Tag Archives: president

South Jersey Industries’ (SJI) CEO Michael Renna on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

South Jersey Industries Inc. (NYSE: SJI ) Q2 2015 Results Earnings Conference Call August 7, 2015 11 AM ET Executives Ann Anthony – Treasurer Michael Renna – President & Chief Executive Officer Stephen Clark – Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Jeffrey DuBois – Executive Vice President Marissa Travaline – Director Investor Relations Operator Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Q2 2015 South Jersey Industries Earnings Conference Call. My name is Scoda, and I’ll be your operator for today. At this time all participants are in listen-only mode. Later we will conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the conference over to your host for today, Ann Anthony, Treasurer. Please proceed. Ann Anthony Thank you. Good morning and welcome to the conference call for SJI’s second quarter fiscal 2015 results. I’m Ann Anthony, Treasurer for South Jersey Industries. And I’m joined today by members of our senior management team, including Mike Renna, President and CEO of SJI; Steve Clark, our CFO; Jeff DuBois, President of South Jersey Gas; and Marissa Travaline, our Director, overseeing Investor Relations. As you may know, we issued a news release this morning announcing the results we will be discussing on the call today. That release includes an in-depth review of earnings on both a GAAP and non-GAAP basis using our non-GAAP measure of Economic Earnings. This measure eliminates all unrealized gains and losses on commodity and on the ineffective portion of interest rate derivative transactions. It also adjusts for realized gains and losses attributed to hedges on inventory transactions and for the impact of transactions or contractual arrangements where the true economic impact will be realized in a future period. The news release is currently available on our website at www.sjindustries.com, in the Newsroom section. Throughout today’s call, we will be making references to future expectations, plans and opportunities for South Jersey Industries. These remarks constitute forward-looking statements for purposes of the Safe Harbor provisions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual future results may differ materially from those indicated by these statements as a result of various important factors, including those discussed in the company’s Form 10-K on file with the SEC. We assume no duty to update today’s statements should actual events differ from expectations. Also note that our 2014 numbers have been adjusted to reflect the impacts of the stock split that occurred on May 8. With that said, I’d like to turn the call over to our CFO, Steve Clark, to detail our year to date and second quarter 2015 results. Stephen Clark Thank you, Ann, good morning to everyone on the call and thanks for joining us. As we stated in the release, earnings were impacted by a write-down of our investment in cost associated with the central energy facility that previously served the former Revel property in Atlantic City. We’ve discussed on previous calls Revel’s bankruptcy and closing in mid-2014 in a long drawn-out sale process that was completed in April of this year. Since our central energy facility is the logical source of power for the Revel property, we anticipated that our contract provides heating, cooling and power to the facility would be renegotiated to some reduced level with the new owner. Unfortunately, the new owner has shown little to no interest in reopening Revel or striking a deal for energy services. While we remain ready to provide service to Revel, a lack of any recent and meaningful progress toward this new deal awarded the write down we took in the second quarter. This write down reflects our investment in central energy facility of Revel. It does not include the value of our cogeneration equipment located within the facility as we expect to be able to repurpose that equipment to serve better customers. Now, let’s review results. Year to date, economic earnings totaled $60.8 million. Excluding the year to date Revel related write down of $11.1 million, operating results would have reflected economic earnings of $71.9 million for the first half of 2015, as compared with $76.2 million for the first half of 2014.The remaining variance between These year over year periods largely reflects the significant contribution to economic earnings from our wholesale gas marketing business in the first quarter of 2014, which directly resulted from the Polar Vortex we experienced in the early part of the year. The variance also reflects a reduction in investment tax credits from solar development. First the second quarter, economic earnings totaled $1.9 million in 2015. Excluding the write down of $10.9 million for the quarter, operating results would have reflected economic earnings of $12.8 million as compared with $10 million in the second quarter of 2014. The biggest drivers of the quarterly improvement in operating results between 2014 and 2015 are contributions from our utility due to infrastructure investment and customer growth, as well as significantly improved performance from our wholesale commodity business. Actual economic earnings per share through June 30, 2015 were $0.89 as compared with $1.16 for the first six months of 2014. For the quarter, economic EPS totaled $0.03 as compared with $0.15 in the prior year period. Excluding the impact of the thermal facility write down, 2015 economic earnings per share would have totaled $0.19 for the year to date and $1.05 for the second quarter. Now, I will detail the results of specific areas of our business, noting those business lines or segments where the write down had a major impact on economic earnings. Within the utilities, South Jersey Gas’ net income for the first half of 2015 was up 15% at $47.8 million as compared with $41.5 million for the first half of 2014. For the quarter, utility net income was $5.2 million, significant increase over the second quarter of 2014 contribution of $3.8 million. This improvement reflects the benefits of last year’s rate case, our accelerated infrastructure programs and customer additions. Infrastructure investments under our accelerated programs totaled $28.7 million year-to-date and added an incremental $1.7 million of net income for the first half of 2015. With planned investments of nearly $65 million for 2015, our AIRP and SHARP programs will continue to reinforce our system for the replacement of bare steel and cast-iron gas main and the replacement of low pressure gas main with high pressure main along barrier islands. Also worth noting, we are moving forward again in our pipeline project to provide natural gas to the BL England electric generation station and enhance service reliability to customers in the southernmost portions of our operating territory. In May, South Jersey Gas filed an amendment to our 2013 project application still pending with the New Jersey Pinelands Commission. The amended application highlights the enhanced reliability and environmental benefits this project will provide customers across the region. We remain optimistic of the compelling benefits of this project to all residents in Southern New Jersey or ultimately result in its successful completion. Customer growth continues to be significant, up over 6,400 customers [or 1.8%] for the 12 month period ending June 30, 2015. On an annualized basis, these customers will be worth approximately $1.7 million of net income in future years. Our growth continues to benefit from strong conversion activity with nearly 2,800 new customers coming from conversions during the first half of 2015 and a target of 6,500 for the full year. I do want to point out that the collection of deferred gas cost from the winter of 2014 combined with the extremely cold winter this past year has resulted in high receivable balances as of the end of June, which in turn have resulted in higher receivable reserves of the utility. We boosted reserves by roughly $800,000 for the quarter or $500,000 after tax, reflect a situation that we will continue to monitor closely. Now, I’ll move over to the non-utility side of our business and discuss results from South Jersey Energy Services and South Jersey Energy Group. Energy Services largely reflects our energy production assets within Marina Energy and our energy project joint venture Energenic. Energy Group reflects our wholesale gas and retail gas and electric commodity business activities. The first six months of 2015, these non-utility businesses contributed a combined $13 million as compared with $34.7 million in 2014. Year over year variance stems from two major events, first being the previously noted write down of our central energy facility assets, second is the non-recurring benefit to our wholesale business realized from the Polar Vortex in the winter of 2014 that drove gas volatility and ultimately net income in the first quarter of that year. Reduction in solar ITC also played a smaller role in the year over year decline. In the second quarter of 2015, our non-utility businesses reflected a loss of $3.3 million as compared with economic earnings of $6.2 million in the prior year period. We will take a look at the other drivers of these results as I detail each of the business lines. Beginning with South Jersey Energy Services, this part of our business directly absorb the full write down noted previously. However, for the purpose of comparing operating results in the context of this discussion, I think it is more meaningful to [prevent] economic earnings that exclude the impacts of the write down, which amounted to $11.1 million for the first half of the year and $10.9 million for the second quarter. With this in mind, economic earnings for the first half of 2015 for South Jersey Energy Services, excluding the write down, were $15.7 million as compared with $20.8 million for the same period in 2014. For the quarter, results were $6.9 million as compared with $10.1 million for the second quarter of 2014. Lower levels of ITC recorded for both the 2015 year to date and second quarter periods accounted for the majority of the variance. First quarter 2014 Polar Vortex related performance in our wholesale gas marketing business and 2014 earnings from our energy facilities serving Revel were obviously not repeated. Excluding the impact of the write down, operating performance from our CHP business line reflected economic earnings of $2.6 million per year to date, as compared with economic earnings of $4.9 million in the first half of 2014. For the quarter, operating performance for this business produced economic earnings of $300,000 as compared with $1.5 million in the second quarter of 2014. In addition to legal costs incurred and income loss from operations at Revel, 2015 did not see a repeat of the benefits incurred from optimizing these assets, here I’m specifically talking about the energy production assets, around extreme gas price volatility that existed during the winter of 2014. Going forward, we expect our operating projects to be steady and positive contributors to economic earnings. Turning to renewables, our solar operating performance improved by nearly $400,000 year over year. This is reflected in our year to date solar economic earnings of $15.1 million, which included investment tax credits of $17.3 million as compared with the prior year economic earnings of $17.5 million, which contained ITC of $20.1 million. For the second quarter, solar contributed $7.2 million, including $7.1 million of ITC, as compared with $9.8 million that included $9.6 million of ITC in the prior year period. The increase in 2015 solar energy production, particularly in the second quarter, has not yet been fully recognized in earnings due to the timing of certification of renewable energy certificates, particularly as it relates to Massachusetts. That certification process can take up to six months. We expect to see those benefits in the second half of this year. We do expect to see improved operating performance through year end. We remain on track for full year SREC production of 135,000 SRECs. SREC values in New Jersey continue to strengthen, spot market price is now around $237. We also remain very active in the Massachusetts market, where SREC spot market values are closer to $465. For the first half of 2015, our landfills produced a loss totaling $2.3 million as compared with a loss of $2.2 million in the prior year period. However, the second quarter saw operating performance improve their reduced loss of $900,000 in 2015 as compared to a loss of $1.3 million for the second quarter of 2014. We remain optimistic that the operational initiatives implemented over the last two quarters will help drive continuing improvement for these projects. Turning to South Jersey Energy Group, the commodity segment of our business, the first half of the year reflected solid performance with economic earnings totaling $8.5 million as compared with $13.9 million for the first half of 2014. These results reflect a benefit price volatility associated with the 2014 Polar Vortex. As we told you to expect on previous calls, performance for this business improved significantly in the second quarter. This segment contributed $671,000 as compared to a loss of $4.3 million in the second quarter of 2014. With the declining drag from what’s profitable legacy marketing contracts that began rolling off at the end of March and the contributions from the two fuel management contracts that are currently active and with another pending to commence later this year, we expect continued improvements from this business throughout 2015. Finally, taking a look at the balance sheet, our equity-to-cap ratio was 43% at the end of the second quarter, as compared to 44% in the second quarter of 2014. We use our dividend reinvestment plan to issue equity and we’ll continue to do so in 2015 in support of our significant capital programs. We also [indiscernible] $300 million of deferred tax benefits related to our investments that we expect to realize between now and 2020 that will support our goal of delivering – delevering the balance sheet. At this time, I’ll turn the call over to Mike to discuss the forward view for our business. Michael Renna Thanks, Steve. Good morning. As Steve highlighted in his comments, the write down of our investment in the energy facilities serving Revel mitigated much of the positive performance for the quarter. I think most of the detail around that transaction is already been articulated here today, as well as within our earnings release and 10-Q filing. The one think I’d like to add is that we’re encouraged by what we see happening in Atlantic City, we look forward to the day when the former Revel property, part of the City’s broader success, but ultimately we decided that the best thing for our company is to look forward. Doing so will allow us to fully focus on strengthening the business lines that are the foundation of our growth. Businesses, that after backing out the impact of Revel, actually supported economic earnings per share growth 4% to 8% in 2015. In an emphasis on earnings quality, we look forward to continued strong performance in our utility, increase contributions from our commodity businesses, stable performance from our operating energy production assets. As we move forward, we do so with a model that emphasizes our regulated businesses and those areas of our non-regulated business. We have a demonstrated ability to compete and succeed. Most importantly, we will remain confident in our ability to deliver economic earnings of $150 million by 2020. I think focusing on earnings from operations provides a meaningful year over year comparison performance, while also highlighting the strong potential for our business overall. Year to date performance of our utility highlights the potential of South Jersey Gas, increase its contribution to SJI earnings from roughly 60% to 65% to upwards of 70% to 75% as we approach 2020. Significant customer growth fuelled by the compelling economics of natural gas as the heating fuel, we expect to add an incremental $11.8 million by 2020. Accelerated utility infrastructure investment is projected at nearly $350 million over the next five years, adding roughly $18 million in incremental net income by 2020. These initiatives combined with the benefits from new CNG infrastructure, the development of a reliability pipeline to serve BL England, construction of a liquefier at our Nat LNG storage site and a future rate case position our utility for an incremental net income contribution of roughly $13 million again by 2020. On the non-regulated side, strong margins in our commodity business, commencement of at least five new fuel management contracts and improving operating performance across our energy production assets support earnings contributions of $30 million to $40 million by 2020. Most importantly, this growth is targeted without reliance on investment tax credits from renewable projects, coming instead from expanded and improved performance across our core businesses. Finally, we expect our investment in the Penn East pipeline to contribute at least 10% of total net income by 2018. This fully subscribed pipeline is being driven by [climates] of more than 800,000 decatherms from regional utilities and utility affiliates, and is expected to be in service by late 2017. While there is certainly vocal opposition to some pipelines, including Penn East, we expect the overwhelming benefit will provide the region to ultimately overcome the opposition. Before we conclude, I’d like to highlight strategic priorities we shared during the second quarter’s AGA conference. As we work toward our goal of achieving $150 million in economic earnings by 2020, we’re committed to strengthening our balance sheet, maintaining a lot to moderate risk profile, perhaps most importantly improving quality of earnings to ensure that the foundation of our business is built on regulated, repeatable, and reliable income streams. Thank you. Now, I’ll turn the call back to the operator for Q&A.

Duke Energy (DUK) Lynn J. Good on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Duke Energy Corp. (NYSE: DUK ) Q2 2015 Earnings Call August 06, 2015 10:00 am ET Executives Bill Currens – Vice President-Investor Relations Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Analysts Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities (NYSE: USA ) LLC (Broker) Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Operator Good day and welcome to this Duke Energy Second Quarter Earnings Conference Call. Today’s conference is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Mr. Bill Currens. Please go ahead, sir. Bill Currens – Vice President-Investor Relations Thank you, Shannon. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Duke Energy’s second quarter 2015 earnings review and business update. Leading our call is Lynn Good, President and CEO, along with Steve Young, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Today’s discussion will include forward-looking information and the use of non-GAAP financial measures. Slide 2 presents the Safe Harbor statement, which accompanies our presentation materials. A reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures can be found on duke-energy.com and in today’s materials. Please note that the appendix to today’s presentation includes supplemental information and additional disclosures to help you analyze the company’s performance. As summarized on slide three, Lynn will begin with an update on our principal strategic, operational and financial activities since our last call, then Steve will provide an overview of our second quarter financial results, including updates on economic activities within our service territories, as well as conditions in Brazil. With that, I’ll turn the call over to Lynn. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining us. Before I start today, I’d like to take a moment to introduce Doug Esamann. Doug recently joined our senior management team and will oversee our Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky and Florida utilities. Doug has over 30 years of experience with Duke Energy, most recently as the President of our Indiana utility. Doug’s depth of regulatory experience as well as his customer and strategic focus complements our leadership team. We look forward to introducing Doug to many of you over the coming months. Now, to the quarter. We are midway through 2015 and continue to execute our operational and strategic growth objectives while positioning the company to meet our financial objectives for the year. This morning, we reported second quarter 2015 adjusted EPS of $0.95, which is consistent with our plan. Our regulated and commercial businesses have performed well over the first half of the year. Additionally, we have completed the sale of the Midwest Generation and the purchase of the NCEMPA assets ahead of schedule. This has allowed us to effectively offset the challenging business environment in Brazil. As a result, we remain confident in our ability to achieve our full-year 2015 earnings guidance range of $4.55 to $4.75 per share. In June, we completed our $1.5 billion accelerated stock repurchase ahead of schedule. Further, last month, we announced that the Board of Directors increased the quarterly dividend to $0.825 per share doubling the annual growth rate to around 4%. This increase reflects our confidence in the strength of our core business and our cash flows. Our balance sheet provides continued support for growth in the dividend. For the past 89 years, the dividend has demonstrated our commitment to delivering attractive total returns to shareholders. I am pleased with the company’s operational performance during the quarter, particularly our response to the extended heat wave in the Carolinas in June. Temperatures were in the upper 90s for much of the month and our system met the increased demand for our customers. In June, we used a record monthly amount of natural gas, approximately 25 Bcf, surpassing the previous month high of 20 Bcf set in July of 2014. Additionally, our nuclear fleet delivered a record second quarter in terms of net megawatt hours of generation. Nuclear capacity factor was around 95% during the month of June. Lastly, our field operations teams met customer needs during the stress of the summer heat and storms. Our ability to meet extreme demand conditions demonstrates the quality of our operations. We’ve made significant headway on other strategic and regulatory priorities, which I’ll briefly cover on slide five. These priorities include investments in new generation, infrastructure and a focus on environmental compliance. Beginning with our investments in new generation. Just last week, we closed on the $1.25 billion acquisition of jointly owned generating assets from the North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency. We closed ahead of schedule, after receiving the required approval sooner than expected. This reflects the mutually beneficial nature of the acquisition and the widespread support we received here in North Carolina. We immediately began supplying power to the 32 municipalities through a long-term wholesale contract. In 2015, we expect a $0.04 earnings per share benefit based upon an expected full year EPS impact of around $0.07 to $0.08. During the second quarter, we also announced the $1.1 billion Western Carolinas Modernization Project. This project includes the early retirement of our Asheville coal plant, which will be replaced by a new 650 megawatt combined-cycle gas plant. We will also build new transmission assets that will improve reliability in the region. Finally, we will install solar generation at the site. The new gas plant is expected in service by the end of 2019 and the entire project will likely be completed by 2020. Before construction begins, various regulators including the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Carolinas Utility Commissions will need to approve the plan. Our commercial renewables business continues to deliver on its capital growth projects. In April, we completed the 200-megawatt Los Vientos III project in South Texas, which is now delivering power under a long-term contract with Austin Energy. In July, we announced acquisitions of an additional 70 megawatts of solar capacity in California and North Carolina. Our commercial renewables business now has more than 2,000 megawatts of capacity in operation. In July, FERC approved our application to acquire the 599 megawatt combined-cycle Osprey gas plant in Florida from Calpine. The Florida Public Service Commission also voted to approve the acquisition. We remain on track to close by January of 2017 when our existing PPA with Calpine terminates and we have a need for additional generation capacity. Also in Florida, we announced an agreement to purchase a 7.5% stake in the Sabal Trail gas pipeline from Spectra Energy for $225 million. Similar to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, the Sabal Trail investment will be a part of Duke’s Commercial portfolio. The pipeline is expected in service by the end of 2017 and will serve the growing natural gas needs in the state, including our 1,640 megawatt Citrus County combined-cycle plant, which is expected to be online in 2018. Duke Energy Florida and Florida Power & Light have entered into 25-year capacity agreements with the pipeline. Moving to Indiana, in May, we received an order from the Indiana Commission on the transmission and distribution infrastructure plan. The Commission denied our proposed $1.9 billion investment because they would like to see greater detail. We are working on a revised plan, which we expect to file with the Commission by the end of 2015. Modernizing our electric grid will provide great benefits to customers in Indiana, ultimately increasing reliability, decreasing the duration of power outages and improving customer communication. In the second quarter, we made significant progress on coal ash management activities. In May, we began moving ash at our River Bend site in North Carolina after receiving state permits. We are now excavating ash at three sites in the Carolinas. In June, we announced recommendations to fully excavate 12 additional ash basins in North Carolina, bringing the total ash in the Carolinas we have slated for excavation to about 30%. The remaining ash basins are being further studied to determine appropriate closure methods. We are pursuing solutions that balance safety, environmental stewardship and cost effectiveness. Given our efforts over the past year, we are ahead of the curve in adapting to changing regulations our industry faces with ash management. On the subject of environmental rules, on Monday, the U.S. EPA finalized a Clean Power Plan, a regulation aimed at reducing carbon emissions from existing power plants 32% by 2030. The guidelines issued this week are more than 1,500 pages long and among the more complex rules in recent history. This rule sets state specific reduction targets and builds upon the substantial progress we have already made to reduce our environmental footprint. Since 2005, we have reduced our total carbon dioxide emissions by 22% through retirement of older coal units, the transition to cleaner burning natural gas, as well as investments in renewables and energy efficiency. Our plans continue to move us toward a lower carbon future. We will work constructively with our states to identify solutions that preserve the reliability and affordability our customers expect. As we continue to modernize our system, managing energy diversity will be an important consideration. As I look back over the first half of 2015, I am pleased with what we’ve accomplished on multiple fronts across the business. I’m even more pleased with the groundwork we’re laying for the years ahead. We’re making strategic long-term investments that will benefit our customers and communities in addition to supporting growth for shareholders. We’re developing and executing strategies that will position the company well in a rapidly changing industry. Now, I’ll turn the call over to Steve to discuss the quarter in more detail. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Thanks, Lynn. Today, I’ll review our second quarter financial results and discuss the economic conditions in our service territories. I will also provide an update on the accounting and expected costs for our coal ash management activities and review our results in Brazil. Let’s start with the quarterly results. I will cover the highlights on slide six. For more detailed information on segment variances versus last year, please refer to the supporting materials that accompany today’s press release. As Lynn mentioned, we achieved second quarter adjusted diluted earnings of $0.95 per share compared to $1.11 in the second quarter of 2014. On a reported basis, 2015 second quarter earnings per share were $0.78 compared to $0.86 last year. A reconciliation of reported results to adjusted results is included in the supplemental materials to today’s presentation. Regulated Utilities adjusted results declined by $0.09 per share, primarily due to a prior year favorable state tax settlement, planned timing of O&M cost and higher depreciation and amortization. O&M cost increased this quarter due to the planned timing of outages across the generation fleet and approximately $0.05 due to nuclear outage cost levelization impacts recognized in the prior year. This is the last quarter in which we expect nuclear outage cost levelization to be a significant driver over the prior year results. We are on track to achieve our targeted full-year O&M budget and continue to look for opportunities to reduce costs. These negative drivers were partially offset by higher margins, resulting from growth in wholesale contracts and weather normal retail sales. We had favorable weather in the quarter as a significant heat wave gripped the Carolinas in June. Weather added around $0.03 over last year’s second quarter and $0.06 compared to normal conditions. We also experienced higher earnings of $0.03 this quarter from pricing and riders, primarily due to increased energy efficiency programs. International’s quarterly earnings declined $0.13 over last year, due to factors we continue to monitor, including the economic conditions and lower demand for electricity in Brazil. As you will recall, International also had a favorable income tax adjustment of $0.07 in last year’s quarter, associated with the reorganization of our operations in Chile. Our Commercial Portfolio, formerly Commercial Power, is primarily made up of our commercial renewables business. In the second quarter, we incurred slightly lower earnings, due to lower wind production. This decrease in wind production was experienced broadly across the United States. Turning to slide seven, I’ll now provide some insight into the second half of 2015. And the key drivers that give us confidence in our 2015 guidance range of $4.55 to $4.75 per share. Through the first half of the year, our adjusted earnings per share of $2.20 is consistent with our plan. The regulated business has experienced favorable weather, and has seen strong growth in wholesale contracts and weather normal retail sales. The sale of the Midwest Generation fleet, as a whole, has been favorable to our plan in the first half of the year. These positive drivers have helped offset continued weakness at International. In order to achieve our full-year 2015 earnings guidance range, we expect higher EPS contributions in the back half of the year, over what we earned in the comparable period last year. There are a few primary drivers that support this. First, we expect continued growth in contracted wholesale volumes, as well as organic growth in retail demand over the last half of the year. Second, we experienced unfavorable weather last year in the third quarter. Assuming normal weather for the remainder of this year provides an uplift of $0.05. Third, the early completion of the NCEMPA asset purchase will provide an additional earnings per share impact of around $0.04. Earnings from our Commercial renewables business should also see an improvement in the second half of the year. We are on track to put over 200 megawatts of additional wind and solar capacity into service later this year, which would bring 2015’s total additions to more than 400 megawatts. Related to O&M cost, we expect third quarter O&M to be higher than the prior year, while fourth quarter should be lower. As a result, O&M shouldn’t be a significant driver in the second half of the year. Similarly, we expect International’s earnings contribution in the second half of 2015 to be comparable to last year. This is not a full list of drivers for the rest of the year, but these represent variances that are likely to occur based on current expectations. As you are all aware, the third quarter is historically our strongest quarter. We will be in a position to provide more insight into the year after we see those results. Moving on to slide eight, I’ll now discuss our retail customer volume trends. On a rolling 12-month basis, weather normalized retail load growth increased by positive 0.1% driven by strong second quarter growth of positive 1.7%. This was the first quarter we have experienced positive growth across all customer classes in over a year. Although, one quarter does not make a trend, this recent uptick is encouraging. Within the residential sector, we continued to experience strong growth in the number of new customers, approximately 1.3% over the same period last year. The growth in the Carolinas and Florida regions has been particularly strong, at around 1.5%. The Carolinas and Florida also saw usage per customer level off, after trending lower over the past several quarters. We continue to see favorable trends in the key indicators for the residential sector including, employment, median incomes and household formations. In fact, the 6 states we serve captured over 20% of the additional nonfarm job growth over the last year. The commercial sector grew by 0.3% on a rolling 12-month basis. This sector continues to benefit from declining office vacancy rates, and expansion in the medical and restaurant subsectors. We’ve also experienced some growth in the tourism related businesses, in certain markets. The industrial sector grew by 1.3% on a rolling 12-month basis. This growth was led by metals, transportation, construction and chemicals. Additionally, we are starting to see textiles in the Carolinas build momentum. We will continue to monitor the impact of the strengthening U.S. dollar on manufacturing activity. Our economic development teams remain active, successfully helping attract new business investments into our service territories. So far this year, these activities have led to the announcement of another $1.7 billion in capital investments, which is expected to result in over 5,000 new jobs, across our six states. We are encouraged by the continued strengthening of the economy, particularly in the Southeast. We remain on track to achieve our full-year 2015 weather normalized load growth of between 0.5% and 1%. Moving on to slide nine. Let me update you on our coal ash management activities. First I’ll cover adjustments to our asset retirement obligations related to coal ash basin closures. As you’ll recall, in the third quarter 2014, we recorded an approximate $3.5 billion ARO, reflecting our best estimate to comply with the newly enacted Coal Ash Management Act or CAMA. In April, the U.S. EPA published its final Coal Combustion Residuals Rule in the Federal Register. The EPA’s final rule is consistent with our compliance plan for basins in North Carolina under CAMA. However, the final rule did create a legal obligation related to ash basins outside of North Carolina and existing landfills across our system. Therefore during the second quarter, we recorded an additional $1 billion obligation representing our best estimate of cost to comply with the new Federal EPA rules. As of June 30, we now have total ARO obligations of $4.5 billion, which represents our best estimate to comply with state and Federal rules. These costs will be spent over the next several decades. We will continue to refine this estimated liability as plans are finalized. Next, let me summarize our cash spending assumptions for our coal ash activities. In February, we estimated $1.3 billion in spending from 2015 to 2019, to close the initial high-priority sites under CAMA. During the quarter we announced our recommendation to fully excavate 12 additional basins in the Carolinas. Our estimate of cost to close these additional basins ranges between $700 million to $1 billion. Ultimately, we expect these costs will increase our five year capital spending plan that was disclosed in February. However, we are unable to predict the precise timing under which we will incur these costs until the final risk classification is set by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Coal Ash Commission. We will continue to provide updates as our plans become finalized. There is still work to do with our remaining basins and we will keep you updated as we continue to refine our estimates. Taking a look at slide 10. Let me provide an update on our International business. As we entered the year, we anticipated challenges at International due to one, the prolonged drought conditions in Brazil, causing thermals to dispatch of hydros for the entire year. Two, unfavorable Brazilian foreign exchange rates. Three, declining earnings contributions from our interest in National Methanol, which sells products that are correlated to Brent crude oil prices. And four, a prior year Chilean tax benefit. We also assume no energy rationing and around 2% growth in demand for electricity. During 2015, reservoir levels continue to be low. Rainfall has recently been above average in the Southeast region of Brazil, where our assets are located. Reservoir levels stood at about 37% at the end of July, higher than the 20% level they started the year. However, they are still low for this time of the year. These conditions have caused the system operator to continue to dispatch thermals ahead of hydros. Additionally, the government is continuing to encourage customers to voluntarily reduce electricity consumption. The economy in Brazil continues to weaken as evidenced by S&Ps recent change in outlook for the country’s credit ratings. The softer Brazilian economy, higher tariff prices for end users and the voluntary conservation measures have placed additional pressure on electricity demand so far in 2015. As a result, we now expect 2015 electricity demand in Brazil to be lower than 2014. Taking this all into account through the second quarter of 2015, International’s earnings have declined by $0.26 per share, compared to last year. As you will recall, our original full year forecast of International contemplated about $0.12 per share of lower year-over-year earnings. We do not expect these levels of year-over-year weakness to continue into the second half of 2015. We expect the third and fourth quarters to be more comparable to the second half of 2014 for the following reasons: First, the system operator began to change the dispatch order to the detriment of hydro generators in the second quarter of 2014. So in the second half of 2015, generation dispatch order will be similar to what it was in the second half of 2014. Second, the shaping of our contract should create a less significant short position in the second half of the year than we saw last year. Finally, we have seen recent declines in the market settlement prices or PLD. In June and July, these prices fell below the established ceiling of R$388, averaging approximately R$300 per megawatt hour. These lower spot prices should provide some relief as we continue to cover our short position through market purchases, helping offset the impact of lower demand. Our International team continues to manage well in this difficult environment, concentrating on items within their control. We actively are managing our ongoing contracted levels and focusing on our cost management during this downturn. However, we do not expect International to meet its original financial plan for the full year. Before moving on, let me mention a recent development in Brazil that has received some media attention. There have been recent discussions aimed at providing some financial relief to the hydro generators. These discussions are in the early stages and it is difficult to speculate on how they may play out. We’ll keep you updated as events unfold. Slide 11 outlines our financial objectives. The balance sheet is strong and our credit ratings are in line with our target levels, allowing the company to access the financial markets on reasonable terms. We are executing our plan to access $2.7 billion of international cash over several years. In June, we returned approximately $1.2 billion to the U.S. The strength of our balance sheet and cash flows helps fuel our growth strategy, support the dividend and maintain low cost rates for our customers. Our dividend continues to be a very important piece of our shareholder value proposition. In July, we were pleased to announce an increase in our quarterly dividend growth rate from 2% to approximately 4%. In 2010, we have been working to reach our target payout ratio of 65% to 70% of adjusted EPS. Now that we are at the high end of that ratio, we will continue to target dividend growth more in line with our long-term earnings growth targets. Let me provide an update on our earnings growth objectives, both short term and long term. We are on track to achieve our 2015 guidance range of $4.55 to $4.75 per share. Near-term headwinds at the International business have been offset by strength in Regulated Utilities and early execution on some of our strategic initiatives. On a longer term basis, we continue to target earnings per share growth of 4% to 6%, underpinned by the strength of our domestic businesses. We are executing on our strategic growth initiatives, which provides a foundation for growth through 2017 and beyond. Our International business however, continues to face unfavorable macroeconomic trends such as poor hydrological conditions and a weakened economy in Brazil. As we look beyond 2015, the extent and duration of these challenges is uncertain. We will learn more as the year progresses, and we’ll evaluate the longer term impacts as we finalize our financial plans for 2016 and beyond. We remain committed to delivering long-term value for our investors. With that, let’s open the line for your questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. And we will first go to Daniel Eggers with Credit Suisse. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Hey. Good morning, guys. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hi, Dan. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Hello, Dan. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Hey. On the load growth numbers in the second quarter, I guess both customer gains, weather adjusted usage, both looked pretty good and kind of broke from trend that we’ve seen the last couple quarters. Should we read much into things getting better and this being perpetuated or this is just kind of the – some of the volatility that comes with quarterly adjustments in numbers? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Well, Dan, as we said, I’m always careful when I just look at one quarter’s results. I think we have to always have that in the back of our mind. We are seeing some pretty good trends here, though on a few factors that I will mention. The growth of customers into the Carolinas and Florida has been ramping up from 1% now to 1.5% and that’s got to be a good metric there for the future as we move forward. We’re also seeing some favorable statistics when we look at new housing starts in our service territories, meaning new homes are starting to get actually built. We’re also starting to see a lower number of rejections of mortgage applications which say that people are having the funds to buy a home or a place to live, some of those statistics are certainly compelling. We’re always cautiously optimistic on one quarter, but there are some good results here. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer And Dan, one thing I would add that Steve talked about in the script, we’ve been tracking lower usage per customer kind of quarter-after-quarter and actually, saw a leveling-off of that reduction this quarter as well, which is another thing that I would point to as a bit of a new trend for us. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) When we think about the load growth and you guys were at 0.5% to 1%, this year, I know you’ve kind of talked about 1% being more of a normalized long-term target. How important is getting to that 1% number to the utilities being able to support their end of the 4% to 6% growth target? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer It’s important, Dan. As you know on our sensitivity, a 1% increase in our organic load growth would translate to about 2% earnings growth, and it is essential to us to see growth in our service areas. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) The trends you’re seeing right now, are they giving you encouragement that 1% is feeling a little bit better after maybe feeling a bit shaky the last couple quarters? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Well, as I mentioned, I think some of these trends behind the good quarter we had in the second quarter do make us feel well. As Lynn mentioned, the usage decline stopping per customer and some of the raw data on employment, median household income starting to pick-up and get a bit of traction in our service territories, do give us some comfort there. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Okay. I’m sure, that folks are going to ask about it, but just on the international side. Looking past this year, are you guys thinking that things that are happening this year are structural or do you think they’re situational to these market conditions? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Dan, I think there are a combination of things going on. The hydrological conditions, I believe were seasonal, right. So, if we have a strong rainy season that starts in the fall, continuing into 2016, we may see a situation where dispatch order changes. I think the regulatory body in Brazil has learned a lot about the changing generation mix and how that fleet has reacted in this environment. So, over maybe a short-term to medium-term, we could be some mitigation of some of the pressures there, or changes in regulation that could be helpful to the hydro operators. I think the long-term issues are more around the Brazilian economy. And does the Brazilian economy get traction again and start growing at a pace that would be more consistent with what we have seen over the last decade. So, I think you’ve got a combination of shorter-term and medium-term to longer term issues. And so, our focus is to be as transparent as we can on what we see, and we’ll continue to update you as the year progresses. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Very good. Thank you, guys. Operator Next question comes from Shar Pourreza with Guggenheim Partners. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Good morning. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hello. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Hi, Shar. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Steve, I think you sort of touched on this in your prepared remarks, but on the injunctions in Brazil, is there preliminary, is there any procedural process that we could follow to see how things are transpiring? And then the second question is Brazil does have relatively high rates. So is there any talk on how – the potential of passing these costs onto customers? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Yeah, Shar, on the injunctions, in talking with our teams in Brazil, I don’t know that there is a set timeframe or schedule that you can look to to determine resolution of this. I think these initial injunctions and discussions around the market, by various stakeholder groups are a positive step. But we expect that it will take quite a bit of time to resolve this issue, and get new processes and settlements in place. So that’s just the nature of the way these negotiations often go in Brazil. So I wouldn’t look for a timeframe there. Regarding Brazilian retail rates, they did jump up quite a bit over the past year. And certainly that is something that is on the minds of Brazilian politicians, as to how do we deal with the cost of this out of dispatch situation due to hydrology issues. And right now, the hydro generators are bearing a lot of that burden, and the customers have borne some burden as well. That’s part of the debate that will be worked upon over the next year or so in Brazil. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Got it. Got it. And then on slide 11, you added a new footnote, footnote 3. Just curious, this footnote, is it basically inferring that the 4% to 6% is embedding some of the challenges you’re seeing in the International business, or it’s sort of pending some of the challenges that you’re seeing in International business? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer You know, Shar, what I would say is, given the depth of the challenge we’ve experienced during the first six months, and the fact that we’ve seen hydrological conditions really coupled with some of the complexities around other economic factors including Petrobras, and other things going on in Brazil. That the duration of this challenge is uncertain to us as we look past 2015. So when we look at the back half, we believe the back half of 2015 will be reasonably comparable to 2014. We’ll be anxious to see how the rainy season begins, but we need more information and time to look at our forecast for 2016 and 2017. And so, we wanted to just provide some transparency on that, and that’s the – really consistent with the remarks we shared with you today. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Got it. Got it. And then just lastly, on the weaker wind resources was a little bit of a theme this quarter. Is this something that we should think about from a structural standpoint just given that the El Nino cycle is just starting or is this something that’s sort of a bit of an normally? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer I don’t know that I’ve heard anybody profess to understand the wind patterns that well, Shar, that they could predict them. So I don’t know that it’s anything more than an anomaly now. We’re heading into the second half of the year where the wind traditionally picks up. So we’ll get a better idea after that. Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Securities LLC Excellent. Thanks very much. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Next question comes from Greg Gordon with Evercore ISI. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Good morning. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Greg. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Hey, Greg. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI So, I just wanted to go over some of the things you said just to make sure I understand them in terms of looking on actually slide 14, which is your original assumptions put up against your year-to-date results. It looks like you’re basically telling us that if International is flat in the second half versus the second half last year, that you’re $0.10 behind plan. On the other hand, you’re saying you’re $0.04 ahead of plan at the utility because of the early close of the NCEMPA acquisition and then you’re also – see better results in the second half versus the second half of last year in the Commercial business because of the 400 megawatts of new renewables and that’s how you sort of get back to plan. Is that a reasonable summary of what you said or am I missing something? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer I think you’ve hit on some of the elements there. Assuming normal weather over the last half of the year, and we have had warm weather in July, you get a pick up there. Certainly, the wholesale contract associated with the NCEMPA acquisition provides about $0.04 there. We’ve also seen growth in our retail load year-over-year, even at modest percents that can add several cents to it. If it stayed like the second quarter’s results, it would be more than that. Our wholesale business has also picked up through new contracts with co-ops and munis in the Carolinas and in Florida in particular. So, those are some of the things that we look to to continue provide growth over the second half of the year. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer And, Greg… Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Great. I understand that. I guess to clarify my question, many of those things were baked into the $2.95 billion budget. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Yes. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI I assume normal weather was baked in there. The wholesale pickup was – you were very, very clear on in your disclosures on the expectation there. So, I’m just focused on what’s changed from the plan. I guess you’re a little bit ahead of normal going into July which is good, NCEMPA closed early which is good. So, I’d really like to circle back to your answer and focus on what’s changed that’s not in the plan. $0.04 from NCEMPA… Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer So, let me give it a try. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Okay. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Yeah, Greg, let me – so, if we step back from this, as we started the year, we expected the back half to be stronger than the first half from the get-go. And then, if you look at the first half of the year, the weakness in Brazil has basically been offset by strength in the regulated business. We had weather that was strong and comparable to last year, even a bit ahead. We had an early closing in the Midwest Generation sale, which gives us incremental. When you go to the back half, we expect the back half to be stronger, wholesale growth, retail growth. Our O&M outage was more in the first half than the second half. And then, we have the sweetener of the NCEMPA transaction closing. And so, the weakness that we offset in the first half with weather and strong results, we don’t expect to see in the back half because we think Brazil will be comparable to 2014. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Great. And that 400 megawatts… Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Does that help? Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI …of new renewables coming in, in the back half of the year is baked into your $185 million plan or is that stuff…? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer It is. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Yes, it is. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Okay. Great. That’s much clearer. Thank you very much. Have a good morning. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Next question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Hi. Good morning. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hi, Julien. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Hi, Julien. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC So, perhaps to follow-up on Greg’s question just a little bit and be clear. First, where do you stand in the context of 2015, if you can specify? And then, perhaps more broadly as you think about the 4% to 6%, is there any thought or expectation to update that and specifically rebase at any point or how do you think about that given where you stand on hydro and obviously 2015 is – could be a weather event related, but I’d be curious if you want to just elaborate on the 4% to 6% at this point too? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer So, Julien, we are on plan through the first half. And for the reasons we just discussed, we’re confident we’ll remain within the range of $4.55 to $4.75. In terms of guidance, our current thinking is that we will approach that in the same way we always do. So, you’ll have February of 2016 for 2016 and for the longer-term outlook. We will continue to update you in third quarter on any further developments we see in any part of the business as we also normally do. So that’s the schedule we’re thinking about at this point. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Got it. But perhaps just more specifically, rebasing, is there any thought process of rebasing the base year of that 4% to 6% at all? And then, perhaps the second bigger picture question if you will, with regards to the Clean Power Plan and I know, obviously incredibly complex as you already alluded to. Could you elaborate how the company is positioning to capture opportunities there and obviously you’re involved in many of the key angles that would benefit in theory from the CPP, but could you elaborate how you are thinking about taking advantage of each of those respective niches? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer And on rebasing, Julien, we’re anchored in 2013 at this point. We will rebase at some point. We haven’t made a final decision on that and we’ll update guidance in February of 2016. The Clean Power Plan appreciates those questions and we are continuing to digest, we do not have a definitive plan in any of our jurisdictions. Of course it will impact our IRP planning, and impact our thinking on state-by-state. As I’m sure you’re aware, the plan did change emission reduction targets. So we have more stringent targets in the Midwest. We have moderately less stringent targets in the Southeast, North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida. There’s a notion being introduced of a market trading platform, which is new, which we’ll need to evaluate, and then the compliance period with these incentive credits and so on, in 2020, 2021, I think, will also be something that we digest. So, we’re beginning to understand the elements, I think there is flexibility here. It will be important to involve a stakeholder and state process. These are the states’ implementation plans ultimately. But we believe that much as we’ve delivered consistent carbon reductions over the last 10 years, we’ll be looking for a way to continue progress in that direction, at the lowest cost to our customers. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Great. Thank you. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Next question comes from Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Yeah. Good morning. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hi, Steve. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Hi, Lynn. A couple questions. First, just specific details. So, I think you guys said, you expect it to be $0.12 down in 2015 in International versus 2014 and in the first half, you’re down $0.26. So, assuming it’s flat the rest of the year, that means you’re kind of off by about $0.14 from plan. Could you maybe just break up, what makes up that $0.14, how much is it below average? How much is it the hydro versus some of the other, the economy or currency or other things, at least a rough cut of that? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Yeah, Steve. The bulk of that is – and you’re just talking about International, the delta in International? Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Yes. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer From the original expectations versus where we’re at now, is that correct? Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Yes. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Yes. The biggest difference that we’re seeing is the impact of informal rationing, if you will, and the weak economy, those two impacts on the demand for power in Brazil. When we set up our assumptions in February, we stated we had no assumption of informal rationing and we had over 2% demand growth. And now what we’re seeing is that the demand is actually slightly negative. Because thermals are dispatched first, all of that delta, all of that swing comes out of hydros. And of course, we’re a hydro owner here. So that is the big difference that we did not have in the $0.12 downtick for International back in February. And we stated we didn’t have any view on rationing in the numbers if rationing came about or lower demand, the results would be lower. So that is by far the bulk of the difference in International. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Steve, one thing I might just point out, Chile, the Chilean tax adjustment that was reflected in second quarter of 2014 is $0.07 of that $0.26 that was planned. We were aware of it. And the additional weakness is in Brazil and NMC [National Methanol Company], the oil prices have deteriorated slightly, but we saw a lot of that at the beginning of the year. And then all the conditions, we’ve talked about here on further weakening in Brazil is where the larger challenge has originated. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. So when we think about beyond 2015 and if we made the jump that hydro might actually normalize. The issues outside of that are primarily related to the economy, I assume somewhat currency and are those two main issues? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer I think those are two main issues, Steve. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. Any thoughts to reconsider strategic alternatives for the business? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Steve, that’s a question we’ve spent a fair amount of time on as you imagine. We thought our process and I still believe our process last year was a good one, very thorough. We were looking at growth, we were looking at cash and we solved the cash, which we believe is important to supporting the dividend. We’ve already brought home, $1.2 billion of that $2.7 billion. There is no question we’re operating in a challenging environment, and all of the factors we talked about today are something that the team in International is focused on. I am pleased with the way they’ve responded to these challenging conditions. And at this point, I don’t have anything further to share on how we think about this business strategically, but we’ve certainly learned a lot about volatility in this business as a result of these recent events, and that’ll factor into our planning in the future. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. And then one last question maybe at a high level. Between the balance sheet and position you have now, and things like the securitization coming in Florida some point soon, how much available cash or balance sheet capacity do you have for investment in growth opportunities, right now? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Well, we have a solid balance sheet and we have a number of growth opportunities, where our capital spend is typically in the neighborhood of $7 billion a year. So, there is… Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC I’m sorry. I want to make sure – I mean above kind of what you’re planning to do right now? So, like if you had opportunities that go above the current investment plan? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer We do. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC And how much upside? Yeah. Okay. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer We haven’t quantified that specifically. The one thing I would say, Steve, is if you look at the leverage in the business, the utilities are situated relative to their cap structure that they earn on, capacity sits at the holding company and we’re probably at 27%, 28% of HoldCo debt. There’s probably capacity at HoldCo, up to 30% or maybe a little bit above, depending on how the credit rating agencies look at that. So, can’t quantify it any more specifically than that, but we’re committed to our ratings. We think we have an incredibly strong balance sheet with flexibility, to address and we think the business requires. And we’ll continue to manage that accordingly. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC And how much will you get from securitization? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer We will get about $1.3 billion from the securitization process. We’re targeting the first quarter of 2016 to get those funds. About half of those funds will be used to displace Florida – Duke Energy Florida OpCo debt, the other half of the funds will come up to the parent. Steven I. Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. Thank you. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Next question comes from Chris Turnure with JPMorgan. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Good morning. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Good morning, guys. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Hello. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC You kind of mentioned in your prepared remarks and then in response to an earlier question that, it’s too early to tell what’s going to happen potentially with GSF reform (49:07) in Brazil and I can definitely appreciate that. But, do you have at least a sense as to what the EPS impact would be there, if we went from say a 20% now to a 10% or a 5% protection type level, just versus normal in any given full year? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer We don’t have any sensitivities on that, Chris. There is a lot of variables here? Where is our contracted load? What is the PLD price? So there is just variables there that are too multiple for us to try to put a metric on. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer And I think… Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Okay. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer …as we get to a point of clarity on the way the courts and the way the regulation will change, we’ll be in a position to give you a better sense of timing, what our contracted position is, where we we’re forecasting PLD. But it’s premature to do this at this point, because there are too many moving parts. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Okay. Fair enough. And then, just kind of going back to the 2016 and beyond picture, it’s still pretty early here to talk about any potential growth guidance changes. But I just wanted to address maybe balance sheet capacity like we were talking about in the last question or just your ability to do other things outside of what you’ve already talked about, whether it’s accelerating more repatriation of cash or doing other securitizations outside of the Florida one that you already have in plans or maybe pulling forward Carolina’s rate cases earlier than the kind of 2017 to 2018 timeframe than you’re currently thinking about right now? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer In connection with our planning process, Chris, we’ll look at every element of the business to ensure we’re delivering as much value as we can. I think we’ve demonstrated an ability to identify investment projects that are beneficial to customers and also delivering returns to shareholders. We do have flexibility in the balance sheet for additional investment. So, we’ll be evaluating all of those alternatives in connection with our business planning process. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Okay. But at this time nothing is seeming more likely than not or nothing’s standing out in your mind? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Yeah. Nothing that I would share at this point. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Okay. Great. Thanks. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Next question comes from Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Hey, guys. Just wanted… Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hi, Michael. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. …to revisit – hi, Lynn. Just wanted to revisit a few things on the Regulated side of the house. First of all, can you remind us for the spend you do on coal ash in North Carolina what the cost recovery process is, meaning, how do you actually – how and more importantly, when do you actually get this in rates? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Yes, Michael. There is no definitive plan for collection of the coal ash in rates. We spent about $100 million to-date on this and that will ramp up over the next several years. And the way this will work, we’ll start spending and acting on our plans in conjunction with CAMA over the next several years. And then at some point, an appropriate point, we can go in for a rate case, and we can incorporate coal ash spend into that rate case. So we have flexibility there, there is no set timeframe for this. And you might look in time and think about the next rate case, being associated with the completion of a large power plant, a combined cycle or a completion of a lot of nuclear work in Duke Energy Progress area. That might put you in the later part of the teens, for going in for a rate increase. At that point in time, we would probably request an increment in base rates for coal ash recovery. And the Commission would then begin to monitor coal ash cost recovered through rates versus coal ash spent and adjust it from there, this is not like a normal capital project, where you spend over in a short intense period and then are completed, the spend will go on for a long time. So I think it will have that type of nature of recovery to it. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. There is precedent in North Carolina for more real-time recovery of environmental cost, thinking back to like Clean Smokestacks from a number of years ago, just curious, is there an opportunity, whether via a regulation or via legislation – and I’m not sure which one it would require – to get more real-time recovery of coal ash spend and more kind of the certainty of recovery over time? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Yeah, Michael. I’ll take that one. I think North Carolina has demonstrated over a long period of time recovery of mandated cost and certainly coal ash, whether it’s at a state level or Federal level, those are required costs of decommissioning the plants. I don’t see in the next year or two, any change in the recovery mechanism that Steve just described and given the magnitude of the spend that we’re talking about, I think that’s reasonable. So, we’ll be addressing it in connection with the general rate case and evaluating what else might make sense over time. I think about Clean Power Plan, I think about – we have trackers for renewables. There are a variety of events that could trigger consideration of other forms of recovery. But I don’t see coal ash as being one that would – we would approach as a single item at this point. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Got it. One last question on utility O&M. Did I hear correctly that what you’re basically saying is, O&M levels in the second half of 2015 will be flat to second half 2014? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Yes. That’s correct, Michael. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. When you look at broader O&M, what are you – at the Regulated businesses and especially in the Carolinas – what do you see as potential – you’re a couple of years out post-merger, but continued cost saving opportunities to where instead of flat, it’s even potentially down? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Some of the cost savings opportunities that we are now pursuing are the rollout of work management systems. We’ve already done a lot the corporate work. We’ve rolled out work management systems in the fossil area. We’ve done a lot of nuclear work. But now we’re rolling out into T&D and that’s more dispersed in asset location and employee workforce. So, that’s an area that is ripe for some benefits. So, we’ll continue to roll these projects out and have some opportunities here to offset some of the cost increases that we face, such as cyber security, normal inflation, Fukushima and that kind of thing, but I do believe there are efficiency opportunities still out there. Michael J. Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Got it. Thank you, Steve, and much appreciated. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Next question comes from Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hi, Jonathan. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Good morning, guys. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Good morning. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Sorry to revisit this, but you’ve said a couple of times, you want to be clear about and transparent about what you’re saying on growth. And I just on this – we’ve already talked about the footnote on the slide around long-term earnings growth. You also changed the word you’re using from deliver to target. And I’d hate to read too much into that, but I just – Lynn, are we saying that if International kind of doesn’t rebound post-2015 in a decent way that you may not be able to stay at the low end of the 4% to 6% or are we not saying that? I’m not feeling I heard the clarity. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Yeah. And you know, Jonathan, I’m not trying to reset guidance range at this point. But I am trying to flag for you that we see uncertainty in the International business that is difficult sitting here in early August of 2015 to predict duration and extent. And so, a rebound, if we see a rebound in 2017, that’s certainly positive. But it’s more challenging today than I would have said to you it was in January of this year and that’s what we’re trying to signal or trying to say. And we’ll continue to update you as we see rainy season starting to develop and we see any potential changes in the regulatory scheme, the injunctions and other things, but it’s more challenging based on what we see right now. Jonathan P. Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Great. Thank you. And again, apologies for the revisit. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer No. That’s fine. Great. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer All right. Operator Next question comes from Ali Agha with SunTrust. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Thank you. Good morning. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Hello. Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Good morning. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Hi. Listen, with regards to the securitization proceeds, Steve, you said half of them will be used for OpCo debt reduction, half going to the parent. Any thoughts on how that other half gets used? The reason I ask is on the original settlement agreement you were going to be earning an ROE on it, granted it was a 30% reduction, but there was earnings coming from that and so is there a dilutive potential given securitization that may not have been part of the original plan. Is that a fair way to think about this? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer You’re correct there. We are giving up the equity return that was baked into the Crystal River 3 recovery mechanism from the settlement in 2013, albeit it was a haircut return. Whether it’s dilutive or not depends upon the redeployment of the proceeds here. And again we will be looking for growth opportunities to help replace that equity return loss. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey So at this point you would not assume that that is used for any HoldCo debt reduction. It probably goes into some rate base kind of investment? Steven K. Young – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Well, it will move into our general funds and help fund growth. Ideally we’d like to find an investment to put it right into, but certainly it will be utilized to reduce HoldCo debt that then helps fund other acquisitions, other purchases, other investments more efficiently. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer And Ali, what I would say to that, we haven’t earmarked a specific investment for those funds, but there have been a lot of questions today about holding company capacity for additional investment, this would be part of that. And so our objective will be to deploy that in a way that maximizes the value. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Yeah. And Lynn, what’s the latest on the Edwardsport investigation in Indiana? Is that still out there? I thought it should have been done by now. What’s the latest? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer So there is a rate proceeding in front of the Indiana Commission, Ali, on the regulatory every six month rider mechanisms as well as the fuel clauses. And we would expect an order from the Commission before the end of the year, perhaps even as early as the third quarter. So, that does remain out there. In the slide deck we’ve given you kind of a chart of what the open proceedings are, I think it’s on slide 21 just to give you a sense of where these are. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Okay. Yeah, I thought it was a summer timeframe, I guess it’s a little later. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer I think it’s a little later. Yeah. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Okay. And last question, the timeline for some of you investments, you’ve made that investment in the pipeline and you’ve got the other bigger pipeline out there. Are you thinking, Lynn, when you update your long-term growth rates perhaps next year, that you may stretch it out over a five-year period as opposed to the three-year periods that we’ve been doing currently, given that some of the stuff won’t hit until later in the decade? Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Ali, it’s a good question, we debate the period internally. We had a longer term one, we moved it to three years, five years is a possibility. But I think the point you’re making is a good one, which is infrastructure investment occurs over a longer period of time. So, we haven’t made a final decision on that, but we are – we will evaluate it. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Okay. Thank you. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Great. Thanks so much. Operator And ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude today’s question-and-answer session. I’d like to turn the conference back over to Ms. Lynn Good for closing remarks. Lynn J. Good – President and Chief Executive Officer Thanks, everyone for being on the call, for your interest and investment in Duke Energy. We are scheduled for a third quarter call on November 5, and look forward to seeing many of you in the coming months. Thanks again. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude today’s conference. We do thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect. Have a great rest of your day.

American States’ (AWR) CEO Bob Sprowls on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

American States Water Company (NYSE: AWR ) Q2 2015 Results Earnings Conference Call August 5, 2015 2:00 PM ET Executives Eva Tang – Chief Financial Officer Bob Sprowls – President and CEO Analysts Jonathan Reeder – Wells Fargo Operator Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the American States Water Company Conference Call discussing the company’s Second Quarter 2015 Results. This call is being recorded. If you would like to listen to the replay of this call, it will begin this afternoon at approximately 5 p.m. Eastern Time and run through August 12, 2015, on the company’s website, www.aswater.com. After today’s presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask question. [Operator Instructions] This call will be limited to an hour. As a reminder, certain matters discussed during these conference call maybe forward-looking statements intended to qualify for the Safe Harbor from liability established by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Please review a description of the company’s risks and uncertainties in our most recent Form 10-K and Form 10-Q on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. At this time, I will turn the call over to Eva Tang, Chief Financial Officer of American States Water Company. Eva Tang Welcome, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. On the call with me is our President and CEO, Bob Sprowls. I’ll start with our quarterly financial result. For the second quarter of 2015, diluted earnings were $0.41 per share, compared to $0.39 per share for the same period in 2014. While earnings at our Water segment remained flat for the quarter, earnings for the Electric segment decreased by $0.01, earnings at our Contracted Services segment increased by $0.02, and our parent company’s earnings increased by $0.01. I will now discuss major items impacting the comparability of the two periods. For the quarter Water revenue increased about $1.3 million to $87.6 million as compared to the same period in 2014. The increase is primarily due to the third year rate increases and increases generated from revenue recovery on capital projects approved through advice letter filings. These increases were partially offset by an $842,000 decrease in surcharges during the quarter to recover previously incurred costs approved by the California Public Utilities Commission or the CPUC. Most of these surcharges were implemented in 2013 and expired during 2014. The decrease in revenue from these surcharges is offset by a corresponding decrease in operating expenses, largely in administrative and general expense, resulting in no impact to pretax operating income. As a reminder, a change in build consumption, which decreased 13% during the second quarter as compared to Q2 last year, does not have a significant impact on the company’s revenues or Water gross margins due to the CPUC authorized Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism or the WRAM. The WRAM mechanism is in place for all of our Water service areas, excluding the effect of surcharges our Water gross margin approximately authorized Water margin approved by the CPUC. We expect Water consumption to continue decreasing during the remainder of 2015 as compared to the same period last year, because of mandatory Water conservation and rationing, which Bob will discuss in more detail later. Again, any continued decrease in Water consumption will not impact our earnings significantly because of the WRAM. For the second quarter of 2015, revenues from Electric operations were $7.9 million as compared to $8.3 million for the same period in 2014. The decrease is primarily due to a change in the monthly allocation of the annual base revenue requirement as stipulated in the CPUC’s November 2014 final decision on our electric general rate case. Differences in the monthly allocation of the annual adopted revenue for 2015 versus 2014 are expected to reverse during the year. Revenues for our Contracted Services business, American States Utility Services, or ASUS, decreased $1.9 million to $19.1 million for the second quarter of 2015. This decrease was due to lower construction activities, as compared to the second quarter of 2014, due largely to the completion of several large capital projects during 2014, which did not recur in 2015. These decreases were partially offset by higher construction revenues during the second quarter of 2015 due to favorable changes in cost estimated for certain capital work in progress. These new capital upgrade projects and cost estimates are continuously evaluated and revised accordingly. Revenues for these projects are recognized based on the percentage of completion method of accounting. There was also increasing monthly operation and maintenance revenue due to successful price redeterminations in September 2014. Our water and electric supply costs were $27 million for the second quarter of 2015. Any changes in supply costs for both the water and electric segment as compared to the adopted supply costs are tracked in balancing account, which will be recovered from or refunded to our customer in the future. Administrative and general expenses for the second quarter of 2015 were $20.5 million, as compared to $19.4 million for the same period in 2014. Excluding surcharges which has no impact on earnings, A&G for our utility segment increased by $1.2 million during the quarter. The increase was due primarily to higher legal and other outside service costs related to condemnation and drought activities at our water segment. We will continue to incur legal costs to defend our water systems from condemnation actions. Furthermore in connection with our efforts to meet California Governor’s orders to use overall water usage by 25% as compared to 2013, Golden State Water has been authorized by the CPUC to track incremental drought-related costs incurred in a memorandum account for possible future recovery. Such incremental costs are being expensed until future recovery is approved by the CPUC. Despite higher A&G at water segment for the second quarter, on a year-to-date basis the aggregate A&G, other operations and maintenance expenses were lower in 2015 than for the same period in 2014 after excluding surcharges. In addition, A&G expenses for contracted services increased by $482,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2015 primarily due to a shift in labor and other indirect costs to A&G related activities in support of various functions for all military bases. This increase was largely offset by a decrease in such costs included in construction expenses as compared to the second quarter of 2014. ASUS construction expenses decreased by $3.4 million to $10.4 million during the second quarter of 2015, as compared to the same period in 2014, due primarily to the completion of large capital projects and programs in 2014, which did not recurred in 2015. In addition, as just discussed, there was a shift in labor and other indirect costs incurred as A&G activities. While in Q2 of last year, a higher year percentage was incurred for construction activities. Income tax expense decreased by $728,000 to $9.5 million as compared to the same period in 2014, driven by an overall decrease in the effective income tax rate. Although very effective tax rate at Golden State Water’s company was due to differences between book and taxable income that are treated as flow-through adjustments. The effective tax rate at ASUS was lower as a result of the state income taxes which vary among the jurisdictions in which it operate. There were also favorable permanent differences, not just the tax deduction related to the introduction and construction activities, which also impacted the effective tax rate this quarter. AWR’s consolidated effective tax rate was about 38% for three months ended at June 30, 2015 as compared to 40% for Q2 last year. Let’s moving on to — move on to the liquidity and capital resources. Net cash provided by operating activities decreased by $27.9 million to $63 million for the six months ended June 30, 2016. The decrease was primarily due to a decrease in cash generated by contracted services due to the timing of billing and cash receipts for construction work at military bases during the six months ended June 30, 2015 as compared to the same period in 2014. During the first six months of last year, significant cash payments were received at ASUS with completion of several large capital upgrade project that did not recur in 2015. Cash flow from construction activities may fluctuate due to timing differences of when the work is being performed or when the cash is received for payment of the work. There was also decrease in customer water usage resulting from conservation efforts, which lowered customer billings for Golden State Water. These decreases in the consolidated cash flow from operating activities were partially offset by lower income taxes payment made during 2015, due in large part to the implementation of the new tax repair regulation in the first quarter of 2014. In regards to Golden State Water’s capital expenditures, we spend $32.5 million in company funded capital expenditures during the six months ended June 30, 2015. We expect to invest $85 million to $90 million in capital project due in 2014. For additional details on our second quarter and year-to-date performance, please refer to our earnings release and Form 10-Q issued yesterday. With that, I will turn the call over to Bob. Bob Sprowls Thank you Eva. I appreciate everyone joining us today. The company delivered solid earnings in the second quarter. During the quarter, we implemented water conservation measures and through the month of July, all of our service areas are meeting the mandated reductions. In addition, we continue to support our positions in the general rate case application that we filed with the CPUC for the water segment of Golden State Water. We also recently received the CPUC’s approval to acquire all of the operating water assets of Rural Water Company. Let me address the drought situation in California. As you’re aware, on April, 1st of this year, the Governor of California issued an executive order, directing mandatory conservation measures to achieve a statewide 25% reduction in urban water use as compared to 2013 levels. State Water Resources Control Board adopted emergency regulations in early May of this year to meet the governor’s executive order. The State Board also set reductions, which vary by area, depending on the historical per capita water use for the area in order to achieve the 25% reduction goal. In June 2015, Golden State Water filed updated drought response actions with CPUC for each service area to meet the new mandates. In July, the CPUC approved the filings. As a result, all of our water service areas have implemented our mandatory water conservation and rationing plan, which outlines restrictions for outdoor irrigation for water customers. If these restrictions are deemed insufficient to achieve the water use reductions, water allocations and additional mandatory rationing maybe implemented. Through the month of July, each of our service areas are meeting the mandatory reductions. During the second quarter, billed water consumption decreased by 13% as compared to the same period in 2014, due to our customers’ conservation efforts. As Eva mentioned, a change in consumption does not have the significant impact on the company’s results due to the CPUC authorized water revenue adjustment mechanism in place for all of our water service areas. The commission has also authorized a drought memorandum account to track incremental costs incurred in promoting conservation and implementing restriction measures for possible future recovery. In other regulatory matters, we continued to work with the PUC on the pending general rate case for all of our water regions and the general office. The rate case will determine new rates for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018. Golden State Waters’ requested capital budgets in the application averaged approximately $90 million a year for the three year period. For 2016, water gross margin is expected to decrease as compared to the currently adopted levels, due in part to a decrease in annual depreciation expense, resulting from an updated depreciation study and other expenses. Hearings for the rate case were completed in June and settlements for certain items and legal briefs were filed in July. A final decision on this rate case is expected by the end of 2015, with new rates effective January 1, 2016. Now moving onto other regulated business. As you may recall sometime ago, Golden State Water entered into an asset purchase agreement to acquire all of the operating water asset of Rural Water Company. This transaction was subject to commission approval. In June of this year, the commission approved the acquisition, including recovery of the purchase price through customer rates. A confirmation of the transaction, contemplated by the purchase agreement is subject to customary conditions, including, among other things adjustments to the $1.7 million purchase price for changes in utility plant since entering into the agreement in 2013. On completion of this transaction, Golden State Water will serve approximately 960 customers in the City of Arroyo Grande in the county of San Luis Obispo, California, which is near Golden State Water, Santa Maria customer service area and Coastal California. Under the terms of the purchase agreement, Golden State Water will take over operations 30 days after remaining conditions to closing are satisfied. Turning to our contracted services business at American States Utility Services, or ASUS, we continue to work closely with the U.S. government on the remaining price redeterminations. Just last week we received final resolution on the third price redetermination for Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. We expect the second price redetermination for Fort Jackson in South Carolina and the second and third price redeterminations for the military bases in Virginia to also be completed during the third quarter of 2015. Filings for these price redeterminations, requests for equitable adjustment, and contract modifications awarded for new projects provide ASUS with additional revenues and margin and the opportunity to consistently generate positive earnings. We also continue to work closely with the U.S. government for contract modifications relating to potential capital upgrade work as deemed necessary for improvement of the water and wastewater infrastructure at the military bases. In addition, we are actively engaged in new proposals and expect the U.S. government to release additional bases for bidding over the next several years. We remain optimistic about the future of our contracted services business. I would like to turn our attention to dividends. On Tuesday of last week, our Board of Directors approved a third quarter dividend of $0.224 per share on the common shares of company, a 5.2% increase. We are pleased with our Board’s decision to once again increase the dividend, which reflects their ongoing confidence in the company while balancing the need for continued investment in our systems for our customers. American States Water Company has paid dividends every year since 1931, increasing the dividend received by shareholders each calendar year for 61 years. Given American States current payout ratio compared to the companies that we compete with for capital and our high shareholders equity ratio as a percent of total capitalization, there is room to grow the dividend in the future. Additionally, pursuant to the first stock repurchase program approved by the Board in March 2014, we have completed the repurchase of 1.25 million shares of AWR stock on the open market. On May 19th, 2015, our board approved a new stock repurchase program, authorizing the repurchase of up to 1.2 million shares of our common stock from time to time. We have repurchased 387,000 common shares on the open market through June 30th under this program. The repurchase programs are intended to enable the company to achieve a consolidated shareholder’s equity ratio as a percentage of total capitalization that is more reflective of appropriate equity ratios for Golden State Water and ASUS. As of June 30, 2015, our current equity ratio is 59%. Before I close with my prepared remarks, I’d like to thank you for your interest in American States Water. And I’ll now turn the call over to the operator for questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions] The first question comes from Jonathan Reeder from Wells Fargo. Please go ahead. Jonathan Reeder Good afternoon, Eva and Bob. With the WRAM in place to protect your margins at the utility, I was just wondering if you could give us a little bit of guidance how we should be thinking about the distribution of GSWC’s adopted gross margin throughout 2015? Such as maybe what percentages fall in each quarter? Eva Tang Jonathan, we usually just look back three to five years history to determine that allocation. So if you look through the quarterly sales in the past few years and average those out, that should give you pretty good allocations for the quarter. Jonathan Reeder Do you have any idea like roughly what percentage of the margin, I guess, remains for Q3 and Q4, is it 50% greater than that? Eva Tang We think more than 50% because the third quarter is our highest sales quarter in summer. First is the lowest usually and then… Bob Sprowls Third will be greater than the second, and fourth will be greater than first. So it’s more than 50% of the last half of the year. Eva Tang Half of the year, yes. Jonathan Reeder Okay. Fourth is greater than the first still. Okay. That’s helpful. And then have your expectation for ASUS increase the bid now for 2015 due to these favorable changes in the cost estimates for the projects, or are we still thinking about maybe $0.26 or so, I think that’s what you cited last, Bob, kind of for the full year expectation? Bob Sprowls Yeah. We think that $0.26 is still a pretty good number for the entire year. And you will recall we got to that $0.26 by taking last year’s $0.31 and backing out about a nickel fourth of sort of items that were not perspective but were impacted by prior year as well. But we had a retroactive price, re-determination for instance that contributed I believe $0.03. Jonathan Reeder Correct. Yeah. Okay. And then just kind of last question. On that front with the projects that I guess, you booked those favorable changes, were those like — at all those multi-year large projects, were they some of the projects that were awarded? I think it was at the end of September of last year. When did those projects kind of get completed just kind of wondering a little more detail on that? Eva Tang Jonathan, I think majority of our current projects are not multi-year projects. We finished quite a few multi-year projects last year. So most of the projects, we are currently working on is probably 12 to 18 months project I would say. Jonathan Reeder Okay. And then the next kind of update on, where you stand with the projects we should be thinking Q3, that’s when the government I guess kind does the budget. Bob Sprowls Yes. That’s usually in sort of that September — late September timeframe, early October, the amount of additional capital work that we can do, sort of through the next 12 months, next 12 to 15 months. Eva Tang And we usually work with them, what kind of projects and we can do on the base and September 30 is really when funding comes down that we would know which paths to go forward. Bob Sprowls Yeah. I mean that’s consistent with the government’s budget. I’m sure there is more dollars being asked more than we’re going to get but it’s usually a very sizable chunk. Last year, I think we got $27 million, yes. Jonathan Reeder Okay. And then are there any — I guess, kind of large multi-year project somewhere to the three that you recently completed that might be in the near future or nothing you are aware of at this point? Bob Sprowls Yeah. Nothing we are of at this point. There are a lot of small projects that we are working on and that should keep a good solid revenue stream. Jonathan Reeder Okay. Great. I appreciate the additional clarity. Thanks. Bob Sprowls Thank you, Jonathan. Eva Tang Thank you. Operator [Operator Instructions] This concludes the question-and-answer session. I’d now like to turn the conference back over to Bob Sprowls for closing remarks. Bob Sprowls Thank you, Danielle. Again, thank you all for your participation today and for your continued interest and investment in American States Water Company. Everyone have a good day. Eva Tang Thank you. Operator Thank you. This concludes today’s American States Water Company Conference Call.