Tag Archives: georgia

Are Stocks Cheap Now? Get GAAP If You Want To Get Real

The times they are a changin’. In the ’80s as well as the ’90s, corporations reported quarterly results that corresponded to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). These days, the vast majority of companies report “pro-forma” earnings that adjust for unusual, special or one-time circumstances. Take a look at the dramatic rise in the percentage of companies serving up adjusted profits per share rather than GAAP-based results. In June of 2010, 70% provided adjusted earnings. However, as the pressure to engineer gains in bottom-line profitability has mounted, more and more corporations have resorted to non-GAAP reporting. Roughly 90% of companies felt the need to manipulate their presentations to the public by June of 2015. Not a big deal, you say? The S&P 500 SPDR Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ) trading at 193.75 represents a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of roughly 16.5 only if you incorporate pro-forma earnings. If you are inclined to employ GAAP earnings – the less manipulated version of reported earnings – the P/E moves up to approximately 21.5. In other words, even with the S&P 500 close to 200 points below its high-water mark, stocks are not exactly the cellar-dwelling bargain that a value investor craves. In truth, S&P 500 earnings peaked in 2014. You wouldn’t know it from a year-by-year presentation of pro forma/adjusted results alone. You might have believed that S&P 500 earnings rose form $60 per share in 2009 to $120 per share in 2014, and that they merely took a breather in 2015 by holding steady near $120 per share. Unfortunately, you’d have been misinformed. A side-by-side visual comparison with GAAP S&P 500 earnings demonstrates how earnings hit their pinnacle near $100 per share in 2014; meanwhile, there has been a 12.7% erosion to nearly $90 per share in 2015. Earnings per share haven’t fallen that hard since the systemic financial collapse year of 2008. And that’s not all. There is always a discrepancy between GAAP and adjusted pro forma where adjusted results are going to look better than GAAP. And if the discrepancy is not so egregious, maybe one might be willing to overlook it. In fact, studies conducted with chief financial officers will tell you that the magnitude of chicanery is in the realm of 10% of earnings per share. That is about the average spread across the five year period between 2009 and 2013. In 2014, it’s closer to 20%. In 2015? GAAP is now about 25% lower than adjusted pro forma results. That 25% differential is the widest discrepancy since… well, you guessed it… 2008 . The earnings contraction that began in the 3rd quarter of 2014 is unlikely to turn around quickly. One question that an investor who is allocating his assets in the current environment – economic, fundamental, technical, interest rate policy – is whether or not lower interest rates alone justify paying exorbitant stock premiums. Since earnings peaked on 9/30/2014, the low yielding iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: IEF ) has outperformed SPY. The deterioration in earnings has coincided with the relative strength of IEF over SPY. And at present, IEF is in a technical uptrend whereas SPY is in a technical downtrend. Earnings contraction, then, is dovetailing with technical price movement – price movement that has not supported the notion of acquiring expensive stocks on the basis of low rates alone. Perhaps an extremely bullish stock advocate should look for a tailwind from economic data. Sadly, he/she is unlikely to find it. Wednesday’s reading for February’s U.S. service sector came it at its lowest level in two-and-a-half years. In fact, the flash PMI services index came it at 49.8; a reading below 50 represents is indicative of contraction, not expansion. What we may be seeing, then, is the high probability that U.S. consumption is not immune to the domestic manufacturing recession or economic woes the world over. In spite of gasoline and energy price savings, Americans have been bolstering their rainy day funds with higher U.S. savings rates. And that rarely fits the narrative for hearty personal consumption expenditures. In fact, the simplistic notion that cheap energy is a net positive for the consumer-driven U.S. economy has been turned upside down. The primary tailwind for stocks at the present moment are higher oil prices, not lower ones, where the correlation between oil and stocks hovers near 90%. Oil up, stocks up. Oil down, stocks down… and sometimes violently. In sum, the fundamental picture may not matter much in the near-term when risk taking is indiscriminate. It matters more, however, when there is less demand for a wide range of individual securities, industries, yield-producers and debt instruments of varying credit quality. The latter is what has been transpiring since the spring of 2015. Not so ironically, the bear market rally that began February 11 has not been accompanied by a diminished demand for “risk-off” assets like the SPDR Gold Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: GLD ), the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: TLT ) and the CurrencyShares Japanese Yen Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: FXY ). These risk-off asset types have essentially held up, even with 5.5% upturn for SPY since 2/11. The fact that shelter-seekers still like precious metals, long-term treasuries and carry trade reversal currencies implies that the worst is not in the rear-view mirror. (Note: Many of these asset types are present in the FTSE Multi-Asset Stock Hedge Index .) Disclosure: Gary Gordon, MS, CFP is the president of Pacific Park Financial, Inc., a Registered Investment Adviser with the SEC. Gary Gordon, Pacific Park Financial, Inc, and/or its clients may hold positions in the ETFs, mutual funds, and/or any investment asset mentioned above. The commentary does not constitute individualized investment advice. The opinions offered herein are not personalized recommendations to buy, sell or hold securities. At times, issuers of exchange-traded products compensate Pacific Park Financial, Inc. or its subsidiaries for advertising at the ETF Expert web site. ETF Expert content is created independently of any advertising relationships.

ITC Holdings (ITC) Joseph L. Welch on Q4 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Operator Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to ITC Holdings Corporation Fourth Quarter Conference Call and Webcast. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will have a question-and-answer session and instructions will be given at that time. As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to your host for today’s conference, Ms. Stephanie Amaimo. Ma’am, you may begin. Stephanie Amaimo – Director-Investor Relations Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us for ITC’s 2015 fourth quarter and year-end earnings conference call. Joining me on today’s call are Joseph Welch, Chairman, President, and CEO of ITC; and Rejji Hayes, our Senior Vice President and CFO. This morning, we issued a press release summarizing our results for the fourth quarter and for the year ended December 31, 2015. We expect to file our Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission today. Before we begin, I would like to make everyone aware of the cautionary language contained in the Safe Harbor statement. Certain statements made during today’s call that are not historical facts such as those regarding our future plans, objectives, and expected performance reflect forward-looking statements under federal securities laws. While we believe these statements are reasonable, they are subject to various risks and uncertainties. And actual results may differ materially from our projections and expectations. These risks and uncertainties are discussed in our reports filed with the SEC such as our periodic reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q and our other SEC filings. You should consider these risk factors when evaluating our forward-looking statements. Our forward-looking statements represent our outlook only as of today. And we disclaim any obligation to update these statements, except as may be required by law. A reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measures discussed on today’s call is available on the Investor Relations page of our website. I will now turn the call over to Joe Welch. Joseph L. Welch – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Thank you, Stephanie, and good morning, everyone. I’m pleased to report another year of strong operational and financial performance at ITC, which adds to our remarkable track record of consistently delivering on our commitments to customers and investors. On the operational side, our systems continue to perform at top tier levels. Our METC system had the lowest outage count in its history, while both ITCTransmission and ITC Midwest had the second lowest outage counts in their respective histories. This stellar operational performance shows that the longer ITC owns a system and implements its best-in-class operations and maintenance plans, the better the systems perform. It’s also worth noting that we executed our operational maintenance program under budget to the benefit of customers without compromising quality of service or safety as evidence by another solid safety record, 2015. Since ITC’s inception, we have invested over $5.8 billion in our operating systems to modernize the grid. In 2015, these capital investments totaled $771 million. Most notably, in 2015, we placed the Thumb Loop project at ITCTransmission in-service during the first half of 2015. As mentioned on our second quarter 2015 call, the Thumb Loop is the largest project in ITC’s history and services the backbone of the system of design to meet the maximum energy potential of Michigan’s Thumb region. It’s a prime example of the effectiveness of ITC’s planning process which identify the transmission needs to facilitate Michigan’s renewable energy goals while also strengthening the regional transmission grid. This project increases transmission system capacity and reliability, while providing more efficient transmission of renewable energy. With an estimated direct impact of $366 million to the Michigan economy, the Thumb Loop project created jobs and will continue to have a meaningful near-term and long-term impact on the economy of the region and the entire state. Similar to the Thumb Loop project, our Multi-Value Projects or MVPs at ITC Midwest, which remain on track, highlight the value of forward thinking and collaborative planning between the state, the region and key stakeholders, while concurrently positioning ITC for future success. From a financial perspective, we had another strong year with 2015 operating earnings of $2.08 per diluted share which was well within our guidance range and marks the ninth consecutive year of double-digit annual operating earnings growth. To that end, we continue to see double-digit earnings growth in the years to come as evidenced by our revised capital investment forecast through 2018 at our regulated operating companies which Rejji will elaborate on in his prepared remarks. On the value return front, we continue to honor our commitments to shareholders by increasing the dividend by approximately 15% in August of 2015 and including our $115 million accelerated share repurchase program in November, effectively using the remaining capacity of board authorized share repurchases. Together, these efforts highlight the operational and financial strength of the business which we believe will continue to yield long-term benefits for our customers and investors. Turning to regulatory matters. In the initial MISO base ROE complaint, the administrative law judge issued an initial decision in late December 2015. The ALJ recommended a base ROE of 10.32% with the high end of the zone of reasonableness of 11.35%. While we view this outcome as constructive, a final order isn’t expected from FERC until later this year. In the second ROE complaint, the MISO transmission owners filed their initial testimony on January 29. And we do not expect an initial decision from the ALJ until late June. As we have said in the past, we remain confident that FERC will continue to support their historic policies given the significant investment requirements necessary to modernize the electrical infrastructure of the United States. With respect to development activities, we continue to advance Lake Erie Connector project. In late January, we filed a joint permit application with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in support of the project. Additionally, we continued to negotiate transmission service agreements with prospective shippers. As we’ve discussed in the past, upon executing transmission service agreements under acceptable terms and conditions, we would then anticipate receiving federal, state and provincial permits by the second quarter of 2017, commencing construction around that time with commercial operation expected in 2019. Lastly, in late November, ITC’s board of directors announced a review of strategic alternatives which concluded with our announcement of Fortis acquisition of ITC on February 9. I’ll let Rejji go through the transaction details. But, needless to say, we’re excited about this outcome for our shareholders, customers and employees. We view Fortis as an ideal partner that will enable ITC to continue our objectives of long-term investments in the electrical infrastructure in North America. Overall, we are pleased with the fourth quarter and full year 2015 results and look forward to working with Fortis to close the transaction to become a diversified infrastructure company with a stronger platform going forward. Since ITC’s inception, we have been focused on creating meaningful value for our stakeholders by becoming the leading electric transmission company in the United States. Fortis is an outstanding company with a proven track record of successfully acquiring and managing U.S.-based utilities in a decentralized manner. This transaction accomplishes our objectives by better positioning the company to have a higher level of focus on pursuing our long-term strategy of investing in transmission opportunities to improve reliability, expand access to power markets and allow new generating resources to interconnect to transmission systems and lower the overall cost of delivered energy for our customers. I am forever grateful for the hard work of the ITC employees in building this great company and look forward to a bright future of continued operational excellence supported by the Fortis platform. We also very much appreciate the longstanding support of our investors who will receive an attractive premium for their investment and will also benefit from the opportunity to participate in the upside of the ITC joining with Fortis, including future value creation and a growing dividend program. I will now turn the call over to Rejji to elaborate on our 2015 financial results and the Fortis transaction. Rejji P. Hayes – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Thank you, Joe, and good morning, everyone. For the fourth quarter of 2015, we reported operating earnings of $87.6 million or $0.57 per diluted share, an increase of approximately 19% or $0.09 per diluted share over the same period in 2014. Reported net income for the quarter was $37.4 million or $0.24 per diluted share, a decrease of $9.4 million or $0.06 per diluted share compared to the fourth quarter in 2014. For the year ended December 31, 2015, we reported operating earnings of $323.8 million or $2.08 per diluted share, an increase of 12% or $0.23 per diluted share over the same period in 2014. As highlighted in our prior calls, absent the Kansas V-Plan Project bonus payment expenses booked in the first quarter 2015, our year-over-year growth would have been approximately 15%. Reported net income for the year ended December 31, 2015, was $242.4 million or $1.56 per diluted share, resulting in a decrease of $1.7 million for reported net income, an increase of $0.02 per diluted share compared to the same period in 2014. Operating earnings are reported on a basis consistent with how we have provided our guidance for the year and exclude the following items. First, they exclude regulatory charges of approximately $0.6 million for the fourth quarter 2015. These expenses totaled $7.3 million or $0.04 per diluted share for the year ended December 31, 2015, and $0.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2014. 2015 charges relate to management’s decision to write-off abandoned costs associated with the project at ITCTransmission and a refund liability attributable to contributions in aid of construction. A 2014 charge relates to certain acquisition accounting adjustments for ITC Midwest, ITCTransmission, and METC, resulting from the FERC audit order on ITC Midwest issued in May of 2012. Second, operating earnings exclude after-tax expenses associated with the cash tender offer and consent solicitation transaction for select bonds at ITC Holdings that we completed in the second quarter of 2014. The impact of this item totaled $0.2 million for the fourth quarter of 2014 and $18.2 million or $0.12 per diluted share for the year ended December 31, 2014. Third, operating earnings exclude the estimated refund liability associated with the MISO base ROE, which totaled $48.6 million or $0.32 per diluted share for the fourth quarter 2015 and $73.2 million or $0.47 per diluted share for the year ended December 31, 2015. Of the $48.6 million estimated refund liability charge in the fourth quarter 2015, $36.8 million or $0.24 per diluted common share relates to revisions to the estimated liability for the periods prior to October 1, 2015, and of the $73.2 million estimated refund liability charge for the year ended December 31, 2015, $28.4 million or $0.18 per diluted common share. And those relate to revisions to the estimated liability for the periods prior to January 1, 2015. ROE refund liability expenses totaled $28.9 million or $0.18 per diluted share for the fourth quarter year ended December 31, 2014. It is possible that upon the ultimate resolution of this matter, we may be required to pay refunds beyond what has been recorded to-date. We will continue to assess this matter and we’ll provide updates as necessary. Lastly, to exclude after-tax expenses associated with the 2015 review of strategic alternatives of approximately $1 million or a $0.01 per diluted share for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2015, as well as Entergy transaction expenses of approximately $0.1 million and $0.7 million or a $0.01 per diluted share for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2014. For the year ended December 31, 2015, we reported total capital investments of $771.4 million which was in excess of our revised capital guidance levels in Q3 of 2015 of $715 million to $765 million. Our 2015 capital investments included $189.6 million at ITCTransmission, $174.8 million at METC, $388.4 million at ITC Midwest, $14.4 million at ITC Great Plains and $4.2 million of development related investments in the New Covert project. As Joe highlighted, ITC’s commitment to long-term infrastructure investment continues as evidenced by the fact that we’re revising our regulated operating company capital investment forecast upward for the period of 2016 to 2018 to reflect approximately $2.1 billion of aggregate capital investments over this period which compares favorably to our prior plan estimates of $1.9 billion. The capital included in this forecast is comprised of highly probable capital investments in our current footprint which are not subject to competition or future energy policies. The resulting capital investment plan is projected to increase ITC’s average rate base plus construction work in progress balances from approximately $5.3 billion in 2015 to approximately $6.6 billion in 2018. These investment levels are expected to drive a compound annual growth in operating earnings per share greater than 10% which also compares favorably to our prior plan estimates of approximately 10%. With respect to balance sheet related activities, in December, we completed the accelerated share repurchase program or ASR that we initiated on September 30, 2015. Under the ASR, ITC received an initial delivery of 2.8 million shares on October 1, 2015, with a fair market value of $92 million. The ASR was settled on November 5, 2015, and ITC received an additional 0.8 million shares as determined by the volume weighted average share price during the term of the ASR less an agreed upon discount and adjustment for the initial share delivery. In total, we repurchased approximately 3.6 million shares at a volume weighted average price of $32.57 per share which is inclusive of any agreed upon discounts. This last trade concludes our board-authorized share repurchase program which we initiated in June of 2014. All-in, ITC successfully repurchased $245 million worth of shares or 7.2 million shares from 2014 to 2015 in aggregate at a volume weighted average price of $34.57, which compares favorably to ITC’s recent stock performance. From a liquidity perspective, as of December 31, 2015, we had total liquidity position of approximately $694 million, which consists of approximately $14 million of cash-on-hand and approximately $680 million of net undrawn revolver capacity. For the year ended December 31, 2015, we reported operating cash flows of approximately $556 million, which represented an increase of approximately $54 million or 11% year-over-year. Shifting gears to the Fortis acquisition of ITC, the transaction translated into an offer price of $44.90 in U.S. dollars per common share at announcement on February 9. The offer price consists of US$22.57 in cash per share and 0.752 of a Fortis common share, which equates to an equity purchase price all-in of US$6.9 billion or US$11.3 billion in enterprise value, including assumed indebted announcement. Upon closing, approximately 27% of Fortis common shares will be held by ITC’s investors. As Joe mentioned, the transaction enables ITC to continue to make needed investments in the grid, while maintaining operational excellence with no expected impact to transmission rates. We expect that the transaction will close in late 2016 upon receiving the required regulatory approvals, including FERC, the Department of Justice, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. or CFIUS and the state of Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Wisconsin. In closing, 2015 was another successful year which demonstrates our commitment to investing in necessary transmission infrastructure for the benefit of customers while also providing an attractive total shareholder return to our investors. Moreover, we managed to meet our operational and financial objectives while concurrently conducting the strategic review and sale process for the better part of 2015 which again speaks volumes to the focus and dedication of our employees. At this time, we’d like to open up the call to answer questions from the investment community. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. Our first question is from Charles Fishman with Morningstar. Your line is open. Charles Fishman – Morningstar Research I just have one question. Rejji, the 7.5% CAGR on your base rate – rate base growth, that is now your methodology as well as that number is consistent with Fortis. Am I correct? Rejji P. Hayes – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Yes. That aligns with the materials that were shared by Fortis and ITC jointly when we announced the transaction on February 9. And so, again, that’s average rate base from 2015 to 2018. And, as highlighted in our comments, that will yield over 10% operating EPS growth over that timeframe. Charles Fishman – Morningstar Research Got it. That was my only question. Thank you. Joseph L. Welch – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Okay. Operator Thank you. Our next question is from Jay Dobson with Wunderlich. Your line is open. Jay L. Dobson – Wunderlich Securities, Inc. Hey. Good morning, Joe. I was hoping if you could just give a little inside into what the capital budget changes were, about 10% or $200 million. Does that sort of fit ratably across the franchises or was there a particular area that that sort of was associated with? Rejji P. Hayes – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Jay, hi. It’s Rejji. I can take that. Yeah. We should look at that in a couple of ways. So if you recall when we had our prior plan that extended from 2014 to 2018, we talked a lot about the $3.4 billion of regulated opco spend. And within that mix, about two-thirds of that was base capital spend and about a third of that was regional projects that were already awarded to ITC. The spend mix has evolved in this latest vintage and I’d say quite favorably where of the $2.1 billion that we’re offering from 2016 to 2018 which again overlaps with the prior public plan, three-quarters of that is base capital spend. And that’s, again, spend on our existing systems. So you’ve got asset renewals, system capacity, performance upgrades, reliability standard type spend. And so all stuff which is clearly things we have a strong track record of getting done on-time and on-budget and also you’re not replying upon co-constructors like we are for some of the regional projects. And so the mix is about 75% base capital spend, about 25% regional spend. And then within the opcos, the mix there is – it’s more weighted towards the Michigan entities. Again, if you compare this current plan relative to the prior public plans, you’ve got a little pick up in spend of the Michigan entities related to reliability type spend and again things of that nature. And you’ve got a little bit of decrease in expected spend at Midwest and Great Plains. Is that helpful? Jay L. Dobson – Wunderlich Securities, Inc. Very, very helpful. I definitely appreciate that. And then on the ROE, I’m sure you don’t want to get into specifically what you’re assuming there. But I assume it’s fair to assume you’re in line with where the ALJ came out and that drove the sort of incremental reserve? Rejji P. Hayes – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Jay, happy to take that. This is Rejji again. So, as we’ve highlighted in the past, every quarter, we’re going to evaluate the latest data points that have been publicized. And, clearly, there was an ALJ decision in late December. We also had testimony filed from our experts. And we also are clearly mindful of what the trial staff provided – I believe October. And so we’ve looked at all of that and we’ve taken into account again those data points. And I’d say we’re directionally aligned with where the ALJ has come out, but I will not say that we’re precisely on top of the ALJ. I think we have a different perspective on where FERC will end up, but it’s directionally not too far afield from where the ALJ came out. Jay L. Dobson – Wunderlich Securities, Inc. Perfect. And then, lastly, on Lake Erie, just sort of an update on sort of when we’ll have a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. Understand that you continue to pursue permits, so you must feel good about it, but when we’ll have sort of a go, no-go decision based on sort of customer response? Rejji P. Hayes – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Right. So the development team continues to work very hard on executing transmission service agreements with prospective shippers. So, initially, we thought we may have visibility on that by mid-year. We haven’t written that off yet. But at this point, we think it could be either mid-year 2016 or in the back half of 2016. So we continue to work on that. We obviously had a filing a few weeks ago in Pennsylvania that Joe noted in his opening remarks. And so we continue to push along the regulatory process as well as the negotiation with the prospective shippers. So I suspect back half of this year we’ll have visibility on that. Jay L. Dobson – Wunderlich Securities, Inc. That’s great. Thanks so much. Rejji P. Hayes – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Thank you. Joseph L. Welch – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Thank you. Our next question is from Caroline Bone with Deutsche Bank. Your line is open. Caroline V. Bone – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Hey, guys, I was just wondering if you guys could provide some updated thoughts on when you might be able to start making the necessary regulatory approval filings related to the Fortis deal? Joseph L. Welch – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer We’ve planned to do that in the not-too-distant future. The process that we use is, of course, I’m sure you understand is that once you make a filing, you’re no longer able to talk to any of the regulators or meet with any of the people associated with the case. So our first objective is to have those meetings that are necessary, so that our regulators get a good chance to meet the Fortis team and also get a good chance to delve into, if you will, the intricacies of the transaction, with the Fortis team there in present. And then once we complete that process, I believe, we’re scheduled in about a month to make those filings. Rejji P. Hayes – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Yeah. That’s exactly right. Caroline, this is Rejji. The only thing I would add is that, clearly, I think, the Fortis team is quite focused on identifying and structuring a deal with a third-party equity investor who would take a direct stake in ITC. And I think they’ll want to know and have visibility on that third-party before we file. So that’s, I’d say, one gating item. But we’re working hard with the Fortis team to get that done. And I think they’ve been forecasting for some time that they’d try to get that done within the next 90 days or so. Caroline V. Bone – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay. Thanks very much on that. And then just one last one on just kind of the standalone outlook. I was wondering if you could quantify the level of parent company debt you’d expect to see through 2018, assuming this new plan. Rejji P. Hayes – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Yeah. So, historically, Caroline, we haven’t offered that level of granularity around projected debt. I think where we sit at this point, the holding company represents about 50% of the consolidated debt portfolio which, as announced on February 9 and when we announced the transaction, was just under $4.5 billion. So I think what you can assume, if nothing else, is that as we continue to fund capital investments, we’ll continue to do so in a manner comparable with how we’ve done in the past where we’ll fund a portion of the capital requirements with debt issued at the holding company at ITC. And so we’ll probably try to have credit metrics on a consolidated basis at ITC that are in line with where we’ve been historically. Caroline V. Bone – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. All right. Thanks, guys. That’s it from me. Rejji P. Hayes – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Thank you. Operator Our next question is from Greg Gordon with Evercore ISI. Your line is open. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Thanks. Good morning. Rejji P. Hayes – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Good morning. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI I just wanted to be clear on the operating EPS, CAGR, the greater than 10%. That’s all things equal stable ROE, right? So if we normalize for the ROE through the planning period whether it’s at the ultimate level of the refund or whether it’s stable at the current level, you would be growing at that rate. But any change that happen to the ROE impacts the growth rate in actuality over that period. Rejji P. Hayes – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Yeah, Greg. This is Rejji. Let me take a stab at that. I think, first and foremost, we actually have layered in a level of ROE degradation into the forecast. And that’s something that we did provide to prospective buyers as part of the sale process. So these forecasts we’re giving you in the greater than 10% CAGR for operating EPS from 2015 to 2018 does presuppose some level of degradation. But what I think is important to note is, clearly, there is some uncertainty as to where the ROE will be, to say the least. Is that because of the nature of the refund, which essentially will be established at some point by FERC either in the end of 2016 or at some point in 2017, its retrospective, as you know. So it goes all the way back to November of 2013 when the complaint was initially filed. So 2015, the base year of your growth, will be fully exposed to the ROE degradation in which case I would submit that you have to adjust your base year 2015 and then that should be consistent with all of your subsequent years. And so no matter what ROE you utilize in 2015, whether you think it’s going to be 12%, 11%, 10%, 9%, whatever your expectation is, you’ll see that the capital investment over that timeframe drives the growth. And so whatever ROE you presuppose, you’re going to still see double-digit growth. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI That’s exactly what I thought. I just wanted to be clear. Thanks. I still owe you that picture with the Patriots jersey. I’ll get that to you soon (28:59). Joseph L. Welch – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Looking forward to it. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Bye, bye. Joseph L. Welch – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Bye. Operator Our next question is from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS. Your line is open. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Hey. Good morning, everyone. Rejji P. Hayes – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Morning. Joseph L. Welch – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Morning, Julien. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC So, just as far as quick clarification, what’s the assumption on bonus deprecation of late in the forecast? Just wanted to be clear about that. Rejji P. Hayes – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Julien, this is Rejji. As you know, we’ve not elected bonus depreciation for some time and we’re currently not assuming any election of bonus depreciation over the forecasted period. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Great. Excellent. And then I know you were just talking about the Lake Erie project. How are the conversations going? And I suppose specifically here directionality, given the nuclear extensions in Canada, is this more of a conversation of imports into the U.S.? Just kind of curious how are you thinking about the project at this point and potential counterparties, et cetera? Joseph L. Welch – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Actually, I think that if you look at the project that there is a capacity value that’s associated with the line, as you aptly pointed out that there is the nuclear power plants in Canada. But, however, they will be shut – they won’t be shut down but they will be retrofitted and refueled. That causes flows to go in the other direction. We’ve seen interest pretty much in both directions depending on how you see certain things playing out with the now in limbo Clean Power Plan. And so what’s really starting to happen is you’re seeing people who want to hedge on both sides of the border with this line because there is no – it shouldn’t shock anyone a lot of uncertainty in the ability to plan your power plant expansion and which power plants are going to be on. I think the uncertainty is just driving the market and everyone crazy. So simple answers, both bidirectional. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Got it. And perhaps just on the margin, I’d be curios. The puts and takes here on the outlook, given CPP stay as you kind of kind of alluded to already with that Lake Erie project, but more broadly in terms of the planning processes at OSVP (31:28) and your own as well as any implications from the latest PTC extension. Are you seeing any kind of incremental generator connects or wider projects that could come out of that that may or may not be reflected in your current outlook? Rejji P. Hayes – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Yeah. Julien, certainly, I think, first and foremost, to your very last comment, the forecast and the updated capital investment forecast that we provided from 2015 to 2018 or 2016 to 2018 rather does not presuppose, what I’ll call, any sort of third-party-driven spend. So energy policies that may serve as the catalyst for incremental spend are forecasted, solely predicated on the stuff that we can view as quite concrete and tangible, so base spend and regional projects already awarded to us, none of which is subject to competition. So we certainly at some point will – we at least would assume that there will be incremental transmission investment opportunities attributable to whether it’s the Clean Power Plan or some derivation thereof. Certainly, there’ll be opportunities there. We’ve already talked about in the past the fact that there probably will be opportunities related to physical and potentially cyber security standards promulgated by NERC over time. And then on our last call, in Q3, we also mentioned the fact that we foresee increased spend in the distribution system in Michigan from DTE and CMS which has positive spiller effects for transmission owners. So all of those things as we see it are catalysts that could drive incremental growth above and beyond this plan, but we’re not at this stage ready to say that equates to X to Y billion dollars or whatever it may be. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Got it. And then, lastly, FERC 1000 talk about reform at kind of at the FERC level, et cetera. Just be curious to get your perspectives on how that ultimately manifest itself. What you all would be keen to see if that was indeed the case? Joseph L. Welch – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Oh. With regards to Order 1000, I think, that internal to FERC is that they have this belief that they need to tune Order 1000 up. I don’t think that it’s safe to say that they are getting the results that they had expected. And so I think that they are going to start to hold technical conferences to try to figure out what they could tune up to make it work a little bit better. But, honestly, I don’t think that – this is my personal opinion – that Order 1000 needs a tune up. It needs to be taken off the books. It’s not working. It’s just fundamentally not working and it’s put more hindrances in expanding the transmission grid, something that it wasn’t intended or designed to do. But I think that we’ll go incrementally to try to fix it long before we get to the point where we say it’s just not working. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Great. Thanks for the clarity, guys. Congrats again, Rejji P. Hayes – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Thank you. Operator Thank you. And our next question is from Praful Mehta with Citigroup. Your line is open. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Hi. Thanks, guys. Rejji P. Hayes – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Thank you. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Hi. Sorry. My question is on the sale, the 15% to 19% sale. And, clearly, given that impacts the Fortis stock, it is important for you guys because ultimately ITC shareholders become Fortis shareholders. So I guess it really comes back to trying to understand how you see that they are going. What you see your role in it? And, finally, given most of the buyers would probably have already participated in the auction, how do you expect the value outcome of that given the fact that they’ve already participated in the auction and Fortis kind of came out on top? So would love to get some color on that. Thank you. Rejji P. Hayes – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Yeah. Praful, it’s a very good question. This is Rejji. I think I’d point you to the Fortis team and Barry and Karl for their perspective on their expectations around what they would like to structure for that third-party equity sale. But I can tell you that we’ve been involved in the process certainly in marketing the ITC story. And we’re working hand in hand with the Fortis team to help them raise that capital. I’ve heard Barry say this in several discussions and I said it publicly in the February 9 call, but I suspect he’ll want to have a partner who is willing to come in at a value that’s comparable to the price at which Fortis is entering ITC stock and they’ll look to do something comparable of that. So that the economics – or it doesn’t impact materially their EPS accretion estimates. And I suspect they’ll want a party that also is patient, is liquid and is amenable to exit mechanisms. But, again, I would suggest that you should talk to Barry, Karl and team about that, because it’s clearly driven by them. Joseph L. Welch – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer And I think what I’d like to add to what Rejji had to say which is exactly correct is that a lot of the people which you would hypothesize were in the transaction would be the same people that are looking at this. That may be true, but actually this transaction was quite large. And a lot of people who would like to tap a piece of ITC weren’t large enough to buy ITC. And so they’ve had just an immense amount of interest and again Barry has said this publicly. They have had an immense amount of interest in the people who would like to participate in having a partial ownership of ITC, hand in hand with Fortis. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Got you. That’s good color. And I do appreciate this smaller acquisition fees in this case, so that makes sense. And the second thought, I guess, from a timing perspective, would these more safe, I guess, infrastructure type buyers be looking for clarity post a FERC decision to come in or do you expect this transaction to take place before a FERC final decision? Rejji P. Hayes – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Yeah. The Fortis team has been quite transparent about the fact that ideally they’d like to have this wrapped up within the next – I think they said a couple weeks ago 90 days is in a perfect world you’ll want to have the buyer in its full form presented to regulators as part of the filing. So I think if there is an unforeseen party who is still out there that regulator is unaware of that probably impacts your filing process. So I think they want to have that wrapped up first before we commence the filing. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Fair enough. Thanks a lot for the color. Rejji P. Hayes – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Thank you. Operator I’m not showing any further questions in the queue. So I’ll turn the call back over to Stephanie Amaimo for closing remarks. Stephanie Amaimo – Director-Investor Relations Thank you. This concludes our call. Anyone wishing to hear the conference call replay available through March 1 can access it by dialing 855-859-2056 toll-free or 404-537-3406, pass code 35330470. The webcast of this event will also be archived on the ITC website at itc-holdings.com. Thank you, everyone, and have a great day. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today’s conference. This does conclude the program and you may all disconnect. Everyone have a great day. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com . Thank you!

Great Plains Energy’s (GXP) CEO Terry Bassham on Q4 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Operator Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Great Plains Energy Incorporated Fourth Quarter 2015 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will follow at that time. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded. I would like to introduce your host for today’s conference, Ms. Lori Wright, Vice President of Investor Relations and Treasurer. Ma’am, you may begin. Lori Wright Thank you, operator and good morning. Welcome to Great Plains Energy’s Yearend 2015 earnings conference call. On our call today will be Terry Bassham, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and Kevin Bryant, Senior Vice President, Finance and Strategy and Chief Financial Officer. Scott Heidtbrink, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of KCP&L is also with us this morning as our other members of our management team who will be available during the question-and-answer portion of today’s call. I must remind you of the inherent uncertainties in any forward-looking statements in our discussion this morning. Slide 2 and the disclosure in our SEC filings contain a list of some of the factors that could cause future results to differ materially from our expectations. I also want to remind everyone that we issued our earnings release and 2015 10-K after market closed yesterday. These items are available, along with today’s webcast slides and supplemental financial information regarding the fourth quarter and full year 2015 on the main page of our website at greatplainsenergy.com. Summarized on Slide 3 are the topics that will be covered in today’s presentation. Terry will provide a financial overview and an update of our legislative and regulatory priorities followed by a discussion of our strategic plan. Kevin will discuss our financial results as well as our long-term target. With that, I will now hand the call to Terry. Terry Bassham Thanks Lori, and good morning, everybody. I’ll start on Slide 5. Yesterday we announced fourth quarter and full year 2015 results, earnings for the quarter were up $0.15 per share compared to $0.12 per share in 2014. Full year earnings per share were $1.37 compared to $1.57 a year ago. Our results were within our communicated guidance range of $1.35 to $1.45. Our 2015 results reflect continued disciplined management of our business of solving the regulatory lag typical of our Missouri electric utility prior to new retail rates going into effect. Also weather when compared to normal negatively impacted earnings were approximately $0.09 for the year. During the quarter, we saw the impact of the recently concluded KCP&L Missouri and Kansas rate cases. We also put in place several new riders and trackers including a fuel recovery mechanism in Missouri, and both the transmission delivery charge rider and a CIPS/Cybersecurity tracker in Kansas. Kevin will discuss quarter and yearend-to-date drivers in his remarks Looking forward we’re introducing our 2016 earnings guidance range of $1.65 to $1.80 per share in our long-term expectations and commitment to drive continued dependable shareholder returns through a combination of earnings and dividend growth. As reflected in our press release last night, we’re targeting annualized earnings growth of 4.5% through 2020 of the year’s guidance range. This growth will be consistent with our regulatory frameworks and will be driven by targeted investment in customer and grid operations, continued environmental compliance and disciplined cost management. In addition, continued investment in national transmission and in a growing regional economy support our earnings growth rate. For the decade long investment cycle behind us, increased investment flexibility and improving cash flows, we’re in a stronger position to grow our dividend moving forward. This confidence is reflected in an increased long-term annualized dividend growth target of 5% to 7% through 2020 and a narrowed dividend payout ratio target of 60% to 70%. Turning now to Slide 6, as we reflect on 2015, there is no doubt the outcomes resulting from the traditional elements of our 2015 Missouri and Kansas KCP&L rate proceedings were constructive with virtually no disallowances and allowed returned consistent with regional presence. However, we continue to be disappointed by the inability to gain traction on some of the more responsive and commonly accepted regulatory reforms we’ve pursued in our Missouri case to better respond to the current environment in which we operate. Bottom line, there is also no doubt, the current regulatory construct that has been in place for the last century is in need of a refresh. As a result, we’re working with others to bring about comprehensive, performance-based statewide energy legislation in Missouri that will enable us [supporting] energy infrastructure investments and evolve our regulatory construct the one that meets the needs of all stakeholders. These reforms will provide robust customer protections, support modernization of the grid to address aging infrastructure, improve reliability enhance infrastructure security and facilitate the transition to a cleaner, more diverse mix of energy resources. We believe those common sense reforms will create and help retain thousands of jobs and will completely position Missouri for economic growth. Effectuating this topic of regulatory reform requires hard work, significant stakeholder education and rigorous coalition building. We continue to work with other Missouri utilities, our customers and other stakeholders to advocate for energy and policy advancements in order to bring longer term solutions that benefit customers and shareholders. We’ll keep you posted of these efforts in advance throughout the year. While we’re encouraged by the prospects for real regulatory reform, we continue to also plan to invest consistent with our regulatory frameworks and make active general rate case filings until such changes materialize. To that end, two days ago, we filed a general rate case at our GMO jurisdiction, requesting an increase of $59.3 million on a rate base of approximately $1.9 billion, using a return on equity of 9.9%. The primary drivers of this requested increase includes new infrastructure investments and continued increases in transmission cost and property taxes. New rates are anticipated to be effective early 2017 and summary of the key components of the case can be found in the appendix. We are also in the planning stages for the next round of rate cases at KCP&L. In Kansas we’re required to file an abbreviated rate case by November 2016 to true up our cost for the La Cygne environmental project. In Missouri, we’re evaluating the timing of our next case, which will likely be during the second half of 2016. As a reminder, the rate case process in Missouri is 11 months, while Kansas is approximately eight months. Finally as you know recently the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the clean power plant pending judicial review of the rule. The stay will remain in effect pending Supreme Court review till such review is solved. While we’ve previously worked to improve the emission profile of our generation with nearly 75% of our co-fleet scrubbed, we continue to evaluate the implications of the recent court action. Investments we’ve made over the last several years have afforded us flexibility, response or combination of strategies, including optimization of the operation of our existing generation fleet and investments in new renewable resources and the shutdown of our older less efficient unit. We will continue to monitor these developments and we’ll balance the need to transition to a cleaner energy portfolio with managing the cost impact to our customers. Slide 7 highlights our simple and clear strategy as predicated and closely managing our existing business, promoting economic growth and improving our customer experience. We remain focused on operational excellence and meeting the changing needs of our customers. For the past several years we’ve implemented information technology projects that include an automated leader infrastructure upgrade, leader data management installation and an outage management system replacement. All are part of our broader strategic focus of providing top tier customer satisfaction and operational excellence. We recently initiated a project to replace our customer information system that will further enhance our interactions with our customers. The installation and operation of our Clean Charge Network one of the nation’s first major electric vehicle charging networks has made Kansas City one of the best places to own an electric vehicle and as you’ll hear from Kevin, economic activity in our region continues to improve. With that, I’ll now turn the call over to Kevin. Kevin Bryant Thank you, Terry and good morning, everyone. I’ll begin with an overview of our financial performance on Slide 9. As you can see, earnings for the fourth quarter were $0.15 per share compared with $0.12 a year ago. Full year earnings were $1.37 per share compared to $1.57 per share last year. As detailed on the slide the $0.03 increase for the quarter was driven by new KCP&L retail rates in Kansas and Missouri and an increase in other margins resulting from a change in customer mix, lower fuel and purchase power expenses that do not go through a fuel recovery mechanism and an increase in transmission cost recovered through a transmission recovery mechanism. An increase in weather normalized demand also contributed to the increase. These impacts were partially offset by milder weather, increased O&M, depreciation and amortization expense and lower AFUDC. For the full year, the $0.20 decrease was driven by mild weather, lower AFUDC, higher depreciation and amortization expense and a tax benefit impacting 2014 that did not reoccur in 2015. The decline in wholesale margins due to lower gas prices in KCP&L Missouri were a fuel cost recovery mechanism was implemented late in the year also contributed to the decline. However, we were pleased to implement the fuel recovery mechanism in the quarter as it minimizes margin risk moving forward. These negative impacts were partially offset by new retail rates and increase in weather normalized demand, lower fuel and purchase power cost and higher other margins. We continue our laser focus on managing cost. For the year O&M exclusive of items with direct revenue offset, declined approximately 1%. Over the last five years as a result of our continued commitment to cost management, annualized O&M growth exclusive of those same items increased less than 1% despite increased pressure from emerging regulatory grid security requirements such as CIPS and cyber security. Demand growth also remains a key focus area. 2015 weather normalized demand growth grew 0.4% net of our energy efficiency program, marking our third consecutive year of demand growth. We plan active role in supporting this growth through competitive retail rates, providing customers with Tier one service and by partnering with our communities to offer tools that promote the economic strength of the region. More globally we continue to be encouraged by the broader economic climate in the Kansas City region. Year-to-date December 2015, the unemployment rate in Kansas City was 3.8%, well below the national average of 4.8%. The residential real estate market remained strong. The number of single family residential real estate permit issued in 2015 increased 10% over 2014. Including multifamily permits, the total for 2015 increased 7% over the same year — same prior year period. Turning to Slide 10 as Terry mentioned, we are introducing our 2016 EPS guidance range of $1.65 to $1.08. The primary drivers of this range include a full year of new retail rates in our KCP&L Missouri and Kansas jurisdictions; weather normalized demand growth, consistent with recent trends of flat to 0.5% net of the estimated impact of our energy efficiency programs and continued discipline cost and capital management. While we will likely see a bit of an increase in O&M for the year due to our strong actions and performance in 2015, we continue our laser focus on managing our business in the current environment. And on the weather front, the year is off to a bit of a mild start, but we have the rest of the year ahead of us and are confident in our ability to manage the year. In the capital markets area supported by our strong NOL position, we have no activity planned in 2016 and have no equity needs for the foreseeable future. Turning to Slide 11, we are excited about our long term opportunity to grow our business while meeting the increasing needs of our customers. As we look forward, we’re targeting annualized earnings growth of 4% to 5% through 2020 off of this year’s guidance range of $1.65 to $1.08. This earnings growth will be driven by annualized rate base growth of 2% to 3% resulting from more targeted investment to empower customers and optimize our grid. I won’t belabor the point, but we will remain disciplined in our cost and capital management. As we look at our O&M profile over the next five years, we’ll be working hard to manage our annualized growth rates to be in line with or below the historical rate of inflation. And as evidenced by our modest ate base growth plan, we will be intentionally focusing our investment consistent with our regulatory frameworks for regulatory lag in the material ongoing challenge. In addition we will continue to develop our national transmission business and our regional economy is healthy and supports our earnings growth profile. At a higher level and as you can likely go in from our comments this morning, our focus remains on minimizing regulatory lag. As Terry mentioned, we are actively working with a broad stakeholder group towards regulatory policy change in Missouri and are committed to evolving the regulatory construct. That said, change is not always easy and we are proactively responding to the existing regulatory construct by filing more frequent rate case. Bottom line is that our team is actively working to eliminate the dips in earnings we have historically experienced and believe this is our current best tool along with tightly managing our investment activities to minimize lag. However there are limits to this strategy as Missouri is based on a historical test year and 11 month rate case process. So given our plans for more frequent and sometimes staggered rate cases over the next few years, we do not expect the smooth upward earnings trajectory through 2020 as a material regulatory reform, but we’ll continue to see material revenue steps when new rates in the various jurisdiction become effective, offsetting the lag from jurisdictions for new rate have not gone into effect. Slide 12 contains a list of considerations for 2017 through 2020 much of which we’ve covered in our presentation today. I’d also like to highlight one additional item. The expansion of bonus depreciation while dampening our rate base growth rate did increase future income tax benefits to nearly $1 billion at yearend 2015. As a result we do not anticipate paying significant cash income taxes through approximately 2024 that eliminates the need for additional equity in the foreseeable future. The details of our NOLs and tax credits can be found in the appendix. And again our expectations for demand growth moving forward are consistent with the recent trends and we will continue our focus on operational excellence and tight cost management that separates again and active management of the rate case calendar to minimize lag. As we wrap up on Slide 13 I’d note that with a decade long investment cycle behind us and increasing cash flexibility, we are in a much stronger position for the next decade. Our confidence drives our increased long-term annualized dividend growth target of 5% to 7% with emphasis towards the top side of the range. This strong dividend growth target will lead to a dividend payout ratio of 60% to 70% with the flexibility for potential share repurchases in the later years of the target window. We’re excited to deliver the opportunities in front of us and have a clear commitment to strengthen our utility infrastructure and regulatory frameworks to promote regional growth and in fact — and exceed customer expectations while delivering dependable shareholder returns. Thanks for your time this morning. We’re now happy to answer any questions you might have. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from the line of Charles Fishman of Morningstar. Your line is now open please go ahead. Charles Fishman Thank you. Terry the partnering that you’re talking about doing with other stakeholders in Missouri, is that the [10.28 house 24.95]? Terry Bassham Yeah. That’s what I was talking about. Charles Fishman And then I’m sorry are you getting the feedback like I am on my phone? Terry Bassham I’m not, but you’re a little fuzzy but… Charles Fishman Okay/ I’m on a headset, but let me keep trying. All right, just one other question I guess, we had this bankrupt — there was that aluminum smelter in the Southern part of the state and my impression was they never saw a rate increase or a tracker, they never saw one they liked and they always voted against or at least had their legislative representative vote against it and they were pretty influential. With their bankruptcy, does that — it’s unfortunate certainly for the employees, for the region, but does that give this thing, the new legislation a higher profitability than we’ve seen in the past? Terry Bassham Yes, certainly. You’re talking about Noranda, which happen to be the largest user of electricity in the State of Missouri and is an Ameren customer and certainly that has been one of our challenges in the past and with — I would just say that with the current process, we’re working through, we’re partnering with them as well. They were Ameren obviously, but yeah I would say that they are with us in terms of a final solution that would help solve several issues and that is one of the things that’s different about this session than has been probably in the last four or five sessions. Charles Fishman So my impression is after a — they were very little ensuring if they’re out of the process, that sort of sucks the oxygen out of opposition? Terry Bassham And it more than out of the process, they’re actually in the process in support of what we’re trying to do here. So it is a definite change to what’s been happening in the past. Charles Fishman Okay. Thank you very much. That was it. Terry Bassham Thank you. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Brian Russo of Ladenburg Thalmann. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Brian Russo Hi good morning. Terry Bassham Good morning. Brian Russo Just on slide 11, you noticed rate case, long term growth rate in 2% to 3% but an EPS growth rate of 4% to 5%. How do you try to capture the incremental EPS growth versus the rate base growth? Kevin Bryant Yeah so Brian that comes in a couple of forms. One is continued cost management, but more importantly as you look at us towards the end of an investment cycle, our equity ratios for regulated purposes have dipped a bit. We expect for our cash position to create an opportunity for us to improve our equity ratios as we come out of that side of the build cycle and so that combination with solid management and little growth we think leads to a solid 4% to 5% earnings growth trajectory. Brian Russo Okay. Got it and just the midpoint of your 2016 guidance, it looks like it’s kind of in line below 8% earned ROE, is that accurate? Kevin Bryant Yeah, it’s about a 150 basis points of regulatory lag. Brian Russo Okay. And you mentioned potential share repurchase flexibility in the future, maybe you could just elaborate on that a little bit? Kevin Bryant Yeah that’s something we wanted to just to put out there publicly. As we get to the end of a five-year cycle with an improving cash flow and a moderating CapEx profile consistent with our regulatory construct, we think we’ll have cash flexibility and so amongst other things not only improving our equity ratio, but we think that there may be potential for share repurchases in the latter edge of that timeframe. So it’s something we’re going to make sure we talk to focus about. Obviously several years away, but something that could be utilization of cash. Brian Russo Okay. And then just lastly what’s next kind of on the legislative calendar that we should be looking out for on these senate bills and the house bill line of utility regulations? Terry Bassham Yeah this is Terry the next step would be senate hearings. So that will happen in the coming weeks and it will probably work through that process before the house picks up and does anything, but we would expect senate to have hearings in the coming weeks. Brian Russo Okay. Great, thank you. Terry Bassham Thank you. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Gregg Orrill of Barclays. Your line is now open please go ahead. Gregg Orrill Yeah. Thank you. Do you have year-end rate base numbers for KCP&L jurisdictions? Kevin Bryant I don’t think we have that broken out in this presentation. It would still be consistent with what we were talking about in the third and fourth quarter as we finalized our cases last year that totaled to the $6.6 billion of rate base in total. Gregg Orrill Got it. Thank you. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Paul Ridzon of Keybanc. Your line is now open please go ahead. Paul Ridzon Thanks. My questions have been answered. So I stood out. Thanks. Terry Bassham Thanks Paul. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Chris Turnure of JPMorgan. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Chris Turnure Okay. Good morning Terry and Kevin. I just wanted to get some color on the later years of your CapEx forecast. There is a lot of environmental spend in there and a couple other drivers that kind of increased it in the later years. How can we think about that plan changing at all in response to success in that legislative arena or failure there pardon me, and kind of the same question on the ability for you guys to do a little bit better or get more constructed outcomes in our current rate cases, rate case now and the one later this year? Terry Bassham Yeah. So this is Terry and I’ll let Kevin jump in here as well. The focus for us on this legislation is first and foremost earning our allowed return on our current investments and being able to fully earn the ROEs the commission awards. Certainly if we had more certainty around a process, we would be able to invest additional dollars on certain things, but that would be based on need and potentially additional other legislation in case issues. The CPP from that perspective remember doesn’t have any specific dollars in our CapEx yet and so we wouldn’t remove anything based on that ruling, but it could be additive if in fact we got a specific ruling. So there’s opportunities there as well. Kevin Bryant Yes and the only other thing I might add is that towards the back end of this CapEx disclosure and we’ve extended it out obviously an additional year, what you see in that environmental line it includes investment to comply with the Clean Water Act. So potentially for equipment associated with some of our river plants. Obviously we think we have a little bit of flexibility that CapEx has shifted out in the ’18, ’19, ’20 timeframe, but that forms the basis of the majority of the environmental CapEx in that timeframe. Chris Turnure Got you. And then on the dividend as we look towards November of this year it could potentially be in two rate cases at that time in Missouri depending on your strategy going forward. How can we think about your comfort level during an increase at the same level that you did last year and kind of keeping up within the payout ratio guidance if you are in fact fully speed to regulatory activity at that time? Kevin Bryant Yeah I think we’ve been clear and in fact have done year after year now for many years we’ve taken the position that a healthy utility with growing dividend is important for our state shareholders and all stakeholders and we’re not bothered by the fact that we might have a dividend increase fall within the time period. We’re also considering a rate case and we’ve had good response. Nobody has suggested that that’s not appropriate. So our guidance here obviously around the dividend recognizes the fact you just mentioned and when time comes, we’ll evaluate that with the Board, but the rate case wouldn’t stop us from doing the right thing. Chris Turnure Okay. Good to hear. Thanks. Kevin Bryant Thank you. Terry Bassham And if I might real quick, I think Gregg from Barclays your question I got my act together and got the answer. It’s about $4.7 billion of rate base at year end for KCP&L and Missouri. Hopefully, that answers the previous question. Operator [Operator Instructions] And our next question comes from the line of Andy Levi of Avon Capital. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Andy Levi Hey, good morning, gentlemen. Terry Bassham Hey Andy. Kevin Bryant Hey Andy. Andy Levi Hey, just quick questions. There is a big background, look at that. So on the growth rate did you say if I heard correctly, that it’s not liner, that it is choppy or… Kevin Bryant That’s right Andy. We’re trying to remind folks that with historical test years and 11-month process, you’re still going to see dips in regulatory lag, which creates the need for rate cases. What our current plan contemplates is more frequent rate cases to smooth out those grips. But again, it’s not just going to be a smooth 4% to 5% growth from this point through 2020. We’re still going to have to manage that current regulatory process unless we get a change in the regulatory mechanism as Terry discussed. Andy Levi So how should we think about this, oh, I am sorry, were you going to say something Terri? Terry Bassham No. Andy Levi Oh, I am sorry, this background thing is… Terry Bassham Sorry about this. Go ahead. Andy Levi So just trying to understand, so we take your 2016 $1.73 I guess that has been deployed and then we grow that 4% to 5% off the $1.73 through 2020, which gives you another not sure which are accompanied and that’s where you plan to get, but in between that it could be choppy, but it could ultimately by 2020 that’s the number we should focus on that you’re trying to say? Kevin Bryant That’s right. And I wouldn’t say choppy, it just won’t be a straight line because for example now we’ve got our GMO case that we’re getting ready to file. We’ve got four years of lag built up at the GMO jurisdiction. So when those new rates come into effect next year we’ll see those new rates, but remember we will have ongoing lag from KCP&L Missouri primarily due to transmission expense and property tax. In the interim and as Terry mentioned, we’ll file a case likely targeting the second half of this year and then those new rates will come in sometime after that case is filed. So we’re trying to eliminate that choppy thing, but it’s not going to be a smooth straight line through 2020. Andy Levi Got it. Okay. Thank you guys. Kevin Bryant All right Andy. Thank you. Operator Thank you. And I am showing no further questions at this time. I would now like to turn the call over to Terry Bassham for closing remarks. Terry Bassham All right. Well thank you, everybody for joining the call. Thank you for your questions and obviously we’ll keep you updated along the way as things progress. Have a good day. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today’s conference. This concludes today’s program. You may all disconnect. Everyone, have a great day. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com . Thank you!