Tag Archives: parties

Northwest Natural Gas’ (NWN) CEO Gregg Kantor on Q3 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Northwest Natural Gas Company (NYSE: NWN ) Q3 2015 Earnings Conference Call November 3, 2015, 11:00 am ET Executives Nikki Sparley – IR Gregg Kantor – CEO Greg Hazelton – SVP & CFO Analysts Spencer Joyce – Hilliard Lyons Operator Good day and welcome to the Northwest Natural Gas Third Quarter Earnings Conference Call. All participants will be in listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions]. After today’s presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. [Operator Instructions]. Please note that this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Nikki Sparley. Please go ahead. Nikki Sparley Thank you, Kasia. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our third quarter 2015 earnings call. As a reminder some of the things that will be said this morning contains forward-looking statements. They are based on management’s assumptions, which may or may not come true. You should refer to the language at the end of our press release for the appropriate cautionary statements and also our SEC filings for additional information. We expect to file our 10-Q later today. As mentioned, this teleconference is being recorded and will be available on our website following the call. Please note these conference calls are designed for the financial community. If you are an investor and have questions, please contact me directly at (503) 721-2530. Media may contact, Melissa Moore, at (503) 220-2436. Speaking this morning are Gregg Kantor, Chief Executive Officer and Greg Hazelton, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Kantor and Mr. Hazelton have some opening remarks and then will be available to answer your questions. Also joining us today are other members of our executive team, who are available to help answer any questions you may have. With that, I will turn it over to Mr. Kantor for his opening remarks. Gregg Kantor Thanks, Nikki. Good morning, everyone and welcome to our third quarter earnings call. I’ll start today with highlights from the period and then turn it over to Greg Hazelton to cover the financial details. Finally, I will wrap up the call with a brief update on our regulatory proceedings and our priorities for the remainder of the year. Let me begin with the quarterly financial results. We had a solid performance with higher utility margin and lower expenses in the period. Margin gains were largely from customer growth which increased to 1.5% from 1.3% last year. This growth rate translated into an additional 10,500 new customers on a rolling 12-month basis. On the expense front, we reduced O&M levels by almost $1 million on a quarter-over-quarter basis and I’m proud of the work we have done this year to control costs after the negative financial impacts of a record warm winter and a significant regulatory disallowance. As we look forward, there are several factors that suggest our local economy continues to experience solid growth. For example, in Portland Metro area about 40,000 new jobs have been added year-over-year which equates to over a 3% increase. And Oregon’s average wage today is the highest it has been relative to the national average in at least a generation according to the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis. Another metric of economic growth obviously is the unemployment rate which in September fell to 5.2% in the Portland Metro area from 5.9% last year. Also in the period home sales were up about 25% in Portland and average home prices increased by almost 6% compared to the third quarter of 2014. In Vancouver, Washington, home sales were up about 13% in the quarter compared to last year and average home prices were up just over 8%. All of these factors are signs that our local economy continues to move in the right direction. Due to following natural gas prices over the past year, we filed and received approval for a 7% rate reduction for Oregon residential customers, and a 14% reduction for Washington residential customers during the quarter. This decrease means our customers will be paying less for their natural gas this winter than they have in the past 15 years. Currently natural gas has up to a 60% price advantage over electricity and oil for home heating in our service territory. And this price advantage coupled with the environmental benefits of natural gas continue to boost our competitive position. Let me comment now on two other developments during the quarter. First, in September the Oregon commission adopted an all party settlement that determines how we would recover cost associated with seven wells we drilled under our amended gas reserves agreement. This $10 million additional investment, like our original investment with Encana, provides a long-term price protection for Oregon utility customers. Under the order, this investment will be recovered at a rate of about $0.47 per therm. We are pleased with this collaborative settlement and the positive conclusion to the dock. Going forward, we are working with the commission and other gas utilities in Oregon on a policy docket that will explore commodity hedging, including what world gas reserve should play. Finally this morning, I’m proud to report in September we learned that for that sixth time in nine years, we ranked first in the Annual J.D. Power Residential Customer Satisfaction Study for natural gas utilities in the west. In addition, we have strengths among the top two highest scoring utilities in the nation eight out of the last 10 years. These results reflect our continued commitment to operate reliably, safely, and with high quality customer service in the communities we serve. With that, let me turn it over to Greg to cover the financial details. Greg Hazelton Thank you, Gregg, and good morning everyone. Turning to our results for the third quarter we reported improved performance with a consolidated net loss of $6.7 million or $0.24 per share versus a loss of $8.7 million or $0.32 per share for the same period last year. As a reminder, a majority of our business was seasonal in nature. And the third quarter typically realized the loss due to decreased heating requirements impacting customer usage. Year-to-date earnings through September were $0.88 per share on net income of $24 million compared to $1.11 per share in net income of $30.2 million for the same period last year. As previously discussed in the first quarter, the company recorded a $15 million pretax or $9.1 million after tax environmental disallowance related to the February OPUC Order. This charge is included in O&M expense. Excluding the charge, year-to-date consolidated earnings were $1.21 per share or $33.1 million. This reflects a $2.9 million increase in net income from last year primarily driven by higher utility margins and an increase in other income. At our utility, we reported a net loss of $7.5 million for the quarter, an improvement of $1.3 million from the prior year. Results were driven by higher utility margin, lower O&M expense, and decreased interest expense. For the nine months period, utility net income was $23.1 million or a decrease of $6.4 million from last year, mainly due to the environmental charge. Excluding the disallowance, utility net income increased $2.7 million year-over-year. Positive year-to-date drivers included higher utility margins and increase in other income, lower interest expense; these were partially offset by an increase in O&M expense. Utility margin for the quarter increased $1.5 million driven by customer growth and gains from gas cost incentive sharing. And as you may recall, utility margin for the year-to-date period was impacted by warm weather in our service territory during our peak heating season in the first quarter. Overall average temperatures for the first nine months of the year were 15% warmer than 2014, and 22% warmer than normal. Total gas deliveries decreased almost 10% and gross revenues were down 4% during the year-to-date period. Although our utility margin is generally protected from the weather, we do have about 11% of our customers in Washington who do not have weather normalization, and 7% of our Oregon customers are left out of the weather normalization program. In spite of the weather driven decline in volumes and gross revenues, net margins increased $2.7 million mainly due to continued customer growth and gains from gas cost, incentive sharing mechanism, as we took the advantage of lower gas prices to achieve savings for our customers. Moving to our gas storage segment, net income for the quarter increased approximately $800,000 compared to the prior year. The increase was driven by higher operating revenues from slightly higher contract prices for the 2015/2016 gas storage year and a reduction in operating expenses at our Gill Ranch facility. For the first nine months, net income for gas storage was over $800,000, an increase of nearly $400,000 from the prior year. Results included a reduction in operating expenses and interest expense, partially offset by a decrease in operating revenues due to lower contract prices during the first quarter of 2015 at Gill Ranch. As Gregg mentioned earlier with regards to consolidated O&M, as a result of our cost control initiatives undertaken to partially offset the environmental write-off and record warm weather, we achieved a decrease of over $900,000 in O&M expense versus last year. For the nine months period, however excluding the regulatory disallowance, O&M expense increased $3.4 million. The increase was primarily due to utility payroll and benefit increases which included a new Union labor contract that was effective June 1, 2014. Partially offsetting the increase in payroll costs were lower repair and power cost at our Gill Ranch facility. For the first nine months, other income increased $4.9 million compared to last year, primarily due to the recognition of $5.3 million of equity earnings on deferred environmental expenditures as a result of the February environmental order. Over the last 12 months, the utility redeemed $40 million of debentures without reissuance using environmental insurance proceeds to pay down the maturing long-term debt balances and defer new issuances of long-term debt. Consequently interest expense decreased nearly $700,000 for the quarter and $3 million for the first nine months of the year. Cash flow from operating activities for the first nine months of 2015 was $173 million compared to $215 million a year ago. Last year’s cash flow was significantly enhanced by $102 million of insurance recoveries partially offset by other working capital changes. Finally, today the company has reaffirmed its 2015 guidance for reported earnings in the range of $1.77 to $1.97 per share which includes the $15 million pretax charge. Our adjusted guidance for 2015 excluding the charge remains unchanged at $2.10 per share to $2.30 per share. The company’s guidance assumes continued customer growth from our utility segment, average weather conditions going forward, slow recovery of the gas storage market, and no significant changes in prevailing legislative and regulatory policies or outcomes. With that, I will turn it back over to Gregg for his concluding remarks. Gregg Kantor Thanks, Greg. At this point in the year, our focus is two-fold. First, we will be moving toward a decision on our open environmental compliance proceedings. And at the same time, we will continue to work necessary to advance our growth initiatives. As you know, in the first quarter, we received the Commission’s decision on our environmental cost recovery mechanism and the application of an earnings test to environmental expenditures. As part of the decision, the OPUC required a compliance filing that describes how we would implement their order. We submitted a revised compliance filing at the end of September and we’re currently working through the review process with OPUC staff and other parties. We believe the two main issues in question are whether the company is required to forego recovery of interest on the original regulatory disallowance and on how certain costs are allocated between Oregon and Washington. The filing will be subject to final commission approval which we expect early in 2016. On our growth initiatives, we’ve been working with the Oregon Commission and parties on a Carbon Solutions Program under Oregon’s greenhouse gas reduction legislation. As we’ve discussed before, Senate Bill 844 allows the OPUC to incent natural gas utilities to undertake projects that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Our first proposal was submitted in June and is designed to further the use of combined heat and power in Oregon, a goal that the state has had for a number of years. Under our CHP proposal, industrial and commercial customers in the market could submit CHP projects for consideration. In our view, this is an important effort that could provide a significant carbon reduction benefit for our customers and for Oregon. The OPUC has set a schedule for review of our CHP filing that calls for a decision early in 2016. And we’re currently working with parties on a number of items including the proper level of incentives and how to measure the carbon emissions. Now let me give you a quick update on the potential expansion projects at our underground storage facility in Mist, Oregon. As you know, last December, we received approval from Portland General Electric to move forward with the permitting and land acquisition work required for the expansion project. The project would require no notice storage services to PGE’s — I’m sorry to provide no notice storage service to PGE’s natural gas fired generating plants at Fort Westwood. It would include a new reservoir, providing up to 25 billion cubic feet of available storage, an additional compressor station, and a new pipeline. In April, we submitted an application to the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council for an amendment to our existing Mist site certificate, a step required to support the expansion. And in early October, we held a public open house with the local community near the expansion site and received positive feedback from attendees. The next step in the process will occur when the Department of Energy and Siting Council publish a proposed order later this year. Between now and the issuance of that proposed order, we will continue to work with both organizations to address any questions about our filing. And our team also continues to work on obtaining other required permits and property rights. Assuming successful and timely completion of those items, the current estimated cost of the expansion is approximately $125 million with a potential in-service date in the 2018/2019 winter season, again depending on the permitting process and the construction schedule. I will end my comments today by noting that in quarter, our Board approved a dividend increase making this the 60th consecutive year of increasing dividends paid. It is a record of which we are very proud. And with that thanks for joining us this morning and now I will open it up for questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator We will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions]. Our first question comes from Spencer Joyce of Hilliard Lyons. Please go ahead. Spencer Joyce Hi good morning guys. Great quarter here. Gregg Kantor Thank you. Thank you, good morning Spencer. Spencer Joyce Just a couple of real quick ones from me. First want to go back and talk about the $13 million of environmental cost that we’re going to be able to start recovering in Oregon, I guess beginning just a couple of days ago on November 1. I guess first question is this going to be strictly a cash flow statement item or will we see this flow also through the income statement part one there. And then part two, I guess this recovery subject to a final review. Are we pretty comfortable with the $13 million or can you kind of put odds on the likelihood we see some change to that number? Greg Hazelton Spencer, this is Greg Hazelton. I will take those questions in order. First of all the recovery of the $13 million, we will see an increase in revenue for that amount and you’ll see an offsetting increase in expense or amortization. As we have reported as an operating expense as we amortize the deferred balance. So the net-net would be it will be a positive cash flow perspective but net zero from an income or net income perspective. Spencer Joyce Okay, perfect. That’s what somewhat what I assume there. Greg Hazelton Sure. Now we’re collecting the $13 million which has been authorized this is not something that’s subject to refund, this is something that we’re collecting amortizing those balances any adjustments to collections on a — of deferred balances would be done on a perspective basis as we go through each calendar year. Gregg Kantor And once it gets put into the PGA, we’re collecting it has — those are dollars that have been approved for collection by the commission and there is no second look at it, right. Spencer Joyce Okay, perfect. I guess totally separately jumping up to the O&M lines, a real nice quarter here sounds like you’ve got a couple of cost tailwinds there. I would expect some of those to perhaps show up in Q4 and may be into early next year as well any color there, I know it’s somewhat baked into guidance. But I know previous quarters, we have talked a little bit about some increased cost or maintenance cost or some of the storage facilities, it seems like that may be unwinding a bit, but just any additional color to help us model that O&M over the next few quarters? Greg Hazelton Yes I think may be a couple of things would be helpful here. Gill Ranch, we had about $1.8 million recorded last year on the storage segment which increased Gill Ranch’s O&M which we wouldn’t expect to be repeated this year or something that would be recurring. As we think about O&M or generally, we have implemented cost controls to try to offset some of the impact for weather and the write-off, frankly coming off ’14, which was actually a pretty, we had a pretty low level of O&M expense that year based on FTEs and so forth. So we’re coming off a pretty low base. From a budgeting perspective, we actually expect it to be up fairly significantly year-over-year in the 7% area. In fact that we’ve held it to relatively close to flat year-over-year is acknowledgement of the effort that we’ve taken this year which are probably not sustainable next year. At some point, we have to have — we have to adjust staffing, we have to reflect increases in cost that are baked into third-party expenditures and other things. So I would say if you look at our — if you look year-over-year, if you think our O&M of $121 million which is reported year-to-date and we adjust out of that the about $16 million in write-off, environmental write-off and other adjustments. And then, if we look at some of the baked in increases that we had to offset which included bargaining unit labor increases and compensation increases. Again we’ve kept that flat relative to last year. So that in total that gets you somewhere in the $4 million plus area in terms of savings that we’ve been able to achieve which are baked into our forecast numbers. Spencer Joyce Okay, perfect, great color there. That’s all I had. Thanks guys. Operator [Operator Instructions]. Gregg Kantor Okay, doesn’t seem to be any additional questions. I want to end by thanking you all again for joining us this morning and for your interest in our company. We appreciate it. Take care. Greg Hazelton Thank you. Operator The conference is now concluded. Thank you for attending today’s presentation. You may now disconnect. 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!

Misguided, Flawed D.C. PSC Decision Will Not Derail The Exelon-Pepco Merger

Summary On August 25, the Public Service Commission of D.C., led by Chairwoman Kane, denied the Exelon-Pepco merger application; Pepco shares plunged 16.5%. The application review process lacked fairness, public interest factors misconstrued by the commission, and Chairwoman Kane failed to hold good faith negotiations. Exelon is likely to pursue legal action, and is in a good position to prevail. Public Service Commission of D.C. Denies The Exelon-Pepco Merger Application In what is being called one of the most misguided and inherently flawed decisions in the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia’s 102-year history, the Commission denied the application for the proposed merger of Exelon (NYSE: EXC ) and Pepco (NYSE: POM ). The Commission, led by Chairwoman Betty Ann Kane, issued a press release and a summary of the decision suggesting the Commission held a thorough proceeding that began with the initial application on June 18, 2014. Over 14 months later, after reviewing submissions and comments and holding hearings, the Commission decided to deny the application and declared that “this decision is forever.” Unfortunately for Chairwoman Kane, such a bold statement is not based on fact, and exceeds the established authority of the Commission. (click to enlarge) (Source: Public Service Commission of D.C. website ) Since announcing the $6.8 billion transaction on April 30, 2014, Exelon and Pepco collectively have spent a tremendous amount of resources to secure all required regulatory approvals, and until August 25, had been successful in meeting the demands of all stakeholders in various jurisdictions. In order to close the transaction, Exelon has had to negotiate complex agreements with local regulatory agencies and commit to additional funding initiatives that total in the hundreds of millions, and has had to agree to other conditions. Through this lengthy process, Exelon and Pepco received regulatory approval from all of the following agencies: Virginia, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The only agency to deny the application was the District of Columbia, on August 25. (Source: Exelon Investor Presentation, April 30, 2014) Following the unusual and terse decision by the Commission, Exelon has announced that it is reviewing all of its options, and there are many options available to the company. The outcome of the Exelon-Pepco merger is far from over, and will likely lead to a lawsuit filed by Exelon against the Public Service Commission of D.C. A lawsuit by the company would have a very good chance of succeeding, which may lead to a negotiated settlement with the Commission. A negotiated settlement was always the option that was in the best interest of all parties, including the Commission, ratepayers and community activists. However, Chairwoman Kane’s unwavering political ideology and personal preference for dealing with the existing ownership and managerial structure of Pepco ultimately prevented the outcome that is in the public’s best interest. The very troubling aspects of the flawed decision by the Commission will likely be the center of attention over the next several weeks, and will be scrutinized in the Courts. Among the most egregious missteps by the Commission include: A Deeply Flawed Process in Reviewing the Application : The Commission decided early on that it did not favor the merger for reasons discussed at length here , and the proceedings held were merely a formality for a decision that had been made months ago. Rather than holding fair and objective proceedings, the Commission, working closely with the Office of People’s Counsel of D.C. , delayed as long as possible before issuing its final ruling that it had determined long ago with the hope that another jurisdiction or a legal action may unravel the transaction. This did not happen, so the Commission obscured their biased and subjective decision under a “public interest” theory. A deeper understanding of the public interest in the District of Columbia shows that the merger is a tremendous opportunity to help a vast number of poor and middle class inner city families. Commissioner Willie Phillips acknowledged this when he stated, “I am disappointed in the loss of many opportunities that could have achieved benefits for our local communities and across the region.” (click to enlarge) (Source: Public Service Commission of D.C. website) The Commission’s Reasoning to Support Decision is Inconsistent and Unsound, and Does Not Reflect the Economic Reality in the District of Columbia : The Commission refers to its statutory obligation and the seven public interest factors that must be considered and weighted to reach its decision, but it fails to acknowledge the economic reality of the District, which is essential in the first public interest factor. The District’s government, public officials, and regulators have continually failed to address the needs of inner city minorities, and the Commission’s August 25th decision is another example of this failure to serve in the public interest. Commissioner Willie Phillips would be the first to acknowledge this significant shortfall of the District’s government. We are surprised that Commissioner Joanne Doddy Fort does not also recognize the overwhelming lack of commitment by the Mayor and public officials to improving the lives of inner city minorities. Exelon’s commitment to local communities would provide substantial resources to those in need, and it is inexplicable that an activist Chairwoman Kane would allow her political ideology to prevail over the public interest. For example, in Maryland alone, the company agreed to spend “$66 million for residential rate credits, and $43.2 million for energy efficiency initiatives – 20 percent… dedicated to limited-income programs… $14.4 million in Green Sustainability Funds for Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties, and $4 million for sustainable energy workforce development programs.” The District has the ability to work with Exelon to provide similar initiatives for its citizens, but has thus far failed to make the commitment. The Commission’s Lack of Willingness to Negotiate in Good Faith and Failure to Act in the Public Interest : It is highly unusual for a single agency to outright deny an application for a transaction without holding significant negotiations with the applicants. The Commission merely dismisses the discussions and indicates “there was no settlement brought to the Commission that would have evidenced general agreement on those mitigating factors which would have satisfied the concerns of the parties.” Its stance on a settlement shows there was not a sincere attempt to engage Exelon and work together to the benefit of the public, ratepayers, and local communities. We believe that it is unlikely that the Commission’s decision will stand in a court of law, and in our view, Exelon will be successful in challenging the inherently flawed process of the Commission in reaching the erroneous decision. Shortly after the decision was announced, Exelon responded , “We continue to believe our proposal is in the public interest and provides direct immediate and long-term benefits to customers, enhances reliability and preserves our role as a community partner. We will review our options with respect to this decision and will respond once that process is complete.” It’s possible that the two sides will still reach a settlement prior to lengthy court proceedings, particularly since the Commission was deeply divided in its initial decision, and many of the flaws are now being exposed. Potential Outcomes for Shareholders of Pepco Pepco’s stock is now trading at $23.22 per share, and is up over 3% today. In our view, Exelon will file with the Commission within 30 days to reconsider its decision, and from there, if unable to reach a settlement with the Commission, the company will pursue legal action to have decision overturned. The best-case scenario is obviously a negotiated settlement, as the transaction would close relatively quickly, perhaps 30-45 days from now. But we think the probability of this outcome occurring is low (~10%). It is unknown how long a legal action would take, but we think Exelon has a strong case for the aforementioned reasons and would ultimately prevail, although this would likely happen in 2016. In our view, this scenario has an approximately 60% probability of occurring. (click to enlarge) (Source: Nasdaq) If Exelon were to suffer a defeat in the courts or decided to abandon the transaction if negotiations failed (30% probability), we would expect Pepco to trade anywhere from $19 to $21 per share. Given these potential scenarios, we will not add to our position at the current price. However, Pepco will continue to pay a dividend, and we will re-evaluate once Exelon decides on which option it will pursue to overcome this recent setback. Disclosure: I am/we are long POM. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

UIL Holdings’ (UIL) CEO Jim Torgerson on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

UIL Holdings Corporation (NYSE: UIL ) Q2 2015 Earnings Conference Call August 06, 2015 10:00 AM ET Executives Susan Allen – Vice President, Investor Relations Jim Torgerson – President and Chief Executive Officer Rich Nicholas – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Analysts Andy Levy – Avon Capital Caroline Bone – Deutsche Bank Eric Guo – Gabelli & Company Andrew Weisel – Macquarie Capital Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates Andy Levy – Avon Capital Operator Good morning. My name is Bobby Jane. I will be your conference operator for today’s call. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the UIL Holdings Second Quarter 2015 Earnings Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers’ remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] I will now turn the call over to Susan Allen. Susan Allen Thank you, Bobby Jane and good morning everyone. Thank you for joining us to discuss UIL Holdings second quarter 2015 earnings results. I’m Susan Allen, Vice President of Investor Relations. Participating on the call is Jim Torgerson, UIL’s President, Chief Executive Officer and Rich Nicholas, UIL’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. If you do not have a copy of our press release or presentation for today’s call, they are on our website at www.uil.com. During today’s call, we will make various forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Safe Harbor provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Significant factors that could cause results to differ from those anticipated are described in our earnings release and filings with the SEC. With that said, I’ll turn the call over to Jim Torgerson. Jim Torgerson Thanks Susan. Good morning everybody. Second quarter turned out to be pretty good for us as we have seen from our earnings release, the net income was 15.8 million or $0.28 per diluted share that was compared to the 9.3 or $0.16 diluted share in ’14. Year-to-date, for the first six months, we had net income of 73.4 million, which was $1.28 per diluted share and that was compare to the 64.8 million or $1.13 a share in the first half of ’14. There were a number of one-time or non-recurring items during both 2015 and 2014 merger-related expenses with our pending merger with you Iberdrola had an impact and slight impact in the first– in the quarter, but mainly more year-to-date. And then again in 2014, we have the now terminated proposed acquisition of the Philadelphia Gas Works, which have which had an impact in 2014. We also recognize the reserves related to the transmission, return equity related to the proceedings at FERC and we had booked some charges mainly in the first quarter of 2015, but also found in the 2014 and there was a minor adjustment in this most recent quarter. We also had which is not shown as a non-recurring item and we did have an IRS tax audit adjustments negative about $0.02 a share which Rich will explain, but with all that said after these non-recurring items, not including the tax adjustment, the quarter was actually up $0.03 or about 12% and year-to-date for the first six months were $0.05 a share about 4%. Turning to page six, I’m going to talk about the Iberdrola, USA and UIL merger here are the some of the timelines and what’s been happening. We received a Hart-Scott-Rodino process that was completed, pretty quickly after we filed back in the end of March and on that one. The Federal Communications Commission, we got approval there. FERC approved in early part of June. The Committee on Foreign Investments, the review was completed and early on, so those have all been completed. Connecticut Public Utility Regulatory Authority has aimed you all aware in their draft final order graph decision, denied the request. And so we actually hold the request and terminated that proceeding and then filed a new application on July 31. Now, that is still subjected to the 120-day time frame in order for the PURA to give us a decision. So we would expect a decision in late November. Massachusetts DPU, we filed in the end of March, the DPU really it’s kind of I say suspended the filing that we will be making supplemental testimony that will be filed very shortly that will reflect what we filed in Connecticut, but really on our prorated basis more or less with what we have in Connecticut, reflecting the size of our assets of Berkshire Gas, which is about 5% of total in Massachusetts. We also filed our EBITDA filed the S4 and then our preliminary proxy which is a combined document on July 17. We are waiting comments from the SEC on that pulmonary filing– pulmonary proxy. Once we get through the SEC filings and everything is approved and we can schedule the shareholder vote. I want to go over a few things about this but the new application entailed and some of it in the commitments we made. The start, we have a rate credit. We will be providing the customers that would be $20 million and we are putting three options for the surbs decide on because we didn’t get feedback of their living for long-term benefit. So one of the options is closure, just provider rate credit upfront for customers, second one was to do it all ten years which nominally would be $26 million but the present value is $20 million and also a third option which would be to mimic what would be a reduction in rates something they’ve talked about, amortize that over like a 30 year timeframe. It still comes back to a net present value of $19 million to $20 million. But the rate credit would be like $1.5 million a year over the 30-year time frame. Further value is still the same, but it allows for a little longer term look at and benefits that could be provided to customers. We also put in for suggested distribution base rate freeze be till January 1, 2018 and will be to go into effect for the two gas companies in Connecticut, Southern Connecticut Gas and Connecticut Natural Gas. And for United Illuminating, our electric distribution business, new rates couldn’t go into effect until January 1, 2017. We would make a contribution to the clean energy fund, that would be $2 million a year for over three years of $6 million, and then a contribution to disaster relief of $1 dollar. And we left that up to appear to decide what the entity or agency that could go to, but we did make some suggestions. We also would accelerate our investment in electric distribution system resiliency, and the plan there was to provide [indiscernible] within six months of our closing the transaction. The opportunities we have for investments in realized and resiliency, and these things such as rising of our [indiscernible] period on to flooding and walls are to again prevent flooding, also some things with microgrids, and some cabling that we could replace to help resiliency. What we would contemplate is the first $15 million of this distribution investments, we would not get the equity return on until the projects are complete, which is expected to be around 2019, and then the subsequent rate case would pick that up. In the meantime, we would request to get the debt recovery and the depreciation. We also suggested that we would accelerate the cast iron and bare steel replacement program for selling Southern Connecticut Gas, doubling it from $11 million to $22 million over the three-year subsequent to the closing. And this will provide a benefit to customers by accelerating that. We would then not get that in the rates until we actually filed that rate case that would be talking about, which would not have rates into effect until these January 1, 2018. Those would provide benefits just because of the present value of not recovering from the cost immediately of about $7 million to customers. Then we’re negotiating a consent order with DEEP to remediate English Station. Our English Station is a plant that we sold back in 2000. It’s in New Haven, and there are PCBs at the site or negotiating with DEEP on the consent order, and the Attorney General, the estimates from DEEP as far as the clean-up costs is about $30 million, we would then undertake that. But again, that’s subject to negotiating our consent order. We also agreed to maintain our high levels of safety and reliability, but also improved customer service metrics now for the customer service metrics. Those would be for the average speed of answer abandon calls and appointments captain the agreement would be that we’ve been approved by 5% over the next three years. Also then we wouldn’t want to maintain the safety leak response in the third party damage leak response third party obviously for gas, it’s the high level that we have today and maintain those levels. From a local management commitment and if you read the PURAs draft decision they want to make sure that there was going to be a focus on local management. We would appoint an individual as President of the Connecticut operations who would come from the existing management team of UIL or one of the UIL utilities and then that individual would be headquartered in Connecticut and at the UIL companies would be head quartered there for at least seven years. We said we would not change the day-to-day management operations of any of the Utilities in Connecticut and there we would had no involuntary terminations of employees except obviously for cause of performance for at least three years following closing. We also said we would hire 150 employees or contractors over three years in Connecticut. This will allow us to do a lot of projects that we have on our plate to begin with mainly transmission project that we’re going to need contractors for and we can fill some our existing positions and looking at those attrition occurs. So the 150 employees are contractors we think it’s good for the stay. Ring-fencing protections that we would implement mainly to of provisions to avoid bankruptcy or adverse conditions that could occur in any of the affiliates, other than the UIL companies that would have — could have an impact on the UIL Utilities and this would involve the creation of a special purpose entity with at least one independent director and implementation of an independent, non-economic interest and the special purpose entity they call it Golden Share. What it really allows is that that individual holding that share would have what amount to be if there was going to be a voluntary bankruptcy of any of the UIL Utilities. And then we also would committed to maintain separate corporate existence and the provision against forming with the funds and some dividend restrictions in the event that any of the utility of drop below investment grade which we don’t anticipate. So as you can see we’ve put forth a lot to the peer of and at big proportionate when we do actually filed within it’s our supplement to make sure that we’re addressing all of the concerns that they raised in the draft decision, which again was pulled. Now, moving on to things that are going on with the UIL, as many of you know, we did acquire 2.5% equity interest in the Kinder Morgan proposed Northeast Energy Direct gas pipeline project. This really commits us to an initial capital investment of up to 80 million and again, it depends on the final pipeline configuration and design. It also committed UIL to taking 70,000 dekatherms a day, which actually, we could reduce that under certain circumstances as others come in and want the capacity on the pipeline and we can release that directly to them and reduce our commitment. We also have an option to acquire an additional up to 12.5% of equity under some limited circumstances and the limited circumstances really relates, if we can’t reduce that 70,000 dekatherms by the time the pipeline goes into operation or even later than that, a couple years after that. Then also, if the electric distribution companies, there is a project that they would get capacity on the pipeline, which then they could release to electric generation projects that you’ve heard about the Nesco proposal that was done. These are things that are going on in New England, mainly in Massachusetts and Connecticut and Rhode Island. But as these projects can come on, we’re — the electric distribution companies get capacity, we can then increase our equity interest in the pipeline as the pipeline within the more capacity to serve these needs. The project, obviously, is going to supply the needs to growing residential, commercial and industrial demand for gas, but also for— it could be a very reliable supplier fuel for the power generation, and this would be again probably under that EDC proposal. And it does provide direct access to the Marcellus and the [Utica] shale. The pipeline will extend about 180 miles, which will be new pipeline from New York through Massachusetts and then into New Hampshire. They will be making a filing with FERC at some point and Kinder Morgan can probably give you a little more details on when that will be, but we understand it should be in late fall or maybe even at the fourth quarter of this year. And then commercial operation is expected by the fourth quarter of 2018. Getting to our gas heating customer additions [indiscernible] we had just under 3,900 through the end of June. We believe we’re still on track and to meet the 12,000, we said we’d get this year. Current home heating prices obviously lower than what they had been and the margin that we customers can get as it has often quite a bit but natural gas is still more cost effective and has more benefits, so we are still seeing a number of conversions and we are confident that we’ll have the 12,000 for the year. Turning to page 11 the transmission ROE proceeding is a lot on this chart. Basically you know that comments— the complaints have been ongoing. We have the three complaint periods with different time frames for a refund periods. We’ve been through this before, but basically the 10.57 base ROE is still being challenged in the subsequent complaints and the timing right now is the hearings were held, the end of June and early July. The Administrative Law Judge decision is expected by the end of 2015 so the FERC decision isn’t expected till end of 2016. The one point here in mid-July, the New England transmission are actually filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for review of the second and third complaint, challenging their first decisions allow hearings on the merits of the second and third compliance. So that will go along with the petition we had to challenge the first complaint. But there was lot of legal activity going on with ROE for FERC. I will turn it over to Rich Nicholas is going to run through the financial results. Rich Nicholas Thank you, Jim and good morning everyone, Thanks for joining us today. On slide 12, we have the tabular results by business segment break out the non-recurring merger and all we reserve it. Jim mentioned earlier and beginning on slide 13 then is the narrative that goes through the various business segments. So looking at Slide 13 and focusing first on the electric distribution, second quarter ’15 earnings kept as compared to the second quarter ’14, it were down about $700,000, but that does include the $1.1 million charge from the IRS audit. By the audit did cover four years from 2009 to 2012, it was a routine audit and those periods are now close and resolved, but it was a of a $0.02 charge in the second quarter as a result from looking year-to-date. Again on electric distribution, a decrease from $25.2 million in ’14 to $21.8 million in 2015 again, which includes the $1.1 million charge from the IRS audit. But higher employee-related expenses depreciation and amortization as a rate base grows and some other operating taxes for things like property taxes, it was offset in part by a rate increase that took place in August of last year was the second year of a two year rate plan for UIL and we so do see some benefit from that. GenConn was up slightly quarter-over-quarter primarily due to billing adjustment, so up above 400,000 quarter-over-quarter. The 12 months rolling at distribution return on equity came in at 9.09% and that compares to our allowed of 9.15%. Turning to the electric transmission segment, earnings there were down as well, both in the quarter and year-to-date. We did recorded additional reserves in the first quarter of this year. To reflect the order run we are hearing from FERC in the first complaint, clarified that the ROE cap was at the project level not at the company level. So on slide 14, you can see the results with or without the reserve adjustments that have been made that’s been the primary driver both in the quarter and year-to-date. Both the reserve and lower ROE now going forward, the 10.57% that came out of the first complete order. Overall excluding the reserves to transmission ROE came in at 11.35% and if you were to include the reserves into 10.98%. Now looking at our gas distribution business, earnings for the quarter $1.4 million compared to a loss of $2.2 million last year and the increase in earnings is primarily due to and we’ve seen lower uncollectible expenses slightly lower corporate charges last year. We had recorded earnings sharing at CNG and we’re not in that position at this point this year. It was offset somewhat by higher O&M expense in the second quarter that we saw, we benefited on the revenue side from the cold weather but as the ground began to thaw and [indiscernible] begin to move we did have additional O&M expense to address leaks in the second quarter and that cost was about to $0.025 a share for the higher O&M. Moving to slide 15, year-to-date for gas distribution increased in earnings certainly benefited by the cold weather in the first quarter. Year-to-date we are almost 13% colder than normal, and almost 3% colder than last year, it was warmer in the second quarter of this year compared to last year, but not big heating degree day loans in the second quarter. So it was actually 16% warmer than normal, didn’t feel like it, but that was the actual data. So the impact of weather, normalized use per customer, customer growth, you can see we’re still benefiting significantly from our customer growth almost $1 million in margin quarter-over-quarter, $3 million year-over-year. Normalized use per customer is pretty stable, actually, a positive 200,000 in the quarter. And you’ll note, particularly on the year-to-date column, there the decoupling adjustment for C&G only with the cold weather in the first quarter, we do have a liability for a refund to customers resulting from that. So the results of all of that on slide 16. Our 12-month average return on equities at the gas companies, Southern Connecticut gas are about 97% to 98% as compared to the allowed 936, and at C&G 945 to 965 as compared to the allowed 918. On a weather adjusted basis, there is no weather adjustment at C&G since we have decoupling, but SCG, as you can see 8.86 to 9.06. The corporate segment where we retained certain corporate costs for interest on Holding company debt, as well as the merger related charges, both from Philadelphia, last year, and for Iberdrola this year are included in the corporate segment. If you were to exclude those merger related expenses, the quarter was essentially flat year-over-year, and year-to-date, we’re actually have $0.03 less of a loss at corporate, primarily due to increased returns on share to capitalize that are held at the Holding company for the benefit of all those subsidiaries. As we look forward now, to the rest of the year, on Slide 17, our earnings guidance, we did reduce the top end of the guidance by $0.05, effectively, reducing the midpoint then by 2.5, primarily result from the higher [indiscernible] then was expected as the gas companies, resulting from the leak repairs due to the cold weather in the first quarter. So if you exclude the non-recurring items, our current guidance is $2.30 to $2.45. And that compares to previously it was 2.30 to 2.50. We did reduce the gas guidance by $0.03 on the upper end. So that it’s now $0.95 to $1.02 versus previously it was $0.95 to $1.05. So with that, I will now hand it back to our operator Bobby Jane for the question-and-answer session. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you very much, sir. [Operator Instructions] We do have one question coming to queue from Andy Levy, Avon Capital. Your line is live. Andy Levy Just a quick question on the merger on the S4, I noticed that you gave 16 guidance and you also gave 2019, I believe our record growth rate out to 19 but I remember if I’m not mistaken that on the original announcement of the merger, you also have 17 guidance as well, but I want to make sure that your reaffirming 17 as well as we did 16 on S4? Jim Torgerson Yes, there’s been no change there. Andy Levy Okay. So it’s 17 is still at 2.59-2.75? Jim Torgerson I don’t have the document from me, but there’s been no change. Andy Levy Okay and then why that was left out of the S4? Jim Torgerson We provided the information that demonstrates the growth rate through the planning period. Andy Levy Okay, thank you and then the other question I had was, just on the makeup of the Board, under the new company. How will that be? Jim Torgerson The event through USA Board there will be two people from the current UIL Board going onto that Board along with me as of CEO and they will retain the people that are there today on the EBITDA USA Board. Andy Levy Was there any change in that when you made your filing, your revised filing in Connecticut is up to same? Jim Torgerson That’s what still it had assets in the agreement. That’s still the same. Andy Levy Okay, got it. Thank you very much. Jim Torgerson Yes, the work Board is the one where we’re going to add one Connecticut person, that’s not the EBITDA US Board though. Andy Levy Okay, I understand. Thank you very much sir. Operator Okay and then our next question comes from line of Caroline Bone, Deutsche Bank. Your line is live. Caroline Bone It’s Deutsche bank but thank you. So I guess I’m wondering if you could talk to bit more about what makes you so confident that you’ll hit that 12,000 customer gas conversion target for the full year. It just seems like you guys are tracking pretty well behind right now. Jim Torgerson Yes, we were looks like July was doing a little bit— quite a bit better. We didn’t release that number yet, but it’s looking better. So think what if we have then we’re having a good enough number of leads going on and a lot of interest in the commercial and industrial, mainly commercial not that not much industrial. Commercial aspects then the main expansions we’ve been doing are moving into other towns that actually we hadn’t even served before like Essex and couple others that [would be] doing some extensive pipeline expansions main expansions that are going to pick up some new customers [indiscernible] one of them. These are all small towns. But we’re hitting some major loads that we can then pick up and pick up some more customers along the way. Mostly commercial, so we’re pretty confident about the 12,000 I mean it’s going to be high, but because of the prices heating on it but our folks seemed very confident right now and I do too. So we had a much better month in July and now we’re getting to the point in the season where people will be looking to convert when they start thinking about their heating for the next winter. Caroline Bone So didn’t have anything to do with that I guess guidance reduction at gas? Jim Torgerson No, the guidance reduction of gas was as Rick said we had to do some maintenance as a result, of the very cold winter. And things spot out we had a bunch, number of gas leaks obviously you have to fixed right away. And that was the charge the other part of the reduction in the guidance was not for gas, but was just really when we look at the $0.02 we had from the federal income tax adjustments. So the other two items. Caroline Bone And I guess just selling gas. I mean I know that utilities in New York City are seeing an uptick in volume of units, people reporting potential gas leak system just in the wake of the Harlem explosion, a year ago and the most recent East village incident and I’m just wondering if you guys are seeing similar trend in your territory? Jim Torgerson We’re not hearing of any more people reporting gas leaks. Obviously, we jump on those as soon as we hear or people call and say that they can smell gas, so that we send people out immediately and we are pretty happy with our results for that we get out there, 98% of the time. We’re there within. You know the minute’s requirement at least 45 minutes in the state. And so we get on that pretty quickly and then we fix all the Class 1 leaks those the ones we have to fix immediately and the Class 2 lakes were getting on those pretty quickly in out too. So we’re not hearing more people calling about it that not than more usual. Caroline Bone Okay that’s good to hear. And then just a minor one on the DC Circuit Court, with regards that they appeal there on the ROE case, when do you guys expect them to rule on that? Jim Torgerson Caroline, I really don’t know. Caroline Bone Okay. Jim Torgerson I wish I did. It still be a while. Caroline Bone Okay. All right, just curious. Well, thanks very much. Jim Torgerson Sure. Operator Our next question comes from the line of Eric Guo at Gabelli & Company. Go ahead. Eric Guo Hi guys, thanks for taking my call. Jim Torgerson Sure. Eric Guo Just trying to get a better idea of the decision process, regarding NED pipeline investment, was this made exclusively at the UIL level or was this decision made with some input from the [indiscernible] guys? Jim Torgerson Well, based on our merger agreement, we — if we’re going to do something that’s outside of what we gave them, the budget, our capital spending plan, we have to get their consent, which we did so we’ve talked to them about it. After our Board then agreed that it made sense, so we did as if we have the consent, but it wasn’t really done not so in concert with them, because as we can’t, I mean, we believe at the [indiscernible] circumstance for making investments that would be significant. Eric Guo Got you. Okay, thanks. And just a second quick question on, did you guys provide — Can you provide some color regarding the earnings sensitivity related to conversions and how much in incremental 100 conversions with [will metered] for earnings are, something along those lines? Rich Nicholas Unfortunately, the quick answer is, it depends, because of the way the regulators have implemented the comprehensive energy strategy. We actually earn our return on rate base on the conversion, so it depends, if you’re on main or off main, how much capital is invested prior to that, we did say on average $250 to $300 of net income per conversion. But again, it’s a broad average and it depends, in particular, how far the main extension has to be. Eric Guo Okay, got you. Thanks. Operator And our next question comes from the line of Paul Patterson, Glenrock Associates. Your line is live. Paul Patterson your line is live. I’m going to the next question. Next question comes from Andrew Weisel, Macquarie Capital. Your line is live. Andrew Weisel Jim, on this Connecticut application, first is the S4 is it fair for me to assume that the numbers in the S4 for future income reflect all of these concessions that you’ve made in the Connecticut application? Jim Torgerson Not really, because what will probably happened as many other concessions are the things that occur, some of them get booked in 2015. Assuming we get the approval before the end of the year and actually before even close. And some of them will be right at year-end. So I would expect that a lot of those will get booked and shouldn’t have a big impact on the future and if you look at even the stuff. Let’s say they do the credit over the 10 or 30 years. As long as we can estimate it and we know exactly what is going to be and we can book it right up front, which is where we want to do. Some of the other things really get to be smaller items that it just — we’re not really loses anything long-term like other than the contribution of book those right away too. So I don’t think you’ll see much impact on the financials under. Rich do want to? Rich Nicholas Fine, under the accounting guidelines, once it’s profitable and estimatable than we’ll book in our crew if you will, and immediately and even if things in great credit by years and we’ll just pump those up against the reserve as we go forward. Andrew Weisel Okay, that’s very helpful. And then in the S4, those net income number you gave, do that essentially reflects earning you’re allowed ROE for all of those years, have quick think better inverse allowed ROEs? Rich Nicholas We haven’t put some of those specific type of assumptions out there. But those are planning forecast of today. Andrew Weisel Okay, fair enough. Next is another question on the Northeast Energy Direct. Could you elaborate a bit more detail the option to acquire additional equity maybe just dig a little deeper into the circumstances and the timing of when we might know more about that? Rich Nicholas Yes. A lot of this is under our agreement with Kinder Morgan but in broad terms, the one area where yet— for example, because we are taking on an obligation for another 70,000 Dekatherms a day to the extent that doesn’t get really say we can’t. No one else signs off on the Kinder Morgan pipeline and it remains at its current level. Then we would have the ability, once the pipeline into operational to increase our equity percentage should our option, because we couldn’t release the 70,000 to any insure people who want to have capacity that’s one; another areas with the assuming is an EDC process for the electric distribution companies, then take on capacity which are allowed the pipeline to expand then in certain states in Connecticut, I think just about every states expect one we would then have the ability, electric distribution companies take on capacity to gain additional equity interest. Now we have to pay for two but that we’ve could have increased our equity interest based on how much is added in the New England state as a result of that and its there is formulas for each state as to what percentage we can add— of people of— that take on additional capacity. So it’s all formula driven and I don’t think much of that’s has been release on just going to— that’s how it works though. Rich Nicholas Andrew we are just to be fact of re-correct. The forecast are as of the date the [indiscernible] was filed July 17. Andrew Weisel Okay, thank you both for those points there. Then just one last one the increase in O&M at gas due to cold winter is there or would it be fair to think of that as pulling forward future expenses. In other words we might this help next year’s O&M or these kind of incremental cost and in next year’s O&M budget would be unlikely to change? Jim Torgerson Right, but you can view that more is incremental cost. Andrew Weisel Okay, thank you very much. Jim Torgerson Might want to say kind of one-time or two. Operator And your next question comes from Paul Patterson, Glenrock Associates. Your line is live. Paul Patterson Can you hear me? Jim Torgerson Yes. We can hear you Paul. Paul Patterson Okay I don’t what happened last time. But anyway, just really quickly and I apologize for this but kind of got slightly distracted when you guys were talking about the settlement process. You mentioned the England station or English station. And I’m just wondering so just to clarify, are you guys in the global settlement discussion right now with the parties in Connecticut and English stations part of that? If you just, if you could, if you don’t mind elaborate a little bit more on that again? Jim Torgerson It’s not really a global settlement discussion. It was, we were having discussions with the, as we said in the application with the Attorney General Department of Energy, Environment Protection in the governor’s office as to looking at things, we could do the application and English station was one area where the city and the state would like to have cleaned up. [indiscernible] we have owned in 15 years and so [indiscernible] said we’ll look at working to get a consent order that would allow the cleanup of that facility and that we were looking at a number of the deep and put out to say that it was that the cleanup was expected, about 30 million that’s really where it went. And then really right now, there are no— we’re not talking about a settlement this point. That was a discussion that we had with the parties before we made the application filing and its really getting some of theirs to what would help gets processed using and get an application that’s hopefully PURA can accept— will accept and [indiscernible]. Paul Patterson And just to sort of understand the new application procedure, you guys have major filing, do we go through the same again or could it be abbreviated, that you can enter into a settlement negotiations, if that’s what you guys intend to do. Sooner than how the normal course of– in other words, there’s a lot of ground you guys have already covered. I would assume that perhaps. And perhaps, inaccurately assumed that maybe you guys could did act faster in terms of working with the other parties in the Connecticut case. This is– how should we think about that? Jim Torgerson Right now, I would assume that it will take the full 120 days that the peer has not decided the case. I think right now, there is no anticipation that it would be accelerated, would hope it would be, because we found a lot of ground already, but– and those parties– and those who have to– they have the right to exercise those and do their investigation and ask questions, and follow their briefs and get their interrogatories in, so I would expect that particularly, the OCC and the consumer council is going to want to go through all that. Paul Patterson Okay, but it means, so I guess, a settlement process if that were to take place, when might that happen? Jim Torgerson Yes, I guess the parties wanted to discuss settlement, and that could happen anytime, but I think in the past, what we’ve seen from the consumer councils, they want to go to all the hearing process and then do their briefs and then talk about it. So it’s not going to– short it, if the units that were to occur, I don’t think it would shorten things very much. [indiscernible] history, Paul. Paul Patterson Well, I appreciate the clarity. Like I said, that’s why I asked the question [indiscernible I was assuming too much that they might — that maybe some of the previous work that’s been done so far might somehow be helpful in making a little bit quicker, but apparently, I’m wrong. Jim Torgerson It might, but I don’t expect that the — even if it’s shortens it, you may be talk in a week or so. So I don’t think, we could count on anything less than 120 days right now. But it will still allow us to have it done before the end of the year. Paul Patterson I got you. And then the supplemental testimony in Massachusetts, that’s going to be filed against relatively soon, and then, after that we’ll get — how much, how long should we expect for interveners respond to them? Jim Torgerson They haven’t put off its full schedule or revised schedule, and so then, really the intervening party is the Attorney General. And there may be a couple of others, but those truly the Attorney but in general in Massachusetts as you know, I would expect that they’ve already given us interrogatories will probably give us more on our supplemental filings. So then the hearing schedule will hearing we were supposed to have hearings this month now is that we pushed off because we are following the supplement. I would guess it’s probably going to be September, October, hopefully we can get an answer shortly after — practically speaking there at all see what happens in Connecticut. And so I would expect to be shortly after that. Paul Patterson Thanks so much. Appreciate the clarity Operator Our next question comes from the line of Andy Levy, Avon Capital. Your line is live. Andy Levy The some fact S4 page 93 of the S4 talks about in preparing the EBITDA U.S.A projections considered by UIL’s management modified the financial forecast by the EBITDA USA management and new kind of know what it does that’s based on like weighted adjustments certain forecast. Could you just describe more the methodology that we use and how that played into coming up with the CapEx numbers that you put out there, particularly main. Jim Torgerson Sure, Andy, this is Rich. Getting forecast on before the long time, food grade agrees of uncertainty that are rounded and so working with our financial advisors. We did make some adjustments to what we thought would be good view of what the future looks like. Andy Levy Okay and have no one have asked about this before but has any of the — I guess it’s really a question for EBITDA, I’m not going to ask you but I guess or just on what’s been identified up with name that’s really question for EBITDA. Jim Torgerson I think that you probably right about that. Andy Levy Thank you. Operator And that was the last question in queue [Operator Instructions]. At this time, there is no further question in queue. Jim Torgerson Okay, well thank you all for participating today. If you do have further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact our Investor Relations people [indiscernible] and thank you all for participating today and have a great day. Good Bye. Operator And this concludes our afternoon teleconference. You may disconnect your line.