Tag Archives: organic

How Share Repurchases Boost Earnings Without Improving Returns

By Obi Ezekoye, Tim Koller, and Ankit Mittal – McKinsey & Co Some actions that boost earnings per share don’t create value for shareholders. Share repurchases are generally a wash. Of all the measures of a company’s performance, its earnings per share (EPS) may be the most visible. It’s quite literally the “bottom line” on a company’s income statement. It’s the number that business journalists focus on more often than any other, and it’s usually the first or second item in any company press release about quarterly or annual performance. It’s also often a key factor in executive compensation. But for all the attention EPS receives, it is highly overrated as a barometer of value creation. In fact, over the past ten years, 36 percent of large companies with higher-than-average EPS underperformed on average total return to shareholders (TRS). And while it’s true that EPS growth and shareholder returns are strongly correlated, executives and naïve investors sometimes take that relationship too seriously. If improving EPS is good, they assume, then companies should increase it by any means possible. The fallacy is believing that anything that improves EPS will have the same effect on value creation and TRS. On the contrary, the factors that most influence EPS – revenue growth, margin improvement, and share repurchases – actually affect value creation differently. Revenue growth, for example, can increase TRS as long as the organic investments or acquisitions behind it earn more than their cost of capital. Margin improvements, by cutting costs, for instance, can increase TRS as long as they don’t impede future growth by cutting essential investments in research and development or marketing. For example, to improve EPS, managers at one company committed to an aggressive share buyback program after several years of disappointing growth in net income. Five years later, managers had retired about a fifth of the company’s outstanding shares, increasing its EPS by more than 8 percent. Yet the company was merely retiring shares faster than net income was falling. Investors could see that the company’s underlying performance hadn’t changed, and the company’s share price dropped by 40 percent relative to the market index. Share repurchases seldom have any lasting effect on TRS – and that often comes as a surprise to managers and investors alike. Given how often we hear executives advocate share repurchases because of their effect on EPS – and make the occasional argument for taking on debt to execute them – it is worth exploring the relationship between buybacks, EPS, and shareholder returns. We’ll begin by examining the empirical evidence and then look at the logic behind so many decisions to repurchase shares. Misguided math Companies that repurchase shares when prices are low can create value for those shareholders who don’t sell if the share price rises as a result. As our prior research has found, however, most companies don’t time these purchases well. 1 Rather, we find that many executives have come to believe that share repurchases create value just by increasing EPS. The logic seems to be that earnings across a smaller number of shares mathematically increases EPS, and if EPS increases and the price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio stays constant, then a company’s share price must increase. The empirical evidence disproves this. For while there appears to be a correlation between TRS and EPS growth, little of that is due to share repurchases. Much of it can be attributed to revenue and total earnings growth – and especially to return on invested capital (ROIC), which determines how much cash flow a company generates for a given dollar of income. All else being equal, a company with higher ROIC will generate more cash flow than a similar company with lower ROIC. But without the contribution of growth and ROIC to TRS, there is no relationship between TRS and the intensity of a company’s share repurchases (Exhibit 1). 2 Click to enlarge That’s because it’s the generation of cash flow that creates value, regardless of how that cash is distributed to shareholders. So share repurchases are just a reflection of how much cash flow a company generates. The greater the cash flow, the more of it a company will eventually need to return to shareholders as dividends and share repurchases. The error in valuing share repurchases in isolation The idea that share repurchases create value by increasing EPS also errs in its failure to consider other possible uses of the cash, such as paying dividends, repaying debt, increasing cash balances, or investing in new growth opportunities. What matters is the effect of a share repurchase relative to those other actions, not the effect of the repurchase on its own. Repurchase versus dividend Consider the effect of a hypothetical company using cash to repurchase shares relative to using it to pay an equivalent dividend. The company earns $100, has a P/E ratio of 15, and makes no investments, so managers can distribute the earnings as dividends or as share repurchases (Exhibit 2). Click to enlarge If the company pays out its earnings as dividends, its value will be $1,500. Shareholders will also have received $100, so the total value to the shareholders is $1,600. On a per-share basis, the share price will be $15. Since each share will also have received $1 in dividends, the total value and cash per share will be $16. If the company pays out its earnings by repurchasing shares, its total value will remain the same, $1,500, and shareholders as a whole will have received the same amount of cash, $100. On a per-share basis, for those shareholders who don’t sell, each remaining share will increase in value to $16 because the earnings are now divided by a smaller number of shares. For an individual share, this is economically equivalent to having a share worth $15 plus cash of $1 from a dividend. The mechanical effect on EPS is irrelevant. If the company pays a dividend, shareholders retain their shares and receive cash. If the company repurchases shares, the selling shareholders receive cash and the remaining shareholders have shares with higher value (but they don’t receive any cash). Overall, there is no change in value, just a change in the mix of shareholders. Repurchase versus debt reduction Comparing the effect of using cash to repurchase shares with using it to pay down debt is more complex. The reason is that when the company pays down debt, its capital structure, cost of capital, and P/E ratio change. Yet, because the enterprise value of the company stays the same, so does the value to shareholders. In this comparison, suppose our hypothetical company has $200 of debt in the base year (Exhibit 3). In that base year, the company’s enterprise value is $1,500 and its equity value is $1,300. Note that the enterprise value divided by after-tax operating profits is now different from the P/E ratio, at 15.0 and 13.8 times, respectively. The P/E ratio is lower because the higher leverage increases the riskiness of the equity, leading to a higher cost of equity. Click to enlarge Click to enlarge If the company repurchases shares, the enterprise value and equity remain the same as in the base year. In addition, shareholders receive $100 in share repurchases, so collectively, the shareholders will have $1,300 in equity value plus $100 of cash, for a total of $1,400. The remaining shares outstanding will be worth $14 per share. If the company pays down debt instead, the enterprise value remains the same, but the equity value increases by $100. Note that the enterprise value doesn’t change because the operating cash flows of the company have not changed. However, the value of the equity increases by the amount of cash retained and used to pay down debt. The value of the company to all the shareholders is the same as the sum of equity value and cash distributed in the share repurchase, or $1,400. A better way to understand internal rate of return – read this article . The equity value of $1,400 divided by a net income of $97 produces a P/E ratio of 14.4. Note that the P/E ratio in the base year, as well as in the share repurchase scenario, was lower, at 13.8. The increase in the P/E ratio is due to the declining leverage, leading to less risky equity and a lower cost of equity. On a per-share basis, repurchasing shares increases EPS, in this case from $0.94 to $1.01, but the increase in EPS is offset by the lower P/E ratio relative to the scenario of paying down debt. On the off chance that a company might borrow cash to repurchase shares, for example, it would increase a company’s EPS because the effect of reducing the share count is larger than the reduction in net income due to additional interest expense. However, with its increased debt, the company’s equity would be riskier and, all else being equal, its P/E ratio would decline-offsetting the increase in EPS. Repurchase versus investing Finally, consider what happens when, instead of repurchasing shares, our hypothetical company invests that same amount of cash, $100, back in the business. Assuming it earns a return of 15 percent, which exceeds its cost of capital, its income would increase by $15 (Exhibit 4). 3 Click to enlarge Assuming the enterprise-value multiple remains constant at 15 times, the enterprise value and equity value will increase to $1,725 – which is more than the sum of the equity value and the cash paid out in the share repurchase case. The EPS is also higher in the investment case. Investing at an attractive return on capital will always create more value than repurchasing shares, but it doesn’t always do so as quickly. In this simple example, we’ve assumed that the company earned an immediate 15 percent return on its investment. That’s often not realistic, since there will be a lag between when a company invests and when it realizes a return. For example, if the company didn’t earn a return until year three, its EPS for the first two years would be higher from share repurchases than it would be from investing. This explains the temptation to repurchase shares instead of investing. With a share repurchase, the effect on EPS is immediate, and with investing, it is delayed. Disciplined managers won’t fall for the short-term benefit at the expense of long-term value creation. Improving a company’s earnings per share can improve its return to shareholders. But the contribution of share repurchases is virtually nil. Disclosure: None.

ONEOK’s (OKE) CEO Terry Spencer on Q4 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Operator Good day, and welcome to the fourth quarter 2015 ONEOK and ONEOK Partners earnings conference call. Today’s call is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Mr. T. D. Eureste. Please go ahead, sir. T. D. Eureste Thank you, and welcome to ONEOK and ONEOK Partners fourth quarter and yearend 2015 earnings conference call. A reminder, that statements made during this call that might include ONEOK or ONEOK Partners expectations or predictions should be considered forward-looking statements and are covered by the Safe Harbor provisions of the Security Acts of 1933 and 1934. Actual results could differ materially from those projected in any forward-looking statements. For a discussion of factors that could cause actual results to differ, please refer to our SEC filings. Our first speaker is Terry Spencer, President and CEO of ONEOK and ONEOK Partners. Terry? Terry Spencer Thank you, T. D. Good morning, and thanks for joining us today. As always, we appreciate your continued interest in investment in ONEOK and ONEOK Partners. On this conference call is Walt Hulse, Executive Vice President of Strategic Planning and Corporate Affairs; Derek Reiners, our Chief Financial Officer; Wes Christensen, Senior Vice President, Operations; Sheridan Swords, Senior Vice President, Natural Gas Liquids; Kevin Burdick, Senior Vice President, Natural Gas Gathering and Processing; and Phil May, Senior Vice President, Natural Gas Pipelines. Additional key financial and operational information has been updated in a short presentation and is posted on ONEOK’s and ONEOK Partners’ websites. Let’s start by discussing ONEOK and ONEOK Partners accomplishments in 2015. Then I’ll hand it off to Derek for financial update, and finish by reviewing our 2016 financial guidance, which we maintained for both ONEOK and ONEOK Partners in last night’s release. Our uniquely-positioned assets delivered higher ONEOK Partners fourth quarter and 2015 adjusted EBITDA in a very challenging market, and we delivered on our expectation to significantly grow natural gas and natural gas liquids volumes and earnings in the second half of the year. The partnership grew its adjusted EBITDA throughout the year by nearly 40% from the first quarter to the fourth quarter 2015, ending the year with $450 million in fourth quarter adjusted EBITDA. The partnership also improved its quarterly distribution coverage to 1.03x. These results were driven by a significant ramp in natural gas volumes gathered and processed across our system, especially in Williston Basin, as we connect in more than 820 additional wells; captured more flared volumes from existing wells; completed six field compression projects and our Lonesome Creek natural gas processing plant; and restructured several contracts earlier than expected; and in the Mid-Continent, volumes increased late in the year, as a large producer customer completed wells that had been drilled earlier in the year. The Natural Gas Liquids segment, which is connected to more than 180 natural gas processing plants, continued to benefit from natural gas liquids processed volume growth in Williston Basin. Seven new third-party natural gas processing plants were connected in 2015. We also realized solid volume performance on our West Texas LPG pipeline system from our long haul customers, as we continue to provide quality service at a good value. With nearly 100% of its earnings fee-based, the Natural Gas Pipeline segment had another solid year. This segment is taking advantage of incremental demands due to lower natural gas prices through its uniquely positioned assets with the announcements of the Roadrunner Gas Transmission Pipeline and WesTex Pipeline expansion, serving growing markets in Mexico. In 2015, we made significant progress toward reducing commodity risk in our business, which is expected to reduce earnings volatility over the long-term. As a result, we expect 2016 fee-based earnings to be approximately 85%, a significant improvement from 66% in 2014. Drivers of this increase include, growing the fee-based exchange services volumes in the Natural Gas Liquids segment and contract restructuring in the Gathering and Processing segment. The efforts of contract restructuring in the Gathering and Processing segment can be seen by the increase in our average fee rate. The average fee rate for the fourth quarter 2015 was $0.55, a nearly 60% increase compared with $0.35 in the first quarter 2015. At ONEOK, we remain committed to being a supportive general partner, as evidenced by the $650 million equity investment in the partnership in mid-2015, which we expect to result in increased distributions from ONEOK’s higher ownership percentage in ONEOK Partners. Our extensive integrated network of natural gas and natural gas liquids assets delivered solid results in 2015 and has positioned us well for 2016. That concludes my opening remarks. Derek? Derek Reiners Thanks, Terry. I’ll start by highlighting the financial steps we took in 2015 and early-2016 that positioned us well for 2016 and into 2017. With a high priority on maintaining the partnership’s investment grade credit ratings, we took decisive steps to manage its balance sheet by high grading its growth projects and reducing capital spending by nearly $1.6 billion in 2015 from our original 2015 capital guidance. We issued $750 million of equity in August, along with nearly $280 million of additional equity through the at-the-market program during 2015. Termed out $800 million of short-term debt in March and most recently entered into a $1 billion three-year unsecured term loan, which effectively refinances the 2016 long-term debt maturities at a low cost. With the financial steps we’ve taken and the momentum and volume growth and earnings leading into 2016, we expect to achieve our 2016 financial guidance. At ONEOK Partners we expect not to need public debt or equity issuances well into 2017, which includes no equity from the aftermarket equity program, to keep distributions flat for the year, deliver distribution coverage of 1x or better for 2016 and obtain GAAP debt to EBITDA ratio of 4.2x or less by late 2016. At ONEOK, we expect to keep this dividends flat for the year, pay no cash income taxes in 2016 and generate approximately $160 million of free cash flow after dividends in 2016, which along with $90 million of cash at the end of 2015 provides ONEOK with significant flexibility to support ONEOK Partners, if needed. For growth capital in 2016, we expect to spend $320 million in the Gathering and Processing segment and $70 million each in the Natural Gas Liquids and Natural Gas Pipelines segments for a total of $460 million as previously guided. As producer needs evolve throughout the balance of the year and into 2017, we have the flexibility to significantly reduce growth capital, particularly in the Gathering and Processing segment, as we optimize our systems and available capacity. Additionally, we have been able to realize reduced operating costs and capital costs from our service providers across our operations. We continue to control operating costs and have reduced contract labor. We expect this trend to continue into 2016. As it relates to maintenance, capital expenditures we take a conservative approach. We’re extremely careful not to underestimate expenditures, when establishing guidance spending, for the integrity and reliability of our assets is very important to the partnership’s success. Over the long-term, our assets have operated very reliably as a result of this approach. In 2015, a number of our large maintenance projects came in significantly under budget, especially the projects scheduled towards the second half of 2015, as service providers reduced costs and did very aggressively due to market conditions. On the topic of counterparty credit risk, we consider our credit exposure to be low across all three of our operating segments. The partnership had no single customer representing more than 10% of revenues and only 15 customers individually represented 1% or more of revenues. Additionally, of the top 10 customers, which represented 38% of revenue, nine are investment grade or provide full credit support. Many of our top 10 customers are Natural Gas Liquids segment customers comprised of large petrochemical and integrated oil companies. Taking a look at our credit profile within our three segments, where we consider investment grade is rated by the ratings agencies or comparable internal ratings or secured by letters of credit or other collateral. The Natural Gas Pipeline segment received more than 85% of its 2015 revenue from investment grade customers, who were primarily large electric and natural gas utilities. The Natural Gas Liquids segment has limited credit exposure in its exchange service fee earnings, as in those contracts the natural gas liquids are purchased and proceeds are remitted from the partnership to the liquids producer less fee. And more than 80% of 2015 commodity sales were to investment grade customers. And finally, the Gathering and Processing segment’s credit risk is limited, as in most contracts the partnership remits the proceeds under the percent of proceeds contracts to the producer, net of ONEOK Partner share of those proceeds as well as the fees charged. 99% of the segment’s 2015 downstream sales were to investment grade customers. 2015 results at both ONEOK and ONEOK Partners include the impact from non-cash impairment charges totaling $264 million, primarily related to investments in the coal-bed methane area of the Powder River Basin. The partnership remains highly committed to maintaining our investment grade credit ratings, having a solid balance sheet and ample liquidity to support our capital program, ending 2015 with $1.8 billion available on its credit facility. The partnership’s GAAP debt to adjusted EBITDA on a run rate basis is 4.1x, reflecting earnings growth during the year. Distribution coverage remains an important metric for us as well. We expect distribution coverage of 1x or better for 2016, by growing our cash flows through volume growth, cost savings and efficiency improvements. ONEOK on a standalone basis ended 2015 with over $90 million of cash and an undrawn $300 million credit facility. The partnership is advantaged by having a strong supportive general partner in ONEOK. With a significant excess dividend coverage, ONEOK has the resources, that may be used to further support the partnership, if needed, as it navigates these uncertain times. Terry, that concludes my remarks. Terry Spencer Thank you, Derek. Let’s walk through our 2016 financial guidance and key assumptions by segment. Starting with our largest segment, the Natural Gas Liquids segment is expected to contribute $995 million in operating income and equity earnings in 2016. Additionally, we expect the natural gas liquids volumes and earnings to be weighted towards the mid to second half of 2016. Approximately 90% of the expected earnings in this segment are fee-based from the exchange services and transportation businesses. We continue to expect the partnership’s natural gas liquids volumes gathered to increase in 2016, primarily from Williston Basin natural gas liquids volume growth expected from our gathering and processing assets in the Basin, including the expected connection of the Bear Creek plant and one third-party natural gas processing plant in 2016. Approximately 60% of the segment’s natural gas liquids volumes gathered come from the Mid-Continent, with the majority of the gathered volume coming from third-party processing plants. Our unique natural gas liquids position in the Mid-Continent is similar to the position we have in the Williston, with the partnership’s gathering and processing assets as we are connected to most of the third-party plants in the region. We expect to continue to benefit from natural gas liquids volumes gathered through our West Texas LPG system, where nearly 26% of the segment’s volume originates. The segment is connected to more than 60 natural gas processing plants in the Permian Basin and is expected to connect one additional plant in 2016, and we expect to receive the full benefit in 2016 of increased tariffs. Finally, we moved the completion of the Bakken NGL pipeline expansion to the third quarter 2018, due to a slower expected rate of volume growth. The realigned timing of the expansion has no impact on financial or capital guidance for 2016. Driving the earnings growth in the Natural Gas Gathering and Processing segment in 2016 is natural gas volume growth in the Williston Basin and enhanced margins due to the contract restructuring efforts. In the Williston, we expect to average 740 million cubic feet per day of natural gas gathered volume in 2016. Our gathered volumes early in the year have been very strong, as we reach nearly 800 million cubic feet per day in February. The recently completed Lonesome Creek plant and compression projects have already added nearly 100 million a day of incremental volume to our system, most of which has come from capturing previously flared gas. We continued to have approximately 24 rigs operating and more than 500 drilled uncompleted wells on our dedicated acreage. Given this activity, we expect 250 to 350 new well connections to our system in 2016. To put the expected 2016 volume outlook into context, if every rig were to have stopped drilling on January 1, 2016, and we did not connect any new wells in 2016, we would expect an average gathered volume of 720 million cubic feet per day in 2016, slightly below our guidance for the Williston. Natural gas volume growth in 2016 will not reflect a pronounced second half ramp up, as we experienced in 2015. We do expect volumes to slightly decline through the summer, until our 80 million cubic feet per day Bear Creek plant comes online and we expect to capture an incremental 40 million cubic feet per day of gas currently flaring in Dunn County. In the Mid-Continent, we continued to be in constant communication with our producer customers regarding their drilling and completion activity. And similar to the Williston, the Mid-Continent volume exited 2015 at a high rate. As I mentioned earlier, the segment did receive an early benefit from our contract restructuring efforts in the fourth quarter 2015. However, 2016 is expected to receive the full benefit of these efforts and we expect another increase in the average fee rate in the first quarter 2016 from the $0.55 the segment averaged in the fourth quarter 2015. In the Natural Gas Pipelines segment, 2016 earnings are expected to remain more than 95% fee-based, with more than 90% of the segment’s transportation capacity and more than 75% of its natural gas storage capacity contracted for the year. The first phase of the Roadrunner Gas Transmission Pipeline is on schedule to be complete next month, and is fully subscribed under 25-year firm demand charged fee-based commitments, with the second phase expected to be complete in the first quarter 2017. Before closing, I would like to discuss future demand growth for ethane, which we expect to be a significant opportunity for the Natural Gas Liquids segment, as we move through 2017 and 2018. Approximately 400,000 barrels per day of incremental ethane demand from new world-scale petrochemical crackers is expected to come online by the third quarter of 2017 and nearly 164,000 barrels per day more by first quarter 2019. We expect this new demand combined with additional ethane exporting infrastructure to significantly reduce the ethane excess supply overhang and put pressure on ethane prices, and bringing most natural gas processing plants into full ethane recovery some time in mid-2018. Nearly one-third of U.S. ethane or approximately 180,000 barrels per day is dedicated and connected to our natural gas liquids systems, but it’s currently not producing due to insufficient ethane demand. We are well-positioned to transport and fractionate substantial incremental ethane volumes, once the natural gas processing plants we are connected to transition into full ethane recovery in response to growing U.S. petrochemical demand. We expect little to no additional capital expenditures needed to bring this ethane onto our system, as we already constructed the natural gas liquids infrastructure necessary to connect supply to the Gulf Coast region. The total incremental adjusted EBITDA benefit to the partnership, if all of the natural gas processing plants we are connected to enter full ethane recovery, could be in the range of $200 million per year. With the Natural Gas Liquids segment’s unique and extensive asset position, we can deliver significant ethane supplies to the Gulf Coast markets from the Williston, Mid-Continent and Permian Basins. Since we issued guidance in December, the commodity price environment has continued to be unstable, and many of our producer customers have reduced their capital expenditure plans for 2016. While these challenges remain, we will continue to remain focused on serving our customers, reducing risks, controlling costs, managing our balance sheet prudently and reducing capital needs. As we have discussed on this call, more than 85% of the partnership’s operating income and equity earnings comes from primarily fee-based activities, underpinned by its large 37,000 mile integrated natural gas and natural gas liquids network, with opportunities to grow its cash flows, even in a lower capital spending environment. In 2016, we expect to finish the year within our financial guidance, driven by our uniquely positioned assets. We are less than 60 days into 2016 and we expect similar to 2015 opportunities and challenges throughout the year. We will be proactive in our approach to these opportunities and challenges and prudent in our decision making, all while keeping in mind the long-term interest of our investors. I’d like to thank our employees across the country for their strong performance, hard work and dedication in 2015. Many of our employees have experienced these difficult industry cycles before, and they know what to do. Manage costs, be efficient, be creative and operate safely and reliably, all while being focused on providing quality service to our customers. And many thanks to all of our stakeholders for your continued support of ONEOK and ONEOK Partners. Operator, we’re now ready for questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Operator Instructions] And our first question will come from Eric Genco with Citi. Eric Genco My first question is actually a little bit of a two-parter. I just want to dig a little more on the potential on the ethane recovery. It obviously seems like this is a pretty major opportunity and no incremental capital. Not really if, but maybe when. And I know it’s early, I just would like to get a better sense for the timing and maybe the mechanics, and how that some of this might play out in terms of the split between where you’ll feel the impact in the Permian, Mid-Continent and the Bakken? And I guess also in light of the comment that you alluded to in your remarks that perhaps the Permian is going to see a meaningful uplift even in ’16 in terms of the rate, bringing that more to market rates. I’d just like to get a better sense for that, if you can? Terry Spencer Sure. Eric, I’ll just make a couple of comments, and then let Sheridan kind of follow this thing. You see, in the slide deck that we provided, there is actually a slide in there that kind of shows you the sources of where that incremental ethane originates. And if you think about it in terms of which ethane is going to come on, obviously those with the lowest transportation cost burden will come on sooner. So you have to think about in terms of the Gulf Coast probably coming on sooner, the Mid-Continent and the West Texas probably next, and then you got to think about the Marcellus and the Rockies. It’s kind of in that order and we provided that table to give you as industry what that volume impact is? So Sheridan, you want to provide little more color and then talk about West Texas? Sheridan Swords Only thing I would say is that, I think we’ll start seeing — as we enter into 2017, is when we will start seeing meaningful ethane starting to come out. And as Terry said, West Texas of our system will be first, but that is where we have the least amount of ethane rejection on our system followed by the Mid-Continent, where we have the most volume off currently, and then last will be ’18 or beyond, which will be the Bakken. In terms of West Texas pipeline and the rate increase, in July of 2015, we brought the tariff rates, the uncommitted tariff rates, on the West Texas pipeline closer to market, so we only realized half the year of that rate increase, which in 2016 will realize the complete year of that rate increase. Eric Genco But that’s not necessarily getting you to the sort of 5x to 7x as sort of the long-term target, it’s more just the benefit of half the year at this point? Sheridan Swords Yes, [multiple speakers] full year. We don’t anticipate raise in rates. We don’t have in our guidance raising rates further on West Texas in 2016. Eric Genco And I guess, in switching gears a little bit maybe, I’d just like to get some of your thoughts on your most recent conversation with the rating agencies and how that’s going. I mean, you have alluded to all the accomplishments and the things that were on their checklist in 2015, the equity offering in August, renegotiating POP, addressing refinancing for ’16, but in light of it, I guess, some of the more recent actions sort of in the E&P space, I’m curious, if there’s been any shift in the tone or the targets they’ve set for you? And I’m also curious to what extent they have looked at the potential uplift for ethane. And I know it’s typical in some leverage ratios to make an adjustment for capital that’s already in the ground and earnings slightly to come on. Is that something that they are considering and looking at, at this point, or is it too early to tell? Derek Reiners We do communicate regularly with the credit rating agencies, and certainly we intend to continue to do so. I think we’ve got a long track record of taking those prudent actions and you checked them off the list pretty nicely, just as I would. The term loan and sort of being ahead of our financing needs, I think, is helpful and those things driving commodity risk out, reducing capital, I think all of those sort of credit-friendly actions that we have taken over time plays into their thought process. I can’t tell you to what extent they may or may not be including ethane uplift. I suspect not much. But historically, they’ve understood and added back some credit, I think, for the capital spending over time. So what I think they look for is a track record, a plan to continue to reduce leverage. And as I mentioned in my remarks, the GAAP debt to EBITDA of 4.1x on a run rate basis is certainly supporting that we’re headed in the right direction. And I think the unique aspects of our footprint, the tailwinds in terms of volume that Terry mentioned in the Williston, capturing the flare gas, those sorts of things I think all play into their thought process. Terry Spencer Derek, the only thing I would add to that is that I think the rating agencies from a macro perspective are aware of the growth that’s happening in that petrochemical space. Now, whether they actually take that into consideration in any of their analysis, as Derek indicated, we don’t know. But I think, they’re certainly aware of it. And I think if you were to ask them about it, I think that they do view it as a strong positive, but whether they’ve actually factored that into any analysis, again, we don’t know. Operator Moving on, we’ll go to Christine Cho with Barclays. Christine Cho In the presentation, you guys show that the Natural Gas G&P volumes are 662 million cubic feet a day in the Rockies for the quarter. Would you be able to split that between Powder River and Williston? Terry Spencer Christine, I’ll let Kevin handle that. Kevin Burdick Yes. Christine, you can assume there is roughly 30 million a day of Powder Gas in that number. Christine Cho And then I just wanted to touch on the ethane opportunity that you guys talked about. As you guys say, and on the slide you guys point to that 150,000 to 180,000 barrels per day being rejected across your system. Could you split that up a little better from Williston, Mid-Continent, and Permian? I know you said the least amount is coming out of the Permian, but any sort of percentages or ballparks would be helpful. Sheridan Swords You have over 100,000 barrels a day of ethane off in the Mid-Continent, more like 120,000 to 125,000; 36,000 in the Bakken; and virtually 10,000 or less in the Permian. Christine Cho And then as a follow-up to that question, you guys have a whole bunch of NGL distribution pipes leading to the Gulf Coast from Conway and Mid-Continent. What’s the utilization currently on all the pipes between those two points and are you guys collecting minimum volume payments for any of the volumes? Asked another way, are customers currently paying for volumes they aren’t shipping? Sheridan Swords See the capacity we have between Conway and Mont Belvieu is about 60% utilized between the Sterling pipelines and the Arbuckle pipelines. And when we think about our minimum volume commitment that’s usually for a bundled service, so yes, there are some minimum volumes that have Belvieu redelivery that we are collecting today. Christine Cho I’ll follow up offline, but lastly, is there sufficient ethane fractionation capacity in storage along the Gulf Coast to accommodate all this ethane that’s going to have to come out? Sheridan Swords On our system, we have enough ethane through our fraction — we have enough capacity through our fractionators to fractionate all of the ethane on our system. And we do have the storage capacity and the connectivity into the petchems to be able to deliver that to market. Christine Cho But that’s specifically for your system. I was kind of more asking like does the industry have enough? Sheridan Swords Christine, you’d have to ask all the other individuals, fractionators down there. But my sense is yes, there is plenty of capacity to frac this ethane. Most of the fractionators when they are constructed, they are constructed for a full ethane slate. And so when this ethane is being rejected, it just takes it out [multiple speakers] first tower of the fractionators. Christine Cho Perfect, that’s what I thought. Operator And moving on, we’ll go to Becca Followill with U.S. Capital Advisors. Becca Followill I think you guys talked about that your guidance included about 300 to 350 well connects in the Williston Basin during 2016, for I’m correct? Terry Spencer It’s 250 to 350. Becca Followill What I’m looking at on Page 8 of the presentation on your guidance of 740 million a day, it looks like that includes a 100 well connects? Terry Spencer I’m going to make just a general comment about that slide, Becca, and then I’ll let Kevin jump into more of the detail. But that’s a theoretical depiction assuming that all of the flare gas gets connected and that we experience a 20% decline, and based upon that, you would need 100 wells. But now, I’ll let Kevin take it the rest of the way. Kevin Burdick Yes. So Becca, there are a couple of things and dynamics that are going on in that, transitioning from that slide to our guidance. Like Terry mentioned, that’s kind of a theoretical, assuming all the flares were out. Well, in our guidance volumes, we factor in some level, a minimal level of flaring. And keep in mind; we’ve got Dunn County where gas is going to flare until we get the Bear Creek plant built in the third quarter. We also factor in a little bit for weather during the winter months. And then just some general operational cushion or whatever you want to call it just to pull volumes back a little bit. So that’s the incremental difference between the 100 well connects that’s referenced in the stair-step slide and our guidance. But we do feel strong when you look at the activity that’s currently there in the basin, and the number of rigs on our acreage and then you look at the drilled and uncompleted backlog, we feel that the 250 to 350 is a really good number to achieve. Becca Followill And that’s even despite recent announcements by some of the producers about suspending completion and pairing back budgets, correct? Kevin Burdick Yes. Operator And next we’ll go to Craig Shere with Tuohy Brothers. Craig Shere So expanding on Eric and Christine’s ethane recovery question, how should we be thinking about margins regionally as ethane recovery rolls in? It’s not going to be — you’re not going to get over $0.30 out of the Bakken, are you? Sheridan Swords We will not receive $0.30. Typically across our whole system ethane has discounted to the C3 plus, so we will realize a lower margin than the $0.30 out of the Bakken. Craig Shere I mean, roughly speaking, against what you’re getting on the C3 plus, should we be thinking like nickel-plus spreads or what should we be thinking? Is it even those spreads across the system? Sheridan Swords No, it will not be even across the system. Some volume will come on that will have Conway options, some volume will have Bellevue options. And they have all different kind of spreads depending on where they are. Obviously, if you’re in the Bakken, they are going to have the highest margins and the Mid-Continent will be lower, and obviously a little bit in the Permian will be the lowest. Terry Spencer And Craig, just let me step in here. So you used the word spreads, I think they are fees. It’s not a spread play; it’s a fee. And so there will be different rates, as Sheridan indicates, for different areas. And it’s very common for us to have a lower fee rate for the ethane component than the C3 plus barrel. Craig Shere I kind of meant the discount to what you’re charging for the C3 plus, that’s the spread I was referring to. Terry Spencer I understand now. I was just trying to make sure, I don’t have any misunderstanding. Craig Shere And thinking about 2017 capital needs, I understand you don’t have any need to raise debt or equity until well into ’17, but your growth CapEx in ’17 for the already approved projects and execution should fall off really materially year-over-year. So when you think about incremental capital needs in ’17, is that just terming things out, rightsizing the balance sheet a little bit, I mean there’s not a lot of spend that you have planned, right? Terry Spencer I think that’s a fair assessment Craig. We don’t have anything of major strategic significance, in particular, in the G&P segment for 2017. So yes, you are thinking about it the right way. And in particular, if we get in this lower-for-longer mode, we do have the ability to flex down our current rate of capital spend down considerably. Now, we’ve not guided to that, don’t intend to guide to that in this call, but I think you’re thinking about it the right way. Craig Shere Is there some range or percentage that you think you can shave-off in a worst-case scenario? Terry Spencer Well, let me give you this, it’s significant, and you could get to a point where just your routine growth, well connects, small infrastructure projects, compressor type projects could be the — the core of your organic growth opportunities is that kind of stuff. And so it would be a significant reduction in the capital spend that we’re experiencing here in ’16; significant reduction in ’17, if the lower-for-longer environment persists. Craig Shere And last question, following-up on Becca’s query about the 100 well connects on that theoretical slide versus the 250 guidance. I know we’re in a period of flux and who knows what’s going to happen next quarter, but implicit in that questioning is that you continue to have a cushion supporting your operations in a worst-case scenario, even in ’17, because you’re not using it all this year in terms of flared gas and the drilled, but uncompleted well inventories. Do you want to address any of that in terms of how measurably things may or may not fall off next year in a worst-case scenario? Terry Spencer Well, let me make a comment and then Kevin can kind of clean it up. So flared gas, let me just tell you, it’s not an exact science. And it’s quite possible we could have more flared gas than we actually believe we have, because every time we turn on a compressor station it seems like the wells behind that particular compressor station outperform our expectations. Time and time again, more gas is showing up than what we thought. And so that’s what we’re dealing with here, that’s what we dealt within the fourth quarter of last year and that’s what we’re dealing with, as we plow through first quarter 2016. So yes, I think we would expect that it’s probably not going to turn out exactly the way we think. And it could very possible that we’re a big conservative on our assessments and thoughts about flared gas. Kevin, do you have anything to add to that? Kevin Burdick The only thing I would add, Terry, is that, again, back to the drilled, but uncompleted backlog, when you think about that we’ve got 550 or a little more than that behind our acreage. I don’t think there’s any expectation that all of that’s going to get worked up this year. So as you move into through this year and you move into ’17, even if the flared gas volumes go very low, you’ve still got some support from that drilled, but uncompleted backlog, that producers can bring on relatively quickly as prices improve. Operator And next we’ll go to Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan. Jeremy Tonet Just wanted to touch back on the call, as far as the $0.55 fee that you guys saw, how do you expect that to trend during 2016 again? Terry Spencer So Jeremy, we’re not going to guide in the first quarters to what that fee rate is going to be, but we are expecting it to increase. And if there’s any other color, I’ll let Kevin address it. Kevin Burdick Yes. Jeremy, I mean we did experience an increase in the fourth quarter that was a little ahead of our expectations by getting some of the restructurings done earlier than anticipated. So while we do expect it to increase, I don’t think it would be as pronounced as the increase from Q3 to Q4. Jeremy Tonet One of the questions we commonly get in this space is thinking about maintenance CapEx. How do you guys think about it as far as the depletion to the wells, how do you think about well connects as far as maintenance CapEx? And did that impact the maintenance CapEx revisions over the course of the year or any color you could provide there would be great. Terry Spencer Yes, Jeremy, how we look at it — and Derek can jump in here if I mess this up. But when we think about growth capital, well connects, and those types of things, the volume through our systems, we consider that growth capital. If it’s attached to revenues, if it’s a revenue generating activity, we call it growth. If it’s related to the straight-up maintenance of the pipelines systems and mechanical integrity of the assets we call that maintenance capital. And that’s the distinction, we’ve used for a long time and I think many of our peers use that same thought process. Does that help you? Jeremy Tonet Maybe just in general, as far as maintenance CapEx coming in lower across the year, if you could just help us think through that a bit more as far as like savings through reductions in contractors or any color there would be great? Terry Spencer I’m going to let Wes Christensen to take that. Wesley Christensen Sure. In 2015, we did benefit from lower contractor costs across our projects, as well as using less contractors. Also our materials and supplied that we consume inside of those projects, we’ve seen some benefit in lower cost there as well. And then the last item maybe just the timing of the projects, we expect to see these types of trends continue through 2016. Jeremy Tonet And then just one last housekeeping item. I think there was an asset sale gain of about $6 million in the quarter. Could you provide some color on that please? Derek Reiners We routinely will sell-off small pieces of pipe for things like that, that really aren’t integral to our systems. So that’s all that is. I think it’s fairly consistent from year-to-year actually we’ve got kind of a kind of a small amount every year, it really only impacts DCF by less than $1 million. Jeremy Tonet So the $6 million, was that non-cash item that’s backed out in DCF then? Derek Reiners Exactly. Operator And next will go to Kristina Kazarian with Deutsche Bank. Kristina Kazarian Just wanted to make sure I was understanding something that was asked earlier about leverage and rating agencies. Can you just help me understand how the conversations have been going, because I think OKS is still on negative at both? I mean you guys have listed a bunch of positives you guys have executed on since then, so what should I be watching for or thinking about or have they communicated what you guys need to execute in order to have OKS removed from negative outlook at either? Derek Reiners Of course, they wanted to see us execute on those things I mentioned before. Broadly the macro environment, I think is difficult for them to take us off of any sort of a watch at this point. We really forced our hand last year in August, when we did the ONEOK bond deal where they had to rate that debt, that’s when they put us on negative outlook. So my personal opinion is it’s difficult for them to remove that given the broader macro environment, the low pricing and so forth. Terry Spencer Just Christine, and the only thing I would add to that as I think they’ve been appreciative of the fact that we’ve decisively cut capital spending, have made some really prudent decisions and that we’ve voiced to them our willingness to continue to cut capital, if the environment dictates. Kristina Kazarian That’s great, which leads into my second follow-up one. And I know you mentioned this earlier about the flex down on possible spend, and I’m not looking for a number at all there, but if I think about it being a lower-for-longer environment, can you touch on maybe some other things you might think about, too? So are there small like non-core asset sales? How do I think about maybe — I know there was a number in the press release, but financial support OKE could provide for OKS and just things in that vein? Terry Spencer Well, Kristina, we obviously evaluate our assets at all times, but we don’t see asset sales as a primary driver for us going forward. The financial flexibility that we have from ONEOK generating excess cash gives us plenty of different tools that we can use, whether it be equity purchases or considering thoughts around the IDR. We constantly evaluate what would be best for ONEOK and ONEOK Partners and we’re happy to have those tools at our disposal as we move forward. Kristina Kazarian And then last one from me, so I know we saw the fee increase in the 4Q was ahead of expectations. Just an update on progress and in terms of like how many contracts left, could I see renegotiations on or anything color there? Terry Spencer Kristina, most of our objectives have been met in the Williston Basin, but generally speaking, we continue to, where we can, renegotiate contracts to reduce commodity price exposure and where we can increase margin. So that’s just an ongoing process. There might be a few more in the Williston, but as I said, for the most part we’re done there. Western Oklahoma and Kansas, of course, will be areas of our continual focus. Operator And next will go to Elvira Scotto with RBC Capital Markets. Elvira Scotto Thanks for all the color that you provided on sort of your volume expectations in the Williston Basin. But do you think maybe you can provide a little more color behind your Mid-Continent volume guidance, especially given how the commodity price environment has changed and producer commentary? And can you provide any, I don’t know, maybe some sensitivity around that guidance? Terry Spencer First of all, Elvira, my contribution is going to be that rig counts in the Mid-Continent have been pretty resilient even in this latest leg down compared to some of the other basins. So I think that’s been somewhat surprising to us. So Kevin, if you want to talk a little bit more specifically on volumes? Kevin Burdick Yes, the Mid-Continent area, especially the Stack, Cana, SCOOP areas, it’s kind of interesting; because you’ve got really competing data points. Even as late as last week with some calls that we’re out there, the performance and the results that many of our customers and other producers in the area are seeing are really outstanding, but yet there is some discussions of some delays. And we are watching that very closely, we’re in constant communication with all of our customers in the Mid-Continent. I guess the way I think about it; it’s really a function of just time. Those reserves are there, the results are strong, so the volumes will come, it’s just, okay, is it going to be fourth quarter of this year, third quarter of this year or a push into ’17, we’ll be watching that closely over the next couple of months. Elvira Scotto And then in terms of cost cutting opportunities, do you see any cost cutting opportunity in 2016 and is that baked into your guidance? Terry Spencer Elvira, yes, we do have some continued management of our cost. And obviously, we’re still seeing a downward pressure on vendor cost and we’ve got contractor costs that are coming down, particularly as we’re in a lower growth mode. Wes, do you have anything else you could add to that? Wesley Christensen No, I think that’s consistent. We’ll see that in our O&M, as well as we been seeing it in our maintenance capital. Operator And our final question will come from John Edwards with Credit Suisse. John Edwards Terry, I’m just curious on the guidance, you affirmed the guidance, but obviously since you’ve provided it things have deteriorated significantly. So what improvements, I guess, are you looking to in your own performance there that would enable you to affirm if you could? Terry Spencer Well, certainly, John, the outperformance and the exceedance of expectation in volume performance is really key. We continue to be very well hedged, as you can see from the information that we provided to you. And we’re going to get the full year of the contract restructuring benefit in 2016. So from a pricing point of view standpoint, we think that there’s going to be some correction or some significant improvement in prices, as we move throughout the year based upon our current point of view. So as we sit today, we like our guidance. And as Kevin indicated, we’re going to continue to assess producer activity and try and get as much visibility as we can. And if we think updates are necessary, we’ll come back to you. John Edwards And then just you may have covered this, I got disconnected part of the call. But in terms of the, you were pointing on the NGL segment sort of a second half volume story there. If you could just provide a little bit more color or detail on how you see that playing out? Sheridan Swords Well, first, we start up in the Bakken as you saw the volumes, even though they’re slower growth than we saw last year, they continue to grow, especially with the Bear Creek plant coming online. And also, we’re going to connect a third-party processing plant up there as well this year. And we have plants in the Mid-Continent that are in the SCOOP and the Stack that will be completed later on this year. So that’s basically where we see the volume ramp up coming from in our volumes is from those two plays. John Edwards And then lastly, just in terms of counterparty risk, to what extent are you baking that into your guidance? Derek Reiners Yes, John, I’ve covered that in our remarks. And there’s a new slide in the presentation that accompanies the news release that gives you a lot of detail on that. We actually feel very good about the counterparty credit risk that we have. And we’re not overly exposed to any particular customer, so good diversification. So we’re not expecting any sort of material credit losses. Operator And I’ll turn it back to Mr. T. D. Eureste for any additional or closing comments. End of Q&A T. D. Eureste Thank you. Our quiet period for the first quarter starts when we close our books in early April and extends till earnings are released after market closes in early May. Thank you for joining us. Operator And that will conclude today’s conference. We’d like to thank everyone for their participation. 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!

NextEra Energy (NEP) Jim Robo on Q3 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

NextEra Energy, Inc. (NYSE: NEP ) Q3 2015 Earnings Conference Call October 28, 2015 9:00 AM ET Executives Amanda Finnis – Director of Investor Relations Jim Robo – Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Armando Pimentel – President and Chief Executive Officer, NextEra Energy Resources LLC Mark Hickson – Senior Vice President of NextEra Energy Eric Silagy – President and Chief Executive Officer, Florida Power & Light Co. John Ketchum – Senior Vice President of NextEra Energy Analysts Dan Eggers – Credit Suisse Stephen Byrd – Morgan Stanley Julien Dumoulin Smith – UBS Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research Paul Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets Jonathan Arnold – Deutsche Bank Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs Brian Chin – Bank of America Merrill Lynch Operator Good day, everyone. And welcome to the NextEra Energy and NextEra Energy Partners 2015 Third Quarter Earnings Conference Call. Today’s conference is being recorded. At this time, for opening remarks, I would like to turn the call over to Amanda Finnis. Amanda Finnis Thank you, Leo. Good morning, everyone. And welcome to the third quarter 2015 combined earnings conference call for NextEra Energy and for NextEra Energy Partners. With me this morning are Jim Robo, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of NextEra Energy; Armando Pimentel, President and Chief Executive Officer of NextEra Energy Resources; and Mark Hickson, Senior Vice President of NextEra Energy, all of whom are also officers of NextEra Energy Partners; as well as Eric Silagy, President and Chief Executive Officer of Florida Power & Light Company; and John Ketchum, Senior Vice President of NextEra Energy. John will provide an overview of our results and then turn the call over to Jim for closing remarks. Our executive team will then be available to answer your questions. We will be making forward-looking statements during this call based on current expectations and assumptions, which are subject to risks and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially from our forward-looking statements if any of our key assumptions are incorrect or because of other factors discussed in today’s earnings news release, in the comments made during this conference call, in the Risk Factor section of the accompanying presentation, or in our latest reports and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, each of which can be found on our websites, www.nexteraenergy.com and www.nexteraenergypartners.com. We do not undertake any duty to update any forward-looking statements. Today’s presentation also includes references to non-GAAP financial measures. You should refer to the information contained in the slides accompanying today’s presentation for definitional information and reconciliations of certain non-GAAP measure to the closest GAAP financial measure. With that, I will turn the call over to John. John Ketchum Thank you, Amanda. And good morning, everyone. NextEra Energy delivered solid third quarter results driven by new investments of both FPL and Energy Resources. Adjusted earnings per share increased 3%, or $0.05 per share against the prior year quarter. Along with our strong performance in the first and second quarters and excellent progress against our objectives for the full year, NextEra Energy is well positioned to close out 2015 in the upper half of our $5.40 to $5.70 range of adjusted EPS expectations subject our usual caveats. At Florida Power & Light, earnings per share increased $0.02 from the prior year comparable quarter. It was a warm summer season with above normal weather related usage increasing both retail base revenues and our reserve amortization balance while allowing us to continue to earn at the upper end of our approved ROE range. We remained focused on delivering customer value through best in class daily operations and execution against our initiatives to drive down cost, reduce fuel expenses and improve reliability. During the quarter FPL file to lower electric rates again by about $2.50 a month on average in 2016 compared with current rates. We are very pleased to be able to deliver award winning customer service with monthly bills for typical residential customer lower than $100 and lower than they were a decade ago. We continue to have an outstanding opportunity set ahead of us, and all of our major capital projects are on track. At Energy Resources, our results were in line with our financial expectations for the quarter and Energy Resources is well positioned to attain the full year expectations. Adjusted EPS at Energy Resources declined by $0.04 against the comparable prior year quarter. The core energy resource story is unchanged as we continue to benefit from growth in our contracted renewable portfolio. In addition, our renewable origination results remain very strong. The team signed contracts for approximately 725 megawatts of new wind and solar projects since the last call, including approximately 600 megawatts of wind for 2016 delivery. Based on everything we see now, we are on track to exceed the high end of our previously announced 2015 to 2016 wind build range. We continue to believe that the fundamentals for renewable business have never been stronger. NEP remains on track to be as distribution per unit expectations of $1.23 on an annualized basis by year end subject to our usual caveat. Since the last call, the financing and acquisitions of any NET midstream and the Jericho wind project were completed. Third quarter adjusted EBITDA and CAFD which did not include contributions from either of these acquisitions, were slightly below our expectations due to lower wind resource. Wind resource was 93% in the long-term average for the NEP portfolio, while a long-term average for the Energy Resources portfolio was slightly higher at 97% for the quarter. The NEP Board declared an increased quarterly distribution of $0.27 per common unit, or $1.08 per common unit on annualized basis. Not only do we expect to deliver on our financial expectations for 2015, but we also are well positioned against our 2016 financial plan. At FPL, we expect to earn in the upper half of the allowed ROE band and as we’ve done this year, we expect continued strong executions against our capital deployment program for the benefit of Florida customers. For Energy Resources, we expect increased contributions from new renewables to drive adjusted earnings growth. Overall, we remain very comfortable with the 2016 adjusted EPS expectations, we communicated in the second quarter earnings call. Let me now take you through the details of our third quarter results beginning with FPL. For the third quarter of 2015, FPL reported net income of $489 million, or $1.07 per share, up $0.02 per share year-over-year. Regulatory capital employed increased by 7.8% over the same quarter last year and was the principal driver for FPL’s net income growth. This rate of growth in regulatory capital employed was higher than comparable measures in the first and second quarters this year. And we expect another increase in the fourth quarter. As we discussed in the last call, we continue to expect the bulk of this year’s earnings growth for FPL to be in the fourth quarter. Our reported ROE for regulatory purposes will be approximately 11.5% for the 12 months ended September 2015. And this remains our target for the full year. For 2016, we continue to target a regulatory ROE in the upper half of the allowed band of 9.5% to 11.5%. As always, our expectations assume among other things normal weather and operating conditions. As a reminder, under the current rate agreement we record reserve amortization entries to achieve a predetermined regulatory ROE for each trailing 12 months period. During the third quarter, due to higher retail base revenues driven by weather related usage and customer growth, we reversed $150 million of reserved amortization. As part of the Cedar Bay settlement agreement with the office of public council, we agreed to reduce the total available reserved amortization balance by $30 million leaving us within available reserved amortization balance of approximately $330 million at the end of the third quarter which could be utilized in the remainder of 2015 and 2016. We continue to execute on our overall customer value proposition by delivering clean energy, low bills and higher reliability for Florida customers. Each of our capital deployment initiatives to provide low cost, clean energy continues to progress on accordance with our development plans. Our generation modernization project at Fort Everglades is on schedule to come online in mid 2016 and remains on track to meet its budget. Development of three new large scale solar project remains on schedule with each of these roughly 74 megawatt projects expected to be completed in 2016. These projects once complete will roughly triple the solar capacity on our system and add the overall fuel diversity of our fleet which is important for FPL and its customers. As a reminder, consistent with our focus on delivering cost effective renewable for our customers, these projects reflects specific opportunities that take advantage of the remaining 30% ITC window while leveraging existing infrastructure in prior development work. Aside from these specific projects, utility scale solar which is by far the most cost efficient form of providing renewable energy in our service territory, particularly as compared to residential roof top applications is becoming more cost effective across our entire service territory. We continue to expect that there will be additional opportunities for utility sale scale solar on FPL system by the end of the decade. During the quarter, the Florida Public Service Commission issued its final order on its approval of modified natural gas reserve guidelines for up to $500 million per year in potential additional investments, which we continue to view as an important step and what we hope, will be a larger program. The development team is actively evaluating new investment opportunities to lock-in historically low natural gas prices for the benefit of Florida customers. Also during the quarter, we closed on our acquisition of Cedar Bay and filed a termination of need for the approximately 1,600 megawatts, $1.2 billion Okeechobee clean energy center to be placed in the service in mid-2019. FPL also continues to execute on its investments to improve reliability for Florida customers by upgrading its transmission and distribution network. We expect to invest approximately $3 billion to $4 billion in infrastructure improvements through 2018 with roughly $900 million of this amount being deployed this year. I am pleased to report that on year-to-date basis FPL has achieved its best ever period of system reliability and is on track to deliver its best ever reliability performance on a full year basis. Last week FPL won multiple national awards including being recognized as the most reliable electric utility in nation. Looking ahead in 2016, we expect to deploy approximately 28,000 smart grid devices across our system as we continue to execute on a program to further improve system reliability. All of these initiatives are focused on delivering superior customer value. Our residential bills are 30% below the national average, the lowest among reporting utilities in the State and lower than bills paid by FPL customers 10 years ago. Overall, we are extremely pleased with the execution at FPL and our relentless focus to deliver low bills, high reliability, clean emissions and excellent customer service. The Florida economy continues to improve. The state seasonally adjusted on employment rate in September with 5.2%, down 0.6 percentage point from a year ago and a lowest since early 2008. Over the same time period, Florida’s job growth was 3%, a continuation of a five year trend and positive job growth with close to 1 million jobs gain since the low in December 2009. Along with the strong growth and jobs, retail activity has increased markedly since the trough in mid-2009 and July retail activity grew 8.6% since last year. At the same time, the September reading of Florida’s consumer sentiment remain close to the pre recession highs. With the Florida Housing sector the Case-Shiller Index for South Florida shows home prices up, 7.5% from the prior year and mortgage delinquency rates continue to decline. As an indicator of new construction, new building permits remain in healthy levels. Third quarter retail sales were up 2.6% from the prior year comparable quarter and we estimate that approximately 1.4% of this amount could be attributed to weather related usage per customer. Our weather related retail sales increased 1.2% comprised of continued customer growth of approximately 1.6% reflecting the growing population of our service territory, offset by decline in weather normalized usage per customer of approximately 0.4%. The measure may reflect the residual from our estimation of the impact of weather. This is particularly challenging in periods with relatively strong weather comparisons such as we’ve had in the first three quarters of the year. However, based on the average of negative 0.3% for this reading over the last 12 months, we’ve reduced our outlook for weather normalized usage per customer. Looking ahead, we expect year-over-year weather normalized usage per customer to be between flat and negative 0.5% per year primarily reflecting the impact of efficiency and conservation program. As we’ve discussed last quarter, we do not expect modest changes in usage per customer to have a material effect on our earnings. For this year and next year any effects of weather normalized usage are expected to be offset by the utilization of our reserved amortization and after the expiration of current settlement agreement will be taken into account in our regulatory planning. The average number of inactive accounts since September declined 16% from the prior year and the 12 months average of low usage customers fell to 7.8%, down from 8% in September of 2014. We remain encouraged by the positive economy trends in Florida and continue to expect above average growth in our service territory. Let me now turn to Energy Resources which reported third quarter 2015 GAAP earnings of $375 million, or $0.82 per share. Adjusted earnings for the third quarter were $221 million, or $0.48 per share. Energy Resources third quarter adjusted EPS decreased $0.04 per share from last year’s comparable quarter. NextEra Energy benefited from continued growth in our contract to renewables portfolio reflecting the addition of more than 1,900 megawatts of wind and solar projects during or after the third quarter of 2014 as well as positive contributions from the customer supply and trading business in the existing generation portfolio. Wind resources roughly 97% of long -term average versus 95% in the third quarter of last year. Offsetting the positives among other things were higher interest expense due to growth in the business and higher corporate expenses due largely to timing differences and increased renewables development activity in light of what we considered to be a very positive landscape for the renewables business. Results also were impacted by share dilution and lower state and federal tax incentives versus the prior year comparable quarter. Year-to-date, adjusted EBITDA increased 9% and operating cash flow was strong. We continue to expect full year cash flow from operations to grow 20% to 25% subject to our usual caveat. As I mentioned earlier, the Energy Resources development team had another very successful quarter of origination activity, adding approximately 725 megawatts to our contract and renewables backlog since the last call. Let me spend a bit of time now on where each programs stands. Since our last earnings call, we’ve added approximately 600 megawatts to our wind backlog reflecting projects for 2016 delivery. Based on the strength of our wind development pipeline, we now expect to exceed the high end of our previously announced 2015 to 2016 wind build range. The origination of new solar projects has also been strong. The team signed 125 megawatts power purchase agreement for another new solar project for post 2016 delivery since last quarter’s call, demonstrating once again continued demand for solar projects even after the anticipated expiration of the 30% ITC support. The accompanied slide update information that we provided at our Investor conference in March showing our excellent progress against our objectives for the 2015 to 2016 development program. As we discussed last quarter, we are encouraged that the center finance committee passed the task extenders package in July that include a two year extension of the production tax credit. Although this is just one step in the process, we are pleased with signs of bipartisan support for potential extension. We expect to update our 2017 and 2018 wind build estimate by our first quarter earnings call next year. Overall, we believe that the strong fundamentals for the renewables business will continue to strengthen with continued equipment cost decline, improved efficiency advancements, a potential PTC extension and the expected demand created by the EPA’s new renewables targets under the clean power plant. Let me now review the highlights for NEP. Third quarter adjusted EBITDA was approximately $99 million and cash available for distribution was $15 million. These results were slightly below our expectations for the quarter primarily due to weak wind resource. But the portfolio remains on track to achieve the distribution per unit expectations that we have shared for the fourth quarter distribution payable in February. Since last call, NEP completed the financing and acquisition of NEP mid stream in the 149 megawatt Jericho wind project. The NEP Board declared an increase quarterly distribution of $0.27 per common unit, or $1.08 per common unit on an annualized basis. Turning now to the consolidated results for NextEra Energy. For the third quarter of 2015, GAAP net income attributable NextEra Energy was $879 million, or $1.93 per share. NextEra Energy’s 2015 third quarter adjusted earnings and adjusted EPS were $730 million and $1.60 per share respectively for the adjusted EPS up 3% over the prior year comparable quarter. As we have discussed on the prior two quarterly calls, our earnings per share account per dilution associated with the settlement of our forward agreement of 6.6 million share that occurred in December of 2014 and the June settlement of approximately 7.9 million shares associated with the equity units that were issued in May 2012. In the third quarter, the settlement occurred for approximately 8.2 million shares associated with the forward contract component of the equity units that were issued in September 2012. The impact of dilution in the third quarter was approximately $0.05 per share. Adjusted earnings from the corporate and other segment increased $0.07 per share compared to the third quarter of 2014 due to consolidating tax adjustments, earnings at our pipeline and transmission business and other miscellaneous corporate items none of which were individually notable. The development above the Sable Trail Transmission pipeline in the Florida Southeast connection pipeline continue to progress well through their respective processes. We continue to expect to be in a position to receive FERC approval in early 2016 to support commercial operation by mid -2017. The Mountain Valley pipeline project concluded the scoping processes as part of the pre filing procedure and filed this application with the FERC this month. The project also added Rovno [ph] gas as a shipper and its affiliate as an equity partner. Mountain Valley is an approximately 2 Bcf per day project with 20 year firm transportation agreement providing NextEra Energy a capital investment of $1 billion to $1.3 billion. The project schedule continues to support commercial operations by year end 2018. We are very pleased with our progress so far this year at NextEra Energy. As we discussed on the last call, we are in a strong El Nino cycle that tends to be correlated with below average continental wind resources and we also know that metrological expectations are for the El Nino to potentially continue through the fourth quarter and into the first quarter of 2016. Nonetheless based on the overall strength and diversity of NextEra Energy portfolio, we expect to end the year in the upper half of $5.40 to $5.70 range of adjusted EPS expectations that we share with you previously. We continue to expect NextEra Energy’s operating cash flow adjusted for the potential impact of certain FPL clause recoveries and the Cedar Bay acquisition to grow by 10% to 15% in 2015. For 2016, we expect adjusted earnings per share to be in the range of $5.85 to $6.35 and in the range of $6.60 to $7.10 for 2018, complying compound annual growth rate after 2014 base of 6% to 8%. For the reasons I mentioned earlier, we felt particularly good about the opportunities set at both FPL and Energy Resources and are well positioned going into 2016. We expect to grow our dividend per share 12% to 14% per year through at least 2018 after 2015 base of dividends per share of $3.08. As always our expectations are subject to the usual caveat including but not limited to normal weather and operating conditions. Let me now turn to NEP. We continue to expect the NEP portfolio to grow to support distribution in the annualized rate of $1.23 by the end of the year leading the fourth quarter distribution that is payable on February 2016. After 2015 we continue to see 12% to 15% per year growth in LP distribution as been being a reasonable range of expectations through 2020 subject to our usual caveats. Our expectations for 2015 adjusted EBITDA of $400 million to $440 million and CAFD of $100 million to $120 million are also unchanged subject to our usual caveat In addition, last month we introduced run rate expectations for adjusted EBITDA and CAFD. The December 31, 2015 run rate expectations for adjusted EBITDA of $540 million to $580 million and CAFD of $190 million to $220 million reflect calendar year 2016 expectations for the portfolio at year end December 31, 2015. The December 31, 2016 run rate expectations for adjusted EBITDA of $640 million to $760 million and CAFD of $210 million to $290 million reflect calendar year 2017 expectations for the forecasted portfolio at year-end December 31, 2016. These expectations are subject to normal caveats and our net of expected IDR fees, as we expect these fees to be treated as an operating expense. With that I’ll turn the call over to Jim. Jim Robo Thanks, John. And good morning, everyone. It has been a very strong first three quarters. At both NextEra Energy and NextEra Energy Partners, we’ve executed well both financially and operationally. And we had strong execution of our growth plans all across the board. At FPL the team continues to make excellent progress against our core strategy of investing to further improve our customer value proposition. FPL has typical residential bills 30% below the national average. One of the cleanest emission profiles in America and was recently recognized as the most reliable electric utility in the nation. As we prepared to file our 8-K at FPL in 2016, I’ve never felt better about the quality of FPL’s customer value proposition. Ultimately as I’ve said before, our goal at FPL is nothing less than to be the cleanest, lowest cost and most reliable utility in the nation. And we are well on our way to achieving that. At Energy Resources, we made terrific progress against our core strategy of being the world’s largest generator of wind and solar energy. The fundamentals of the renewable business have never been stronger and Energy Resources continues to build what I believe is the largest and highest quality renewables development pipeline in the space. John mentioned that Energy Resources now expects to exceed the high end of its range for 2015 to 2016 U.S. wind development that we share with you in March. Based on the future demand we expect from EPA’s clean power plant and the potential extension of the PTC, we now see opportunities to increase even further scale of our wind and solar development capabilities in order to seize and even larger share of the growing North American renewable market. We are significantly increasing our internal resource commitment to renewables development and we expect as much as double the development resources committed to these activities over the next few years. I am also very pleased with our natural gas pipeline and competitive transmission development efforts. Total expected capital deployment in our pipeline business including pipeline under development and recent acquisitions is now approaching $5 billion. In our competitive transmission business we expect to invest more than $1 billion by the end of the decade. Although competition is fierce for both of these businesses, customers value our development capabilities, our engineering construction expertise and our stakeholder relationships across North America. As with renewable energy, we expect the markets for new pipelines and new transmission will continue to grow driven in part by the emissions targets under the clean power plant. As with renewable energy, we believe NextEra Energy is well positioned to capitalize on these new opportunities. Across the board, NextEra Energy is ahead of the goal we shared with you in March. Our announcement last quarter of increased earning per share and dividends per share expectations for NextEra Energy was a reflection of this performance and we are well positioned to achieve these expectations. Not withstanding recent volatility in capital markets, we continue to have confidence that the YieldCos model can work and work well for our partnership like NEP that has the right structure and the support of a world class sponsor like Energy Resources, giving it access to the largest and strongest portfolio of potential future acquisition opportunities. While we need to position ourselves to work through a period of potential uncertainty and settling item which we have done with our modified 2015 financing plan now successfully executed. In the long run, we think the capital markets reevaluation of the YieldCos space can play to our competitive advantage both at NEP and at Energy Resources. Times of challenge are often also times of opportunity. I continue to believe that the NEP value proposition is the best in the space. NEP offers investors average annual growth expectations and LP unit distributions of 12% to 15% through the end of decade. NEP’s existing cash flows are backed by long-term contracts which at the end of the third quarter had an average contract life of approximately 90 years and strong counter party credits. NEP also has a portfolio that is largely insulated from commodity risks in a well aligned incentive structure with the sponsor owning incentive distribution right in a significant limited partnership position in the vehicle. We are also pursuing options, several options to minimize NEP’s need for significant amounts of public equity through 2016 to ensure that we have plenty of time for markets to settle down. We continue to evaluate the optimal capital structure for NEP. As it has some additional debt capacity that can help finance future transactions being mindful of course that we don’t want to over lever the vehicle. And of course in the long run, in order for NEP to serve its intended purpose, we need to be able to access the equity markets at reasonable prices. We plan to issue a modest amount of NEP public equity to finance the growth included in December 31, 2016 annual run rate. However, we will be smart, flexible and opportunistic as to how and when we access the equity markets. And to that end, I am pleased to announce that the Board of Directors of general partners has approved putting in place an up to $150 million at the market equity issuance for dribble program. At the same time, NextEra Energy has also authorized to program to purchase from time to time based on market conditions and other considerations up to $150 million of NEP’s outstanding common unit. The ATM program gives the partnership the flexibility to issue new units when the price supports new unit issuances while the unit purchase program gives NextEra Energy the ability to demonstrate its commitment to the partnership by purchasing units at time when they are undervalued. We will be patient with NEP and have taken the necessary steps to provide plenty of time for recovery of the equity markets. We remain optimistic that the NEP financing model can and will work going forward. In summary, I am as enthusiastic as ever about our future prospects. FPL, Energy Resources and NEP all have an outstanding set of opportunities across the board. And we will continue to execute well against all of our strategic and growth initiatives. FPL continues to have an excellent story with the growing service territory and a strong customer value offering. While Energy Resources is strategically positioned to capitalize on what is expected to be one of the best environment for renewables development in recent memory. Overall, we are well positioned to leverage these great businesses to continue to build growth platforms to drive our growth in the future. With that we will now open the lines for questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions] We will take our first question from Dan Eggers. Your line is open. Dan Eggers Hi, good morning, guys. I guess just kind of the first question Jim following up on the couple of things you made comments on today. Doubling of development resources into renewables, so lot given where your baseline is already, are you talking about operating expenses to try and find more projects or are you thinking about the idea of actually doubling the amount of renewables you are doing on an annual basis? Jim Robo Dan, we would expect that for an increase in development expenses that we would get a program that increasing in the amount of megawatts that we will be able to develop and so I said up to double, we are going to be obviously smart and opportunistic about it. I think all of the things that we’ve said about the renewable markets, the economies are getting better, the clean power plant is coming, there are continues to be good federal support and the potential or extension of the wind production tax credit. And frankly the chaos in the YieldCos space creates an opportunity for us with some of our competitors is not being as well positioned as they were four months ago for us to be able to continue to gain share in a market, last year we gained share in the wind business. We were number one player, we have been number player for many, many years and last year we gained share and that’s my goal for the team is to continue to build to gain share and to build profitable projects that make sense for our shareholders and for our customers. Dan Eggers So I guess maybe extending that conversation when you talk about the targets for NEP’s CAFD run rate for next year, does the $150 million dribble equity is that enough to get you within that band or was there an assumption that NE is going to put more equity capital into NEP to help to get into the guidance range? John Ketchum Dan, this is John. We need a minimal amount of equity for NEP next year. Obviously, 2018dribble program would be a good start to be able to build on an equity position heading into what our growth plans are for next year. But we have a lot of levers around NEP as well. You’ve seen the guidance. So we have some flexibility around the capital structure. But the ATM program would allow us to get off to a start on what we see as a minimal equity need for NEP next year. Dan Eggers And you guys still get about hitting the increase growth rate from last year even if NEP sit at the lower end of their growth range or the equity capital market so still stay for them? John Ketchum We do. Operator Our next question is from Stephen Byrd, your line is open. Stephen Byrd Good morning. Jim Robo Good morning, Stephen. Stephen Byrd I wanted to kind of at high level talk about usage of your balance sheet. You positioned the company with quite strong credit stats and at the high end of the range for many of your ratings targets, when you think about opportunities to deploy the balance sheet at the corporate level we saw just very recently a big utility buy up, small LDC so their corporate opportunities versus M&A for assets versus more organic growth and obviously it sounds like you are very bullish on more organic growth at resources. But at a high level when you think about all the opportunities for the growing your balance sheet what do you think is likely to create the most economic value for shareholders? John Ketchum Well, one there have been couple deals that have gone off they are pretty high multiples and leverage has been used to finance those transactions. From our standpoint having a strong balance sheet is key to reaching our growth objectives and we have no intention of compromising our current credit metrics. That being said, there are opportunities perhaps to optimize our existing balance sheet and so we always look at particularly projects that may not have debt financing items and other opportunities within the portfolio where we could optimize our current position without compromising our credit metrics. Jim Robo So, Steven, this is Jim. Just to add to what John said, I think to use your balance sheet to lever up, to acquire assets at massive premiums and transfer much of the value from that leveraging up over to someone else to shareholders. I have a hard time, I scratch my head honestly and I have a hard time understanding how that make sense for their acquire shareholders, and so that’s not something that we would be — that’s not something that we would be running up and down, jumping up and down in terms of trying to do something like that. It is — we are — I mean the other thing from an acquisition standpoint that I would say just too raw from an M&A standpoint I would say is, we have great organic growth prospects. I feel really good about our organic growth prospects. We do not have to do anything other than execute on our organic growth prospect to deliver the expectations that we laid out to you here an anything that we would ever do want M&A would have to be accretive to what we are telling you in terms of expectations going forward. Stephen Byrd Very much understood, that’s very helpful. When you think about when the growth potential obviously we may not know the PTC outcome till very late in the year. And your dialogue with states and utilities that may go out of procure more wind, how should we likely see this unfold, does this likely to involve a very quick action by states and utilities to start — I am assuming that the PTC does get extended. Do you think it’s going to be fairly rapid movement by states tries to take advantage of the PTC just given that it is always uncertain how long subsidies do last or do you think it’s more of a gradual evolution throughout 2016 and 2017? How should we think about how this might actually unfold? Armando Pimentel Steven, it is Armando. I think the first thing, let me just talk about what we are seeing right now. What we are seeing right now is really a significant amount of interest in the wind space to get projects signed up for next year. Some of the customers that we are signing up are very clearly telling us that they don’t necessarily know where the clean power plant is going to end up but they are taking steps today in order to address what they see as potential issues that they have under the clean power plant. Others are telling us that look, we would like to take advantage now while the PTC is here because with the PTC that prices that are being offered in the market are very economic to us on a very long-term basis. When we are having discussions with customers about 2017 and 2018, there is obviously some concerns as to whether the production tax credit gets extended or not in the near term. But what’s encouraging is that once you kind of get passed that it looks like there that wind has a lot of opportunities I would say through 2020 at least whether it’s early action credits under the clean power plant or whether it’s with or without PTC, what customers are seeing as a trend to go more renewables is very positive for us. So I’d say when we sit on wind 2017 and 2018, I would expect on a combined basis to be pretty good for us. Operator And we will take our next question from Julien Dumoulin. Your line is open. Julien Dumoulin Smith Hey, good morning. So let me actually start by following up on the last question a bit. When it comes to CPP I would be curious you have this dynamic around 2020 to 2021 of early action, to what extent is that creating kind of boom bust in the cycle, obviously you get a PTC extension here but are folks holding off getting project qualifying for their early action program? Armando Pimentel Yes, Julien, it is Armando again. Just to follow up on what I said before. In the near term here there are obviously some discussions with our customers about the clean power plant and they are taking advantage because they don’t know where the clean power plant is going to workout but they see that it is a huge benefit while there is a product tax credit to sign up cheaper wind. The 2017 and 2018 discussion that we have been having on wind, a lot of folks are obviously concerned about whether there is going to be production tax credit or not. But in my view whether there is a production tax credit or not, the combined 2017 and 2018 years I think will be pretty good for us. There is no production tax credit, my expectations would be that the amount of wind that you see get build in 2017 would be below, but we would otherwise have seen and what we have seen in the last couple of years but I think that’s only a temporary blip before 2018 starts to coming back. The economics for wind and honestly economics for solar from the customer standpoint are very attractive today. With the PTC and with the ITC for solar, they are very attractive without the 30% ITC when you get out to the 2018, 2019 time frame and we believe that for wind they will be very attractive even without the PTC by the end of the decade. So customers are aware of that. There is obviously some uncertainty about the clean power plant but I think that uncertainty is actually playing in our favor. People want to take action early. Julien Dumoulin Smith Great. Two further quick clarification. Your credit expectations here for S&P and Moody’s, what are your expectations for financing in 2016 here? You obviously are well within the range on both just be very clear about this. John Ketchum Yes. Julien, for financing activity in 2016 we continue to evaluate where we are from a CapEx standpoint. We still have another quarter of wind origination to go. We’ve had strong cash flow growth as well. We’ve got some other levers within the portfolio that we are looking at a couple of balance sheet optimization opportunities. Kind of long way of saying that we are still working on framing up exactly what that’s going to look like. But — Julien Dumoulin Smith Perhaps to be more specific the projections of 26% for instance for S&P did –that does not contemplate incremental equity or just — I know it is a moving target given the amount of the size of the CapEx budget but — John Ketchum Yes. We don’t know yet. There are factors that play again having the strong quarter of origination on wind at 725 megawatts looking to see how we come in the fourth quarter, looking to see how we finish up from a cash flow perspective and then looking at 2016 what the CapEx need might be and then looking at the other levers within the existing portfolio and some of the optimization things that are on our list. Obviously, the goal is to keep any equity issuance down as low as possible if we have to do something. Julien Dumoulin Smith And last quick one. Where do you stand on merchant divestment specifically taxes? Just curious what your thoughts are broadly about how commodities activity is it from wind project or combined cycle taxes? Armando Pimentel Yes, So Julien, I will start out with the general comments you guys will ho-hum too but I mean it’s true. I mean we look at their portfolio, our entire merchant portfolio every year and try to determine whether it’s still making sense for from a shareholder perspective to retain those merchant assets based on our view which is not necessarily the market view. Based on our view of what we think those markets are. We are gone through process in Texas on the Mountain, Forney, I warned folks all the time. We’ve gone through processes before on our merchant assets. And that doesn’t necessarily mean at the end of the day that we divest those assets. We sometimes go through the process and we retain those assets. But we believe that there maybe folks that are very interested in those assets. They have been great assets for us. We believe that there might be shareholder base or other bases out there that believe those assets are worth more to them than they would be to our shareholders. So we are going to take a look at that very seriously here over the next couple of months. And if we decide that it make sense then we will likely make the decision to divest but those should not be the — I know there has been a focus on those assets; those should not be the only assets that investors and analysts believe that we are looking at. I mean we look at all of our assets every year and determine whether it make sense for us to continue to hold them. Those are just honestly the ones that are public at this point. Operator Our next question is from Steve Fleishman. Your line is open. Steve Fleishman Hi, good morning. Just on the curious kind of the latest update on the gas reserve additions in Florida and just with the environment continuing to maybe get more attractive to buy reserves. How are you thinking about that potential? Eric Silagy Yes, Steve, this is Eric Silagy. So we are with gas prices coming down we will see how the market plays out but we think there is going to be opportunities. We are going to be very judicious and how we approach this and making sure that we are locking in long term positive deals for customers. So we have a program that’s underway right now at in one play in Oklahoma and that’s going well. And we got origination teams they are talking to local counterparties on opportunities. So I think we will see how everything plays out in the market from gas perspective but right now we see this is presenting actually some potential opportunities. Steve Fleishman Okay and then separate question just on NEP, maybe Jim is there anyway to get some color on your kind of intension with this buyback in terms of just is it something where you wanted to be in right now doing, is it something that’s kind of there if there is another kind of attack on YieldCos so to speak or just how should we think about the buyback? Jim Robo So I think I probably should limit what I said to what I said in my remarks, Steve, but I am not going to lay– certainly not going to layout prices at which we are buying or prices at which we are interesting in doing the ATM. That’s part of the thinking behind this is to give us flexibility to issue units when we think the price supports new issuance and so in the buyback, if there is the opportunity to show our commitment to the partnership by buying unit when we think they are undervalued. I think it’s as simple as that. Steve Fleishman Okay. So kind of by low still high, kind of new contact, okay, make sense. And then lastly just could you maybe give us any color, latest thoughts on the Hawaiian Electric deal? Jim Robo Sure. So we continue to work hard to get the final hurdle which is state regulatory approval in Huawei. We have recently gotten couple of interveners to either fall away or announce their support. And I was very pleased that the IBW announced their support for the transaction last week. And we continue to work it. I think my expectations based on timing right now is that we are not going to get any kind of decision from the PSC until next year and so we are going to continue to work it and continue to talk to the parties to try to get it across the finish line. Operator We will take our next question from Paul Ridzon. Your line is open. Paul Ridzon One of the drivers you discussed that the reduction in year’s earnings was drop off of state tax incentives. How does that unfold over the next several quarters? And was that just a concentration risk of you adding some assets in a particular region? John Ketchum A couple things there, Paul. One was just pushing part of a CITC project out into the next year and then the second was when you look back at our Q3 results for 2014, I think we had about 500 megawatts of projects that we had built in Okalahoma, only had about 100 megawatts this quarter and so Oklahoma has that state ITC so it is really combination of those two factors. Paul Ridzon And then at FPL, it looks though we are actually seeing some modest demand destruction as you think about rate case and decoupling is on the table or maybe an annual look for true-up and how are you thinking about that strategically? Eric Silagy Paul, this is Eric Silagy. No, we are not looking any decoupling again if you look overall at both our performance as well as the fact that the state continues to grow, we feel very good about our prospects going forward. Paul Ridzon But something you are trying to put into your regulatory strategy? Eric Silagy Probably how we look at moving forward, our base– our rights are set on a projection of test year, and so it will take a do account but we have strong customer growth coming in as well as more modest growth from a standpoint of usage or potentially negative usage. So that both of those factors get factored into looking at what our revenue requirements are. Paul Ridzon Then lastly there is a large swing at corporate kind of was that just timing issue or could you delve a little bit deeper into what’s going on? John Ketchum Yes. Some of that as we had mentioned or I mentioned in the script was the consolidating tax adjustments and with PMI the customer supply in trading business. Having a good year, apportionment factors they are used by many states are revenue based. And so that can kind of skew results in a more favorable tax, jurisdictions that’s probably one of the main drivers there. Paul Ridzon So now these are mark shift, look for improvement going forward? John Ketchum That’s something that’s really depended on the business mix and kind of where our revenues are coming from, what state, so it is not something you can necessarily count on quarter-to-quarter. Operator We will take our next question from Jonathan Arnold. Your line is open. Jonathan Arnold Hey, good morning, guys. Quick on so Jim you mentioned a couple of times I think you called the chaos in the YieldCos space. And I think you stressed you see that helping you from a competitive positioning standpoint in the development business. My question I guess do you see some M&A opportunities rolling out of that situation? Is that really that’s your focus here is more about winning new projects yourself. Jim Robo Jonathan, we have always felt that organic development creates more value than project acquisition do or frankly even overall company acquisition unless it’s pretty unique situation. So our focus is going to be on organic growth. We have always had project acquisitions as part of our mix and we will continue — I do think there will be some opportunities here. There is — I think there is a real question about whether folks are going to realize that when they are selling projects that they are not going to get the same kind of value that they perhaps would have gotten four months ago. And there is also we are very picky about the quality of the project when we are looking at from a project acquisition standpoint. So I would expected to be more opportunities there than it would have been a few months ago, but honestly our focus is really on the — and I think the most high value added opportunity for our shareholder is to be focused on growing our organic capabilities. Jonathan Arnold It sounds like priorities are organic then possibly projects and last on the list sort of whole portfolio company type things. Jim Robo I think that’s fair prioritization, Jon. Jonathan Arnold Okay, thank you. And then just one other thing on Canadian wind. Anything to report on the recent Ontario RFP and what are your line of side or some success there and when we would hear about it in the backlog? Armando Pimentel Jonathan, it is Armando. I think the first realistically the first that we would hear about it would be very late this year. And that’s the very earliest. My expectations are actually that we would hear sometime first quarter of next year. We feel good about the bids that we put in. I always want to put things in context all right I mean Canada or Ontario is looking for roughly I think it is 500 or 600 megawatts in total of renewables right so I mean we wouldn’t think that — nobody should think it is 5,000 megawatts bid or something, I mean it’s still reasonable, it is still chunky but with 500 or 600 megawatts we have several projects that we think are very competitive in the process the way it’s laid out. And so we are hopeful that we are going to get some of that 500 or 600 megawatts. Operator Our next question is from Michael Lapides. Your line is open. Michael Lapides Hey, Jim, coming back to M&A a little bit but maybe a different angle. How are you looking at — you have grown your midstream business mean you got Mountain Valley and Sable Trail in the development process, you did the NET midstream deal down at NEP. How has the share price reaction in the midstream market and valuations for privately midstream assets, how is that impacted the opportunity set that maybe available for either NE or NEP to add via M&A more midstream and how do you think about how you would structure that? Whether you would want it up at NE level or down at the NEP level? Jim Robo So, Michael, I think when I think about what we are doing in the pipeline space, it is really focused on very long-term contracted pipeline assets and things that we think look a lot like our renewables business in terms of the quality of the counterparty, the consistency of cash flows and the ability for us to deploy our development expertise against those things. And so we have no interest in adding any midstream assets that would have any kind of commodity risk to the portfolio. We would be focused again first and foremost on organic development of long term contracted pipeline opportunities. And that’s really what the team is focused on. I think the NET deal was a very unique deal and that it was a very long-term contract and set of assets, there are very few of those really out in the out market place if there was one that would become available we would look at it. And I think honestly would depend on the capital markets and where we think the most efficient financing would be where would be put it, whether we put it NE or NEP but just again our focus there in the pipeline space is first and foremost on organic development. Operator Our next question is with Brian Chin. Your line is open. Brian Chin Hi, good morning. I think when you guys talked about others using the balance sheet and levering up to buy other companies and then you put that in the context of buying shares at NEP and continuing to execute on your wind resources and your regulated opportunities. I mean you guys have made pretty strong and consistent statements about where you think your capital deployment ought to be. I guess within that context what I am curious about is how close are you with regards to looking at NEP versus say NextEra shares as a good place to deploy capital and execute on buybacks. Can you give us a little bit of color how you frame it and are the two relatively close in your opinion? I mean obviously you think NEP is the more interesting place at the moment but can you give us a sense of how you frame that discussion and on what conditions you might consider deploying capital towards NE buyback as opposed to NEP? Jim Robo Well, I said this last month I think Brian that I relative to any NE I think NEP is extremely undervalued right now. I think our announcements today are pretty consistent with that. Brian Chin I agree. But just any sense of color as to how you frame it Jim that would be great? Jim Robo We look at a variety of metrics and kind of the classic metrics and we think about it in terms of fundamentally in terms of future cash flows. Operator This does conclude today’s NextEra Energy and NextEra Energy Partners 2015 third quarter earnings conference call. You may all now disconnect your lines. Thank you and everyone have a great day.