at our customer base, the refuse market continues to be strong. It’ll be as big a year as we’ve had. And we’ve been a host of an industry event, which is called the Garbageman’s Invitational. It’s worth 300 refuse industry executives come here a couple weeks ago. And to a company, they’re all fueling natural gas trucks. And so, that’s a really important segment for us. We see the same thing expanding in transit. Now, when we talk about kind of flat year-over-year, the trucking industry hasn’t been as involved. It doesn’t have quite the maturity in terms of putting vehicles in their fleet like the refuse and transit guys who have been at this now for a decade. So it was a newer segment for us. And I would say, Eric, those that – we’re still seeing new fleets come, often in more of a testing mode with handfuls or dozens of vehicles rather than large purchases. But even in that segment, which I think you’re correct, that it will be similar this year to what it was last year, which I would consider to be important that we’re not backsliding. UPS continues to show the way as other big fleets like them. They haven’t turned back and we haven’t really seen any existing customers that have been in this, especially in the trucking, go back. Those that were on the fence when we entered this downturn in the oil price, they continue to review it. But I would say their attitude – and I’ve even probably met some out there at the conference. The attitude is not opposed to natural gas. In fact, I find it refreshing, in that they’re interested in moving forward. But they’re mindful of the fact that they’ve gotten very low diesel price right now. So I think that when that subsides you’re going to see an uptick in the adoption of natural gas for heavy duty trucking. Eric Stine Right. I guess this is kind of tough to quantify, but I’ll ask anyways. Is there an oil price that you look at and say, okay, at that level, then that’s when trucking really pick back up again? Andrew Littlefair It’s hard to pin me down there. But I know this is that, we’ve had some customers begin to model out oil at $40 a barrel, right? And in some cases, that sort of is difficult to make the natural gas equation work as well as it once did. I think, Eric, when you see $50, $55, $60 a barrel, it really gets – it really begins to move up the price of diesel. Look, diesel price has gone up nationally $0.10 in the last two weeks. It’s gone up every week for the last four weeks. And so, we don’t need to see $100 oil. You need to see the price of – we need to get off of people thinking that we’re going to have $40 oil forever. And I think once they see that there’s volatility, again, in their oil price and it comes back up to $50, $55, $60, I think that’s going to be the signal to have people begin to then – natural gas is still – let’s not forget, that’s our big commodity that we use here and it’s low. It’s very low. And so, the economics begin to sing again when you get back up to that oil price. Eric Stine Okay, thanks a lot. That’s it for me. Andrew Littlefair Yeah. Operator Your next question comes from Rob Brown with Lake Street Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Andrew Littlefair Hi, Rob. Good afternoon. Rob Brown Congratulations on the EBITDA improvement. I think you said you had 60 stations in your pipeline. Could you give us a sense of – is that all to be delivered this year? And then maybe a sense of the gallon volume that those projects sort of generate ongoing? Andrew Littlefair I don’t know that I have the volume for you, Rob. But most of those stations that we’re talking about in the pipeline will be delivered this year. Rob Brown And then the mix of those, is it refuse mostly or maybe what is the mix there? Andrew Littlefair Big piece of those, refuse that are under contract, some are for our own account, some are for long contracted volumes from anchored tenants for stations that we’re building. Majority of those, though, are for customers – that we’re selling customers. And I hedged just a bit when we use the number over 60 and stuff like that because we get toward the end of the year and some of these – they will be under construction. But you never know if you’re going to get them all – four or five of them, we got it in December and this and that. But it looks to me like the station count should be very similar this year as it was last year, which are some of our biggest years that we’ve had. Rob Brown Okay, great. And then the Hawaiian Gas contract, I assume you’re supplying that out of Boron, but could you give us a sense of, again, what the gallon volume is there and sort of how that works? Andrew Littlefair Well, it starts out slow. And then my friends at Hawaii Gas have been – they’ve been wanting us to be careful about how much we’re saying. But it starts out – as you know, Rob, we’ve sold them some LNG already really more of in a test mode. And we had pieces of this contract done, gosh, maybe as long as a year ago and we were awaiting PUC approval, which came here a little bit ago. They’re now in the process of beginning to go out to bid to receive the containers that will be used for that shipping. Those will be – that’s underway now. Those containers will be delivered throughout this year and I imagine a big slug of those in the back end of this year. So we’ll begin to ramp up. And I think it begins to amount to around 3 million, 3.5 million gallons a year. And there’s a chance we’d do better than that. But it’s a nice additional load. And I hope the experience will be well because even with – you can imagine, all this entailed, we’re still able to bring them a very clean fuel that beats the otherwise imported fuel that they use for the islands. So we’re excited about it. They’re excited about it. And I hope that we can increase that from the number that I gave you in my remarks. Rob Brown Great, thank you. I’ll turn it over. Operator Your next question comes from Pavel Molchanov with Raymond James. Please go ahead. Pavel Molchanov Thanks for taking the question, guys. One of the things that’s really helped you get into positive EBITDA is the reduction in SG&A. So you went from $30 million a year ago to $26 million this quarter. Is there any further room to cut that even more? Robert Vreeland Yes, there is room. And so, we’ve been feeling the effects of actions that we’ve taken as we’ve been going along. So it’s been kind of coming down each quarter. Certainly, on a year-over-year basis, it’s a bigger number. As we go sequentially, it’s coming down. But at some point, it’ll flatten a little bit. Pavel Molchanov Okay, pretty close to where we are right now? Andrew Littlefair I think, Pavel, there’s a little room still left in it. We’re continuing to eye different things to try to bring it down some more. I think there’s still some room left. You’ll see it maybe improve, continue this year. But all the while we’re still growing. And so, there’ll be a limit to how low we can bring it. Robert Vreeland Yeah. So it’s pretty close. Pavel Molchanov Just a housekeeping question, in Q1, you got the VETC catchup cash inflow, how much was that? Robert Vreeland Correct. So we collected all of the VETC that related to 2015. Pavel Molchanov How much is that? Robert Vreeland Yeah, so it was a little bit in excess of about $30 million. Pavel Molchanov $30 million. Thank you, guys. Robert Vreeland Yeah. North of that. Little bit north of that. Andrew Littlefair $32 million. Robert Vreeland Yeah. So it’s a little bit… Andrew Littlefair $32 million, yeah. Robert Vreeland Exactly. Andrew Littlefair Thanks, Pavel. Operator Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I’d now like to turn the floor back over to Mr. Littlefair for closing remarks. Andrew Littlefair Good. Well, thank you, operator. Thank you, everyone. I want to thank you for listening and – listening in on the call this afternoon. We look forward to updating you on our progress next quarter. Operator That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect your lines. 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!