Tag Archives: energy

Veolia Environnement’s (VE) CEO Antoine Frerot on Q1 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Call Start: 02:30 Call End: 03:54 Veolia Environnement’ (NYSE: VE ) Q1 2015 Earnings Conference Call August 3, 2015 02:30 ET Executives Antoine Frerot – Chairman & CEO Philippe Capron – CFO Analysts Harry Wyburd – Bank of America Merrill Lynch Martin Young – RBC Guy MacKenzie – Credit Suisse Lawson Steele – Berenberg Vincent Ayral – SGCIB James Brand – Deutsche Bank Philippe Ourpatian – Natixis Emmanuel Turpin – Morgan Stanley Julie Arav – Kepler Cheuvreux Olivier Van Doosselaere – Goldman Sachs Operator Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Veolia conference call for the First Half Results 2015. I now hand over to Mr. Frerot and Mr. Capron. Gentlemen, please go ahead. Antoine Frerot Thank you. Good morning, everyone and thank you for joining our conference call to present Veolia’s first half results. I’m with Philippe Capron, our CFO, who will later present our results in further detail. I’m on slide 4 of the slide show. We’re presenting today very solid results for the first half, completely in line with our annual guidance and even better than that regarding our net income and free cash flow. I would remind you that 2015 is the last year of our transformation plan. Deleveraging, on the one hand and reorganization of the Group on the other hand, have been completed for a year. Hence, for this remaining year, we need to complete the last two objectives of the plan, cost savings and the repositioning of our business. On cost savings, our year-end objective of €750 million in cumulative savings over four years will be largely met and even probably exceeded. We were ahead of plan at the end of 2014 and we have accelerated this advance in the first half of 2015. Regarding the repositioning of our business, commercial successes in our new growth markets, essentially in the industrial sector, have been numerous. This puts us on track to achieve a balance mix in 2018 between our two types of clients, industrial and municipal customers, as well as between our two types of geographies, developed countries and emerging countries. However, our traditional markets, mainly the municipal sector, have also experienced robust development. At the end of the first half of 2015, all systems are go for Veolia. On slide 5, four factors explain the quality of these results. Of course, the weaker euro in comparison to other currencies, 4% growth compared to last year for all our indicators due to this weaker euro. Second, the strategic move made in energy, exchanging Dalkia France for Dalkia International, all while reducing the Group debt. Plus 5% contribution to all our indicators on this strategic move in energy. Third, cost reduction. At the same speed as the previous two years, plus 6% progression to our indicators of results. And finally, new business development which has practically compensated the erosion in our traditional activities. So revenue was up 7%, plus 3% at constant currency, down 1% at constant scope and currency. EBITDA rose 16% and plus 6% at constant scope and currency. Current EBIT increased 37% and plus 24% at constant scope and currency. Finally, the Group current net income more than doubled compared to the previous year to €321 million. And free cash flow before dividend payment and excluding the variation in working capital amounted to €552 million. As usual, we expect the change in working capital requirements to reach equilibrium by the end of the year. I remind you that our main objective for 2015 is to achieve at least €500 million for each of the two previously mentioned indicators, current net income and free cash flow before dividend and before divestment. At June end, a large part of these objectives have already been achieved. Finally, net debt was €9.2 billion down €500 million compared to the previous year, if we exclude the negative currency impacts. On slide 6, our first objective in 2015 is to achieve or even exceed €750 million in cost savings by year end. In the first half of 2015, with €110 million in savings, we have surpassed our planned rate of around €100 million per semester. At the end of June, cumulative cost savings amounted to nearly €700 million. So the €750 million December-end objective will likely be exceeded. All of the Group’s activities contributed but the water business was the main contributor, particularly in France, with a major restructuring program whose positive effects will continue for several quarters. Slide 7, as I announced earlier, commercial development has also been robust. On this slide, you can see some of our major successes this semester with our municipal players. Awards were won throughout the world. But Europe, in particular Great Britain and France, were particularly noteworthy. For instance, one of the most important contract wins in the water business, the Lille contract, seems automatic to me as marking the end of our challenges in the French water business. We should see the return to a more normal period beginning 2016. On slide 8, as for our industrial clients, emerging markets and geographies outside of Europe are more dynamic. Our selection of six priority markets has proven astute. And when oil and gas or the mining sector slows down due to the lower commodity prices, the circular economy of treatment of hazardous waste takes over. As a reminder, at the end of 2014, the Group’s share of revenue attributed to industrial customers was 39% compared to just over 20% four years ago. So our target of 50% in 2018 appears well within reach. On slide 9, therefore, at the end of the first half, we’re very comfortable with our annual guidance. Within this guidance, the main objective is twofold; current net income above €500 million to cover the dividend and hybrid debt coupon payments and free cash flow before final divestment above also €500 million to pay the dividend and hybrid coupon and at the same time, targeting flat net debt at constant currencies. First half results have already enabled us to achieve a good portion of these objectives. Along with achieving these objectives, we have also dedicated the 2015 year to the planning and preparation to execute our new three-year plan 2016-2018. This plan which is progressing well and in line with my expectation, will be discussed and approved by our Board of Directors during a day-long meeting and then presented at Investor Day. Calendar constraints to organizing a full-day board meeting led us to shift this event by a few weeks and the Investor Day is set for December 14. I will now give the floor to Philippe who will provide further detail regarding our first half results. Philippe Capron Thank you, Antoine. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. On slide 11, you have a recap of the excellent first half figures which Antoine already went through. They put us — they are fully in line with Q1 and they put us fully on track to meet our year-end objectives. I won’t go through them all but you’ll remember we have a 7% revenue increase, translating into a 16.5% EBITDA increase. If you measure EBITDA at constant scope and currency, it is still a 6% increase which is all the more remarkable that some of you may remember that in Q2 last year we had a 17% increase in EBITDA for Q2 at constant currency and perimeter. So this performance is more remarkable. This translates into a 25% current EBIT increase and a doubling of the current net income. We’ll go through these figures in more detail again in the next slides. If you turn to page 12, the results, the revenue growth is broken down by geographies. France is slightly down which is not a surprise due to the large commercial impacts of French water contract renegotiations. But you have to keep in mind that this is the last such year. It is a big year because we have Lyon and Marseille which are two large contracts, both impacting the figures. And overall we have a €70 million drag due to those contacts and some others. But again, this is the last year. Waste is up, however, with a strong pickup in Q2, mostly due to commercial wins. In the rest of Europe, you have some negative figures due to the UK construction revenue. But as you’ll remember this is pass-through, no margins. And due to the ongoing German restructuring, the rest of Europe, especially central — our central European activities, are doing well thanks to colder weather in Q2 in the case of our energy activities. The rest of the world continues to do very well, excellent growth at 14%, still 3.4% at constant perimeter — at constant currency. This is especially driven by emerging markets. Asia, Africa and Middle East and Latin America are driving this growth. Global businesses, however, are down with less construction activities. This is in part a calendar impact on large contracts and also in part the indication of a slowdown in government and municipal spending in Western Europe. If we move to page 13, we broke down the revenue growth to show the contrast between the two quarters. If you look quarter to quarter, you see that there is a marked improvement in Q2 for service activities. This is true in France, this is true in the rest of Europe and this is true in the rest of the world. In each case, Q2 is a marked improvement. And if you add those first three lines, you’ll see that we’ve gone from a 2% decline at constant perimeter and currency to a 0.5% increase which shows that the cycle for us is turning in the right way. However, if you include global businesses, you have a very different picture because as you see, we’ve gone from plus 2% to minus 8%. Keep in mind of course that global businesses contribute much less to the bottom line as they are much less capital intensive than our service activities. On page 14, we look at the revenue in terms of our main activities. Water operations are stable overall, in spite of contractual erosion in France and in spite of what we’ve just said about the construction activity which is mostly around water. Waste has suffered from lower PFI construction revenue and lower recycled prices though paper at the end of the quarter and to a lesser extent scrap are recovering. But volumes have been good and especially so in China and in hazardous waste. Our energy activity is impacted by lower energy prices in Germany or in the U.S.. But this is on a pass-through basis with no impact on margins. And this impact has been largely offset by the weather which has been better in Q2, i.e. colder and by commercial wins overall. On page 15, you have the usual detail we give on our waste revenue. As you can see, activity levels and service prices are holding up even though this is offset by recycled prices overall and construction revenue in the UK. On page 16, as we have seen our sales have been roughly stable in real terms, actually slightly declining. But our EBITDA has grown significantly, plus 6% at constant currency and perimeter. This is true even in France where we have a very slight increase despite contractual erosion in water thanks, of course, to the completion of our cost-saving exercises, especially the redundancy plan in France. Over the past three years, 12% headcount reduction has been registered in this activity. In — additionally, our waste activities overall benefit from cheaper fuel. In the rest of Europe, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, we’ve had additional cost reduction actions, especially following a disappointing Q1 in terms of climate and this has driven the sharp increase at 9% at constant scope and currency which you see for the rest of Europe. In the rest of the world, also cost cutting has gone ahead but it has added its effect to sales growth which has been — and an environment which has been overall much more supportive. And therefore at the end of the day, only global businesses have suffered because of the low activity. On page 17, you see the main drivers of the EBITDA evolution. Scope and currency of course have helped. They have roughly offset the impact of the French water renegotiations and the construction decline. But the other elements have been supportive, especially what we call effects which is volumes and the balance of new contracts. But as with the previous quarters, the main contributor to the EBITDA growth has been our cost cutting. Actually, if you exclude the currency and perimeter impact, cost cutting explains more than 100% of EBITDA growth. On page 18, you see how we go from EBITDA to EBIT. Depreciation is flat which is a reflection of our CapEx discipline which has been maintained over the past years. We have a net provision adjustment which is positive. Some risks which we had booked in the previous quarters did not materialize so that current EBIT grows by 35%. But overall, it is to be noted that we have an excellent EBITDA conversion into EBIT because even without this flat factor, the reversal in our provision adjustments, EBIT would still grow by 25% on the back of a 10% growth of EBITDA. Moving on to page 19, you can see that financial expenses are down. The reduction of our cost of carry, as we’re reducing our cash balances, has outweighed the negative currency impact on our interest charges. The income tax apparent rate is down thanks to more profit coming from Poland and the Czech Republic as expected. We have other financial income which includes €63 million in capital gains but that’s versus €48 million last year. And on the other hand, IFRIC 21, the change in the accounting of some of our taxes has had a negative — production taxes has had a negative impact on net income of €27 million which will be reversed, of course, by the end of the year. Overall, current net income has more than doubled at €321 million. On page 20, you see how the current net income translates into the reported net income, the purely IFRS net income. And its’ a very simple table this year because we’ve had no significant non-current items to report, no depreciations, no impairment or whatever. The only difference between the two figures is the Transdev contribution. As you now, we account for Transdev as a non-core asset and therefore it is below the line. This contribution is positive by €25 million which is attributed to the improvement of the result of Transdev so that for the first time in a number of quarters or semesters, we actually have reported net income which is above the current net income. Moving on to page 21, our CapEx is in line year on year. Its slight reduction is only due to the lower construction revenues for PFI in the UK which we’ve already mentioned. We still have working capital requirement seasonality which explains the negative free cash flow but it improves by €100 million year on year. And this contributes, of course, to the financial debt evolution which has been impacted year on year by €760 million that’s — because of the currency. If you strip that out, it actually has improved by €500 million due to the strong cash generation and some of the disposals which have taken place, especially our Israeli activities at the beginning of this year. Moving on to page 22, you can see that free cash generation in H1 has been extremely strong, as mentioned by Antoine. Leaving out the working capital requirement evolution which is a negative of €600 million for the first half, but we assume of course that this year as every preceding year, we will be reversing this during H2. So leaving this factor out, we’ve actually generated €552 million of free cash which is of course very encouraging because it is our yearly objective. Keep in mind though that we will be spending more in terms of CapEx during the second half. But still it’s very encouraging to see that we’re in good shape in terms of generating the expected amount of free cash. On page 23, I won’t go through the guidance again because it’s been shown to you already by Antoine. Needless to say we’re extremely confident, thanks to this very strong set of figures, that we will be able to reach our objectives this year., especially the generation of €500 million of current net income and the same amount in terms of free cash excluding financial divestments. We’ll be in a position to tell you more about this and to give you more color about the years to come when we meet on December 14 for our investor day. Thank you very much. Antoine Frerot Thank you, Philippe. And now, ladies and gentlemen, we’re ready for your questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions]. The first question is from Harry Wyburd. Sir, please go ahead. Harry Wyburd Two from me, please, the first one’s on waste volumes. If you average out the first and second quarter from waste volumes I think the average is about plus 2.5%. But overall on a Group basis, it’s just plus 0.8%. So please could you just give a bit more detail on the regions which are performing less well? And then secondly on China, a number of companies across the market have been cautioning on China, given what’s been happening in the Chinese equity market. Do you see any exposure to a potential China slowdown in the second half of the year? Thank you. Antoine Frerot I will answer to the question about China. In our case, in China, we’re well positioned, geographically speaking. Where we see some decreasing of the growth of economy in China is not especially on the most modern industries and more in the center of the country than on the cities of the coast. We’re in the cities of the coast. And during the first semester, we enjoyed an increase of our water volume more than plus 2.3%. And we had also an increase of our hazardous waste volume. So we see a very good growth in terms of revenue. But because we have long-term contracts and progressively we get the benefits of these long-term contracts, our profit increases much more than the revenue in China. So I’m completely confident for Veolia in China because our positions are well placed and I think we will not suffer about an eventual decreasing of the economy acceleration. We’ve had a splendid first semester and I think it will continue for the second part of the year. For the waste volume, Philippe? Philippe Capron For the waste volumes — well, on China first, I would add that keep in mind that we’re supplying basic services, elasticity to GDP is usually less than 1. We’re not surfing on very high growth when it occurs but we’re not impacted by slowdowns. This is not luxury goods we’re talking about. On waste volumes, I can give you the details for the first half volumes country by country for the major countries. France is up 2.6% with a significant pickup. It was 1.1% in Q1 and 4% in Q2. So this is encouraging. The UK is 1.4%. In the UK there has been a slowdown but it’s just a technical effect because we had — it’s a year-on-year comparison impact due to the scheduling of our PFIs coming online. Northern Europe, that is mostly Germany, is down 4.7%. But it is largely self-inflicted. It’s the ongoing restructuring which continues. The U.S. is roughly flat. Australia is slightly down at minus 2.9%. Our Asian activities overall and that includes a large part of China, is up 4.7%. Latin America up 5.7% but this reflects in particular a new contract in Buenos Aires which has started at the beginning of the year. And our hazardous waste activity is up 2% overall with a significant pickup. Growth doubled from Q1 to Q2. Operator The next question comes from Martin Young. Sir, please go ahead. Martin Young I’ll limit it to two questions as well. The first is on Transdev, wondered if you could just update us on the expected timeline to the alteration of the corporate structure there please? And then secondly, you’ve made it very clear that you are going to deliver the cost-reduction objectives for 2015. I very much feel that ongoing cost reduction is part of the DNA of your company going forward. I just wondered if you could give an indication of how much you think you can eliminate from the cost base on an annual basis from 2016, please? Thank you. Antoine Frerot You know that our exit from Transdev is linked to a solution for the board SNCM business. And as you know, the court decided to wait for end of September to decide about this solution. We think that the court will not have a large room for expanding again the time for decision because of problem of cash of the SNCM. So we think that during the end of the year, after this solution will be decided by the court we will find a way with our partner in Transdev, Caisse des Depots, to program our exit from the business of Transdev. But, as you see, we’re not so in hurry because first we don’t need the €1 billion or €800 million today invested in Transdev and also because the results of Transdev are better year after year. But I could confirm you that we want to exit as soon as possible with a good deal with Caisse des Depots. I understood that Caisse des Depots is always ready to take the control of Transdev and then at the end of the year I think we will have some news about that. About cost savings, we’re in a region of €200 million of savings every year, around €50 million each quarter. It is the plan of four years 2012 until 2015. During these four years the savings came mainly from stricter cost, SG&A or G&A cost. For the next plan, the next program, we prepared also new efficiency actions but perhaps not so much on G&A but more in operational efficiencies and also purchasing efficiencies. We will present to you in detail during the Investor Day what we’ll target and how we will do it. But we’re really confident that the savings in Veolia will not be over at all at the end of this year. And the magnitude of these new savings will be presented to you in some months. So it will be I think a good plan and a good rhythm for the three next years. Let us prepare it precisely to give you a precise picture of that at the end of the year. Operator The next question comes from Guy MacKenzie. Sir, please go ahead. Guy MacKenzie Three questions from me, firstly, you mentioned the slowdown in construction activities in the public markets in France and also the contract in Peru which I think you also mentioned in Q1. Wondering if you can give an update on the situation in Peru and also if you think that this might hinder the sale of SADE this year? Secondly on your longer-term targets, in 2013 you set some specific targets in industrial water, specifically you were targeting growth of what worked out to about 120% in oil and gas to 2020 with a €3.5 billion revenue target, 45% growth in mining across 2014 to 2020. I was just wondering if given the subsequent decline in commodity prices whether you still see those targets as attainable? And finally just a very quick question on your waste EBITDA, you mentioned that it benefited from a favorable impact of a litigation payment. Just wondering if you were able to quantify the amount of that litigation payment? Thanks very much. Philippe Capron Okay, on the construction question indeed we’re affected by the lack of or the slowdown, let’s say, of public orders in France. But SADE has been able over the past years to offset this in two ways. One has been to develop their telecom network construction activity in France and elsewhere and second, a large part of SADE revenue now comes from overseas. So that overall their backlog has actually increased this year compared to the previous year if you add all up. The contract in Peru to which you allude to in Cerro Verde is now over so it’s been done. Any losses pertaining to this contract have been taken and we actually now are in the claims recovery and negotiation phase so that the same contract should positively impact our H2 income. Regarding the sale of SADE, I have no remark to make. The process is ongoing. Antoine Frerot Oil and gas, I will answer this question. It is true that during the first semester, because of the lower price of oil, the new projects of oil and gas companies have been postponed, a major part of these big new projects. But your question is about medium term and despite the fact that today the price of oil is low, it is difficult to imagine that this price will stay at the same low level during four years. So we’re really confident that first the world will need oil and gas coming from alternative resources, especially shale gas and shale oil and you know that the extraction of these alternative resources needs between 10 and 20 times more quantity of water to extract them. So perhaps it will not be for this year, perhaps not also for the first part of next year, but until 2020 we’re sure to see a lot of new projects, especially in the U.S. and perhaps also in Australia for this type of new energy and then big business for water specialists. But as I told you during the introduction, when oil and gas and mining sector slows down for our development due to lower commodity prices we have other drivers in our industrial market to grow. And for this first semester it has been much more the secular economic projects and treatment of hazardous waste projects which have grown during the first semester. So we still have drivers amongst our six main new markets. We have oil and gas and mining but also food and beverage which are going quite well, secular economy, hazardous waste treatment and also a [indiscernible] as trends, rigs and other boats. So we have room for growth during this year and next one despite the low price of oil. Waste EBITDA? Philippe Capron I’m not sure if I understood your question regarding waste EBITDA. Guy MacKenzie Sorry, it mentioned in the press release that waste EBITDA benefited from the favorable impact of a litigation payment and I was just wondering how much that litigation payment was if you’re able to say. Philippe Capron We have not disclosed it. It’s significant but not huge. The main drivers in the improvement of our waste EBITDA overall has been of course cost reduction. It’s been also the price of fuel which with time of course we’ll have to give back to our customers but which for the initial quarters we’re still able to enjoy the benefit from. Operator The next question comes from Lawson Steele. Sir, please go ahead. Lawson Steele Lawson Steele from Berenberg. My first question is on cost cutting. I appreciate we need to wait until December 14 for the full lowdown on future cost saving plans but, given your confidence in achieving this year’s €750 million target, could you please give us some specific examples of additional measures undertaken to offset the declines of — the effects of Dalkia and so on and what sort of new savings have you unlocked relative to the original plan? Also versus the original plan where have gains been better than expected and where has progress been shall we say a little disappointing? And also how much of that likely €750 million cost beat is due to FX? Secondly, could you give us more details on the Olivet provision reversal and how much of that, of the €24 million total net charges to operating provisions, in other words related to the EBITDA reconciliation on page 11 of the press release? And then finally just, Antoine, to follow up on the oil and gas, are you still seeing E&P companies’ investments in existing wells offset the decline in CapEx on new projects? Thank you. Antoine Frerot So Philippe will answer the two first questions; I will come back on oil and gas after. Philippe Capron For the past, as you know, a large part of our cost reduction has come from SG&A, redundancy plans. Major examples are the two such plans we had for the headquarters. As you remember, the headquarters went from 1,400 people including the divisions now extinct to 700 people today. Similar evolutions have taken place in various countries. So this reduction of SG&A, this reduction of headquarters has been a significant driver. But, as one of you said earlier, cost reduction, cost cutting is now in the DNA of this company so this is an ongoing effort, even though, as hinted by Antoine, the focus may change over the next period. Today clearly at €690 million and with a normal rhythm of €50 million per quarter we’re fully on track to surpass the €750 million objective for the next period. We’ll give you more color during the Investor Day. For the provision reversals, those provisions are below the EBITDA so they do not include any operational elements. It’s not a single big ticket item, both in last year for the negative impact and this year for the net reversal; it’s a multitude of small elements positive or negative. Last year there was a big negative chunk for our Polish waste business which has been sold. This year for example there is another negative impact which is due to the settlement of a large litigation somewhere in Eastern Europe. It’s lots of small elements going up and down; there is no large ticket. Antoine Frerot Yes, I add something about the cost cutting. You understand I think that we will certainly exceed this year the famous objective of €750 million at the end of the year. How much we could not say precisely and because we will exceed it we will also exceed our €500 million in current net result and free cash. I could not tell you how much but we will beat it and this is very good news for us. How much? Perhaps, €50 million , perhaps €100 million, too early to tell you. Now I’m coming back for oil and gas. When an oil and gas company invested in new assets it is too late to stop it, so they prefer to operate them. And it is why on our existing contracts we had good business with oil and gas customers. And when they stop the construction of new assets they push, as they could, the production of their existing assets. It is why they use more water on the existing assets to expand the production. And they stop at the same time their investment because they are not sure that it is a good time to do that. But when the investments are done it is too late for them and the cost of production after investment is much below the price of the actual price of oil. So that interest to push and to stop do investments. So we had on the existing contracts good business with oil and gas customers. Lawson Steele Okay, can I just follow up please? Specifically I want to know what has offset the — on the cost savings what has offset the Dalkia savings which were sold and also how much of the cost cutting improvement is down to FX please? Philippe Capron We’ve not done the exact calculation regarding the FX but it’s totally marginal. I would say — if I were to bet I would say about €20 million perhaps overall. So as we’re €40 million above the objective at the end of the quarter this has not been significant. In terms of Dalkia, the figure you’re looking for may be perhaps €10 million. But, as you know, we’ve changed the perimeter. The initial perimeter did include Dalkia France and of course we do not — and it included both Dalkia France and Dalkia International in the original €750 million. So we’re actually short the Dalkia France savings which I’m sure continue but which we do not record anymore. This certainly does offset the favorable FX. Antoine Frerot I want to avoid a misunderstanding. The €110 million of savings we had during the first semester are at constant scope and currency, meaning that they include the savings we did on the Dalkia International business. But we don’t include any cost savings in Dalkia France; it is no more our business now. So the €110 million is on the perimeter full water waste business and Dalkia International. And yes we did also savings, especially in G&A on Dalkia International because we immediately included Dalkia International in our new organization, one Veolia per country and then on the Dalkia International teams in each country we had some savings through this integration. But it’s not — this €110 million has nothing to do with the deal with EDF concerning Dalkia France and Dalkia International. The savings aren’t concerning Dalkia International at all. Operator The next question comes from Vincent Ayral. Sir, please go ahead. Vincent Ayral I would like to come back a bit quickly on the SNCM and Transdev. You say that we should have a solution by the end of the year. We’ve seen the thing sliding a number of times. I’d like to understand why are we now sure that the whole SNCM issue should be done. Because I understand that cash-wise it would have been difficult for them to reach the summer. Now they reached the summer where they refill a bit the coffers in terms of cash so what’s the assessment of the situation and why a resolution by year-end? And then moving on Transdev, the results of Transdev seems to be improving materially. Can we expect something material in terms of an improvement of the Memorandum of Understanding you have with CdD so basically selling this business for a much higher valuation? Do you think this is something that can be done, reopening the MOU or are you stuck with the current price? Thank you. Antoine Frerot Okay, about SNCM, there are two big reasons why a solution should be found before the end of the year. The first is because the European Commission push and push for the payment of the fine they decided for SNCM. So this pushing will not leave big room to the French Government and also to the court. The second one, perhaps in more urgency, is that probably at the end of September or at least at the end of October there will be no more money in the cash box of SNCM, even if they away them all the maintenance costs, the cash they burn during — after the season is so huge that at the end of September or October no more money. And in this case with no more money to pay the employees the court will have not have other solution to decide the liquidation of the SNCM if they did not decide the transfer before that date. So it is why we think that SNCM could not live because of problems of cash for a long time. About Transdev Philippe? Philippe Capron About Transdev, the MOU has lapsed so there is no obligation by either party. Of course it’s a useful reference point but it’s very fair to say that given the, I would say, spectacular turnaround done by the present management of Transdev we could expect a better price. It will be a question of negotiations with our counterparts at Caisse des Depots but it would be fair to expect a better price. The company has had a €50 million net earning — net income for the first half of the year of which we enjoy half. So €50 million is a very significant figure after another year, last year which was a return to profit where they had a positive income though at a lesser level. So we’re very encouraged and when you see the plans of Transdev in thinking that we might get a better valuation. Vincent Ayral And one last question on SNCM to come back. If you have a solution and you manage to exit SNCM without having the fine, what could we expect P&L-wise in terms of maybe provision release or anything like that? Thank you. Antoine Frerot Nothing, nothing, nothing more we already have in our accounts because we told — we repeated, we as Veolia but also Transdev told and repeated that we will not put any new penny or any new euro in SNCM up to what we decided to propose for the liquidation of SNCM totally or partly if part of SNCM is taken over by another company. So we propose, as you know probably, €85 million to pay the — €85 million for two shareholders, Transdev and the French state, meaning around €62 million for Transdev. And that would be all. And these amounts are already in our books so we don’t forecast any new provision for that. Operator The next question comes from James Brand. Sir, please go ahead. James Brand Three questions, firstly, you mentioned in response to a prior question that the waste business had benefited from lower fuel costs in the first half of the year but that some of that might have to be passed back to customers. I was wondering whether you could give any kind of quantification around that? And a slight follow-on from that, I was wondering whether Transdev had also benefited from a similar phenomenon and therefore whether perhaps some of the improvement in — the great improvement in net income that you’ve seen might again be transitory? The second question is just on — you mentioned paper prices having improved quite considerably recently. If they stayed where they’ve got to, how much would that mean in terms of increased profitability for you? And thirdly, just on depreciation. You obviously have slightly lower depreciation in the first half in spite of all the currency effects which might have been expected to push it up. That’s something that’s been commented on in the past in terms of guidance but I was just wondering whether you could talk through in a bit more detail what’s going on there in terms of depreciation and whether we should expect that to be sustained going forwards? Thank you. Philippe Capron In terms of the impact of fuel for waste, the theoretical impact would be €30 million or €40 million a year. Of course this is not happening or at least not kept, because of the index mechanism and just because of competition. Many of our contracts, especially collection or haulage contracts, are short term and they’re periodically renegotiated or re-auctioned and therefore those savings tend to pass fairly quickly to the customers. So overall maybe we keep about €10 million — maybe we’ve kept about €10 million which is significant but not a game changer. In terms of depreciation, we don’t have a detailed analysis. You’re right; we should have expected a slight increase due to the currency impact. I guess this has been offset by the mix of investments we’ve done, probably with shorter depreciation periods due to the fact that we tend to shy away from long-term large CapEx deployments nowadays. I don’t have a ready answer except to say that this is according to our forecast and you should not expect this figure to increase over the next quarters. I missed the second question. Antoine Frerot The price of oil for Transdev. Philippe Capron The price of oil for Transdev, it’s the same. It’s a positive of course and the contract structure in many cases surprisingly enables them to keep it. So it’s been one of the elements which has sustained their earnings, even though over the very long run of course they probably won’t keep it. But for some of that contract they are just supplying the service but they are not themselves keeping — benefiting from the price of oil. Some of them, especially their car — their bus transportation business in France, they do keep the advantage. James Brand Paper prices? Philippe Capron Well, paper has picked up nicely during the — at the end of Q2. This certainly helps our German business and this and the restructuring of our activities there certainly explain why their results are rebounding in spite of sales being — going downward. It’s a bit early days. We’re not yet at record levels but my recollection is that over the course of the quarter it’s gone up 7% which definitely helps. Operator The next question comes from Philippe Ourpatian. Sir, please go ahead. Philippe Ourpatian I have three questions, the first is concerning the working capital. Could you just elaborate a little bit more the reason of quite high working capital excluding the seasonality effect? Is there something special this quarter which could be reversed during the coming months? That’s the first question. The second one is concerning the €34 million of others in the EBITDA bridge, could you just elaborate on that? And the last is concerning the reduction of your tax rate. What do we have to take into account regarding this year and maybe on the medium term rather than a normative level? Many thanks. Antoine Frerot Okay. About working capital, the amount of €628 million is as usual, if I could say that. We have this amount around every year the same magnitude. So there is not a lot of change if we take into account of course that we have now Dalkia International at 100% and no Dalkia France. So it is the usual seasonality effect because during the four previous years we term this requirement we think we will be able to do it again at the end of this year. So there is not a change; it is just a seasonality effect. About, add this quickly, yes, compared to last year, the working capital requirement improved by some tens of millions euros so it is even a bit better than last year. So it is completely at the same level of the other years– Philipp Capron We will remain, of course, very attentive, to make sure that the reversal of this working capital requirement does occur as it did every previous year. Regarding the €34 million item on the EBITDA bridge, on page 17, it is most — it’s all of the others, of course, that it’s mostly the increase in the renewal rates. That’s the main — renewal expenses that’s been the main component. Of course, it’s eliminated at the EBIT level. Antoine Frerot And tax rate? Philippe Capron And regarding tax rate, I missed the question. But, as I mentioned, our parent tax rate is going down for two reasons. One is more profits coming from low-rate countries, especially the Czech Republic and Poland. The second is better efficiency of French tax Group, as we tend to improve our earnings in France. We’re — the French tax Group is getting closer to being in a profit situation, in spite of France bearing the headquarters cost for the part which is not passed on as management fees to a business unit. And the financing cost of the Group, because it was the — most of our bonds were issued from France. So, in spite of those two elements, we’re getting close to having a profit. And, therefore, that limits the drag on our apparent tax rate which was due to the fact that we had negative tax income in France which we could not offset by recognizing a tax asset. Antoine Frerot And for your calculation for the rest of the year, you could make the assumption that the split of the profit of Veolia will stay during the second half as it has been for the first half with the same geographies. So, I think you could use the same rate for H2 compared with H1. Philippe Capron Maybe a bit less, because Q3 is a weak quarter for energy and, therefore, our Polish and Czech activities will not generate as much profits. Typically they don’t during H2. But, I mean, that’s second order of magnitude given all the uncertainties there is in calculating the apparent tax rate. Operator The next question comes from Emmanuel Turpin. Sir, please go ahead. Emmanuel Turpin I would like first to come back on the guidance. Your message at the start of this call was very confident. And looking at the guidance it’s, of course, open-ended. It’s not a single figure. You want to basically cover your dividend by net earnings of free cash flow at least. Would you mind coming back on the main parameters you set on these guidance’s at the start of the year and tell us how this is looking like now? I’m thinking about the macro environment, the weather and the FX which, I believe, is better than what you had budgeted. Still on guidance, you are printing a positive position reversal of just short of €40 million. I think people will like — would be interested in knowing on whether you would be counting on such a positive provision reversal to make your guidance. I would personally love to get your view on whether, on the back of this strong H1 and taking into account some delta versus your budget, mainly the FX, actually a €500 million net earnings is probably a low end of a net earnings range that you — we should expect for the full year on –? Basically, in other words, should we expect more than just €500 million? And, secondly, commercial activity, your friends and competitors Suez Environnement mentioned on their H1 conference call that they had seen a strong increase in new commercial opportunities in recent weeks across a number of geographies. So, they were talking about an increased number of projects they were tendering for. I would love your view on commercial activity in your businesses across the geographies. Where are you seeing particular, I would say, increase in tendering, if any? Thank you. Antoine Frerot So, about the guidance, Mr. Turpin, Philippe will perhaps begin by answering the technical questions about the provision we will have or not. perhaps also with the new rules of accounting about tax and so on. Could you — some figure about that? Philippe Capron Well, we mentioned early in the year that we were not accounting on a larger amount of capital gains. And the same is true in terms of provision reversals. We’re not — this is not something we budgeted, of course. This is something we have to account for. We now and then have to make — to take provisions and when they are not justified we take them out. We do not — this is probably not something which will be repeated at year end. We might end up having a zero or a negative amount on this line during H2. I really don’t know, because I can’t forecast the future. But, we’re not banking on this to achieve our guidance, obviously. Regarding the guidance itself, we’re not in the business of increasing it periodically but I heard Antoine loud and clear mention the figure of €50 million to €100 million improvement on the guidance which could be expected. So, if we were reviewing the guidance we might then say — tell you that we’re between €550 million and €600 million in our internal calculations, but we’re not. Antoine Frerot I complete, of course, Mr. Turpin, we will overpass, surpass the €500 million. For the free cash before divestment, financial divestment, we’re at the end of the first semester ahead of this target. So, for that, for sure, we’ll surpass it. And for the natural recurrent that we will also, we will not have technical gain, perhaps, not also new positive provision but in the other way we have new rules about tax calculations so –. Philippe Capron €27 million. Antoine Frerot We will have the benefit of that during the second half. As about the weather, for sure, I hope we will have very good volumes of water during July at least. So, yes, we’re completely confident to surpass quite significantly our €500 million. But, again, it is too early to tell you precisely where we will be. So, we’re very happy and have the pleasure to beat our guidance and to be sure that the middle of the year to beat it, but we could not tell you a precise figure. Again, between €550, €600 million, for the net result, it is too early. And for the free cash it will be a little bit better because it is still much better for the first half. About commercial, we have, as our friends and competitor, Suez, a lot of projects in pipe, of course. We’re in front of them for the municipal clients everywhere in the world and we have also our new industrial markets also. And in these markets, especially in energy efficiency, in [indiscernible] treatment, in secular economy also for food and — industry we have a lot of projects in pipe. So, we hope, of course, to win a big part of them. We already have a good result during the first half. And I think we will be in the same position during the second half. Our decreasing of our cost put us in a rather better position than we were last year or two years ago, because we could bid with more efficiency. And we have been successful during the two last years, especially in front of our competitor. So, we’re still in a better position today. It is why I think we will make profit of a large part of this project into the pipe today. Operator The next question comes from Julie Arav. Julie Arav I have three short questions, if I may. The first one you mentioned on the global businesses that the growth was impacted by some delays in some project at Veolia water solution and technologies. Can we have an idea — can you quantify the impact of these delays? And also does that mean that these contracts should contribute to Q3 or Q4 growth? Are they just delayed for good? Just to make sure that I understand correctly the impact from the decline in oil prices, is it right to understand that the short-term slowdown doesn’t call into question your midterm revenue target of 3% coming from new industrial contracts? And last question, can we have an idea of how much the new industrial contracts have contributed to the overall H1 organic growth? Thanks. Antoine Frerot Yes, because the decline of global business is a decline of construction business. You should have in mind that at the end of March the big sludge Hong Kong contract finished. And this big contract hasn’t been replaced during the Q2 by another big object. And it is a big part of the decline of the turnover of the construction business. We did not replace during this Q2 this big animal. And we have some bids and offers in the nature to replace this big animal. It is not the case today. We hope we have that before the end of the year. Now, I come back on our target of increasing of turnover during the next plan. You should have in mind that during the first transformation plan and in 2015 we’re still in this plan. We focus completely the Group on the restructuring and the increasing of margin and profit. So, we did not invest a lot for growth, even organic growth. The investments for growth are slow because the main priority of the Group is to expand the profitability and the return and the margin. During the past semester compared to the first semester of 2014, we increased the EBITDA margin of 90 basis points. So, it is huge and the priority of the Group until the end of this year is the profit, not the development. For the next period, we will have two drivers for boosting our turnover. The first is that we will invest all our free cash, exceeding the dividend, in organic growth. And we target the best opportunities of this organic growth with our net free cash after dividend payment. It will bring to us a fuel for growth of turnover. And the second thing is that the declining of the turnover of the French water business will be finished in the first half. During this first half of 2015 you saw that we lost, how much, €70 million of turnover in France? Philippe Capron Yes. Antoine Frerot Yes, €70 million. Philippe Capron €50 million. Antoine Frerot Next year we don’t have that and au, contraire we will have the production of the new Lille contract which is €60 million a year. So, we will [indiscernible] also the dynamic of turnover of the transporter business plus the organic growth. It is why the turnover of this first half of 2015 has nothing to do for explaining what we will do during the next plan. Julie Arav The last one on the new industrial contracts’ contribution to the H1 organic growth. Can you provide a number on that? Antoine Frerot No we need some time to make the calculation a bit, so we will give it to you when we will get it. I could tell you that for the win of the new contracts during the first half 57% came from the municipal sector in terms of turnover and backlog. And 43% comes from industrial customers. Operator The next question comes from Olivier Van Doosselaere. Olivier Van Doosselaere I’ve got just two questions remaining. One is I was wondering if you could maybe say a bit more about Central and Eastern Europe which has now become a significant part of your business. On the water side you’re talking about figures — increases in water tariffs. I was wondering how much those were. And to what extent that could be recurring. And then on the energy business I was wondering if you could just pick up a bit more about the ongoing trends, going beyond just the impact of lower power prices, what you see in terms of contract backlog and so on. Thank you. And the second question would be on the French water restructuring. I think you had taken a provision of €90 million or €95 million in the past. I was wondering if you could say how much of that provision has by now in total already been reversed. Thank you. That’s all. Antoine Frerot Okay. I just got the answer to your first question, Olivier. The prices of water, well, type of water in Central and Eastern Europe, increased on — for 0.9% during the first half compared to last year. And the second question is about –? Philippe Capron Energy trends in Eastern Europe. There is not much to say except that this business, has been helped by a colder Q2 after a disappointingly mild Q1, almost in line with the previous year. We also had a decline in the price of fuel but which mostly is passed through so it typically has no impact, no negative impact, on our contracts. And it’s also fair to mention that we have significant round of CapEx in those — in the Czech Republic and Poland due to the new European norms and therefore we have to comply with those norms. So, that means a significant CapEx influx which, of course, is well — is accounted within our normal investment envelope. So, this is not unexpected. We knew this when we bought Dalia International. Antoine Frerot And on the commercial side on this energy business in this geography we have what I could say good knowledge, meaning that some clients should appear to be ready to subcontract some of our activities of energy management and especially heating district. And we have in the pipes, because we talk about the pipe of new contracts some minutes ago, we have in our pipe some of these quite big contracts for [indiscernible] management. And perhaps even before this, the end of this year, we will be able to announce good news in that pipe and that field. It will be also a part, just a part but a part, of our organic-growth program for the next three-year plan. Philippe Capron For French water restructuring the provision has been consumed now. The plan is over in terms of the voluntary departure plan. And, therefore, the provision has been — has gone through the P&L and there is — it will have no further impact. Operator The next question is from Vincent Ayral. Sir, please go ahead. Vincent Ayral Sorry to come back, I just wanted to do a follow-up on the lower oil price. I understand that a theoretical potential uplift would be €30 million, but you just expect €10 million. I guess there’s two questions here just to be — to try to understand the whole thing. When you have this indexation are you using an average oil price over the last, I don’t know, 3, 6, 12 months or are you using spot price? And to lose, like, two-thirds of the drop in oil price instead of just half that would assume that the distribution of your indexation is mostly done like in H1. Could you explain a bit this? And the second thing is, on the energy business, what would you expect, assuming normal weather next year, the uplift to be? Or, you can ask the question the other way, what was the weather impact on your energy business in H1? Thank you. Antoine Frerot What do you mean by normal weather? Do you know that this concept of normal water? But it’s always difficult to tell you for sure. In the 10 last years we have colder winter than we had at the beginning of this year. But what would be a normal one we could say that we did half of the weight between 2014 and 2015 to compare to an average over the 10 last year. So, if we come back on the average for the future, we still have room for growth that could be some dozens of million, we said that in euro, in term of provision. Philippe Capron In term of the impact of lower fuel on the waste business, you have a wide variety of situations. First, when it’s a long-term contract with an index, you have all sorts of indices. It really depends from country to country and actually from contract to contract whether it’s spot or average. And — but in most of those contracts you have an index which represents the bar chart of our cost and, therefore, has a large or a significant fuel component. And, therefore, with some delay, it can be yearly or half yearly, this is passed on to the customer. But in many other cases you are dealing with shorter-term contracts with no indices. And it’s just the way the contracts are renegotiated or re-auctioned due to the pressure of competition which forces us, essentially, to pass the lower fuel cost onto our customer. So, there is really no precise answer to your question and my own answer was just an estimate, not a totally precise one. Antoine Frerot So, ladies and gentlemen, it is time to conclude our conference call. In conclusion, I will remind you that the progress on margins improvement has been again very satisfying and really [indiscernible] we said during the first half. EBITDA margin improved by 90 basis points. It is a huge progress. The free-cash target has been already achieved at the first semester for the whole year compared to our guidance. And the EBITDA gross conversion into net income is massive. So, for all these reasons, we’re very satisfied for these reasons but also really completely, very confident for the rest of the year, to surpass our guidance. Thank you for your presence and goodbye. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the conference call. Thank you all for your participation. You may now disconnect.

Public Service Enterprise Group (PEG) Ralph Izzo on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. (NYSE: PEG ) Q2 2015 Earnings Call July 31, 2015 11:00 am ET Executives Kathleen A. Lally – Vice President-Investor Relations Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Analysts Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities (NYSE: USA ) LLC (Broker) Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Travis Miller – Morningstar Research Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. My name is Brandy, and I am your event operator today. I would like to welcome everyone to today’s conference, Public Service Enterprise Group Second Quarter 2015 Earnings Conference Call and Webcast. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session for members of the financial community. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded today, Friday, July 31, 2015, and will be available for telephone replay beginning at 1 PM Eastern today until 11:30 PM Eastern on August 7, 2015. It will also be available as an audio webcast on PSEG’s corporate website at www.pseg.com. I would now like to turn the conference over to Kathleen Lally. Please go ahead. Kathleen A. Lally – Vice President-Investor Relations Thank you, Brandy. Good morning. Thank you for participating in our earnings call this morning. As you are all aware, we released second quarter 2015 earnings statements earlier today. The release and attachments as mentioned are posted on our website at www.pseg.com, under the Investors section. We also have posted a series of slides that detail operating results by company for the quarter and the first half of the year. Our 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2015, is expected to be filed shortly. I won’t go through the full disclaimer statement or the comments we have on the difference between operating, earnings, and GAAP results, however, as you know the earnings release and other matters that we will discuss in today’s call contain forward-looking statements and estimates that are subject to various risks and uncertainties. Although we may elect to update forward-looking statements from time-to-time, we specifically disclaim any obligation to do so even if our estimate changes unless, of course, we are required to do so. Our release contains adjusted non-GAAP operating earnings. Please refer to today’s 8-K or other filings for a discussion of the factors that may cause results to differ from management’s projections, forecasts and expectations and for a reconciliation of operating earnings to GAAP results. I’m now going to like to turn the call over to Ralph Izzo, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Public Service Enterprise Group. And joining Ralph on the call is Caroline Dorsa, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. At the conclusion of their remarks, there will be time for your questions. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Thank you, Kathleen. And thank you, everyone, for joining us today. Earlier this morning, we reported operating earnings for the second quarter of 2015 of $0.57 per share, a 16% improvement over the $0.49 per share earned in 2014 second quarter. The results for the quarter bring operating earnings for the first half of 2015 to $1.61 per share, a 7% increase over operating earnings of $1.50 per share earned in 2014’s first half. Slides 4 and 5 contain the detail on the results for the quarter in the first half. Our business is performing well and meeting the challenges of today’s low energy price environment. The results for the quarter and first half of the year demonstrate the importance of strong operations in providing our customers with safe, reliable, low cost energy. PSE&G invested $1.3 billion during the first half of the year as part of its planned capital program for 2015 of $2.6 billion. This included upgrades to the electric and gas distribution and transmission system. PSE&G’s focus on improving the resiliency of the grid and increasing operational efficiency has also translated into strong performance in a number of the areas of customer satisfaction including price, billing and payment, corporate citizenship and field service. PSE&G was recently assigned a share of the transmission upgrade work at Artificial Island. PJM’s decision will increase PSE&G’s transmission-related capital spending by $100 million to $130 million over the next four years. This project will add to PSE&G’s robust pipeline of projects that will drive high single-digit growth in PSE&G’s earnings over the three-year period ending in 2017. The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities has begun proceedings related to PSE&G’s proposed $1.6 billion Gas System Modernization Program. The investment would provide for a continuation of the work underway to replace 800 miles of cast iron and bare steel pipe over five years to enhance reliability and reduce the potential for harmful emissions of methane gas. Approval would also provide a direct boost to New Jersey’s economy. We continue to believe that this is the right time to move forward with this work, given the sizeable savings customers continue to realize from low gas prices. PSEG Power’s earnings demonstrate the strength of its asset mix. Recent economic investments have increased the capacity of existing nuclear and fossil units and have improved the fleet’s operating efficiency. The completion of upgrade work at the gas-fired Bergen combined cycle unit yielded an increase in capacity of 31 megawatts, just as the completion of the first phase of the Peach Bottom upgrade which achieved 100% output at the new rating in May provided an additional 65 megawatts per Power’s share of this nuclear unit. In addition, Power recently announced plans to construct and operate a new 755-megawatt combined cycle unit at the Keys Energy Center in Maryland at a cost of $825 million to $875 million. The investment is in keeping with Power’s overall strategy of investing in efficient capacity in its core markets. All three investments will enhance Power’s ability to perform on the PJM’s recently approved capacity performance program. Capacity performance, with its emphasis on performance, is an example of how customer demands for reliability are increasing. The size of PSEG Power’s fleet, the diversity of the fleet’s fuel mix and its dispatch flexibility should support performance under the new capacity standards. The real impact of the changes in the RPM capacity auction should result over time as the market recognized the need for increased investment to maintain system reliability, particularly in light of anomalous weather patterns. We are focused on executing our investment strategies and expanding our infrastructure in a disciplined manner, a manner that supports the goals of customers and shareholders alike. PSE&G’s investment program is expected to yield double-digit growth in rate base through 2019, as the earnings contribution from our regulated business should continue to exceed 50% of our consolidated earnings. PSEG Power’s investment program is expected to enhance the fleet’s efficiency and reliability as we continue to look for opportunities to expand that fleet. The potential investment in Artificial Island, actually the recently approved investment in Artificial Island, the announced acquisition of the Keys Energy Center and the gas system modernization program, if approved, would expand our previously announced capital program for 2015 through 2019 by 15% to 20%, or $2.2 billion. Based on the strength of our results for the first half of the year and the outlook for the remainder of the year, we are updating our earnings guidance for 2015. We have narrowed our range for guidance to $2.80 to $2.95 per share from its original $2.75 to $2.95 per share. Our financial position remains strong. The growth in capital spending can be financed without the need to issue equity. We intend to utilize our financial strength to pursue investments that enhance operating efficiency, support our market position, and seek to improve on the high levels of reliability expected by our customers as we increase shareholder value. With that, I’ll turn the call over to Caroline, who will discuss our financials in greater detail. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thank you, Ralph, and thank you everyone for joining us today. As Ralph said, PSEG reported operating earnings for the second quarter of 2015 of $0.57 per share versus operating earnings of $0.49 per share in last year’s second quarter. We provide you with a reconciliation of operating earnings to income from continuing operations and net income for the quarter on slide 4. And we’ve also provided you with a waterfall chart on slide 10 that takes you through the net changes in quarter-over-quarter operating earnings by major business and a similar chart on slide 12 provides you with changes in operating earnings by each business on a year-to-date basis. So, now I’ll review each company in a bit more detail, starting with PSE&G. PSE&G reported operating earnings for the second quarter of 2015 of $0.33 per share, compared with $0.30 per share for 2014’s second quarter, a 10% improvement. Results for the quarter are shown on slide 14. PSE&G’s operating results for the second quarter continued to benefit from the expansion of its capital program and the impact of warmer-than-normal weather on demand. Returns from PSE&G’s expanded investment in transmission added $0.04 per share to earnings in the quarter. An increase in revenue at the start of the year under its transmission formula rate provides PSE&G the opportunity to continue to earn its allowed return on its transmission investments. Electric demand benefited from the more favorable weather conditions during the quarter, that is, the weather was hotter than normal and warmer than last year, as well as the recovery of costs associated with PSE&G’s capital infrastructure programs. Together, these improved earnings comparisons in the quarter by a $0.01 per share. Gas deliveries continued to grow in response to sustained low prices. The growth in gas deliveries also increased earnings comparisons by $0.01 per share. The improvement in earnings associated with this growth and revenue was partially offset by an increase in pension expense as well as higher storm-related expenses, with those increases totaling an impact of $0.02 per share. An increase in taxes and other items reduced quarter-over-quarter earnings by $0.01 per share. Economic indicators in the service territories such as employment and housing are showing signs of improvement. Modest growth in electric demand is reflective of the improvement in economic conditions. On a weather-normalized basis, electric sales grew by 0.2% for the quarter and about the same year-to-date. Growth in demand by residential and commercial customers was partially offset by a decline in demand from industrial customers, but weather-normalized deliveries of gas grew 2.7% during the first half of the year in response to sustained low prices, something you’ll recall we saw last year as well. PSE&G as part of its annual BGSS filing with the New Jersey BPU, requested a further reduction of $17 million in annual revenues, reflecting its lower cost of gas supply. When placed into effect, the BGSS rate will be reduced to $0.40 per therm from $0.45 per therm effective October 1st of this year. And including this reduction, the typical residential gas customer has experienced a reduction in his or her bill of $792, or 47%, since January of 2009. PSE&G has maintained a steady level of capital expenditures, investing $1.3 billion in the first half of the year as part of its annual planned capital program of $2.6 billion and upgrades to the electric and gas distribution and transmission systems. The capital investment associated with PSE&G’s share of recommended upgrades to the transmission system at Artificial Island will increase investment in transmission by $100 million to $130 million during the 2016 to 2019 timeframe. So, we are updating our forecast for PSE&G’s operating earnings for the year from $735 million to $775 million, to $760 million to $775 million. Given year-to-date results, operating earnings for the full year will be influenced by the summer weather and of course the recovery of costs associated with higher levels of capital spending. Now, let’s turn to Power. PSEG Power reported operating earnings of $0.22 per share for the second quarter of 2015, and adjusted EBITDA of $301 million, compared with operating earnings of $0.17 per share and adjusted EBITDA of $276 million for the second quarter of 2014. Power’s operating results for the second quarter benefited from improved operations at its Nuclear and Fossil generating facilities as well as higher prices on its hedged output and a decline in the cost of its gas supply. The benefit to earnings from the improvement in operations more than offset the impact on earnings from an expected decline in capacity revenue and the lower wholesale market prices for energy. Higher average prices on energy hedges, coupled with a reduction in the cost of supply, more than offset the impact on earnings of lower wholesale market prices for energy. These items combined to increase quarter-over-quarter earnings comparisons by $0.10 per share. In addition, a 10% improvement in the output over the prior year increased quarterly earnings comparisons by $0.02 per share. So this improvement in margin was partially offset by the expected decline in PJM capacity revenues, which reduced Power’s quarter-over-quarter earnings by $0.08 per share. The reduction in capacity revenues reflects the impact both of a lower average capacity price and the retirement of capacity that we’ve talked about before, the capacity that’s no longer compliant with environmental regulations. Higher levels of O&M and depreciation expenses were offset a decline in tax of $0.03 per share and other items to net improved quarter-over-quarter earnings by $0.01 per share. The lower effective tax rate in the quarter of approximately 23% versus last year’s 31% was anticipated and we continue to estimate that the tax rate for the full year will approximate 38%, which was about the same rate as you saw in 2014. The increase in adjusted EBITDA for the quarter is in line with the changes in earnings per share that I just went through on a quarter-over-quarter basis. The average price per capacity declined in the quarter to approximately $168 per megawatt-day from $217 per megawatt-day. In addition, the amount of capacity that cleared the PJM’s capacity auction for the 2015-2016 capacity year, which we’ve discussed over the past few years, was reduced by about 1,800 megawatts to 8,800 megawatts. And this reflects the retirement in May of this year of the HEDD peaking capacity that didn’t meet New Jersey’s nitrous oxide emissions standards. As we move through the second half of 2015, the average price received on PJM capacity will remain stable, relative to the average price received during the second half of 2014 at about $168 per megawatt-day. However, we should continue to expect on a year-over-year basis a decline in capacity revenues during the second half of the year specifically related to that retirement of capacity under HEDD. The fuel diversity and flexibility of Power’s fleet of generating assets was demonstrated once again in the quarter. Our output increased 10% over a year-ago levels to 13.2 terawatt-hours. The nuclear fleet operated at an average capacity factor of 86%, producing 7.1 terawatt-hours of output, or about 54% of our generation. And this level of output represents a 9% improvement from year-ago levels. The performance on the nuclear fleet reflects the absence of some major repairs to Salem 2 in 2014, which led this year’s fewer outage-related days in the second quarter. Production from the combined cycle gas fleet increased 26% this year to 4.6 terawatt-hours of generation or 34% of our total generation, as the fleet’s capacity factor improved to 61% from 49% in the year-ago quarter. Linden’s availability improved versus 2014 as the result of upgrade and maintenance work that was occurring in the year-ago quarter. Dispatch of the combined cycle fleet was also supported by the availability of low-cost gas. Dispatch of the coal fleet, however, was hurt by a decline in the price of gas and lower wholesale energy prices. Output from the coal fleet declined 1.3 terawatt-hours or 10% of generation during the quarter. Wholesale market energy prices have been affected by a decline in the price of gas and anomalies in the dispatch of generation associated with the volatility in pricing. Strong production of low-cost gas from Marcellus station and the lack of sufficient takeaway capacity, not unexpectedly, has resulted in a lower price for gas. The impact on power prices from the lower cost of gas has been further compounded this summer by repair work on electric transmission lines in the Maryland-D.C. area and differentials on load, given warmer-than-normal weather in Southern PJM versus the more normal demand experienced in the northern part of PJM. That inability to dispatch energy to meet demand as a result of the transmission constraints hurt the wholesale market price for power in our region. This situation is alleviated during periods of more normal weather-related demand in the areas served by PSEG Power. So the dynamics affecting the power markets were not wholly unexpected, given that lack of gas transmission takeaway capacity in the Marcellus basin and the work underway to alleviate the constraints on electric transmission to the south of us. Power’s combined cycle fleet continue to benefit from its access to this low-cost gas supply during the second quarter. And since power prices held up and we continue to access lower cost gas, the combined cycle fleet experienced an expansion of spark spreads and Power’s fleet will continue to benefit from low gas prices and a somewhat open gas position. As we look to the full year, the improvement in availability of Power’s gas-fired and nuclear fleet combined with incremental operating capacity at the Peach Bottom 2 nuclear plant and the gas-fired Bergen Station should allow Power’s fleet to produce energy at the upper end of our forecasted output for the year of 55 terawatt-hours to 57 terawatt-hours. This level of output represents a 1% to 5% increase over 2014’s output of 54.2 terawatt-hours. Approximately 70% to 75% of anticipated production for the second half of the year is hedged at an average price of $53 per megawatt hour. The average price on Power’s energy hedges remains the same, approximately $4 per megawatt hour higher than the average price received on energy hedged during the second half of 2014. For 2016 and 2017, Power’s forecast output will remain stable at approximately 55 terawatt-hours to 57 terawatt-hours. Of this, Power has hedged 55% to 60% of 2016’s forecasted generation at an average price of $51 per megawatt-hour and about 30% to 35% of 2017’s forecasted level of generation is hedged at an average price of $50 per megawatt-hour. As Ralph mentioned, Power has acquired the rights to develop the 755-megawatt gas-fired combined cycle Keys Energy Center in Maryland. The addition of Keys, which represents an investment of approximately $825 million to $875 million, is targeted to enter commercial service in 2018. The plant’s location, we believe, will complement Power’s fleet in the core market and add to a fleet capable of meeting PJM’s new capacity performance standards. The forecasted range of Power’s operating earnings for 2015, even with lower wholesale energy prices, remains $620 million to $680 million as guidance, and for adjusted EBITDA, it remains unchanged as well, at $1.545 billion to $1.645 billion. Results for the remainder of the year will be influenced by higher average hedge prices, that declining capacity revenue that I mentioned and wholesale energy market prices. Just a quick note on Enterprise and Other. Operating earnings for PSEG Energy Holdings and Enterprise in the second quarter of 2015 were $12 million, or $0.02 per share, versus operating earnings of $7 million or rounded $0.02 per share for the second quarter of 2014. The improvement in the operating income for the second quarter reflects higher earnings from PSEG Long Island, lower O&M expense and higher interest income at the parent. And we continue to forecast full-year operating earnings for PSEG Enterprise/Other of about $40 million to $45 million. PSEG closed the quarter ended June 30, 2015 with $597 million of cash on its balance sheet with debt at the end of the quarter representing 41.9% of consolidated capital. During the quarter, PSE&G issued $350 million of 10-year secured medium term notes, at an interest rate of 3% and $250 million of 30-year secured medium-term notes at an interest rate of 4.05% and we also redeemed $300 million of maturing medium-term notes, yielding 2.7%. As Ralph mentioned, we’ve updated our forecasted operating earnings for the full year to $2.80 to $2.95 per share, given the strong operating results at both businesses in the first half of the year. Estimates of PSEG Power’s adjusted EBITDA remain unchanged at $1.545 billion to $1.645 billion. Finally, just on a personal note, as you know I announced a week ago my plans to retire from PSEG during the fourth quarter. I have really enjoyed working with all of you and as I move on, I know the PSEG has an outstanding management team led by Ralph Izzo, with a strong balance sheet and lots of opportunities to deploy it in the future and possesses a really solid foundation for further growth. With that, we’re now ready for your questions and I’ll turn it back to you Brandy. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Your first question is from Daniel Eggers with Credit Suisse. Please proceed with your question. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Hey, good morning, guys. Can we just talk a little bit about the Keys plant and just your thought process on the capital allocation on that front, given the fact that you’ve looked at a variety of other brownfield type projects in generation that haven’t passed muster from your cost-capital perspective? Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Yeah, Dan. So I think in general we’re somewhat cautious about injecting new supply into a market where demand isn’t growing much. So most of the investments you’ve seen may have been kind of upgrades to existing units and we’ve talked a lot about (26:54) and replacement of existing units. This one is a little bit unique for us, in that A, it’s not an existing asset, and B, it is a new development project. I think what makes this one a good fit for us is its location, it’s in Southwestern MAAC where we’ve seen some seasonal basis advantages. Number two, I think we’re ahead of the market in terms of the future delivery of gas to that region, which will put a 6,400 heat rate unit in a very, very strong competitive position. And number three, this one went beyond the usual forecasting of forward price risk and it included an element of construction risk that we believe ourselves particularly well-suited to manage given the project work we’ve done both in power and in the utility and how well that has all worked out. So for a combination of reasons, we were able to see clear to some value creation here that was different from other opportunities where I can’t believe people had outbid us. So I think what you hear me saying is that we remain cautious on injecting copious amounts of discipline in the market that’s not growing, but this was a fairly special situation that we thought fit our portfolio rather nicely. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) And given kind of your history of being pretty conservative on using capital, is your view effectively that the energy value of the asset is going to make sense for it since you don’t have the lock on capacity that you would have had if you had earned Bridgeport or something else? Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Yeah that’s right. I mean we did talk in the past about how we – we were attracted to the seven-year lock of capacity in New England. And this one obviously is more about sparks and energy margins than it is about a one-year price on capacity. But it will be clearly a CP-eligible unit. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Okay. And I guess Caroline what – you’ve talked in the past about how much balance sheet capacity you guys thought you had to redeploy. How much you think you have left with the Keys investment and because it is more merchant, does that lower the amount more meaningfully than just the dollars going into the project? Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President No, Dan, so we still have plenty of capacity when I think about – remember the slide we showed in March and we know we’ve talked about before, we add capacity and multiple billions of dollars both at POWER and at parent, parent mostly for regulated. When I look at where we landed at the end of the second quarter, actually similar to what we’ve talked about before, Power ends with – does it cap at 31%, FFO to debt number is well above our floor level. So, we didn’t relax any standards here in doing the analysis for Keys. We will be able to finance that on Power’s balance sheet and that doesn’t use it up, right? So, when we talk about those balance sheet capacities, remember I’ve mentioned before that that’s the most conservative way to look at them because we look at them assuming they don’t start contributing any FFO back and when this goes in service, it certainly will. So, when we looked that Keys, we didn’t look at it from the perspective of well, if we do Keys, we can’t do anything else. We looked at it from the perspective of Keys is a really good project and by no means does it use up all of our balance sheet capacity. So, we can still continue to look at new opportunities for Power as well. So, I feel really comfortable that it’s one balance sheet deployment, but it’s not the only one we’ll be able to do in either businesses. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) So, this wouldn’t preclude the HEDD upgrades or something else then? Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer No. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President No, no, not at all. We’ll not preclude other things that we may be considering, not at all. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Okay. Well, Caroline, I trust we’ll have you on the third quarter earnings call, so I won’t say goodbye yet. And thank you guys. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thanks, Dan. Next question. Operator The next question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS. Please go ahead with your question. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Hi, good morning. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Good morning, Julien. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC So, perhaps to follow-up on investment opportunities here. I’d be curious to – obviously we’re moving forward or PJM is moving forward with Artificial Island at this point. I’d be curious to get your prospective on the future of FERC 1000 or FERC 1000-like investments in PJM. And specifically within that your views on the use of cost caps and just other mechanisms to be more “competitive,” I suppose to what extent do you anticipate yourself and others continue to leverage those kinds of mechanisms to win as we saw with the Artificial Island example, and to what extent do you see that as impeding your ability or enhancing your ability to win, et cetera. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer So, it’s interesting that I believe that PJM published an announcement that said that the identification of this project preceded the creation of Order 1000. So PJM did not feel obligated to achieve the strict terms of the tariff on Order 1000, which is a point that may be we would beg to differ on. Look, Julien, there is way to make this process look pretty. This was a painful process and I would like to chalk it up to the growing pains associated with Order 1000. My concern, and I’ve expressed this to FERC and to PJM, is that we may be heading for a ubiquitous dumbing down of the transmission system as opposed to robust solutions that have advantages over the long term. The cheapest solution in the short-term may not be the cheapest solutions of long term and I don’t want to do get into a full-fledged debate over how you make comparisons across two projects. I still believe, based on everything that our engineering team has told us, that not only did we have a more robust solution, but we had a lower cost solution. So this is going to be challenging. I think efficient markets work when you have good information available to both suppliers and buyers and these are technically detailed, painful reviews done by a handful of assessors on the basis of a fairly robust set of bidders. It doesn’t kind of lend itself to the transparency you see at the NYMEX on what’s happening in gas markets. So I don’t mean to give a speech, but it’s showing some real challenges in terms of me having confidence that over the long term Order 1000 will yield a strong transmission system that won’t be constantly second-guessed through a challenged – the quarters or more importantly over the long-term in the field as we head towards the least-cost solutions as opposed to the short-term least-cost solution. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Got it. And the complement – to complement that last question a little bit, PJM is talking about reducing their load forecast this cycle, given some adjustments for efficiency and solar et cetera. I’d be curious, does that impact your – A, your current spending plans, with B, your prospective plans when you are thinking about transmission, and obviously you guys are on the both sides of power and the wires business. What do you – how does that change your business at all, if you can elaborate? Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Yes. So I think that PJM is still reviewing its re-forecasted load growth. And of course load growth is an important consideration in how one designs your delivery system. But don’t underestimate this significant role played by the location of load and the location of supply in having to design the transmission system. I would contend, although I couldn’t prove it to you in this call, that the reason why we’ve had such a strong need for transmission deployment is the fact that we no longer have an integrated system where utility planners go from generation all the way to the meter and PJM has had to respond to changes in supply, both in terms of unexpected retirements and unexpected injection of new supply. And that results in the need for an even more robust transmission system and one that you can plan from generation to user. Now, for Power, we had nearly all of this forecast in our fundamental model – or fundamental model already. So when we looked at something like Keys and when we looked at whatever else we might be bidding into RPM, we do scenario analysis that includes diminished demand as well as more robust growth. But well, one way of saying it, it’s not a single variable model, it’s not just what’s the demand, it’s – where is the load, where is the supply and what’s happening to the infrastructure that connects all the above. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Excellent. Well, thank you. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thanks, Julien. Next question. Operator Your next question is from Travis Miller with Morningstar Inc. Please proceed with your question. Travis Miller – Morningstar Research Good morning, thank you. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Hi, Travis. Travis Miller – Morningstar Research Ralph, just a follow-up on that, the transmission discussion. When you think about the investments you’re making, what’s on the table, how close do those investments get us to kind of next generation grid, a grid where you can have distributable generation, smart type of grid? Is that kind of what you’re talking about there, in terms of robustness and where we need to get to relative to the future? Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer So I think it does get us a long way there Travis, but I think of it more as building a set of highways, so that no matter what happens on one highway you could switch over to another one and not get stuck in a traffic jam. Other people though I think talk about the future grid as being a more flexible grid so that you don’t have to build big highways and you could just direct traffic flows along the back roads intelligently so that nothing gets clogged. And that’s probably not the best analogy. But I think the Internet of Things is what people speak about in terms of the ability to move power more flexibly. I’m not a big believer in that being an eventual outcome because of the connectivity that you need at the last mile, so to speak. And I’m more of a believer in the types of things that PJM is advocating, which is – look, the backhaul has to be robust, so that people can get on and off, people in the form of power plants can get on and off that backhaul system. Travis Miller – Morningstar Research Okay. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer It’s a central station dispatch model on a robust high voltage system that I think is ultimately one that will be economically more efficient. Travis Miller – Morningstar Research Sure. Okay. And then, more specifically on PSEG Power in the quarter, that re-contracting lower cost to serve, how one-time type of stuff is that? I’m guessing a lot of that was spark spread versus the BGS but the re-contracting part, what are you seeing on that part? Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Sure, Travis. This is Caroline. So yes, remember that when we talk about re-contracting as well as lower cost to serve, we give you that hedging data, right, so we give you all the details on our hedging data. And as I just said, we’ve moved up our hedges a little bit and the prices are basically the same as where we are. So the hedges prove to be very valuable on a year-over-year basis. I remember last year at about this time we talked about the fact that we had taken advantage of some better pricing last year to put on some incremental hedges. Now hedging doesn’t last forever, but when we see those opportunities we’ve layered on hedges as to beneficial prices and so re-contracting, that’s kind of what that benefit is about. The lower cost to serve, obviously there is lower cost to serve in terms of the wholesale market prices, but also as I mentioned in my remarks, $0.02 of that is our Leidy gas access. So, having that access to Leidy gas after the customers and PSE&G have the first call in that access, that contributed $0.02 of share in this quarter and you remember that’s contributed pennies each quarters of the key quarters in the summer particularly and for each of the last two years. Now that benefit is one that we’ve never said we expect to continue in perpetuity. But if you look at the delta of Leidy gas cost relative to Henry Hub, you’ll still see benefit. And because we have that access, that’s what gives us part of our lower cost to serve with that Leidy access. As I mentioned we have higher spark spreads. We’ve talked about this last year in the summer as well as starting in 2013 summer, that our spark spreads for our access to that low cost gas tended to be about 30% or more higher than the sparks seen in the overall market. So, some of the things are in hedge position, some things are a little more structural, but together, we think they give us a nice position with the combined cycle fleet obviously that operates very well. Travis Miller – Morningstar Research Okay. Got it. Thanks so much and congratulations on the work that you’ve done while you’re at PG – PSE&G. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thank you, Travis. Next question? Operator The next question is from Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank. Please proceed with your question. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Yes, good morning and my congratulations to Caroline. Thank you for your help. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thank you. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. But just first could we get – maybe get an update on the gas main replacement program case? If I’m not wrong the first round of settlement talks, which happened in July; didn’t seem there was a whole lot of opposition in the hearings. So, any updated thoughts on when we might see that come to a head? Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Yes, Jonathan. Thanks for your question. As you know, settlement discussions are confidential, so we can’t give you a lot of detail. It’s encouraging now that we’ve had them. And our hope really is that by yearend or at the very latest that early in 2016, we would have this resolved. As you correctly noted, it’s something that state recognizes need to be done. The interventions in the case are not many nor has there been any surprises. And I think lowering the supply tariff from $0.45 to $0.40 in October just once again points out the wisdom of doing this now. So as I mentioned – as we’ve done visits with folks I think that the debate and the arm-wrestling will be around the length of the program and the size, but we went out of our way to file conditions that were identical to what was approved at Energy Strong and that was approved only 14 months ago. Interest rates are exactly where they were then and return expectations are exactly where they were then. So right now my number one nemesis is summer vacations, just so we’ll – I think we have a couple of more settlement dates thus far on the calendar for the fall and we’re well on our way to spending the $250 million for gas that was in Energy Strong that goes through early 2016. So we wouldn’t be able – even if we had an agreement today we wouldn’t be able to add a bunch of new work in the next couple of weeks anyway. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Is there – do you see a path or route that – where it might wrap up before these fall dates or is that unlikely? Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer No, that’s possible, I wouldn’t want to bet anything that I hold near and dear to my heart on that. What we really want to do is just make sure we get this done well in advance of running out of the Energy Strong money, so we don’t have to demobilize the contractor workforce, so we don’t put pencils down on the engineering. So we just have a continuous flow and so if we got it done in the fall, that would certainly ensure that. If we get it done by the end of the year, we should be able to do that. If it gets done early in 2016, then we create a bunch of inefficiencies that the customers end up paying which we’d rather avoid. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay. Great. And then one of the topic, just strategically you’ve always been of the view that the retail business is not somewhere you want to be. But we did notice one of your merchant power peers, who have been of the similar view is evolving somewhat in that direction this quarter and citing poor liquidity in the forecast. I was just wondering whether you’re seeing similar challenges in terms of hedging and whether there might be any change of thought on your part on the same. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer So, I don’t want to send off shockwaves in the third quarter call, I’m not a big fan of retail but my short answer to your question is a qualified yes. I do think that given challenges in hedging and matching those hedges was asset locations and some of the basic challenges one has seen, the effectiveness of hedges has to be taken into consideration in terms of whether or not some consideration has to be given to that. So, I don’t know the details behind what Calpine did, but I can certainly understand why they would think of that given the diminishing liquidity and the effectiveness of hedges in terms of where the consumption is and where the supply is and where one hedges relative to those two. So – but again please don’t interpret this to expect any announcement in the next few days that PSEG is launching into the retail business, but it is something that we’re looking at now. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. That you’re at least exploring some options on that front there. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Right, yeah. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer And mostly – (45:20) from a defensive posture about how do we maximize the effect of our power business as opposed to retail being a new growth strategy or anything of that… Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay, nice. Thank you. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Next question? Operator The next question is from Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Hey, guys. Congrats, and Caroline, congrats on your announcement. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thank you, Michael. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. One question on CP. Everybody, most people have been pretty bullish in terms of what the impact of CP would be. From a contrarian standpoint, what’s the bear case? Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer I have no idea. I’m sorry, Michael. Caroline and I are looking at each other and like, no, you take it. No, I don’t – so well, I guess I will default to our usual we don’t forecast bullish or bearish prices. I guess the good news is today is July 31 and in 21 days we’ll know the outcome. But I don’t mean to be flip, I mean the bear case would be massive injection of new supply with an economy growing at 2.3%, demand growing at fractions of that. You’d have to be pretty undisciplined to inject a whole bunch of new supply but I guess that would be the bear case (46:49). Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Maybe there is a bear case if you are just a single asset, but we’re a fleet, right? Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Right, right. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President So it feels like this is a good product from our perspective. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Yeah, that would be more of a bear outcome in terms of penalties that you may incur… Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Right, right. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer If you didn’t perform, right. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. How do you think about – I means lots of people talk about the potential higher bid price because lots of assets – or portfolios have kept kind of “embed” the risk of having penalties into their bid price. How about the folks like you guys who have really well performing assets? How do you think about what the potential for rewards are? If you’re on the other side, I mean this is going to be a balancing or settling type market just like New England. How do you think about preparing for what potential rewards could be, where you’re not as focused on the penalty side, but maybe you’re also focused on the – hey what’s my upside, if I’m actually the better performing units in the market and able to deliver more megawatts than what I cleared. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer So that happens in two ways, Michael. We do think about that a lot and think about what it means for us. One is I set a UCAP of 90% of what my ICAP is and I get the other 10% out of that particular unit, which successfully clear the auction. That’s candidly an asymmetric risk-reward relationship right, because the downside is the 90% that’s strung out for you, upside is the 10% of overall performance. But for somebody like us the more significant upside is in the units that don’t clear and their availability to backstop in the event that somebody else underperforms within the LDA. So we never clear 100% of our units. And when we look at our nuclear plants, they have a very low forced outage rate, our combined cycle are slightly higher but still quite low and our LM6000s – our peaking units are also very low forced outage. And so we’ll make some incremental investments in some of the units that don’t have the same type of operating profile, but I think really for us we have not only that sort of even better performance than in the past, but probably more important is the fact that we have a bunch of units that don’t clear the auction. Some of them with high forced outage rates, but will be great insurance policies going forward. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Got it. Thank you, Ralph and Caroline, much appreciated. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thank you. Next question? Operator Your next question is from Ashar Khan with Visium (49:32). Please proceed with your question. Unknown Speaker I’m sorry, my questions have been answered. Thank you. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thank you, Ashar. Next question? Operator Mr. Izzo, Ms. Dorsa, there are no further questions at this time. Please continue with your presentation or closing remarks. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Okay. Thank you, Brandy. So, we tried to do a count – I think this is Caroline’s 26th call. I’ve teamed up with her on 25, there was an August vacation I couldn’t change if I remember correctly. She is going to tire of hearing me say these things, I’m not going to tire of saying these things and I’m going to do them for every one of the different audiences that we somehow manage to find ourselves in front of. I know you’ve all met Caroline and have been impressed by what she has done for us as a company. I can only tell you that no matter how high your opinion is of her, you probably only know a fraction of what she’s done for us as a company and what she’s done for me as the leader of this company. Her presentation – preparation for these calls is just the tip of the iceberg. Her discipline, day in and day out, her knowledge of the business, her knowledge of financial markets, and while all of that isn’t superstar category, all of that pales in comparison to just what a pleasure she is to work with. (50:58) from the times when we’ve travelled around that people think that we actually like each other, but we really do like each other and I can remember the earliest days of those visits and in these calls, she would say, Ralph, you focus on the strategic issues, I’ll answer the factual questions which was her delightfully professional way of saying, Ralph, you’ll get it wrong (51:19). So Caroline, I can’t say thank you enough for our shareholders, for our investors and for me and I know I have many opportunities to repeat that in front of employees, in front of customers and various other folks. Caroline D. Dorsa – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thank you. Ralph Izzo – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer So, thank you and thank you for all you’ve done. With that, we’ll wrap up the call. Hope for a hot, sticky humid weather for the balance of this summer, and we’ll see you, I’m sure, at various conferences. Thank you all for joining us today. Kathleen A. Lally – Vice President-Investor Relations Thank you, Brandy. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude your conference call for today. You may now disconnect and thank you for your participation.

New Jersey Resources’ (NJR) CEO Larry Downes on Q3 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

New Jersey Resources Corporation (NYSE: NJR ) Q3 2015 Earnings Conference Call July 31, 2015 09:00 a.m. ET Executives Larry Downes – Chairman, Chief Executive Officer Glenn Lockwood – Chief Financial Officer Dennis Puma – Investor Relations Analysts Spencer Joyce – Hilliard Lyons Operator Good day and welcome to the New Jersey Resources Corporation, Third Quarter Fiscal 2015 Earnings Conference Call. All participants will be in listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions]. Please note, this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Mr. Dennis Puma with Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Dennis Puma Thank you Rocco and good morning everyone. Welcome to New Jersey Resources’ third quarter fiscal ‘15 conference call and webcast. I’m joined today by Larry Downes, our Chairman and CEO; Glenn Lockwood, our Chief Financial Officer, as well as other members of our senior management team. As you know, certain statements in today’s call contain estimates and other forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We wish to caution listeners on the call that the assumptions forming the basis for forward-looking statements include many factors that are beyond NJR’s ability to estimate or control precisely, which could cause results to materially differ from the company’s expectations. A list of these items can be found, but is not limited to items in the forward-looking statements section of today’s news release filed on Form 8-K, and on our Form 10-Q to be filed on Monday August 3. Both of these items can be found at sec.gov. NJR does not, by including this statement, assume any obligation to review or revise any particular forward-looking statement referenced herein in light of future events. I’d also like to point out that there are slides accompanying today’s discussion that are available on our website and were also filed on our Form 8-K this morning. With that said, I’d like to turn the call over to our Chairman and CEO, Larry Downes. Larry. Larry Downes Thanks, Dennis. Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us today. For those of you who have seen this morning’s earnings release you know that we are continuing to perform well during fiscal 2015. And through my presentation this morning I will be discussing our future and I will be making forward looking statements. Our actually results will be effected by many different factors, including those that we’ve listed on slide one. The complete list is included in our 10-K and I would ask you to please take the time to review those carefully. Also as noted on slide two, I will be referring to certain non-GAAP measures such as net financial earnings or NFE, as I discuss our results. We believe that NFE provides a more complete understanding of our financial performance. However, I want to stress that NFE is not intended to be a substitute for GAAP. Our non-GAAP measures are discussed more fully in item 7 of the 10-K and also I would ask you to take your time to review those disclosures carefully as well. Moving to slide three, this morning we announced net financial earnings of $2.5 million, which was $0.03 per share for the third fiscal quarter of 2015. That compared with $4.5 million or $0.05 per share last year. For the nine months NFE totaled nearly $157 million or $1.84 per share and that compared with $196.3 million or $2.33 per share for the first nine months of fiscal 2014. Glenn will review our segment results in more detail, but in looking at our results this year you can see that our primary businesses are performing either in line with or exceeding our original expectations. Our better fiscal 2015 NFE performance was driven by steady growth from our two regulated businesses, New Jersey Natural Gas and NJR Midstream, improved performance by NJR Energy Services compared with our original NFE guidance and although they are lower than last year, NJRES is having another excellent year. And finally, we continue to seek solid contributions from Clean Energy Ventures. Moving to slide four, this morning we also increased our fiscal 2015 NFE guidance range to $1.70 to $1.80 per share from $1.65 to $1.75 per share. As you may recall we raised guidance twice earlier in the year as a result of NJRES performance, which has been better than expected because of our team’s ability to take advantage of opportunities that were created by cold weather. In fiscal 2015 we currently expect our regulated utility and mid-stream businesses to contribute between 55% and 70% of total NFE and then return to 65% to 80% in fiscal 2016 and beyond, and we currently expect NJRES to contribute 20% to 30% of NFE in fiscal 2015 and also return to 5% to 15% in fiscal 2016 and beyond. On slide five, I just want to summarize our long term growth strategy. First and foremost New Jersey Natural Gas will remain the primary driver of our strategy and our performance. We will comprise the majority of our earnings, assets, people and capital investment. Infrastructure projects such as SAFE and new customer additions will drive our rate base growth. Our mid-stream investments will also contribute to our regulated earnings. Combined our regulated businesses are currently expected to represent 65% to 80% of total NFE is fiscal 2016 and beyond. NJR Energy Services will continue to provide fiscal and producer natural gas services and is currently expected to contribute between 5% and 15% of total NFE in fiscal 2016 and beyond. Continuing on slide six, with Clean Energy Ventures we will provide renewable electricity from our solar and wind investments. We are diversifying our earnings within this business, mainly through wind investments as well as stable SREC fundamentals. We currently expect NJR Clean Energy Ventures to provide 10% to 20% of NFE in fiscal 2016 and beyond. In home services we continue to provide steady earnings accounting for between 2% to 5% of total NFE. At the same time our annual dividend growth goal remains at 6% to 8% with a targeted payout ratio of 60% to 65%. And with that summary, I will now turn it over to Glenn and he will review the quarterly results. Glenn. Glenn Lockwood Thanks, Larry, and good morning everybody. Moving to slide seven, quarterly results at New Jersey Natural Gas reflect continued customer growth, increases in our BGSS incentives and regulatory initiatives such as the SAVEGREEN Project and SAFE. [RISE’s] [ph] better than expected results reflect lower transportation and storage demand fees. Clean Energy Ventures weaker comparisons were due primary to last year’s results, including the one-time $9.9 million credit support payment related to a change in ownership at one if its commercial solar projects. This year we added one grid-connected and one net-metered system during this fiscal third quarter and placed 196 residential systems into service through our Sunlight Advantage program for a total of 6.2 megawatts. Increased revenue from Steckman Ridge was the primarily responsible for the higher Midstream earnings. Weaker results from Home Services’ reflected lower equipment sales and installations. On slide eight we invested $26 million to add 5,750 new customs to our system during the first nine months of fiscal 2015 and we are on target to add about 7,800 customers for the year. We remain focused on the safety and reliably of our system and have invested about $50 million on system maintenance so far this year. At the same time we have invested more than $27 million in our SAFE program, which allows us to accelerate the replacement of our cast iron and bare steel. Though June 30 we have replaced approximately 192 miles of the 276 miles of pipe that were approved by the BPU in 2012. Final preparations are being made to open our first NGV station and we are on track to open all three stations by the end of the fiscal year. Through our NJ RISE program we will invest over $100 million over the next four years for storm preparation and mitigation projects in the most storm prone portions of our service territory and we have begun modest spending on the program this year. And our Liquefaction project in Howell, New Jersey will give us the ability to liquefy pipeline gas at our storage site for our peak date needs and create benefits for both our customers and share owners. Through June we have invested $11 million on site preparation and equipment manufacturing for this facility. We have two petitions pending with the BPU regarding our Southern Reliability Link project. That will add a second interstate pipeline connection to our service territory in Ocean County to further support safety, reliability and resiliency. And finally through our SAVEGREEN energy efficiency program, which was recently extended through July 2017, a total of 38,000 customers have upgraded to high efficiency equipment since its inception in 2009. And very importantly, I’d like to remind everybody that about half of these capital expenditures are currently earning a return. Moving to slide nine, NJNG added 5,750 customers in the first nine months, more than 11% above last year. 2,793 of these new customers were related to new construction compared with 2,463 in the same period last year. Approximately half of the new customers converted from other fuels, primarily oil. Our conversion market continues to do very well as evidenced by a 10% increase over last year. These new customers are expected to contribute approximately $3.4 million annually to utility gross margin, and going forward we expect to add between 15,000 and 17,000 new customers over the next two years, representing an annual growth rate of about 1.6%. As you can see on slide 10 we continue to prepare for our base rate case which will be filed in November 2015. The filing was required by the BPU as part of the SAFE approvals. We believe the profits will take approximately nine months and conclude in early fiscal 2017. To-date we have retained consultants for our cost of capital, depreciation and cost of service studies and begun our test year, which will be July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. Moving to slide 11, while lower than last year when we experienced extremely cold winter weather, NJRES’ results this year have significantly exceeded original projections. Our team has done an excellent job meeting our customers’ needs during periods of extreme weather and has developed a portfolio of competitively priced storage and transportation assets. According to Natural Gas Intelligence, we are now the 16 th largest gas market in North America. Our better than expected year-to-date results were driven primarily by colder than normal weather that created short term increases in natural gas demand, as well as price volatility, which in turn generated higher than expected gross margin for RES. As previously noted, we currently forecast RES’ contributions to NSE to return to a range of 5% to 15% in fiscal 2016 and beyond. Okay, turning to NJR Clean Energy Ventures on slide 12, we continue to build out of our inventory of solar projects, while we construct our third wind project. Our strategy is focused on diversification of our investments across this business. We have built a strong portfolio of solar in New Jersey, with over 100 mega watts of capacity now in service. During the first nine months of fiscal 2015 we placed $53.3 million of ground mounted solar projects totaling 20.5 megawatts into service. The six megawatt grid connected system is under construction and is expected to be placed into service in our fourth fiscal quarter. On the residential side our Sunlight Advantage program remains a popular choice for consumers and we remain among the largest providers in the state. In the first nine months of fiscal 2015 we added 468 customers totaling 4.5 megawatts capacity, bringing the total number of customers since inception to more than 3,600. We have advanced our diversification into onshore wind with projects in Montana, Iowa and Kansas. Wind assets now total almost 30 megawatts worth 22% of our total portfolio as Carroll Area, our second wind project came online in late January. The third project, the 48 megawatt Alexander Wind Farm is currently under construction. Turning to slide 13, you can see that monthly solar capacity additions in the state have declined significantly from their peak in early 2012, which combined with the annual increase and the renewable portfolio standards have supported [indiscernible] increase in SREC prices shown on the graph on the right. Recently we have seen SREC prices over $235 and we believe these fundamentals will continue. In addition, as shown on slide 14, we have been actively hedging our expected SREC sales. The red line on the chart represents SRECs expected to be generated from our existing portfolio. As you can see, 100% of our SRECs for fiscal 2016 are hedged and we have been actively hedging [future years] [ph] as well. We believe that increases in the number of SRECs to be generated, our hedging program, expectation of continued strength in SREC prices and expected earnings from our wind investments, all support our forecast of 10% to 20% of our total NFE coming from CEV in fiscal 2016 and beyond. Now on slide 15, it shows we’ve provided an update of our capital expenditures for CEV. We have spent about $110 million through June 30, 2015 on the solar and wind projects I detailed a few slides ago. Construction continues at our third wind project, the Alexander Wind Farm in Kansas, which is expected to come online during the first fiscal quarter of 2016. When Alexander is completed, we will have about 78 megawatts of wind assets. I also wanted to reiterate our strategy to mitigate the anticipated reduction in ITCs from 30% to 10% in 2017. As I just demonstrated on the previous slides, we are committed to diversifying our clean energy portfolio, mainly the onshore wind investments. This combined with growing SREC revenue and expected contributions from our other business segments will enable us to continue to grow through this transition. In looking at our cash flow forecast on slide 17 you can see the future benefit of the higher than expected earnings that we have been generating in ’14 and ’15. We believe now that our capital program can be properly financed over the next two years with a modest amount of new equity, while maintaining appropriate credit metrics for our rating. Now I’ll turn it back to Larry for some closing thoughts. Larry Downes Thanks Glenn. I’d like to conclude our call today by reviewing slide 18, which summarizes our key strategic initiatives through fiscal 2018. These initiatives support our annual 5% to 9% NFE and 6% to 8% dividend growth targets. So you can see the primary components of our growth plan through fiscal 2018, our strong customer growth, infrastructure investments and regulatory initiatives that will benefit both our customers and our share owners. It will extend our mid stream strategy including PennEast and we intend to diversify clean energy ventures distributed power portfolio combined with stable SREC market fundamentals to provide steady income streams and will take advantage of expected natural gas demand growth and price volatility in NJRES, while providing producer and asset management services. I think as you can see, our fundamentals remain strong and we provide the opportunities for future growth. So as I close today, I want to thank our nearly 1,000 employees for their continued hard work and dedication. I just want to point out because of our employees Jersey Natural Gas was once again named the most trusted brand in the east region by Cogent Reports and that was among all natural gas utilities. Without the efforts of our employees, we could not have achieved the excellent results that we’ve recorded thus far for fiscal 2015 and the strong fundamentals we have for the future. Our employees are the foundation of our company and as always I’m grateful for everything they do every day. And so thank you all for your time today and we will look forward to your questions and comments. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Spencer Joyce of Hilliard Lyons. Please go ahead. Spencer Joyce Hey, good morning guys. Congrats. Good, solid quarter here and another beaten raise. Is that three times? Glenn Lockwood Third time this year, yes it is. Spencer Joyce Yes listen, just a couple of quick ones from me. It seems like a pretty simple quarter here, but did I hear correctly that Alexander is still online to be completed this year. So looking at fiscal, or first quarter of fiscal ’16 for some financial impact there. Glenn Lockwood Yes, it’s actually – Spencer, this is Glenn. It’s in the fourth quarter of calendar ’16, but it will be first quarter of calendar ’15, our first quarter fiscal ’16 that it comes online. Spencer Joyce Okay, perfect, so that’s on schedule. The other item, I know we are looking for a little less solar CapEx next year and I notice the pipeline under construction is about as low as we’ve seen over the past seven, eight quarters. Has there been any change in like the pipeline of available projects out there. I mean has there been any shift in market dynamics or does that really just reflect kind of your guys’ belief that you want to do a little bit less next year. Glenn Lockwood Well, that’s part of the overall strategy. Remember the majority of that solar spending is related to this grid connected projects. The residential market is fairly steady year-over-year. The grid connected CapEx is really a tie to the schedule of those particular projects getting put into service and we’ll just have more of those projects put in this year than we expect to have next year. Spencer Joyce Okay, perfect. Again, good quarter and we’ll talk soon. Glenn Lockwood Thanks Spencer. Operator [Operator Instructions]. Seeing no further questions, I’d like to turn the conference back over to management team for any final remarks. Larry Downes Okay, thank you Rocco. Thanks everybody for joining us today. As a reminder, a recording of the call will be available on our website. Again, we appreciate your interest and investment in New Jersey Resources and enjoy the rest of your day. Good-bye. Operator And thank you, sir. Today’s conference has now concluded and we thank you all for attending today’s presentation. 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!