Tag Archives: power

Ormat Technologies’ (ORA) CEO Isaac Angel on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Ormat Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: ORA ) Q2 2015 Earnings Conference Call August 04, 2015 9:00 am ET Executives Jeff Stanlis – Hayden MS, IR Isaac Angel – Chief Executive Officer Doron Blachar – Chief Financial Officer Smadar Lavi – Vice President of Corporate Finance and Investor Relations Analysts Paul Coster – JPMorgan Dan Mannes – Avondale Partners JinMing Liu – Ardour Capital Ella Fried – Leumi Operator Good day and welcome to the Ormat Technologies Second Quarter 2015 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 this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Jeff Stanlis MS/Hayden IR. Please go ahead sir. Jeff Stanlis Thank you, operator. Hosting the call today are Isaac Angel, Chief Executive Officer; Doron Blachar, Chief Financial Officer; as well as Smadar Lavi, Vice President of Corporate Finance and Investor Relations. Before beginning, we would like to remind you that the information provided during this call may contain forward-looking statements relating to current expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections about future events that are forward-looking, as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements generally relate to the company’s plans, objectives and expectations for future operations and are based on management’s current estimates and projections, future results or trends. Actual results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties. For a discussion of such risks and uncertainties, please see the risk factors as described in Ormat Technologies’ annual report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC. In addition during the call, we will present non-GAAP financial measures, such as EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA. Reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP measures and management reasons for presenting such information is set forth in the press release that was issued last night, as well as in the slides posted on the company’s website. Because these measures are not calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP, they should not be considered in isolation from the financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP. Before I turn the call over to management, I would like to remind everyone that a slide presentation accompanying this call may be accessed on the company’s website at www.ormat.com, under the Events & Presentations link that’s found on the Investor Relations tab. With all that said, I would like to turn the call over to Isaac Angel. Isaac, the call is yours. Isaac Angel Thank you very much, Jeff, and good morning everyone. Thank you for joining us today for the presentation of our second quarter 2015 results. I’ll start with slide number four. The second quarter was a strong quarter in which we delivered both revenue and profit growth. Similar to the first quarter this year, oil and natural gas prices had a material impact in our electricity segment. However, the new capacity that came online along with the improved efficiency of our operating portfolio mitigated this impact and supported good results in the segment. This is a direct outcome of the enhancements and improvements we are implementing throughout the entire value chain. This quarter, we also had a progress with our expansion plan and began executing our initiatives to set the stage for our next growth phase. As we have stated, our multiyear plan is designed to elevate Ormat from a leading geothermal company to a recognized global leader in the larger renewable energy industry. I’d like now to turn the call over to Doron to discuss our financial results for the quarter. Doron Blachar Thank you, Isaac, and good morning everyone. Let me start by providing an overview of our financial results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2015. Starting with slide six, total revenue for the second quarter of 2015 were $140.5 million compared to $127.6 million in the second quarter of 2014 with 65% of revenue coming from the electricity segment. In our electricity segment, as you can see on slide seven, revenues were $90.9 million in the second quarter of 2015 compared with $91.7 million in the second quarter of last year. The slight decrease was mainly due to lower energy rates resulting from lower oil and natural gas prices that amounted to approximately $9 million. Additionally, we had lower generation at Puna power plant due to the well field maintenance that was required as a result of last summer hurricane. The decrease was partially offset by the contribution from the second phase of McGinness Hills in Nevada. McGinness Hills was also the main driver for the 12.4% increase in our generation project. Following our risk management policy, we recently entered into the derivative transaction to reduce 50% of our exposure to fluctuations in natural gas prices at a fixed price of $3 to MMbtu until December 31, 2015. In the product segment on slide eight, revenues were $49.6 million compared to $35.9 million in the second quarter of 2014, which represented a 38% increase. As many of you already know, our product segment is characterized by fluctuations in quarterly revenue. In the first quarter, we accelerated the construction of the Don Campbell Phase 2 project in order to commence commercial operation by the end of 2015 and in the second quarter we focused on delivering against our backlog to third party. We remain on schedule with our contract with third party customer and on track with our full year guidance. Moving to slide nine, the company combined gross margin for the second quarter was 36.1% compared to 31.3% in the second quarter of 2014. In the product segment, gross margin was 45.2% compared to 43.4% in the prior year’s quarter. I would like to emphasize that the product segment gross margin vary between the quarter and should be analyzed on a yearly basis. In the electricity segment, gross margin was 31.2% compared to 26.6% last year. As Isaac mentioned in this opening remarks, this is mainly a result of increasing efficiency that is translated to higher margins despite the significant impact of the lower oil and natural gas prices on our revenue. Moving to slide 10, second quarter operating income was $38.6 million compared to $22.3 million in the second quarter of 2014. Excluding an $8.1 million write off in the second quarter of last year, we had an increase of 27% in operating income. Operating income attributable to our electricity segment for the second quarter of 2015 was $20.9 million compared to $9.5 million for the second quarter of last year. Operating income attributable for our product segment was $17.7 million compared to $12.8 million in the second quarter of 2014. Moving to slide 11, interest expense net of capital interest for the second quarter of 2015 was $18.9 million compared to $22.1 million last year. This decrease was primarily due to lower interest expense as a result of debt payments partially offset by an increase in interest expense related to a new loan we took in August 2014 to finance the construction of the second phase of McGinness Hills power plant. Moving to slide 12, net income attributable to the company’s stockholders for the second quarter of 2015 was $14.4 million or $0.28 per diluted share in the second quarter of 2015 compared to $9.1 million or $0.20 per share basic and diluted for the second quarter of 2014. The net income includes $1.7 million related to loss from extinguishment of liability resulted from the partial repurchase of OFC Senior Secured Notes as well as $0.4 million expense associated with due diligence related to a potential M&A transaction we weren’t delivering [ph]. After the evaluation, we made a decision not to pursue the transaction. Although this transaction did come to fruition, it demonstrates our intention to identify appropriate and accretive acquisition opportunities. Those expenses are adjusted to our EBITDA. Please move to slide 13. Adjusted EBITDA for the second quarter of 2015 was $67.8 million compared to $61.8 million in the same quarter last year. Turning to slide 14, cash and cash equivalents as of June 30, 2015 was $137.7 million. We generated $112.7 million in cash from operating activities. The accompanying slide breaks down the use of cash during the first half of 2015. Our long-term debt as of June 30, 2015 and the payment schedule are presented on slide 15 of the presentation. The average cost of debt for the company stands at 6.07%. Turning to slide 16 for financing update, during the quarter, we repurchased certain portion of OFC Senior Secured Note of $30.6 million. The repurchase of the OFC loan would save the company in annual interest expense of approximately $2.5 million over the next three years. On Friday, we closed a 12 year limited recourse term loan in the principal amount of $42 million to refinance 20 megawatt of Amatitlan power plant in Guatemala. Under the agreement with Banco Industrial, Guatemala’s largest bank and its affiliate Westrust Bank, Ormat has the flexibility to expand the Amatitlan power plant to which financing to be provided either via equity, additional debt from Banco Industrial or from other lenders. Funding of this loan is expected shortly. This agreement replaces the senior secured project loan from EIG global formally PCW which Ormat signed in May 2009 and prepaid full in September 2014 from corporate funds. On August 03, 2015, Ormat Board of Directors approved payment of the quarterly dividend of $0.06 per share for the second quarter. The dividend will be paid on September 02, 2015 to shareholders of record as of closing of business on August 18, 2015. In addition, the company expects to pay quarterly dividends of $0.06 per share in the next quarter. That concludes my financial overview. I would like now to turn the call to Isaac for an operational and business update. Isaac? Isaac Angel Thank you, Doron. Starting with slide 18 for an update on operations, our portfolio generation in the second quarter increased by 12.4% from 1 million megawatt hours to 1.2 megawatt hours in the second quarter 2015. This increase is mainly due to contribution of McGinness Hills complex. The generation increase was offset by lower generation in the Puna plant in Hawaii due to well field maintenance related to last year’s hurricane. Moving to slide 19 to other projects, we are on track with the construction of Don Campbell Phase 2 in Nevada and are expecting it online towards the end of this year. In Olkaria, Kenya, we are on schedule with the construction of the 24 megawatt expansion. The fourth plant is expected to bring the complex generation capacity to 134 megawatts and the commercial operation is expected in the second half of 2016. And with regards to Sarulla, Indonesia, engineering, procurement and construction are in progress and infrastructure work has been completed. The construction has successfully drilled part of the plant production wells and drilling of additional production and injection wells is underway. The first phase is expected to commence operation in the second half of 2016 and the remaining two phases are scheduled to commence within 18 months thereafter. The projects I just described as well as additional projects on the various stages of development are expected to add between 90 and 115 megawatts by the end of 2017. Besides the investments in new projects, we are continuing our exploration and business development activities to support further growth. If you could please turn to slide 20, you will see our CapEx requirements for the remainder of 2015. We plan to invest a total of $50 million in capital expenditures or new projects under construction and enhancements. An additional $29 million are budgeted for development and exploration activities, maintenance capital for projects and investments in machinery and equipment. In addition, $37 million will be required for debt repayment. Turning to slide 21 for an update on Product segment, in May, we signed approximately $100 million EPC contract for a geothermal project in Chile. Our backlog as of August 03 stands at $347.5 million and it will support our revenues in the next two to three years. Moving to slide 22 for a regulatory update, we continue to see strong demand for renewable energy. Moreover, jurisdictions around the world are increasingly seeing the positive value of geothermal as a stable based-out renewable technology, and legislation being considered in many countries. We believe that these initiatives will boost long-term demand. The market opportunity in the U.S. was further reinforced yesterday when President Obama announced the U.S. Environment Protection Agency’s final Clean Power Plan. The plan will catch U.S. carbon pollution from the power sector by 870 million tons or 32% below 2005 levels in 2030. While power plants are responsible for approximately one-third of all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, there were no nation limits on carbon pollution until today. The plan is expect to drive more aggressive investment in clean energy technologies, placing a significant emphasize on the renewable energy resources aimed at cutting wasted energy, improving efficiency and reducing pollution. Under the plan states are required identify tax forward [ph] using either current or new electricity production and pollution control policies to meet the goals of the program. The compliance period begins in 2022, which gives states and utilities seven years for planning and early implementation. We expect that this plan will benefit renewable resource developers and will further support our initiatives to pursue our multiyear plan. Another encouraging development in the United States, two weeks ago, the Senate tax-writing committee passed a bill extending the PTC for geothermal projects that will being construction by 2016 and commencing operation by 2018. The legislation needs to pass the House and the full Senate to become a law. If passes, we anticipate a number of projects to benefit from this legislation. The acknowledgement of renewable benefit and regulation support, as well as the energy shortage in many of the developing countries create opportunities for Ormat. In my opening remarks, I mentioned ongoing effort to evaluate and implement our multiyear plan. This plan has several moving parts and a long-term view and we will share more details in the upcoming calls. I’m confident that we will be able to capitalize on the opportunities before us and believe Ormat is uniquely positioned to succeed in the evolving renewable market. Turning to slide 23, we reiterate our 2015 revenue guidance. Oil and gas prices remain a reducing factor in our electricity revenues and we expect its annual impact to increase and be approximately $28.6 million. We expect the electricity segment revenues to be between $380 million and $390 million and product segment revenues to be between $180 million and $190 million, for that total revenues of between $560 million and $580 million. We reiterate our adjusted EBITDA guidance of $280 million to $290 million for the full year. We expect Northleaf’s portion of the 2015 annual adjusted EBITDA guidance to be approximately $14 million. And that concludes our remarks for today. Thank you for your continued support and now the questions, operator, if you please. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you, sir. [Operator Instructions] And our first question will come from Paul Coster of JPMorgan. Please go ahead. Paul Coster Yeah, thanks very much for taking my questions. So, the first one really relates to oil and gas prices. All of your electricity contracts, did they have some sensitivity to oil and gas prices, perhaps you can give us some color around that and also on a go forward basis, the new PPAs that get signed, are they also expressing sensitivity to oil and gas? Isaac Angel Paul, first of all, thanks for participating in the call. In all our new PAAs, they don’t have any connection to oil and gas prices, we have three old contracts actually that they are – two of them are linked to the gas prices and one of them in Hawaii, Puna is linked to the oil price. One of these gas price linked contract is going away at the end of this year, which means about one-third of our exposure is going – more or less is going away by the end of this year and we will remain with two more – two years? We will have two years and then we will remain only with one of them for a long time to come. Paul Coster On a go forward basis, new PPAs will not include a sensitivity to gas and oil, is that correct statement? Isaac Angel That’s correct. Paul Coster Okay. And then my follow-up question, obviously, you are delivering against a backlog here and the backlog is still pretty healthy, but it’s coming down. I imagine though you’ve got a lot of stuff in your late state pipeline. Can you give us any color regarding the components of the late state pipeline? Is it all sort of the traditional Ormat business or are you starting to see a broader side of renewables in that portfolio, can you give us some sense of what the geographies might be and what kind of timeline before we see it start to enter sort of the contractual state? Isaac Angel Paul, as you mentioned before, we have a very healthy pipeline. We just added $100 million to the power plant a quarter ago, which is a contract we signed in Chile for EPC and we should also remember that we have a serious amount of a pipeline – in the pipeline of Sarulla project that it will be running with us until 2018, which – and we don’t expect every month or every quarter to sign $100 million or $200 million deal. On the other hand, we have small deals that are adding to the pipeline, which will be probably joining us before the end of this year. But from the product sales point of view, the company is concentrating today mainly in few countries, in South America, Africa, and Far East. We are expecting – we have – as you mentioned before, we have a few deals on that is – that are close to fruition. We don’t know if they are going to hit sometime in Q3, Q4, or next year, in any case, we feel very comfortable from the backlog point of view looking forward two to three years. Paul Coster Okay. Thank you very much. Operator Our next question will come from Dan Mannes of Avondale Partners. Please go ahead. Dan Mannes Thanks. Good morning, everyone. Doron Blachar Hi, Dan. Isaac Angel Hi, Dan, thank you for joining. Dan Mannes Of course. The first question for Isaac, you talked a lot about, it’s a regulatory backdrop, but I want to talk about what’s going on real time. I mean we’ve seen a number of Power Purchase Agreements signed in Texas and California and Nevada, that’s in very, very low prices for solar. I was wondering if you could talk at all about geothermals competitiveness in this kind of environment, number one. And number two, maybe cross reference that with some of your initiatives as it relates to direct to consumer sales. Because I guess what I’m trying to figure out with the outlook is for new plants in that kind of environment? Isaac Angel Dan, as you know, we will not – we don’t have the liberty to talk about PPAs which are under discussion or preparation or at the final stage, we only announce them after they are signed. But obviously we are aware of those low price solar PPAs that were signed in the last few weeks, but regardless – you know that there is a huge advantage between an intermediate power, which is affecting the grid and on the other hand, base load power, which is adding to the stability of the grid. There is still more than certain appetite for geothermal PPAs that we are working on and that the most I can say at this stage. I am not worried on the immediate stage in the state. The case can change in the upcoming years but that’s why the company has changed, not changed but added focus in going elsewhere we changed the whole structure of our sales and marketing team with focusing on counties which is outside of the U.S., which is the appetite for geothermal is not necessarily driven against solar prices, but are driven because of other reasons which are availability of the resource access to the resource and frankly lack of energy and other political reasons even in some countries that are driving these requests and those markets in one hand are pushing our product sales and in other end are pushing our ability to build our own power plants and we have new concessions in new African countries that we got and I think overall looking I am very optimistic in the future. Dan Mannes So, if I can just briefly summarize and make sure I understand. So from your perspective even in spite of how well solar may be going, there is still enough of in advantage for being base load that you can get a relative premium price that makes it attractive to continue to develop, both U.S. and abroad right now. Isaac Angel Yes, it is absolutely true at least in the immediate years in the U.S. Dan Mannes Okay. And then two other quick questions. Isaac Angel Has to be true within the next five years. That we don’t know. Dan Mannes In your project development you obviously gave us an update on both OREG 3 as well as Campbell 2, can you may be give us any update on what’s going on at [indiscernible] I know those are kind of the next two projects that you have identified there, I think we still have, hopefully coming online in 2017. Isaac Angel [indiscernible] is still at the lender stage, which means we went beyond certain stages in the process and we have located lenders and we are working to finalize contracts with them and it’s a go project at this stage. Dan Mannes And [indiscernible]? Isaac Angel And [indiscernible] we are in exploration phase, and we have successfully went few exploration phases, but we didn’t finish yet and unfortunately I cannot say it is a go project yet. I am very optimistic and positive, but will let you guys know in due time. Dan Mannes Okay. And then lastly just on the product side, we looked at the margins in the quarter obviously very strong, we know they’re lumpy , can you just confirm was there anything unique in this quarter, I don’t know if you had a project closing out or something that happened that maybe help margins out? Isaac Angel Yes we have few projects in this quarter and the upcoming few quarters, which I don’t want to mention name because of obvious reasons which are more profitable than the others. As Doron mentioned this profitability will not be able to be maintained in the long term of yield, but it will be a – that we can maybe run in this rate a few quarters and then it will be on the regular basis. Doron Blachar I think – it is Doron and if I may add. I think that when you look at the product segment, the best way to look at the margin is to look at the 12 month trailing and see over the last four quarters and then 12 months back and then move back a few quarters, still you can get probably a much more standardized margins in just looking into one quarter or swiftly of just 12 months trailing for the quarter. Dan Mannes Understood. Great we will take a look at that. Thanks guys. Operator [Operator Instructions] The next question will come from JinMing Liu of Ardour Capital, please go ahead. JinMing Liu Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. Isaac Angel Thanks for joining. JinMing Liu No problem. First of all regarding [indiscernible] the EPA clean par announced yesterday, my understanding is that that could well be ultimately enforced by each individual state paving the locations of your facilities, do you kind of lead by the user demand for energy within those space or do you have the ability to export power to other states that are in need of the energy? Isaac Angel It is very individual to a state. There are states that we are – we have the ability to export such as between Nevada and California, but on the other hand there are other states that – the import of power from other states and then you have to look at it on state by state basis. As a matter of fact we have today a few contracts which are interstate as we speak. JinMing Liu Okay, got that. Switch to the Northleaf transaction, it looks like to me a portion of the proceed was allocated to our equity, so what was it that [indiscernible] investments? Doron Blachar It’s Doron, the way the location of the cash was that it is split between two parts both of them in the equity, one is the non-controlling interest that represents the equity part of what they acquire and there was an additional paid in capital increase that represents basically the theoretical profit that Ormat has from this transaction. Today, according to U.S. GAAP unless you sell control you cannot recognize the revenue from selling equity. You put it into additional paid in capital. JinMing Liu Oh, I see. I see, that’s why – okay, I got that. I understand those two will add. Lastly, regarding the cost of electricity in the second quarter is increase slightly against a first quarter, even I back out the benefit from the first quarter. How much was the start-up cost regarding about – from the McGinness Hills second phase? Isaac Angel Give us one second please. JinMing Liu Okay. Isaac Angel You were talking on dollar basis, or negative power base? JinMing Liu Just dollar. Isaac Angel On dollar basis. JinMing Liu Right. Isaac Angel Do we give dollar number basis. Doron Blachar We don’t usually… Isaac Angel We don’t disclose the dollar number per power plant basis, unfortunately. Doron Blachar But obviously you can expect the second phase in a power plant has the relatively lower additional cost compared to the revenue yields. Most of the existing man power, so the additional cost is lower that the new power plant. Isaac Angel But JinMing, I want to mention here something that you should be aware of the fact that since the last three quarters we are basically concentrating on each and every power plant and trying to effect the profitability of those power plants and not necessarily and sometimes even reducing the generated output on the gains increasing profitability. We have few power plants, the generation was simply cut by the fact that we stopped very old steam turbine, which effectively were not profitable. So, you can see now few power plants that the generation went down, but the profitability went up seriously and if you look at our profitability of the electricity segment it is going on quarter on quarter basis. So, just comparing the total generation, quarter after quarter is not necessarily only the addition of the new power plant, but sometimes there is also reduction of some megawatt hours comparing to the quarter before. JinMing Liu Okay got that. All right. Thanks. Isaac Angel Thank you. Operator The next question will come from Ella Fried of Leumi. Please go ahead. Ella Fried Good afternoon. I also have three questions, two of them are follow-up questions. The first one is to Dan’s question, your plans to expand in the solar business. Additional tax I didn’t quite get it, additional tax in terms of expanding in U.S. or outside the U.S., and then how do you view all the recent developments in addition to what you mentioned regarding the base load. Isaac Angel First of all, I want to clarify something. We are not abandoning to geothermal in becoming a solar developer. That was… Ella Fried Yes. It’s clear. Isaac Angel And the idea was that wherever its possible we will be able also to offer a solar solution which we are doing. That mainly relating to C&I customers which are enterprise customers which are looking for a comprehensive solution to their electricity problem if we may call it. And when we are offering them a solution, this solution may also include a solar plant and we have a pipeline of those types of offer that we are working on in the U.S. but mainly outside of the U.S. And as I said before, we will not become a solar developer out of the blue that was not the intention. Ella Fried So it’s more using the existing infrastructure and adding solar megawatts, and then other forms of energy that are available at the location. Isaac Angel Yes and also we are working very diligently which is not easy thing to do, so add solar complimentary power into our existing facility, it is something that we are working on for a long time now and not very successfully so far, but I am optimistic we all realize that from the logical point of view it works unfortunately from the PPA and PUC point of view, it’s a difficult thing to do but we are – I am personally very optimistic yet and we are working on it diligently and that was the idea with the solar. Ella Fried Okay. Thank you. That sounds very interesting. About your exposure to natural gas, I just didn’t catch it. In terms of megawatts, how many megawatts will be left exposed to natural gas in the end of 2015? Isaac Angel We have today about 140 megawatts that are exposed to natural gas, prices out of the almost 650 that we have. Out of this 140, about a third is ending the relationship together we have – we signed already a contract in Heber [indiscernible] at the end of this year. So in 2016, we see about 100 megawatts only tied to natural gas pricing. We have also – when we signed the Heber contracts, we said that – will increase EBITDA about $8 million adjusted changing price. And out of the 100 megawatt that are left, we have about half of that, 50 megawatt. The contract ends at the end of 2017 and the rest is further down the road. Ella Fried Okay. Thank you. And the last question, you mentioned that North Brawley incurred some expenses, does it mean that it’s not – is it breakeven operationally or is it breakeven EBITDA wise or does it incur some more expenses? Isaac Angel North Brawley as illustrated on slide 7 had higher cost in Q2 of last year. This quarter, it had lower cost. The plant is still not profitable and then we are working very hard and diligently to bring it to be profitable. And Again, we made lots of changes in North Brawley. When I arrived to Ormat a bit more than a year ago, this is one of the challenges we took as new management and I am certain that we will be able to overcome this challenge and bring this plant to be profitable. As I said, we did lots of changes in North Brawley during the last two quarters. Ella Fried Okay. Thank you. And one more question to Doron, income tax provision went up about $1 million approximately. Is there an explanation? Doron Blachar I think it basically relates to the higher profit that we have before income tax as a percentage wise I think we went down a little bit. And in addition according to U.S. GAAP, the tax provision is done on forecasted basis basically looking at the entire year we do it, but it went up and profit also went up entirely. Ella Fried Okay. Thank you. And congratulations on great results. Doron Blachar Thank you. Isaac Angel Thank you very much and thanks for joining. Operator And ladies and gentlemen, at this time, we will conclude the question-and-answer session. I would like to hand the call back to management for any closing remarks. Isaac Angel Good morning again, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much for your ongoing support and we will be probably seeing you during the quarter on our road shows. Thank you very much. Bye-bye. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, the conference has now concluded. We thank you for attending today’s presentation. You may now disconnect your lines.

Strong Returns In Up Markets; Protection In Down Markets

This series offers an expansive look at the Low Volatility Anomaly, or why lower-risk securities have historically produced stronger risk-adjusted returns than higher-risk securities or the broader market. This article shows in simple terms how a Low Volatility strategy would have done in both up and down markets. The downside protection in bear markets more than makes up for lagging returns in bull markets to generate higher risk-adjusted returns over time. Through this expansive series on Low Volatility Investing, I have tried to give readers a theoretical underpinning for why low volatility strategies have produced “alpha” historically while presenting empirical evidence across markets, geographies, and long time intervals. In this article, I am returning to the example of the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index (replicated by SPLV ). This index is comprised of the one-hundred constituents of the S&P 500 (NYSEARCA: SPY ) with the lowest realized volatility over the trailing one year, weighted by the inverse of their volatility, and rebalanced quarterly. As seen in the introductory article to this series and displayed again below, a low volatility factor tilt has produced higher absolute returns than the broader market or its high beta components (NYSEARCA: SPHB ) while producing its namesake lower volatility return profile. Source: Standard and Poor’s; Bloomberg Index information for the Low Volatility and High Beta Indices are back-tested, based on the methodology that was in effect on the launch date of the indices. While the higher risk-adjusted returns inherent in the Low Volatility strategy is visible in this cumulative return series, I though that it would be instructive for Seeking Alpha readers to see the annual returns of the Low Volatility strategy and S&P 500 broken down by up and down years for the broad market gauge. The historical returns of the two indices are tabled on the left. On the right, I have broken these return series into the four down years for the S&P 500 in this sample period and the up years for this broad market gauge. (click to enlarge) In up years for the broad market, the S&P 500 outperformed the S&P Low Volatility Index by 3.9% per year. However, in the down years for the broad market, the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index bested the broader market by 19.6% per year. It is this outperformance in down markets that has led to the long-run higher absolute returns for the S&P Low Volatility Index. Readers should note that the majority of the outperformance of the S&P 500 in up markets was in 1998 and 1999 when a tech-fueled S&P 500 outperformed the Low Volatility Index. The S&P 500 would produce negative returns over the subsequent three years. Some readers might posit that they will time when to pivot to Low Volatility stocks or even to zero volatility cash from the broader equity market, capturing higher returns during bull markets while crafting their own downside protection through good foresight. For practitioners with a more cloudy crystal ball, low volatility strategies may be a good buy-and-hold strategy for producing higher long-run risk-adjusted returns. In late 2014, I published Low Volatility Strategies in Bull Markets , which showed this Low Volatility gauge had captured all of the market performance over the previous five years. To outperform low volatility stocks, investors would have had to pivot quickly to riskier equity strategies very early in the market recovery in 2009. This is easier said than done, and a buy-and-hold low volatility strategy may be of value to many Seeking Alpha readers. For investors with a higher risk tolerance and an interest in capturing incremental returns from a tilt towards higher beta stocks, read tomorrow’s article on a switching strategy using low volatility stocks and momentum that has produced tremendous long-run alpha and is one of my favorite pieces in this series. Disclaimer My articles may contain statements and projections that are forward-looking in nature, and therefore, inherently subject to numerous risks, uncertainties and assumptions. While my articles focus on generating long-term risk-adjusted returns, investment decisions necessarily involve the risk of loss of principal. Individual investor circumstances vary significantly, and information gleaned from my articles should be applied to your own unique investment situation, objectives, risk tolerance, and investment horizon. Disclosure: I am/we are long SPLV, SPY. (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.

WEC Energy Group (WEC) Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

WEC Energy Group, Inc. (NYSE: WEC ) Q2 2015 Earnings Call July 29, 2015 2:30 pm ET Executives Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. J. Patrick Keyes – Chief Financial Officer, Director & Executive VP, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Allen L. Leverett – President & Director, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Stephen P. Dickson – VP & Controller, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Analysts Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Brian J. Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (Broker) Andrew Bischof – Morningstar Research Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Operator Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for waiting and welcome to WEC Energy Group’s Conference Call to review the 2015 Second Quarter Results. This call is being recorded for rebroadcast and all participants are in a listen-only mode at this time. Before the conference call begins, I will read the forward-looking language. All statements in this presentation, other than historical facts, are forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties which are subject to change at any time. Such statements are based on management’s expectations at the time they are made. In addition to the assumptions and other factors referred to in connection with the statement, factors described in WEC Energy Group’s and Integrys Holding’s latest Form 10-Ks and subsequent reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by each company could cause actual results to differ materially from those contemplated. During the discussions, referenced earnings per share will be based on diluted earnings per share unless otherwise noted. After the presentation, the conference will be open to analysts for questions and answers. In conjunction with this call, WEC has posted on its website a package of detailed financial information at wecenergygroup.com. A replay of our remarks will be available approximately two hours after the conclusion of this call. And now it’s my pleasure to introduce Mr. Gale Klappa, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of WEC Energy Group. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Colleen, thank you. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us, as we review our second quarter results. As I’m sure you know, on June 29 we acquired Integrys in a $9 billion transaction to form WEC Energy Group. We now serve 4.4 million electric customers and natural gas customers across four Midwestern states. I’ll provide you with much more detail on the new company shortly, but first, as always, I’d like to introduce the members of our management team who are here with me today. We have Allen Leverett, President of WEC Energy Group; Pat Keyes, our Chief Financial Officer; Susan Martin, General Counsel; Steve Dickson, Controller; and Scott Lauber, our Treasurer. I’d also like to welcome Beth Straka, our Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications and Investor Relations. Now, many of you know Beth from her work over the past decade or so as one of the more perceptive analysts covering our industry. I want to tell you we’ve forgiven her for that, and we’re delighted that she’s with us. Turning now to the second quarter, Pat will review our financial results in detail a bit later on the call, but as you saw from our news release this morning, we reported adjusted earnings of $0.59 a share for the second quarter of this year. That compares with adjusted earnings of $0.59 a share for the second quarter of 2014. I should point out that the numbers we’re reporting to you today reflect Wisconsin Energy only. Since the acquisition closed on June 29, Integrys earnings were immaterial. Taking a very quick look now at the state of the economy, Wisconsin’s unemployment rate stood at 4.6% in June, well below the national average. Deliveries of electricity to our large commercial and industrial customers, however, excluding the iron ore mines, fell by 1.4% in the second quarter. But several sectors showed strength including plastics, printing, and food processing. Also, our small commercial and industrial segment is growing, with electricity use rising by 2.3% over the second quarter of a year ago. In addition, we continue to see an uptick in customer growth across our system. New electric service connections are up 8.2% and new natural gas installations are up 4% compared to the same time period last year. Now I’d like to spend the next few minutes discussing our plans for the future of the new WEC Energy Group. When we first considered the opportunity to acquire Integrys, we weighed it against our three important criteria for evaluating any potential acquisition. After considerable due diligence we found that it met or exceeded all three criteria. First, it would be accretive to earnings per share in the first full calendar year after closing. Second, it would be largely credit-neutral. And third, the long-term growth rate would be equal to or greater than Wisconsin Energy’s standalone growth rate. We also saw tremendous opportunity in the framework of the new company. WEC Energy Group has the scale, scope, technical depth, geographic reach, and financial resources to thrive in our consolidating industry. We plan to leverage those strengths to deliver operational and financial benefits to all of our stakeholders, from the customers and communities we serve, to the people we employ, to the shareholders who count on us to create value. And with our proven leadership team, we will incorporate best practices across the organization to streamline our operations and reduce costs. So what does our new footprint look like? Well, as I mentioned the new company provides electricity and natural gas to 4.4 million customers across four states through our customer-facing brands: We Energies, Wisconsin Public Service, Peoples Gas, North Shore Gas, Michigan Gas Utilities, and Minnesota Energy Resources. Our company operates in a balanced regulatory environment with greater jurisdictional diversity than before the acquisition. And of course, more than 99% of our earnings will come from regulated operations. WEC Energy Group is now the eighth largest natural gas distribution company in the country and one of the 15 largest investor-owned utility systems in the United States, with significant opportunities for growth. Of course, the majority of the earning assets we acquired are here in Wisconsin, a familiar landscape for us, and major infrastructure upgrades are underway now at Wisconsin Public Service in the northern part of the state. These investment opportunities are similar to those we have pursued over the years, on time and on budget, at We Energies. We are also in excellent position to take advantage of new customer growth across the region, especially in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota, where propane and oil users are continuing to convert to natural gas. In addition, as many of you know, Integrys and Wisconsin Energy were the two largest owners of American Transmission Company. Today WEC Energy Group has become a 60% owner of ATC. As you will recall, ATC plans to invest between $3.3 billion and $3.9 billion between 2014 and 2023 to bolster electric reliability in our service area. We believe this is a solid plan, and we welcome the opportunity to increase our commitment to the transmission business. Now I would like to briefly discuss some of the conditions we agreed to as we worked our way through the regulatory approvals for the acquisition. In Wisconsin, we committed to an earnings cap for our Wisconsin Electric and Wisconsin Gas subsidiaries. Starting in 2016, next year, we will share with our customers any earnings in excess of our allowed rate of return. The first 50 basis points of earnings above our authorized return will be split equally between the company and our customers. Then any earnings above that level will go exclusively to customers. This sharing mechanism will be in effect through 2018. We also agreed to develop an integrated resource plan detailing the joint capacity needs of Wisconsin Electric and Wisconsin Public Service. We expect to file the resource plan with the Wisconsin Commission later this quarter. In Michigan, as we’ve discussed on previous calls, we expect to pursue the formation of a Michigan-only utility. Our customers in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan would be served by this entity. And we expressed a willingness, if requested, to invest in a new generating plant in the Upper Peninsula and/or purchase power from a new facility. This would allow for the eventual retirement of the Presque Isle Power Plant. In Illinois, we agreed to retain a minimum level of jobs in the State of Illinois for the next two years. We also committed to a two-year base rate freeze and a capital spending floor from 2015 through 2017. In a recent development this past Friday, the Citizens Utility Board, the City of Chicago and the State Attorney General’s Office asked the Illinois Commerce Commission to rehear our merger order. These parties are seeking additional conditions, conditions that they previously requested during the year-long approval process. The Illinois Commission now has until August 13 to accept or deny the request. We believe the Commission’s June 24 decision was correct and is supported by sound principles and by an extensive body of evidence. Now let’s touch on some of the key financial metrics for the new company. For starters, as you may recall we issued $1.5 billion of parent company debt to help finance the transaction. The all-in interest cost for the debt is approximately 2.2% annually, an excellent result and clearly lower than we anticipated. So for 2016 we now project our growth in earnings per share to be in the range of 6% to 8%. The 6% to 8% growth for next year assumes that Wisconsin Energy standalone achieves earnings of $2.72 a share this year, which is the midpoint of our current 2015 guidance. So, just to clarify, we start with a base of $2.72 a share for our standalone earnings this year, and we expect the combined company to grow earnings per share in the 6% to 8% range next year. For the longer term, after 2016 we see earnings per share growth of 5% to 7% annually, driven by operating efficiency, financial discipline, and infrastructure investments that the region needs for reliability and for improved environmental performance. We look forward to providing you with additional details on our capital investment plans at the EEI Finance Conference coming up in November. Regarding our dividend policy, in June, the Wisconsin Energy Board of Directors raised the quarterly dividend to $0.4575 a share. That’s an increase of 8.3% over the previous quarterly rate. This is equivalent to an annual rate of $1.83 a share. Going forward we will target a payout ratio of 65% to 70% of earnings. And we expect dividend growth to be in line with growth in earnings per share. Switching gears now, I’d like to update you on several of our major construction projects. On the generation side of our business, as you may recall, we’re working to add fuel flexibility at our Oak Creek expansion units as part of our ongoing Power the Future initiative. These units were initially permitted to burn bituminous coal; however, given the current cost differential between bituminous coal and Powder River Basin coal, blending the two types of fuel could save our customers between $25 million and $50 million a year depending upon the blend. During extensive testing, we identified operational and equipment-related improvements that will be needed to sustain the higher blends of PRB coal on a long-term basis. In May, the Wisconsin Commission approved our requests for additional capital spending for plant modifications, expansion of all of our coal storage capacity, and additional coal handling equipment. We’ve already started work to expand our coal storage capability, and the first in-plant capital improvements are expected to be made on the first unit at Oak Creek, the Oak Creek expansion, during a planned outage this September. We plan to upgrade the second unit during the first quarter of 2016. Our share of these investments is targeted at approximately $80 million. Next, the conversion of our Valley Power Plant from coal to natural gas. That conversion is now more than 80% complete. Total conversion costs are expected to be in the $60 million to $65 million range, excluding allowance for funds used during construction. We expect to complete the project on time and on budget before the end of this year. Our Western Wisconsin natural gas expansion project, which will address natural gas reliability concerns in the western part of the state, is now more than 75% complete and is running on time and better than budget. We expect to complete this new 85-mile natural gas pipeline in the fourth quarter of this year at a cost actually well below the $175 million budget, a budget that again excludes allowance for funds used during construction. Looking forward, we continue to see significant investment opportunities in Wisconsin Energy’s traditional business as we upgrade our aging distribution networks and focus on Delivering the Future. Just to remind you, Wisconsin Energy’s standalone capital budget calls for spending $3.3 billion to $3.5 billion over the five-year period 2015 through 2019, and our 10-year standalone capital budget calls for investing between $6.6 billion and $7.2 billion over the period 2015 through 2024. Now before I turn the call over to Pat, I would also like to discuss our plans for the accelerated main replacement program at Peoples Gas in Chicago. Just to refresh your memory, this is one of the largest infrastructure modernization programs in the country. The program calls for the replacement of approximately 2,000 miles of Chicago’s aging gas pipeline system over the next 20 years. Some of these pipes, ladies and gentlemen, literally date back to the time of the Civil War. One of our immediate and most important goals is to improve the management and performance of this project. Our first step was to appoint a new senior management team at Peoples: a new President, a new Vice President for construction, a new operations Vice President, and a new Vice President for customer service. All of them are proven, experienced leaders from the Wisconsin Energy system. Over the past three weeks, our team has conducted a thorough evaluation of the accelerated main replacement program. They have determined that the best approach is a fresh start. We have begun transitioning the management of the project to in-house personnel; previously the project was managed by an outside contractor. Going forward, we also plan to engage a nationally recognized firm to help conduct an independent, bottom-up review of the cost, scope, and schedule for the program. This past Monday we notified the Illinois Commerce Commission of our decisions, and we will incorporate these decisions into a broader transition plan. This broader transition plan will address the recommendations made by Liberty Consulting Group in their audit of the program. The Liberty audit was completed earlier this year at the request of the Illinois Commerce Commission. I am confident that the steps we are taking will ensure that Chicagoans get the safe, modern natural gas delivery system that they deserve. In conclusion, these are exciting times, filled with opportunity for our new combined company and we believe we have a very bright future ahead. We will build an enduring enterprise by focusing on the fundamentals: world-class reliability, operating efficiency, financial discipline, and exceptional customer care. And now for more details on our second quarter performance and our outlook for the remainder of 2015, here’s our Chief Financial Officer, Pat Keyes. Pat. J. Patrick Keyes – Chief Financial Officer, Director & Executive VP, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Thank you, Gale. As Gale mentioned, our 2015 second quarter adjusted earnings were $0.59 a share. That’s the same as our adjusted earnings for the corresponding quarter in 2014. Costs related to the acquisition of Integrys Energy reduced earnings by $0.24 per share in the second quarter of 2015 and $0.01 per share in the second quarter of 2014. Because of the timing of the acquisition, earnings results this quarter are exclusively from Wisconsin Energy. Going forward, our consolidated earnings will include the operating results of the Integrys companies. Please note that the balance sheet included in this quarter’s earnings package does incorporate the Integrys balance sheet. Consistent with past practice, I will discuss operating income for Wisconsin Energy’s two business segments, and then discuss other income, interest expense, and income taxes. Excluding acquisition related costs, second quarter consolidated operating income was $232.5 million, as compared with $245.8 million in 2014. That’s a decline of $13.3 million. Starting with the utility energy segment, operating income in the second quarter totaled $140.4 million for 2015, a decline of $14.8 million from the second quarter of 2014. On a quarter-over-quarter basis, our earnings were helped by $9.5 million because of the impacts of the 2015 rate case and by $3.4 million related to improved fuel recoveries. On the downside, we saw an increase in utility operations and maintenance costs of $18.5 million, primarily driven by increased regulatory amortizations, the timing of projects, and certain benefit costs. We estimate that weather reduced our margins by $4.8 million and we also saw increased depreciation expense of $4.2 million. Combining these and other factors results in the $14.8 million decline in utility operating income in the second quarter of 2015, compared with the same quarter in the prior year. Operating income in our non-utility energy segment was $93.5 million, which is $1.8 million higher than the prior year. Our corporate and other segment, which includes corporate costs of smaller affiliates, was essentially flat with last year’s second quarter. Taking the changes for these segments together, you arrive at the second-quarter operating income before acquisition-related costs of $232.5 million, a $13.3 million decline as compared to the second quarter of 2014. In addition, for the second quarter of 2015 we recognized $66.7 million of acquisition-related costs associated with benefit plan agreements, legal and banking fees, and other costs. Overall these costs were in line with our expectations. During the second quarter of 2015, earnings from our investment in American Transmission Company totaled $14.3 million, a decline of $3.2 million from the same period in the prior year. As we mentioned in the first quarter, ATC has established reserves in light of recent appeals to the FERC related to authorized returns for regional transmission organizations. Our earnings reflect Wisconsin Energy’s share of ATC’s results. Our other income net increased by $18 million. During the second quarter of 2015, we recognized an incremental gain of $15.2 million on the sale of the legacy asset. The purchase and sale of assets is a regular part of our business. In fact, we have a real estate development subsidiary, and this quarter’s sale was part of our financial plan for the year. Our net interest expense increased by $3.1 million, primarily because of higher debt levels. Consolidated income tax expense fell by $11.1 million for the quarter. Going forward, WEC Energy Group’s annual effective income tax rate, driven by a one-time adjustment related to the acquisition of Integrys, is expected to be between 38% and 39% in 2015. We expect that Wisconsin Energy’s standalone effective tax rate for 2015 will be between 37% 38%. Combining all of these items brings you to the adjusted net income of $0.59 per share for the second quarter of 2015. During the first six months of 2015, our operating cash flows totaled $715.9 million, which is a $5.4 million decrease from the first six months of 2014. During 2015, we contributed $100 million to our pension plans; no such contributions were made during 2014. Operating cash flows were helped by improved working capital. For example, lower natural gas prices dropped accounts receivable balances and reduced the cost of gas and storage. Our capital expenditures totaled $356.5 million in the first six months of 2015, a $51 million increase compared to 2014. The increase was primarily driven by the increased expenditures related to the western gas lateral. Our adjusted debt to capital ratio as of June 30th, 2015 was 50.7%. This ratio reflects the Integrys acquisition, treating half of WEC Energy Group’s hybrid securities as common equity, which is consistent with past presentations. We continue to use cash to satisfy any shares required for our 401(k) plan, options, and other programs. Going forward, we do not expect to issue any additional shares. We paid $190.5 million in common dividends in the first six months of 2015. That’s an increase of $14.5 million over the same period last year. Weather normalized retail deliveries of electricity fell by 1.3% in the second quarter of 2015 as compared to the second quarter of 2014. Actual second quarter deliveries fell by 1.6%. Looking now at the individual customer segments, we saw weather-normalized residential deliveries drop by 3.8%. Actual residential deliveries fell 5%. Across our small commercial industrial group, weather-normal quarterly deliveries rose by 2.4%. Actual deliveries rose by 2.3%. In the large commercial industrial segment, deliveries for the second quarter of 2015 fell by 2.5%. Excluding the iron ore mines, large commercial and industrial deliveries fell by 1.4%. Our year-to-date weather-normalized retail gas deliveries, excluding the gas used for power generation, were flat compared to the same period in 2014. Our actual gas deliveries, again excluding the gas used for power generation, were down 7.2% compared to the polar vortex driven gas sales last year. Our overall results for gas and electric sales in the first six months of 2015 are slightly behind our expectations for the year. Turning now to our earnings forecasts, for the remainder of 2015 we will continue to guide based on standalone Wisconsin Energy earnings. As Gale mentioned, our long-term earnings per share growth rate is based upon these standalone earnings. We will therefore make the following adjustments to the WEC Energy Group GAAP earnings. Number one, remove the impact of Integrys; number two, remove the impact of acquisition debt. As Gale noted previously, we funded the 1.5 billion cash portion of the acquisition with $1.2 billion of long-term debt and $300 million of commercial paper. This long-term debt included 3, 5, and 10-year tranches. Overall, our debt has an approximate interest cost of 2.2% annually. Number three, remove the impact of acquisition and other one-time costs such as banking and legal fees. Number four, modify effective tax rates to remove the impact of the one-time adjustment I just referred to earlier. And finally, number five, remove the impact of the additional shares issued as part of the acquisition. With that, we’ll move to our 2015 guidance. We are reaffirming our 2015 standalone adjusted guidance of $2.67 a share to $2.77 a share. We are off to a strong start, but still have six months of weather ahead of us. Again, we are reaffirming our standalone adjusted guidance of $2.67 a share to $2.77 a share. And finally let’s take a look at third quarter guidance. Last year’s third quarter adjusted earnings were $0.57 a share, which excludes $0.01 a share related to our acquisition of Integrys. Similar to last year, our summer got off to a very slow start this year, with temperatures significantly below normal during the first 10 days of July. So taking this July weather into account, we expect our third quarter 2015 adjusted earnings to be in a range of $0.56 to $0.58 a share. That assumes normal weather for the rest of the quarter and excludes any remaining transition-related costs. Once again, our third quarter 2015 adjusted guidance is $0.56 to $0.58 a share. And with that I will turn things back to Gale. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Pat, thank you very much. Appreciate the detail and the clarity. And overall, folks, we’re solidly on track and focused on delivering value for our customers and our stockholders. Question-and-Answer Session Operator And now we would like to take your questions. Your first question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS. Please go ahead. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Good afternoon, Julien. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Afternoon to you. Congrats on closing the deal finally, not too bad. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. All right, we’ll see later this week. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Indeed we will. So perhaps the first question here out of the gate, the 5% to 7% earnings growth rate, when you are thinking about that in the context of this transaction being closed, how are you thinking about the trajectory in 2016 and reflecting some of the improvement, hopefully, in the earned ROEs across the legacy Integrys platform? And perhaps maybe could you remind us or refresh our memory of where the earned ROEs stand today, just for some background if you will. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Sure, I’d be happy to. Let me first start with the initial part of your question. How do we think about the trajectory of earnings going forward here now that we have closed the acquisition? As you may have heard me say on the script, given everything we see today and given the terrific result that we got in terms of the annual interest cost on the parent company debt, we are projecting 2016 to have a growth rate over our standalone 2015 guidance, the midpoint of that guidance. So we are projecting 2016 to grow 6% to 8%. And then post 2016 we still see a 5% to 7% growth rate. There are a couple of important underlying assumptions that we are making and that we really feel very good about delivering related to the growth rate. The first is that we believe we can through best practices, through cost reduction, through financial discipline, and through on-time and on-budget investing in the infrastructure upgrades that are needed, we believe we can move all of the utilities that are the former Integrys utilities at or near the allowed rates of return in Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota, and of course WPS in Wisconsin. So that’s a pretty important underlying assumption. And to your question of, well, where were the allowed rates of return for those utilities? Just a reminder that We Energies and Wisconsin Gas have historically earned at or very close to and in some years slightly above the allowed rates of return. With that, Pat has the specific numbers on where the other Integrys utilities have been from an ROE standpoint. Pat? J. Patrick Keyes – Chief Financial Officer, Director & Executive VP, WEC Energy Group, Inc. So, Julien, let’s start with the two biggest ones. Wisconsin Public Service last year earned just above 10%; and as a reminder its authorized was 10.2%, so just underneath allowed. The second biggest or the other big one would be Peoples Gas. That last year was about 5%, and that’s out of an allowed 9%. Then the other three utilities last year – that would be North Shore, Minnesota, and Michigan, two of the three hit; one was beneath, but the year before, the one that missed hit and another one didn’t. So they’re more or less maybe slightly underneath on average is probably the simplest way to state that. Does that help? Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Absolutely, that’s great. And perhaps just getting back to my question a little bit more broadly, as you think about 2016 to 2017, are you earning a full year earned ROE? Just I’m trying to think about some of the continued benefits as you flow that forward, right. So thinking about the 5% to 7% in conjunction with what is likely – I don’t want to put words in your mouth too much – but what is likely still an annualizing factor into that higher level, I would imagine. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. I’m not sure I exactly followed you, but perhaps I can answer. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Or are you expecting to earn a full year at or near the ROEs in 2016 already, just to be clear about that, or is there an annualizing factor? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Starting in 2016 we are expecting to earn a full-year annualized rate of return, yes. And let me help with that one piece, because you’re probably wondering like, well, how do you go from 5% to 9% at Peoples Gas? That’s a very good question, Julien. I’m glad you asked it. Peoples Gas did get a resolution of a rate case in January of this year, and I believe the allowed increase was $71 million. A lot of that, Julien, was for catch-up capital that had already been invested in the infrastructure in Chicago. So the fact that a rate case has been adjudicated and they are seeing the benefit of the $71 million increase is helpful on that front. I hope that’s helpful to you. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC It is indeed. And sorry to belabor it, just one last one in terms of the integrated resource plan. How are you thinking about that now? Obviously there was some shifts in the gas generation plans earlier. What is the current expectation vis-à-vis load growth as you stand today, as you close the deal? Would you expect a shift back in generation resources meaningfully from what has been discussed through the course of this merger approval? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Let me try the first piece and then we’re going to let Allen give you the detail on the integrated resource plan that we’ll be filing later this quarter with the Wisconsin Commission. Long story short, there is no change in terms of our long-term demand growth projection. Wisconsin Public Service and our company have pretty similar demand growth projections going forward, roughly 0.05% a year basically in electricity demand growth. Our belief, though, when you look at the portfolio of generation that the two companies have together, our belief is there can be some real synergies there. Allen? Allen L. Leverett – President & Director, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Right, and just review for everyone, Julien, who might not know the Fox Energy Center, which is a plant that’s owned by Wisconsin Public Service, before agreeing to the merger with Wisconsin Energy they had planned to build a facility called Fox 3, which was going to be a natural gas fired combined-cycle unit. And then as Gale mentioned in the script, essentially what the Commission said is: Well, all right, look at the resources at both of your Wisconsin utilities and tell us overall whether that unit is still needed. So, Julien, what we’ve been able to do to date, we’ve looked just simply at what I guess I would call the capacity demand balance between the two utilities. If we look solely at the capacity demand balance, my expectation would be that you can easily defer Fox unit 3 for a number of years. The analysis that we are doing to go in addition to that capacity and demand is a bit of an energy analysis, if you will. If you look at the energy mix of the two utilities, my expectation is that it will confirm the capacity demand balance and that the unit will be deferred. But that’s what we’re in the process of doing. And then as Gale mentioned in the third quarter we’ll do a formal filing to the Wisconsin Commission along those lines. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. And Julien, the Fox 3 was estimated to be about a $600 million capital investment, which again based on our preliminary look we believe can be deferred. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Great. Thank you for all the color. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. You are more than welcome. Good questions Julien. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Appreciate it. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Greg Gordon with Evercore ISI. Please go ahead. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. All right, Greg. I want to give you a shot here. Are the Jets going to be above .500? Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Based on the strength of schedule, I’m going to say yes. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. All right. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Not necessarily based on the talent, on the team, but based on the strength of the schedule. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. And any kind of playoff expectations, Greg? Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Well, there’s always hope. Jets are used to having a lot of that. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Well, I hope it’s a good season for you. How are you doing, Greg? Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Good. I just want to cut to the chase and just make sure I hear you clearly. Making all the adjustments you guys laid out, you were very articulate. We should expect you to still be inside the guidance range pre-Integrys. And then we should expect on a full run rate, merger-integrated basis for fiscal year 2016 that you will grow 6% to 8% earnings off that number? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. That is correct. You’ve nailed it. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Okay, perfect. So you’ve taken into account everything that’s going on including the one-time impact of this legacy asset sale. You think that everything in the stewpot, that’s a number you can hit? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. We’re certainly expecting to do so. But let me mention this one-time thing you mentioned about the one-time legacy asset sale. We have with the combined company like $29 billion of assets. I think every year, Greg, since I’ve been here we’ve had some type of asset sale. And remember we also have a real estate subsidiary that develops and sells property. So it’s part of our ongoing, it’s just part of what we do. And I would suspect you want us to do this, because it’s part of maximizing the value of our assets. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI No, completely understand. I just wanted to be clear on it. My second question is as we think about your cash flow profile, pro forma for the deal, still superior and differentiating factor about your investment thesis relative to almost any other utility, given the robust cash flow nature of the Power the Future assets. How should we think about the cash flow deployment priorities of the company as they are built into that 6% to 8%, going to 5% to 7%, expectation? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. In terms of the cash flow priorities, number 1 through 10 is obviously investing in infrastructure upgrades that are very much needed for customers across the four states. And as I mentioned at the EEI Fall Finance Conference, we’ll give you a lot more granular detail particularly about our next three- to five-year capital investment program. But we see tremendous need and tremendous opportunity for the use of that cash flow to upgrade the electric and natural gas infrastructures in the region. So that’s priority number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 for the cash flow. And then obviously we want to maintain the 65% to 70% target for dividend payouts. And if there’s any cash left over, well, we’ve got three doors we can go through. One is debt reduction. One would be if we can find, legitimately, additional investment opportunities and additional infrastructure projects. And then the third would be where we were before, which is a share buyback. But I would hope that and really am very hopeful that there will be additional investment opportunities that are really needed and that we can put that cash to really good use through infrastructure upgrades. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Okay, great. Just to be clear, are there any specific commitments vis-à-vis the current rating and the discussions you’ve had with the rating agencies on how you’re going to manage the parent debt balance over the next few years? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Pat? I’ll let Pat answer that. J. Patrick Keyes – Chief Financial Officer, Director & Executive VP, WEC Energy Group, Inc. What we talked about, Greg, was the reason we tranched the acquisition debt is that our expectation is that as each tranche matures or comes to its end, we will have sufficient cash flow to be able to not renew that tranche. So in other words we plan to take it out. In addition to that I might add that we’re also looking at what I’m just going to call balance sheet cleanup or looking at some of the other debt that is sitting out there at the Holding Company and what opportunities we’ve got to clean some of that up as well. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Perfect. Thanks, guys. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Great, questions. Thank you, Greg. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Good afternoon, guys. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. How are you doing, Jonathan? Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. You just reiterated the 65% to 75% dividend payout target, Gale. And you obviously bumped it a little bit more than you were committed to post the merger. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Yes. We thought you would like that, Jonathan. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Right. My question is it looks like the payout of the midpoint of the 2016 guidance is going to be 63%. How soon do you want to get in the range? You’ve typically done December increases. How should we think about that range versus what you’ve just been discussing around investment priorities? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Well, it’s a question we will continue to look at between now and the end of the year. But certainly in the relatively near term, we very much want to be at least in the bottom end of the 65% to 70% range. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay. Then what would push you I guess broadly as you look at the earnings for the quarter, into (39:27) to the higher end of that long-term growth rate? Do you have a line of sight on what kind of things we should be looking for you to announce? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Very good question. Let me frame the answer; if Pat or Allen would like to add, I would certainly welcome them to do so. Let me frame the answer for you. There is not one single thing that could pop us to the top end of the range on a permanent basis. But if you think about our business and where we’re headed, there are several factors, the biggest of which would be increased investment opportunity or increased investment requirement that we build on time and on budget and get cost recovery for. That would be the single biggest thing. In between rate cases, if you have an economic pickup and there’s stronger sales growth, there are a number of things that can happen in between rate periods. But the single biggest factor that could drive us to the top end would be additional investment opportunities in infrastructure upgrades. Pat, Allen, anything you would like to add? J. Patrick Keyes – Chief Financial Officer, Director & Executive VP, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Well, I got just a couple things I could throw in, Jonathan. I think Gale hit the main one, but other things I would think about would be opportunity sales that would help us on the fuel recovery, to the extent that our fleet is called more by the MISO. And the other would be hitting some, we talked about our ATC 10 year capital plan and the range it could be in. You are also familiar with our joint venture with Duke, the DATC. To the extent that some of those projects hit or we get to the top higher end of that capital plan, that would also help. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. That’s a good point, Pat. So it all comes down – well, it doesn’t all, but a lot of it comes down to: are there additional investment opportunities as we go forward beyond the plan that we’ll be pretty granular about with you at EEI in the fall. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Great. If I may, just on one other point, you talked about having filed with the ICC to tell them you’re going to have a rethink around the main replacement program. Does that include some proposal for how to resolve the ongoing investigation? Or is that a separate issue? Any perspective on how we bring that to closure? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. It’s a very good question. Let me be clear about the ongoing dockets. There’s one very helpful ongoing docket. And let me back up and explain that. The commission, before we got involved with the potential acquisition, the commission brought in an outside consulting group by the name of Liberty Consulting to basically do a review of the management, the physical on-the-ground management of the gas main replacement project. Liberty has come back with 95 specific recommendations, most of which are very practical and all of which we agree with. So what the commission has done is they’ve kept that docket open and they’ve asked us by September, early September, to file a transition plan that in part lays out how we plan to incorporate those recommendations into our management of the program. So, I think a lot of what you’re asking about has a schedule and has a definite plan for resolution. But I view the Liberty Consulting report as very helpful and certainly I know the commission has a good bit of faith in the recommendations. The recommendations are very practical. They are recommendations that we would automatically have put into our transition plan anyway. And so I think that’s the way, as we take a step back and re-look the entire project from soup to nuts, from scope to schedule, to logistics, we will be incorporating the Liberty audits along the way and Liberty will also have input along the way. So, again, a schedule and a date has been set for us telling the commission how we plan to incorporate the Liberty recommendations and I think that will go a long way, in addition to the expertise that we’re going to bring to this project. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Okay, great. Thank you, Gale. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. You’re welcome. Operator The next question comes from the line of Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Hi, Michael. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Hey, Gale, congrats on the deal. Congrats on getting everything closed and rolling out new guidance. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Thank you. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. One question, though. I know you are starting from the base of a $2.72 midpoint for WEC standalone. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Right. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. I’m just trying to put apples – I’m worried we are comparing apples and oranges here. Because Integrys has a large gas utility presence; that means it generates or delivers a decent amount of its annual earnings in the fourth quarter. And just are you thinking that the second half of this year that Integrys would actually have contributed to our EPS? Or would it have detracted from EPS from the original standalone entity? Because a lot will depend on what your starting point is and the starting point here is a little confusing. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. No, I’m glad you asked the question. Let us answer it very directly. First of all, yes, we’re picking up a lot of gas, gas delivery companies. And yes, they generally have a pretty good fourth quarter. They also have a lousy third quarter simply because of lack of gas demand. But let’s step back here. A couple factors. First of all, the financial logic for the acquisition was that an acquisition that we would want to make, like the Integrys acquisition, would add to our earnings per share growth in the first full calendar year after closing. So, that’s 2016. So, I think the logical starting point is okay; well, what would you have done standalone 2015? What would your growth rate standalone have been 2016? And is this better than that? And the answer is yes, it’s better than that. So, I think if it’s making any sense to you, Michael, I think we’re starting with the correct starting point. But I would like to add one other factor and that is in the second half of this year there will be significant accounting adjustments. A lot of accounting noise around the acquisition, as you even saw in our second quarter adjustments. So really the GAAP numbers for Integrys, the Integrys utilities for the second half of 2015 are really going to be irrelevant to the long-run earnings capability of Integrys utilities going forward. Does that help, Michael? Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. It helps. Let me ask another follow-on question, and I can catch up with your IR team or Pat offline. When you think about how far you are in the process of evaluating things like synergy opportunities or other opportunities to benefit – I mean, merger has only been closed for not quite 30 days, actually right at 30 days. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Right. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. How early in the process do you think you are? And do you think there is upside to whatever it is you are assuming today in potential long run, multiyear benefits from the merger? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Very good question, Michael. Let me just say this. We are less than 30 days in. Right now we are very much on target in terms of our plan for follow-on integration. Everybody understands where they report. Everyone has budget targets for 2016. And we are in the process of working through every single functional area to determine where we go and what the shape of their organizations look like. So it’s a little early to give you much more granular detail, but let me back up. There’s nothing that we’ve seen that would indicate that our earlier thinking and information we’ve said publicly, there’s nothing to indicate that that’s off-track. I would expect that over the 10 years there will be a minimum of $1 billion of savings for Wisconsin customers alone in a combination of capital and operating costs. And that to me still stands as a good preliminary early estimate. So we’ll keep working on it, but right now I feel very good about where we are. And let me back-up to your earlier question again. Remember the $2.72 that we’re talking about as the base for 2015 is Wisconsin Energy standalone. So we’re basically taking out either a positive or negative impact of Integrys utilities for the second half of the year, to give you a clean starting point, if you will that was basically the foundation for the logic of the acquisition. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Understood. I appreciate the help, guys. I may follow up offline. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Okay, great. Thank you, Michael. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Thanks, Gale. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Jim von Riesemann with Mizuho Securities. Please go ahead. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Welcome, Jim. How are you? James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. I’m tired. How are you? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Tired? What, you’ve been listening to the Southern call too long? James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Yep, that’s and I’m on an airplane back from Tokyo. Hey, I have a couple questions for you. I’m confused and I’m having a little translation issue. Can you translate how much the operating efficiencies mean on a dollar basis? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. I’m sorry, one more time? James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. I tried to avoid the S word. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Thank you. Have we translated how much the operating efficiencies mean on a dollar basis? James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Yeah. You talk about robust operating efficiencies. What does that mean on a dollar basis? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. That means basically getting to our allowed rates of return and staying there for 2016 and beyond. James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Okay. I get it, I get it. Second question, totally different is, with all the noise that’s going on in the State of Illinois, can you talk about the legal precedent for changing conditions once a merger has been actually, you have an order and it has been consummated? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Well, generally in all past cases, for the Illinois Commerce Commission to change its order, there generally would need to be new facts or some demonstration of an error in the facts that form the basis for the merger order. In this case, none of us see new facts or errors in fact. As a matter of fact, the Attorney General’s Office, CUB and the City of Chicago really didn’t indicate in any way, shape, or form that there were any new facts or that there were any facts in error. So again we believe the Commission’s decision was very sound, well thought through, and supported by a significant body of evidence. James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Okay. And are you guys going to give out any 2015 consolidated guidance? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. No. Nope. I really think it’s kind of meaningless, to be honest with you. And the accounting noise around the second half of 2015 with the adjustments, et cetera, I think it would just make your head swim. To me the most important thing is: are we delivering what we said we would from the acquisition, which is growth over and above our 4% to 6% standalone growth. And what was our basis for starting? And that’s the 2015 midpoint of $2.72 a share standalone. James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Okay. Well, then let me ask you this question. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Okay. James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. If you raise the number 6% to 8% 2016 versus standalone, what prevents you from going 6% to 8% in say, 2017 and beyond? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Well, what would prevent us from doing that? First of all we’d have to have a plan that we would be comfortable with that would produce a 6% to 8%. And at this point in time, 29 days in, this is what we feel comfortable with and what we believe we can deliver. James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Okay. So wait for EEI is what you’re saying? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. I wouldn’t expect that you’re going to see an earnings guidance change at EEI. What you will see, though, is much more granular detail on our capital spending plans that drive the earnings growth. James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Great, okay. Thank you. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. You are welcome Jim. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Brian Russo with Ladenburg Thalmann. Please go ahead. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Hi, Brian. Brian J. Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (Broker) Hi, good afternoon. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Good afternoon. How are you today? Brian J. Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (Broker) Good thanks. A lot of my questions were asked. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. I’ve gotten you from bad the last time to good. Next time you will be wonderful and award-winning. Brian J. Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (Broker) Right, right. Just real quickly, what is the upcoming general rate case strategy and timing for the Wisconsin utility subs? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Okay. Well, for Wisconsin Electric if you recall we just completed our rate case last December, so our rates with future looking test years are set for 2015 and 2016. So under the normal course with the Wisconsin Commission really liking its utilities to file for a case every two years, under the normal course we would file for Wisconsin Electric in the spring of 2016 for rates that would go into effect January 1 of 2017. So that is Wisconsin Electric. Same thing applies for Wisconsin Gas. For Wisconsin Public Service, they are actually in the midst of a rate case right now, and we would expect a rate case decision as usual from the Wisconsin Commission by November or December of this year. Brian J. Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (Broker) Got it. Okay. That’s all I had. Thank you. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Okay. Thank you, Brian. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Andy Bischof with Morningstar. Please go ahead. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Hello, Andy, how are you? Andrew Bischof – Morningstar Research Wonderful and award-winning. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. All right. Rock ‘n roll. You haven’t seen the lion down there, have you? Andrew Bischof – Morningstar Research No, not yet. We are in Chicago so he hasn’t come down our way yet. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Okay. Well be careful. Andrew Bischof – Morningstar Research Just a real quick maintenance question. In terms of rate case earnings benefits in the latter half of the year, should they be similar to the $24 million in the first half? Or first quarter was a little bit higher than the second quarter? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. In terms of the Wisconsin Electric rate case benefits, guys, no? Okay, Steve, we will ask you to cover that. Stephen P. Dickson – VP & Controller, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Yeah. So you are referring during the earnings package we’ve got for the quarter rate case netted to $9.5 million. And what that represents is going into the rate case last year when the rates were set effective January 1, the Wisconsin Commission assumed a certain level of SSR revenues. And what has happened is that the SSR, we reached an agreement with the State of Michigan and those stopped. But in the Wisconsin rate case we are allowed to have the incremental revenues associated with that. So if you remember last year in the SSRs, the first half of the year the SSRs were based on the suspension. And then later in the year it went to the retirement SSRs. And so the dollar amount was greater in the latter part of the year. So the short answer is you will not see this big a benefit in the last part of the year, but you’ll see a little bit of benefit. Does that make sense? Andrew Bischof – Morningstar Research Yeah, I think so. I might follow-up off-line, but that’s all I had. Thank you. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. All right. Thank you. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Paul Ridzon with KeyBanc. Please go ahead. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Greetings, Paul. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Greetings, Gale. How are you? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. We are good. We’d like it a little hotter, a little more humid, but we are good. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. I will work on that. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. All right. Thank you. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. What’s the rate base at Peoples Gas? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. I’m sorry, one more time with the question? Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. What is rate base at Peoples Gas? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Rate base at Peoples Gas? I’m looking at Pat. I think it’s $1.8 billion. J. Patrick Keyes – Chief Financial Officer, Director & Executive VP, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Yes. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Okay. And about a 50-50 cap structure? J. Patrick Keyes – Chief Financial Officer, Director & Executive VP, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Yes. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Yes, that is correct. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Then just to make sure I understand it, combined 2016 earnings should be 6% to 8% growth off of standalone $2.72? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. You’ve got it. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Those were all my questions. Thank you very much. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. You’re more than welcome. J. Patrick Keyes – Chief Financial Officer, Director & Executive VP, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Thank you. Operator Your last question comes from the line of Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Please go ahead. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Last but not least, Paul. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC How you doing? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Good. How are you? Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC All right. You mentioned that there were going to be some substantial accounting adjustments in the second half of the year. I was just wondering if you could just give us a little bit of a preview what you are expecting to happen there? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Sure. And I will ask Steve Dickson, our controller, and Scott Lauber, our treasurer, if they have anything to add. But essentially as you know, in any acquisition – we’re not immune from this – one of the things that has to be done is purchase price adjustments. Generally you get a year to do that. But when you close this early in the year the SEC would like you to button down many of the purchase price adjustments of the time of the filing of the 10-K, which would be early, early next year. So one of the major amount of accounting work that has to be done is all the purchase price adjustment work. Then I’m certain there will be some one-time transition type costs, and there’s a whole slew of different types of costs that would be one-time costs that we would incur in the second half of this year. For example, we want to get an improvement in call center responsiveness for a number of the Integrys utilities; there will be some one-time costs to that. Pat tells me that there are software licensing costs that we will incur that would be one-time nonrecurring in the second half of this year. We could go on with a list of 30 or 40 of these things that are all transition costs that would be non-recurring. But that gives you a flavor. Steve, would you like to add anything? Stephen P. Dickson – VP & Controller, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Yeah. The only thing I’ll add, I think you nailed the transition related costs. And I’ll go back to the previous question, is we will report GAAP costs at the end of the year; but then as Pat mentioned, we’re going to strip out. We’re going to make an accounting adjustment to strip off the Integ (58:22) earnings, we’re going to strip off the acquisition debt, we’re going to strip off the additional shares associated with that to get back to the WEC standalone. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. Just to follow-up on this, though, so it sounds like there’s going to be a lot of charges. Do we have any sense as to what the quantity of those one-timers is going to be? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Not yet. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. We’ll certainly have a much better feel for that when we see you at the EEI Conference, but not yet. We are, again, 29 days into this. We know there will probably be a number of charges, and we will be working on it. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. Then in terms of purchase accounting, sometimes that has an impact going forward, and some companies strip out those impacts depending on how they are, and sometimes they aren’t. Do you guys have any feel as to how the purchase accounting might affect growth going forward? And is there any impact associated with purchase accounting that’s in your 2016 and beyond expectations for earnings growth? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Well, first of all, I don’t think we know the answer to that completely yet. But there is one element, because we have regulated operations and more than 99% of our earnings are coming from regulated operations, but in general terms when you value regulated assets they come over onto your balance sheet at carrying value, at rate based value, if I’m making any sense to you. So that actually simplifies a great deal the purchase accounting. However, there are other things that we have to take a hard look at, like the value of some of the solar assets that Integrys has retained; like the value of a company called Trillium, which is a compressed natural gas fueling station company. So there are other assets. I think there’s a waste-to-energy plant in Texas that they had. There are several of these assets that we’re going to have to take a hard look at and give an appropriate value to. But in terms of major impact on 2016 earnings growth and beyond, Steve, I don’t see any, do you? Stephen P. Dickson – VP & Controller, WEC Energy Group, Inc. No, you nailed it. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Okay. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC No, I would’ve thought it until you guys brought it up. And I mean, I think it probably would have been different if Integrys had kept the retail business. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. Oh, gosh, very different, very different. Remember, that was part of the announcement, that that did not fit with our model going forward. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Right. So just to make sure I understand, basically your earnings growth doesn’t have really any major assumptions associated with purchase accounting one way or the other in it? Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. You are correct. You are absolutely correct. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Thanks a lot. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. You’re welcome. Gale E. Klappa – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, WEC Energy Group, Inc. All right. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes our conference call for today. Thank you so much for participating. If you have any questions, now we have both Colleen and Beth and they are available in our Investor Relations office, 414-221-2592. Thanks everybody.