Tag Archives: presidents

ONEOK’s (OKE) CEO Terry Spencer on Q1 2016 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE ) Q1 2016 Results Earnings Conference Call May 04, 2016, 11:00 AM ET Executives T.D. Eureste – Investor Relations Terry Spencer – President and Chief Executive Officer Walt Hulse – Executive Vice President of Strategic Planning and Corporate Affairs Derek Reiners – Chief Financial Officer Wes Christensen – Senior Vice President, Operations Sheridan Swords – Senior Vice President, Natural Gas Liquids Kevin Burdick – Senior Vice President, Natural Gas Gathering and Processing Phillip May – Senior Vice President, Natural Gas Pipelines Analysts Eric Genco – Citi Brian Gamble – Simmons and Company Danilo Juvane – BMO Capital Markets Christine Cho – Barclays Craig Shere – Tuohy Brothers Becca Followill – US Capital Advisors Shneur Gershuni – UBS Jeremy Tonet – JPMorgan John Edwards – Credit Suisse Operator Please stand-by, we are about to begin. Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the First Quarter 2016 ONEOK and ONEOK Partners Earnings Call. Today’s conference is being recorded. At this time, I’d like to turn the conference over to today’s host Mr. T.D. Eureste. Please go ahead, sir. T.D. Eureste Thank you, and welcome to ONEOK and ONEOK Partners’ first quarter 2016 earnings conference call. A reminder that statements made during this call that might include ONEOK or ONEOK Partners’ expectations or predictions should be considered forward-looking statements and are covered by the Safe Harbor provisions of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934. Actual results could differ materially from those projected in any forward-looking statements. For a discussion of factors that could cause actual results to differ, please refer to our SEC filings. Our first speaker is Terry Spencer, President and CEO of ONEOK and ONEOK Partners. Terry? Terry Spencer Thank you, T.D. Good morning, and thank you for joining today. As always, we appreciate your continued interest and investment in ONEOK and ONEOK Partners. On this conference call is Walt Hulse, Executive Vice President of Strategic Planning and Corporate Affairs; Derek Reiners, Chief Financial Officer; and Senior Vice Presidents, Wes Christensen, Operations; Sheridan Swords, Natural Gas Liquids; Kevin Burdick, Natural Gas Gathering and Processing; and Phil May, Natural Gas Pipelines. I’ll begin with a few opening remarks, then Derek will give a brief financial update and then I will wrap up with highlights of the first quarter, our outlook for the remainder of the year and our ethane opportunity. To begin, first quarter 2016 performance was a result of the progress made last year by continuing to focus on increasing our fee-based earnings, reducing commodity price risks in our businesses, project execution and making prudent financial decisions all while continuing to operate safely and responsibly. In this challenging market conditions, we have relied on our strengths, which for ONEOK Partners are predominantly fee-based earnings, our uniquely positioned assets and our dedicated employees. Our competitive advantage is our integrated network of assets that fit and work well together. Our 37,000-mile network of pipelines, processing plants and fractionators are well positioned to withstand the cyclical nature of the industry. Our assets in the Williston Basin have served us well, and we continue to benefit from the basin’s large natural gas reserve base and inventory of flared NGL-rich natural gas. Our Natural Gas Pipeline segment remained well positioned to expand its fee-based natural gas export capabilities, particularly to Mexico where we have key relationships through our joint venture Roadrunner Gas Transmission Pipeline and our extensive Natural Gas Liquids business maintains a growing position in the Rockies, Texas and emerging STACK and SCOOP plays in Oklahoma, providing us a large and diversified base with which to serve our end-use customers. The partnership’s distribution coverage increased to 1.06 times in the first quarter, up from 1.03 times in the fourth quarter 2015 and significantly higher compared to the beginning of 2015 which is a reflection of our increasing stable cash flow as we now have a significant amount of infrastructure completed and are able to harvest earnings, particularly in the Gathering and Processing and Natural Gas Liquids businesses. ONEOK Partners first quarter 2016 adjusted EBITDA of approximately $445 million represents a nearly 40% increase compared with the first quarter 2015. Executing on our growth projects, contract restructuring, capital and cost savings and consistent operations were key drivers to delivering the greatly improved results from a year ago, even in the face of deteriorating industry fundamental throughout 2015. From an operating perspective, volume growth across our businesses, increased fee-based earnings, and ongoing cost reduction efforts across ONEOK Partners business segments have all contributed to a solid first quarter and positive outlook for the remainder of 2016. In the midst of some of the industry’s most challenging conditions, our employees once again performed exceptionally well by successfully executing on our strategies to mitigate risk, reduce capital spending and operating costs, and manage our balance sheet. It is through their hard work and determination that our company delivered impressive results quarter after quarter in 2015, and we remain as committed as ever to delivering even better results in 2016. Through our key strategies and well managed and operated assets, our employees have, with a high sense of urgency, met the challenge, just as they have many times in the past. I’d like to thank them for their hard work and commitment to deliver value to the bottom line safely and reliably. We’ll cover each of the segments in more detail later in the call, but first I’d like to have Derek give us some brief financial update. Derek? Derek Reiners Thanks, Terry. Both ONEOK and ONEOK Partners ended the first quarter in a strong financial position with healthy balance sheets and ample financial flexibility. As Terry mentioned, ONEOK Partners first quarter distribution coverage was 1.06 times. ONEOK’s first quarter dividend coverage was 1.31 times, which together with cash on hand entering the year maintains ONEOK flexibility to provide financial support to the partnership if needed. In yesterday’s earnings news releases, we maintained our 2016 financial guidance expectations for both ONEOK and ONEOK Partners. Our proactive financial actions in 2015 and early 2016 and enhanced earnings from the partnership has allowed the partnership to deliver on distribution coverage, while also reducing leverage. The partnership’s capital expenditure guidance remains $600 million, including $140 million of maintenance capital for 2016, as the reliability and integrity of our assets is the foundation of our success. However, we are seeing aggressive bidding from our vendors on maintenance projects and the timing associated with our maintenance activities can vary significantly from quarter to quarter due to seasonal impacts in varying maintenance cycles across our ever-changing asset base. Typically our maintenance capital spending is lower in the first quarter. Sequentially maintenance capital decreased $8 million in the first quarter, primarily due to our maintenance project plan for the quarter having fewer projects compared to the fourth quarter, which is not unusual when compared to our historical spending profile. We are on plan for our scheduled maintenance projects for 2016. Similarly, as it relates to operating cost, we continue to see competitive, lower pricing and rates from service providers and we have significantly reduced contract labor across all of our segments. In the first quarter we realized $15 million sequential decrease in operating cost. And as Terry mentioned, we continue to focus on internal operating cost reduction efforts company-wide. We expect these cost savings to continue throughout the year. In January, ONEOK Partners entered into $1 billion three-year unsecured term loan, effectively refinancing our 2016 debt maturities and enhancing financial flexibility. With approximately $1.9 billion of capacity available on the ONEOK Partners credit facility at the end of the first quarter, the reduction of more than $2.2 billion in capital growth projects in two years and higher earnings, the partnership does not need to access public debt or equity markets well into 2017. The partnership continues to progress towards deleveraging as our trailing 12 months’ GAAP debt to EBITDA improved to 4.5 times at March 31st. And we continue to expect annual GAAP debt to EBITDA ratio of 4.2 times for the full year 2016 as a result of prudent financial, operating and commercial execution. As always, we remain committed to the partnership’s investment grade credit ratings. On a standalone basis, ONEOK ended the first quarter with nearly $130 million of cash and expects to have approximately $250 million of cash by year-end 2016 and an undrawn $300 million credit facility, allowing us financial flexibility as we continue to navigate a challenging market environment. In February, we provided detailed information on our counterparty credit risk. We’ve included similar information again this year in our Form 10-Q but there haven’t been any substantial changes. We have a very high quality customer base and no material counterparty credit concerns. The majority of our top customers are large petrochemical and integrated oil companies, which have a higher tolerance for volatility and commodity prices. Our track record of prudent and proactive financial decisions during uncertain times resulted in ample liquidity, too strong balance sheets, and a strong customer base. ONEOK and ONEOK Partners remain well positioned to withstand a volatile commodity and financial market environment. Terry, that concludes my remarks. Terry Spencer Thank you, Derek. Let’s take a closer look at each of our business segments. In the Natural Gas Liquids segment, volumes continued to increase year-over-year with first quarter 2016 volumes gathered up 6% and volumes fractionated up 16% compared with the first quarter of 2015. Compared with the fourth quarter 2015, volumes gathered and fractionated were lower primarily due to decreased spot volumes, higher ethane rejection and seasonal impacts. We continue to expect NGL volumes to be weighted toward the second half of the year as incremental volumes from new natural gas processing plant connections continue to ramp up. In the first quarter, we connected three additional third-party plants to our NGL system and we continue to see volumes ramp at the eight plants we connected in 2015. We expect to connect one additional third-party plant this year in addition to completing and connecting our 80 million cubic feet per day Bear Creek plant in the Williston Basin where additional flared natural gas remains ready to come online. Williston Basin NGL volumes, our highest margin NGL volumes with bundled rates more than three times of those in other regions, remained strong in the first quarter. The average volume gathered on our Bakken NGL Pipeline increased nearly 12% compared with the fourth quarter 2015, driven by the completion of the Lonesome Creek plant in November 2015 and compression project. I’ll also talk about ethane and provide an update on our ethane opportunity outlook in just a moment. As it relates to the West Texas LPG system, in July 2015, we increased rates on this system to be more in line with market rates. In March, the Texas Railroad Commission suspended the rate increase until it is determined by the Commission if the rates are in line with the market. We are confident that our increased rates are just in reasonable and in line with the market. However, regardless of the outcome of the pending case, our current 2016 financial guidance remains as indicated. As you all can appreciate, due to the legal process now underway with the railroad commission, it will not be prudent at this time for us to discuss this case in any more detail. We will provide future updates or commentary when and if it is appropriate. In the Natural Gas Gathering and Processing segment, Williston Basin volumes were a key driver to our first quarter performance. Our Natural Gas volumes processed reached 810 million cubic feet per day as we captured previously flared gas and connected new wells to our system. Average natural gas volumes processed in the Williston increased 44% in the first quarter 2016 compared with the first quarter last year, and increased 6% compared with the fourth quarter 2015. Our producer customers continue to drive improvements in initial production rates through enhanced completion techniques, and combined with the higher natural-gas-to-oil ratios in the core areas where virtually all of our new wells are being connected, have helped offset the reduction in drilling and completion activity. We will continue to benefit from more than 820 wells connected in 2015 and the 115 wells connected to our system in the first quarter 2016. The vast majority of these high performing wells are in the most productive areas of Williams, McKenzie, and Dunn counties in North Dakota where we have more than a million acres dedicated to us and an extensive network of interconnected gathering lines, compression, and processing plants. There are currently 900 drilled but uncompleted wells in the basin, with nearly 400 on our acreage. We saw a decline in the drilling rig count across the Williston Basin during the first quarter and currently have approximately 15 rigs operating on our acreage under dedication. Flared natural gas in North Dakota was reported at approximately 185 million cubic feet per day for the state in February, with approximately 70 to 80 million cubic feet per day on our system. This continues to present an opportunity for us as we add processing capacity to our system in the third quarter 2016 with the completion of our Bear Creek natural gas processing plant. In the Mid-Continent, first quarter 2016 processed volumes increased 8% compared with fourth quarter 2015 volumes. Similar to the Williston, our producer customers continue to drive significant increases in initial production rates through enhanced completion techniques, especially in the STACK, Cana-Woodford and SCOOP plays. Procedure delays on completions of some large multi-well pads are expected to impact our volumes over the next several months and potentially through the remainder of 2016. However with the recent improvement in commodity prices and breakevens in the STACK competing favourably with the best plays in the country, we could see acceleration of the delayed completions. Contract restructuring in the Natural Gas Gathering and Processing segment has significantly decreased the segment’s commodity price sensitivity and was another major contributor to the partnership’s first quarter results. The segments average fee rate increased to $0.68 per MMBtu, compared with $0.35 in the same period last year and $0.55 in the fourth quarter 2015. We expect the segment’s earnings to increase to more than 75% fee-based this year, driven by this contract restructuring efforts. Moving on to the Natural Gas Pipeline segment, first quarter results remained steady as the segment continued to provide the partnership with stable, predominantly fee-based earnings. The segment completed two capital growth projects in March, the first phase of the Roadrunner Gas Transmission pipeline project and a compressor station expansion project on our Midwestern Gas Transmission pipeline which will add an additional 170 million cubic feet per day of capacity to the pipeline. The Roadrunner project is fully subscribed under 25-year firm fee-based commitment and the second phase of the Roadrunner is expected to be complete in the first quarter 2017. Additionally, the Midwestern Gas Transmission expansion is also fully subscribed under 15-year firm fee-based commitments. Our Natural Gas Pipelines segment is primarily market connected, meaning we are directly connected with large stable customers who provide services to end users. These customers such as large utility companies, electric generation facilities and industrials have specific volume needs that don’t fluctuate based on commodity prices. Additionally, we work closely with these customers to design our systems to fit their specific needs. Unlike basis-driven pipelines, there is minimal financial risk associated with our Natural Gas Pipelines or our customers. We like the stability of our Natural Gas Pipelines business and the customers we serve, and we’ll continue to develop additional fee-based and market-driven long-term growth and export opportunities in and around our asset footprint. I’d like to close by providing an update on our ethane opportunity outlook. For the past three years our industry has experienced an unprecedented period of heavy and prolonged ethane rejection. The partnership continued even in the face of sustained ethane rejection to increase our Natural Gas Liquids volumes gathered and fractionated. We are starting to see ethane prices improve in relation to Natural Gas as a result of improving NGL prices and weakened natural gas, increases in NGL exports and expected incremental ethane demand from new world scale petrochemical crackers. Since last quarter, we’ve seen ethane recovery economics improve. Some natural gas processing plants on our system have intermittently started to recover ethane, which we expect to continue throughout 2016. We continue to expect a meaningful amount of processing plants to move into full recovery in early 2017. We average 175,000 barrels per day of ethane rejection on our system in the first quarter, and we expect anywhere from 175,000 to 200,000 barrels per day of ethane rejection on our system as new natural gas plants, we are connected to, continue to ramp up, and as we see the impacts of increased volumes in the Williston, STACK and SCOOP plays throughout 2016. We are well positioned to benefit from this ethane opportunity and have more than enough infrastructure to bring these incremental barrels or approximately $200 million in annual earnings to our system with no additional capital requirements. We also have the opportunity to utilize our assets to capture pricing differentials if any dislocations in pricing occur between the Conway, Kansas and Mont Belvieu, Texas market centres as a result of increasing ethane demand. Ethane recovery presents a major opportunity for ONEOK and ONEOK Partners, but it certainly isn’t our only opportunity. We remain focussed on additional fee-based growth opportunities for our businesses, cost effective ways to enhance our assets, and employee retention efforts. So we are fully prepared when market conditions improve. Congratulations to our employees on a solid first quarter. We continue to face headwinds from challenging industry conditions, but we’ve shown once again that we’re uniquely positioned to handle these challenges and deliver on the financial results we’ve laid out for ourselves and our investors. Thank you to all of our stakeholders for your continued support of ONEOK and ONEOK Partners. Operator, we’re now ready for questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you sir. [Operator Instructions]. We’ll pause for just a moment to allow everyone an opportunity to signal for questions. And we will take our first question from Eric Genco with Citi. Eric Genco Hey, good morning. I have a couple of follow-up questions on ethane. Just wanted to kind of go over. I think you mentioned it basically, but in moving to 175,000 to 200,000 barrels a day of ethane opportunity in ’16 versus the 150,000 to 180,000 last quarter being rejected, is that basically — that’s basically third-party plant and a shift towards more liquid rich drilling overtime, is that what’s accounting for that increase? Terry Spencer Yes, Eric I think, yes, most of that is a result of the new plants that we’ve connected here fairly recently. And, of course, the growth that we’re seeing behind those facilities that we indicated in my remarks, so, yes, most of that is from the new plants. Sheridan, anything? Sheridan Swords No, that’s it. Eric Genco All right. And I guess the other thing I was kind of curious about is we’ve been sort of talking about this little bit more, just trying to get a better handle on some of the ethane recoveries that are likely to come out of the Bakken eventually. And so I think I understand based on bundled costs and how that works economically, and you guys have said that basically that Bakken would theoretically be one of the later basins to be culled. But I’m also curious too because I know — you know, you’ve referred to some of your services being non-discretionary in the past and it’s not like ethane economics specifically is going to drive drilling in the Bakken. So I’m curious is there a way to look at or think about pipeline stacks in the Bakken and sort of — you know, as things come back, just sort of push ethane recovery and how that might impact you. Is there any way to sort of numerically think about that or is that still something that will just have to kind of wait beyond? Terry Spencer You know, Eric, broadly as you think about where we deliver ethane across our systems, we really don’t have any quality issues or any concerns really on a large scale. We may periodically in certain specific locations dependent upon the location of those pipes to end-user, we sometimes do have some issues with respect to quality specs, but I don’t see quality specs being a big driver for ethane emerging from the Bakken, nor really anywhere else for that matter. And when we talk about these non-discretionary services, we talk about producers have to have the process and they got to have the liquids extracted from the gas in order to meet quality specs. Ethane tends to be one of those — is one of those NGLs that can be — can easily go into the gas train and be diluted without causing much of a problem, unless you’ve got industrial customers or commercial customers right near — located in pretty close proximity to the processing plant, okay? That helped you? Eric Genco Yes, it does. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. Operator And we will go next to Brian Gamble with Simmons and Company. Brian Gamble Good morning, everybody. Terry Spencer Good morning, Brian. Brian Gamble On the Natural Gas Gathering and Processing segment, that fee rates increase obviously excellent year-over-year and even quarter-over-quarter. I know that we’d talked about some of those new contracts hitting in January and that creates a bump. Maybe you could walk us through how we should think about that rate moving through the year. I think there is some contract that come up mid-year, maybe some Mid-Con things. But if I remember correctly, there was a pretty healthy chunk of the Williston that they got repriced? And just want to make sure, being realistic about how I’m thinking about that rate for the rest of the year. Terry Spencer Yes, I’ll just make a couple of general comments and I’ll turn it over to Kevin. You know, as far as our contract restructuring effort, the lion share of the contracts or the bulk of what we set out to do in the Williston Basin, that’s done. And so don’t expect a whole lot more to occur. There’s still some work in progress, but don’t expect a whole lot more impact from that. The Mid-Continent is just going to continue to be work-in-progress. We have a much larger producer base of, that is, we have a lot more procedures that have much smaller volumes and consequently it takes — it’s a lot more involved in the Mid-Continent than in the Williston, just because of the sheer number of contracts that we’re talking about. So that’s caught from in a broad sense. Kevin, you’ve got anything else to add to that. Kevin Burdick No, I think that’s right on. Brian Gamble That works. And then as far as the connections in the Williston, you mentioned 115 wells, I believe, you said in Q1. You mentioned the flared gas that’s still on the system as well as the potential duct completions that would go in. But as far as well count adds that you’re anticipating for the rest of the year, are there wells that are completed that are sitting there that now the system can handle that we’re working on, or are we waiting for ducts for the majority of the opportunity to, I guess, incrementally add new wells to the system more for this year? Kevin Burdick Brian, this is Kevin. Yes, that will come from — the way we think about connecting the wells, it will come from a couple of — from both of those places. I mean as rigs continue to work the basin as those wells that are being drilled or completed, we’ll connect those up. But there is also the backlog of ducts that are on our acreage that as we communicate with producers and realign the schedules, we’ll connect those as well. So our future — our 2016 connections will come from the combination of both of those. And we still expect we’ll be in that 250 to 350 range for total connects for the year. Brian Gamble That delta between what we’ve done so far and that midpoint of the range, so call it 185, how should I think about that as far as the buckets are concerned. Just I mean broadly speaking, can you give me a percentage breakdown between the two? Kevin Burdick Broadly speaking, it might be half and half. Brian Gamble Great, that’s helpful. I think that’s it for me. Appreciate it you guys. Terry Spencer Thanks Brian. Operator And we will take our next question from Danilo Juvane with BMO Capital Markets. Danilo Juvane Good morning. Terry Spencer Good morning. Danilo Juvane You guys obviously seeing sort of an increase in your fee-based gathering margins here for the rest of the year. So as you think about guidance for 2016, is the sort of pending issue with the rates in West Texas LPG the only downside risk that you see to this year’s guidance? Terry Spencer You know, as far as West Texas, as I said in my comments, I’m not going to go there for obvious reasons. But you know, as we think about our fee-based activities, we have certainly taken out a lot of risks, okay? And so — and as far as renegotiation of contracts, we’ve been successful at increasing our rates across the board, okay, not just in the NGL space but in the gathering and processing space in particular. So, you know, as we move forward we really don’t see any — we don’t see from a rate standpoint backing up anywhere. Okay? Danilo Juvane Got you. Over the last couple of months, we’ve seen sort of more bullish NGL sentiment in general. How do you guys think about continuing to reach special contracts given that some of the part exposure that you’ve had before sort of is rebounding right now. Is there a percentage that you’re targeting of fee-based versus commodity? Terry Spencer I’ll make a general comment. You know, we don’t have a specific target for any of our businesses in terms of, this is how much fee-based margin we want to have. Obviously, we want to have as much fee-based margin as we can possibly get. And obviously we’re continuing to push on that re-contract and negotiate everywhere we can, certainly bringing new assets and new businesses to the table or new opportunities to the table that are fee-based. When we think about the reduction of risk, we think about it more from a coverage standpoint, okay? What do we need in this business, what do we need in this business segment in order to maintain an appropriate coverage level for each one, and certainly an appropriate coverage level for the entire entity. So that’s kind of how we think about it. Sheridan, do you have anything you want to say about our contracts in NGLs? Sheridan Swords Well, I think the thing that comes out is even in NGL’s we’re continuing to change our optimization exposure into fee-based, and we will continue to do that even in widening the spreads. When we say widening spreads, we think that’s even a better opportunity to start locking in margins. So as you said, we always want to go to more fee-based and take our commodity exposure out. Danilo Juvane Got you. Last question for me. You mentioned coverage being a big reason as how you’re managing some of these contract restructures. Is there a target coverage ratio that you’re looking at long term? Terry Spencer Well, certainly, as we’ve said in the past, you know, at the partnership, 1.1 to 1.15 longer term is a coverage that you know, it could make some sense for us, potentially higher. But certainly as we’ve driven the risk out these businesses, we don’t have to maintain this quite as big a coverage. But that’s kind of how we think about it. Danilo Juvane If you take that statement and sort of think about what you’re thinking about sort of your debt metrics, where do you see yourself being more comfortable starting to bump distributions? Terry Spencer Well, certainly we’ve told you 4.2 times debt to EBITDA ratio is what we’re targeting, but we really would like to be sub-4. I mean, ideally that’s where we’d like to be. And that’s the longer term plan. Danilo Juvane Okay. Thank you. That’s it for me. Thanks. Terry Spencer You bet. Thank you. Operator And we will take our next question from Christine Cho with Barclays. Christine Cho Hi, everyone, congrats on the quarter. Terry Spencer Thank you. Christine Cho When I look at how much ethane is being rejected on your system, the capacity of your NGL pipes and the utilization on those pipes, I have that your pipes are going to be full once all of the ethane behind your system is extracted. Can you talk about the expansion opportunities on the Sterling and Arbuckle line compression or looping? Would you charge a similar rate as you are now? And is it safe to assume that the economics of an expansion, if through compression, is going to be better than the 5 to 7 times multiple you usually give out? Terry Spencer Christine, what I would say is that we feel that we have enough capacity on our existing pipelines to handle the ethane that’s being rejected, but it will push the utilization of those pipelines to pretty high rates. If we get to the opportunity to expand our pipelines, the cheapest expansion is sitting on Sterling 3 and we had said we can take that up 60,000 to 70,000 barrels a day with relatively inexpensive pump stations on there, which would be at a very high multiple to add that kind of space for a very little capital. The other pipelines Arbuckle and the other two Sterling pipelines are fairly expanded with cheap expansion. It would be inter-looping, so it still would be much cheaper than laying a new line but it would be more expensive than what Sterling 3 has. But we think right now we can handle all the ethane that could potentially come out of our system. Christine Cho Okay, and then just piggyback on that, I mean, I have that ethane demand that’s going to be 800,000 barrels per day if we include the ethane export projects along with the cracker additions. Obviously, we’ve been thinking that in the near- and medium-term ethane price is going to go up to equate methane equivalent plus CNF. But do you think over the longer term, we could be short ethane, this would imply that ethane price could approach naptha prices? Terry Spencer Christine, I think what would happen is that first thing if ethane prices increase, you’re going to run into the other LPGs that can be cracked, especially in the existing cracker. So you’re going to hit into propane, butane, and natural gasoline before you get to naptha. So I don’t think we’ll see in the long term ethane prices approach naptha prices. I think propane and other ones will put a lid on the price of ethane. Christine Cho Okay. And then last one for me, very helpful, thank you. What’s the average contract life on the NGL pipelines? And you’ve kind of mentioned this before, but I’m assuming that you have less optimization capacity than you did kind of at the peak, but as these contracts with customers come due, how should we think about how you guys decide whether or not to extend the contracts versus not renew it and maybe retain some capacity for optimization opportunities? Are you kind of happy with the levels that you have now or you want to decrease it, increase it? Terry Spencer Christine, what I would say is that these contracts that you’re referring are contracts that we have with the processing plants. So it’s a bundled service for not just transporting product to Belvieu but also for fractionating it as well. So what we would want to do is always continue to extend those contracts. And if we can get the right prices to take them into Belvieu, we would rather put them on a fee-based business than be open up to the spread between Conway and Belvieu. So if we could, we would contract the whole pipe if we could get it at good rates. Christine Cho Would you say that the bundled rate probably has room to come up then? Terry Spencer Potentially yes. Christine Cho Okay, and one more… Terry Spencer We would… Christine Cho Go on, sorry. Terry Spencer Any time we look at the rates when we go out and look at a plant, we look at what the competition is, we look at how are our services that we provide and all that and try to price our services accordingly. So as prices continue improving going into Belvieu, I think there is some opportunity to increase our rates into Belvieu. Christine Cho And what’s the average contract life? Terry Spencer Most of our contracts, substantial amount of our contracts do not expire until we get into the 2020’s. We do have a little bit that expires between now and then, but most of it is in the 2020’s. Christine Cho Okay, great. Thank you. Terry Spencer Thank you. Operator [Operator Instructions] We will take our next question from Craig Shere with Tuohy Brothers. Please proceed. Craig Shere Good morning. Congratulations on another good quarter. Terry Spencer Thanks, Craig. Craig Shere So I think you said 115 well hook-ups in the quarter, Terry. But guidance I think is still only 250 to 350 for the full year. And if I’m not mistaken one of your major customers has just added a frac crew on a farm to work done, that’s duct inventory. Given all this, is your reiterated guidance for well hook-ups perhaps conservative? Kevin Burdick Craig, this is Kevin. I don’t know if I’d use the word conservative but yes, we’ve had a strong showing out of it for the first quarter. But then again, rigs have dropped off quite a bit as well during that same timeframe. So we continue to talk with our customers daily and understand as commodity price moves around, kind of their sentiment towards either adding frac crews or adding rigs changes a little bit. But right now, we feel good about that 250 to 350. If we have some more movement with producers that are going to accelerate completions in the Williston and then yes, that number could go up. Craig Shere And on the remaining 70 million to 80 million a day of flaring on your Bakken footprint, any thoughts on maybe a run rate as we exit the year? Obviously, new well hook-ups will contribute to potentially some incremental flaring. So this isn’t going to go down to zero. Any thoughts on where we could exit the year? And also over time, are we perhaps seeing the actual amount of flaring that’s reported perhaps be on the conservative side so that you could get most likely higher uplift? Terry Spencer So, a couple of things there. One is as we look at our flaring, keep in mind, there is probably 30 to 40 million behind Bear Creek, so when we bring Bear Creek online, we expect that a chunk, approximately half of that will get put out with that — as that plant comes up. As for the other, yes, there will always be some level of flaring that occurs, but we do have quite a bit and we’ve got some head room from both our field infrastructure and processing plants. So as new wells come online, I don’t know that that would contribute much to the flaring. So I do think we expect that number will go down significantly as we move into the back half of the year once the Bear Creek is up. And yes, when you look at the numbers over the last few months, it does appear that some of the reporting has been conservative for overall — for total kind of state-wide flaring. Craig Shere Great. And on the ethane question, in terms of specs, I think I forgot when, it’s some quarters ago, you had a 20,000 barrels a day of recovery to mid downstream Y-grade requirements. At the time I think you mentioned the possibility of that going away with the downstream solution, obviously still plotting margin for you. Could you see that margin opportunity expanding over time as the Y-grade growth out of the region continues? Sheridan Swords Craig, this is Sheridan. The ethane coming out of the Bakken is for purely products specifications that we have downstream. And right now with the ethane we have coming out there now, we are able to manage that situation. As we continue to look forward, we are trying to find the most economical way to extract, to solve this solution in another way, but we’re still looking at that. It’s capital intensive. So we’re still trying to work on with the right solution for that is. In terms of getting more ethane out of the Bakken for uplift there, we see the opportunity is there as increasing ethane prices with the new petrochemical facilities come online is where we think the most opportunity is. Craig Shere Okay, great. And just a little more color around the NGL segment headwinds, including the $10 million decrease in exchange services and $5.6 million in marketing would be helpful. Maybe just more of a discussion about specific spot and about some volumes and about summarization and trends there. Terry Spencer Craig, the marketing was down mainly because we had a warm winter and also we had less volume from our marketing department going into refineries. We have already seen that tick back up as we move into the second quarter. The extreme services were down, it’s because we had spot volume in the fourth quarter, we had a little bit more ethane rejection in the first quarter, and we had a little seasonal or weather effects also in the first quarter. Volumes that have already rebounded as we move into the second quarter and today our volumes on our gathering systems are at or a little bit above 800,000. Craig Shere Great. And last question. Derek, on the favourable comments you had about favourable bidding for your maintenance CapEx and the falling OpEx cost, how much opportunity is there for further improvement in ’16 and could you see these benefits continuing in the ’17 or is it very kind of variable quarter to quarter? Derek Reiners Hey Craig, I’m going to turn it over to Wes Christensen to answer that question. Wes Christensen Yes, Craig. We continue to have contact with our contractors and find as they are looking for work to keep their crews busy, that there’s opportunity there to improve it. We have already captured quite a bit from them through ’15 and ’16 and expect it to continue in the current environment. Craig Shere Great. Thank you very much and congratulations again. Terry Spencer Thanks Craig. Operator And we will take our next question from Becca Followill with US Capital Advisors. Becca Followill Good morning, guys. Terry Spencer Hi Becca. Becca Followill Hi. On processing, guidance for the year is 1.9 to 2 for the year, but the quarter you were more like 1.95, and you talked about volumes being back-end loaded. Is that back-end loaded for NGLs? And you also have new processing coming on in a year or so, help me out with guidance relative to Q1. Terry Spencer So, yes, it is. We do have some back-end loading, in particular in gathering and processing because the Bear Creek plant coming on in the third quarter is going to fetch you there. And you’re going to see some back-end loading a bit on the NGL side as well. Sheridan, you got anything to add. Sheridan Swords Yes, I mean we do have plants coming online, the Bear Creek plant will add more to the NGL gathering. We have another plant in the Mid-Continent that’s coming on. We just had a plant yesterday, start delivering — a new plant start delivering into the West Texas pipeline asset. So here we are still little bit. We should see growth from here forth. Becca Followill But you’re already at the mid point of the guidance? That’s where I’m coming from. Terry Spencer Becca, could you kind of clarify when you say the — we’re at the mid point of the guidance, which? Becca Followill I’m looking at gas process, it was 1.948, I think your guidance was 1.9 to 2. Terry Spencer Okay. So that’s — again, we had a strong Williston volumes and that’s in — you’re referring to the MMBtus and so that’s driving that. The gas being much richer coming out of the Williston, so that’s what you’re seeing there. Our volume profile just at a high level in the Williston is going to be more flattish for the year. So that’s the reason you’re seeing that. Becca Followill But you’re also adding Bear Creek in Q3? Terry Spencer Right and that will open another — again, that’s 40 million a day in cubic feet. So when you’re talking about the total, it’s not going to move — it’ll move it some. But again, volumes between now and then are going to be flattish and then you’ll see a little uptick. And if thing don’t — depending on completions at the end of the year, you could possibly see a minor decline post Bear Creek. Becca Followill Okay. Thank you. Operator And we will go next to Shneur Gershuni with UBS. Shneur Gershuni Hi, good morning, guys. Most of my questions have been asked and answered several times, but I just wanted to just clarify a couple of things and I think you’ve sort of answered it with Becca’s question before. But the results this quarter with respect to volumes, was that what you expected the first quarter to be, is it better or worse? Does it sort of change because you didn’t change your guidance, does that mean that you still think that you’re within your guidance or are you more towards the upper end now versus the lower end? I was just wondering if you can sort of give us some color as to 1Q performance relative to your official plan. Terry Spencer Yes, we came in pretty much as expected. I mean, as you would expect, you got some areas that performed a little better than expected and others that weren’t quite as good. But overall, this first quarter performance is not a surprise to us and it’s certainly consistent with our guidance we provided for the year. Just a bit more specific, in the Williston Basin, we continue to perform extremely well. In the Mid-Continent, we’ve not performed quite as well but when you look at it on the overall basis, particularly for a G&P segment, we are right on plan, right on our guidance. Shneur Gershuni Okay, perfect. A couple more follow-ups. You stated in the past, I think I saw it written as well too, that OKE stands in support of OKS. Do you expect to have to execute on that this year, or it’s just more of a statement at this point in case if needed? Maybe you can sort of discuss that in context with any discussions you’ve had with rating agencies recently and so forth. Derek Reiners Shneur, this is Derek. The OKE cash balances there, really just is a prudency matter. We like having that flexibility. But as we’ve stated before, we don’t have any plans really to issue equity at this point. So we’ll continue to watch it, but no plans at this point. And in terms of rating agencies, I mentioned in my remarks certainly at the partnership we’re committed to the investment-grade credit rating and that allows us some additional comfort should things not turn out exactly the way we would expect. Shneur Gershuni Okay. And then one last question just technical in nature, Roadrunner, what’s the expected ramp this year? Terry Spencer I’ll turn that question over to Phil. Phillip May Could you — did you say ramp? Shneur Gershuni Yes. Phillip May Okay. Yes, it’s first phase is in service as of March, so it is flowing 170 million a day. Second phase is due in service in the second quarter of ’17 and that will ramp up to 570. And then third quarter will follow in 2019 and that’s another 70 million a day. So total 640 million a day. Shneur Gershuni Okay, perfect. All right. Thank you very much guys. Terry Spencer You bet. Thank you. Operator And we will go next to Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan. Jeremy Tonet Good morning. Terry Spencer Good morning Jeremy. Jeremy Tonet I was just wondering for the NGL gathering, if you could help us think through kind of what leads to the cadence of the ramp over the year. Is that kind of new plants ramping up or is it more on the connection side, or is it more ethane recovery or if you could just help us with that a little bit, that will be great. Terry Spencer Sheridan. Sheridan Swords I think to know that coming out of the first quarter, we always see a little bit of a downturn on our existing plant because of the seasonality in the first quarter. So we ramp up through the year, some of it will be that. But most of it will be from the ramping up of the plants that we connected last year and the new plants that we’re connecting this year. We really don’t expect any incremental — any substantial incremental increase in ethane recovery in 2016 in our guidance numbers. So mainly, it’s going to be from new plant connections. Jeremy Tonet Okay. That’s great. That’s it for me. Thank you. Terry Spencer Thanks, Jeremy. Operator [Operator Instructions] We will go next to John Edwards with Credit Suisse. John Edwards Yes, good morning everybody. Just I wanted to kind of come back to the incremental ethane opportunity little bit, is the basic cadence of realizing the $200 million, is it more or less in line with what you’ve laid out on your slide eight of the deck you provided with the release where you’re showing the expected incremental petrochemical ethane demand? Or is it going to be some other trajectory? Is it more kind of rateably each year the next few years? Help me understand that a little bit better. Sheridan Swords John this is Sheridan. I think the best way to explain it is currently today we supply about a third of the ethane demand in the United States. And as you see that demand increase, as you see on page eight, I think that ratio will stay the same. So of that increased demand, we’ll be able to see about a third of it on our system. John Edwards Okay. So is it proportionate then to the timing that you’ve laid out there or is it some other pace? Sheridan Swords No, I think it’s about proportionate to that timing. John Edwards Okay. That’s really helpful. And then as far as you had made some reference to the potential for improvement to optimization margins, I think your guidance is $0.02. I mean what are the prospects you think for that number actually improving this year and perhaps next year? Terry Spencer Well, I think the spread between Conway and Belvieu will be — move around quite a bit this year, but I don’t think we’ll see any material substantial increase in that spread until you see the ethane come online which will fill up the pipes between Conway and Belvieu and give you an opportunity for wider spread. So probably more better opportunity in ’17. John Edwards Okay, great. My other questions have been answered. Thank you. Operator Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today’s question and answer session and also concludes today’s conference. We’d like to thank everyone for their participation. You may now disconnect. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com . Thank you!

ETF Relationships That May Tell You When The Worst Is Over

Businesses, consumers and the federal government have taken on enormous amounts of debt since the Great Recession. Optimists argue that total debt is irrelevant; that is, they believe the only thing that matters is the cost of servicing those debts. Fair enough. Then what happens when interest expense does rise? Assuming total debt remains the same, higher rates would increase the percentage of household income or the percentage of corporate/government revenue that must be allocated to debt servicing. In earlier commentary, I provided data showing how the total debt of corporations has DOUBLED since 2007. Thanks to seven years of zero percent rate policy, alongside a number of iterations of quantitative easing (QE), the average rate on corporate debt is down from eight years ago. More critically, however, average interest expense has risen substantially . That’s right. Corporations need to assign more and more of their “gross” toward paying back the interest on their loans. What about households? Well, we’re back to the 2007 record debt level of $14.1 trillion in mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, student loans and credit cards; the typical household has nearly $130,000 in total debt. The good news? Years of stimulative monetary policy has made it easier for households to service these debts. The bad news? Americans “re-leveraged” rather than “de-leveraged.” Any amount of rate hike activity would damage the ability of average Americans to borrow-n-spend. In fact, recent retail data demonstrate just how little Americans feel they have left over to spend, in spite of massive savings at the gas pump. Traditional home affordability measures like median sales price-median income illustrate just how dependent we are on ultra-low interest rates. Specifically, the historical home price-to-household income ratio is 2.6. Where are we at today? Back near the housing bubble highs of 4.0. It certainly does not get any better if one looks at U.S. government obligations. The national debt is roughly $19 trillion, excluding the country’s unfunded liabilities (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, Medicare prescription drug program, federal pensions, etc.). According to Dave Walker, the former head of the Government Accountability Office (NYSE: GAO ) under Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the national debt is closer to $65 trillion, including unfunded liabilities. Does anyone believe that those numbers are going to get smaller? Or even, heaven forbid, remain the same? In other words, rising interest expense or rising debt levels would make it even more difficult for the government to honor its obligations. Is it any wonder, then, how schizophrenic riskier assets are? It is the direction of the Fed’s rate normalization path – no matter how gradual – that has nudged the bear out of hibernation . China? Its slowing economy adversely affects corporate profits, but it’s the Fed’s perceived reluctance to “save stocks” that has agitated market participants. Oil? Its rapid-fire descent highlights the possibility of a worldwide recession, though it is the Federal Reserve’s disinclination to “step in” that is rocking investor confidence. Fortunately, there are a number of ETF relationships that can help a cash-heavy investor identify when things may be getting better. More precisely, when “risk-off” relationships abate, one may feel more upbeat about shifting from a mode of capital preservation to a mode of wealth accumulation. Consider the relationship between gold and oil. When people prefer the precious metal to the natural resource, they are expressing a preservation preference. And vice versa. When investors speculate that oil prices will rise, they are typically expressing confidence in the growth of the global economy. It follows that the SPDR Gold Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: GLD ) : The United States Oil ETF, LP (NYSEARCA: USO ) price ratio is likely to climb in troubling times; it is likely to spike in panicky stock sell-offs. One might wish to see the slope of the GLD:USO 200-day moving average flatten out – and the GLD:USO price settle down a bit – prior to making huge commitments to riskier assets. Granted, the rapid depreciation of oil itself has had a fair amount to do with the general trend of GLD:USO. Nevertheless, all three of the most recent corrective phases in U.S. stocks – October of 2014, August-September of 2015, January of 2016 – dovetail perfectly with spikes in GLD:USO. In the same vein, the flattening of the yield curve tells market watchers that participants are concerned about recession probabilities. The difference between the 10-year Treasury bond yield and the 2-year Treasury bond yield has fallen to lows that we haven’t seen since the Fed shocked-n-awed the world with its most powerful stimulus ever, QE3. Of course, some folks prefer to remain in the world of specific ETF assets as well as rising/falling price ratio relationships. For those investors, I suggest that they track the iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: IEF ):iShares 1-3 Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: SHY ) price ratio. A rising price ratio implies that people are seeking safety in the middle of the yield curve, while others may be avoiding the short end of the yield curve due to Federal Reserve rate hike intentions. Thus, the yield curve is flattening when IEF:SHY is rising. Since the stock market highs in July, IEF:SHY has, for the most part, been on a steady path higher. A sustained reversal in this trend would be an indication that investors are growing more comfortable with the health of the domestic economy. Disclosure: Gary Gordon, MS, CFP is the president of Pacific Park Financial, Inc., a Registered Investment Adviser with the SEC. Gary Gordon, Pacific Park Financial, Inc, and/or its clients may hold positions in the ETFs, mutual funds, and/or any investment asset mentioned above. The commentary does not constitute individualized investment advice. The opinions offered herein are not personalized recommendations to buy, sell or hold securities. At times, issuers of exchange-traded products compensate Pacific Park Financial, Inc. or its subsidiaries for advertising at the ETF Expert web site. ETF Expert content is created independently of any advertising relationships.

PPL (PPL) William H. Spence on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

PPL Corp. (NYSE: PPL ) Q2 2015 Earnings Call August 03, 2015 8:30 am ET Executives Joseph P. Bergstein – Director-Investor Relations William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Victor A. Staffieri – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, Kentucky Utilities Co. Rick L. Klingensmith – President, PPL Global, Inc. Analysts Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities (NYSE: USA ) LLC (Broker) Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Gregg Gillander Orrill – Barclays Capital, Inc. Keith T. Stanley – Wolfe Research LLC Neel Mitra – Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc. Brian J. Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (Broker) Operator Good morning, and welcome to the PPL Corporation’s Second Quarter Earnings Conference Call. All participants will be in listen-only mode. After today’s presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. Please note, this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Joe Bergstein, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Joseph P. Bergstein – Director-Investor Relations Thank you, Emily, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining the PPL conference call on second quarter results and our general business outlook. We are providing slides to this presentation on our website at www.pplweb.com. Any statements made in this presentation about future operating results or other future events are forward-looking statements under the Safe Harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results may differ materially from such forward-looking statements. A discussion of the factors that could cause actual results or events to differ is contained in the appendix to this presentation and in the company’s SEC filings. We will refer to earnings from ongoing operations or ongoing earnings and other non-GAAP measures on this call. For reconciliations to the GAAP measures, you should refer to the press release which has been posted on our website and has been filed with the SEC. This time, I’d like to turn the call over to Bill Spence, PPL Chairman, President and CEO. William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Thank you, Joe. Good morning, everyone. We’re pleased that you joined us this morning. With me on the call today are Vince Sorgi, PPL’s Chief Financial Officer; and the presidents of our three business segments. Moving to slide 3, you’ll see an agenda for today’s discussion. As we typically do, we’ll provide an overview of our quarterly and year-to-date earnings results, which I’m pleased to say include significant growth in earnings from ongoing operations. We’ll discuss our 2015 earnings forecasts, which we are increasing, along with our dividend, based on the continued strong performance of our utilities, and I’ll provide an operational overview as well. Vince will review our segment results and provide a more detailed financial overview. And as always, we’ll have plenty of time to answer your questions. But before we dive into the quarter results, I’d like to share with you my thoughts about the new PPL. As you know, June 1st marked a major milestone in our company’s history. On that day, we completed the spinoff of our competitive supply business. And in doing so, we completed a strategic transformation of PPL that began with our acquisition of two regulated utilities in Kentucky, followed by the expansion of our utility operations in the United Kingdom. It’s a transformation that has been exceptionally well executed, provides earnings and dividend growth potential, will create significant value for our share owners, and positions PPL well for continued growth and success. Today, in our first earnings call since the spinoff of the supply segment, our focus has never been clearer. Our ability to control our own destiny through our proven track record of execution has never been greater. And I, without a doubt, have never been more excited about where we’re headed. Moving to slide 4, let me expand on some of the reasons why. PPL is now a pure play, regulated utility investment, made up of seven high-performing, award-winning, and growing utility companies. Year in and year out, these utilities prove themselves to be among the best in our industry. They are diverse and located in different regions with different regulatory structures. They offer a mix of regulated assets you’d be hard-pressed to find anywhere else in our sector. Each utility operates in what we consider to be a premium jurisdiction. In addition, all of our utilities are investing heavily in infrastructure, producing robust rate base growth for PPL. In fact, organic growth in our domestic utilities is among the strongest in the U.S. utility sector with 8% to 10% earnings growth expected through 2017. We expect our combined rate base in the U.S. alone to grow by 47% over the next five years. That’s the equivalent of adding another major utility to our portfolio. Our balance sheet is strong and so are our cash flows, credit ratings and very competitive dividend. The bottom line, we believe the new PPL, with its strong growth profile, a solid dividend and a diverse mix of holdings, is a unique and very compelling investment option in the U.S. utility sector. Looking at slide 5, you can see that robust rate base growth, combined with jurisdictions that permit near real-time recovery of our infrastructure investments, is what will drive our targeted 4% to 6% earnings growth. I want to point out that the 2017 $2.35 of earnings per share shown here represents a projection based on the mid-point of our 4% to 6% compound annual growth target off our 2014 adjusted earnings. It does not represent earnings guidance for 2017. Across the portfolio, over $10 billion in CapEx spending is expected to produce compound annual rate base growth of more than 7% or $5 billion by the end of 2017. For 2015 through 2017, over 80% of that CapEx earns a return within 12 months and approximately 76% in less than six months. This combination creates a very strong foundation for future earnings growth. Let’s turn to slide 6. This slide offers additional detail on why we feel our U.S. operations in Pennsylvania and Kentucky operate in constructive regulatory environments. Domestically, we have favorable allowed ROEs in both Pennsylvania and Kentucky. When coupled with the numerous recovery mechanisms that reduce regulatory lag, including the DISC in Pennsylvania and the ECR in Kentucky, we are well positioned to achieve our earnings growth targets. We have excellent growth in transmission with allowed base ROEs of 11.68% to the formula rate and a 12.93% allowed ROE for the $630 million Susquehanna-Roseland project as well as a return on CWIP for the $335 million Northeast Pocono reliability project in Pennsylvania. It’s this list of trackers and recovery mechanisms that drive the rapid recovery I described on the prior slide of 76% of our CapEx earning and return in less than six months and over 80% earning return in less than 12 months. Turning to slide 7, we provide a more detailed look at why we also believe the UK offers a superior regulatory jurisdiction. The RIIO-ED1 framework in the UK provides long-term, inflation-adjusted rate certainty without volumetric exposure and Ofgem has accepted our business plans, which include total spend of over $19 billion over the eight-year regulatory period. About $11 billion of that spend will drive growth in our regulated asset value, or RAV. It also offers the potential to outperform through performance incentives which, as you know, WPD has been very successful at earning in the past, and it offers us the opportunity to earn an adjusted expected return on equity in the mid to upper teens through 2017. We’re uniquely positioned with our history of strong performance and innovation to earn these favorable returns in this premium jurisdiction. Our utilities in the UK are the four best performers in the country. They were the only utilities to be approved for fast tracking of their business plans under RIIO. This enables them to collect additional revenue of about $43 million annually and retain 70% of cost efficiencies, compared to about 55% for the slow track DNOs. And the UK business is self-funding and does not require any equity from PPL. In fact, we have the flexibility to dividend between $300 million and $500 million of cash back to the U.S. annually in a tax efficient manner. Turning to slide 8, our board approved an increase in our common stock dividend, raising it from $1.49 to $1.51 per share on an annualized basis. This marks PPL’s 13th dividend increase in 14 years. The quarterly dividend of $0.3775 per share will be payable October 1 to shareowners of record as of September the 10th. The increase in the dividend is consistent with our prior messaging that we would look to raise the dividend after the completion of the spin. Turning to slide 9, in summary, we’re confident in our ability to achieve our 4% to 6% earnings growth targets through at least 2017. We expect 8% to 10% growth in our domestic utility earnings and approximately 2% growth coming from our corporate restructuring efforts which, combined, are more than offsetting relatively flat earnings expectations in our UK business over this time period. There are several key drivers to our organic growth in the domestic utilities, and these include strong transmission rate-based growth of 18.9% through 2017 in Pennsylvania; limited volumetric risk in our distribution operation in Pennsylvania due to our rate structures and recovery mechanisms; environmental spending and favorable rate case outcomes contribute to our growth in Kentucky. And outside the U.S., the UK spending program of $4.8 billion, along with our projected incentive return, support our overall RAV growth and strong financial performance. Before turning to our quarterly results, I want to reiterate how optimistic I am about PPL’s future. I believe PPL’s diverse mix of assets, our low overall business and regulatory risk and our proven track record of earnings performance and transparency set us apart from our peers. It’s a new day for PPL, but we’ll continue to deliver for our customers and our shareowners. Turning to slide 11, today we reported a second quarter 2015 loss of $757 million or $1.13 per share. This reflects a $1 billion loss or $1.50 per share from discontinued operations associated with the June 1st spinoff of our competitive supply business. The loss from discontinued operations included an $879 million loss reflecting the fair value of the supply business at the time of the spinoff compared to the recorded value of the segment. Vince will address the loss from discontinued operations in more detail in his remarks. By comparison, second quarter 2014 reported earnings were $229 million or $0.34 per share. The reported loss for the first six months of 2015, which also reflects the loss on discontinued operations, was $110 million or $0.17 per share compared with reported earnings of $545 million or $0.83 per share for the same period in 2014. Adjusting for special items, including results from discontinued operations, second quarter of 2015 earnings from ongoing operations were $0.49 per share, up 11% from second quarter 2014 adjusted results. And year-to-date, ongoing earnings of $1.26 per share is 15% higher than 2014. As you’ll see on slide 12, because of the strong performance of our utilities year-to-date, primarily in the UK and Kentucky, we are raising the mid-point of our 2015 earnings forecast by $0.05. That increases the midpoint to $2.20 per share, an 8.4% increase from our 2014 adjusted ongoing earnings of $2.03 per share. For the full year, we see an improvement in our UK regulated segment as a result of lower depreciation expense, partially offset by the cost incurred to re-price some of the 2015 foreign currency hedges and lower operating and maintenance expense, coupled with supportive weather in our Kentucky regulated segment. Now, let’s turn to slide 13 for an operational update. In Pennsylvania, PPL Electric Utilities continues to meet with various state and federal agencies regarding its proposed compass regional transmission project and to study potential options for the transmission line. The project announced in July of 2014 would involve construction of a new multi-state transmission line that would improve electric service reliability, enhance grid security and provide cost savings to millions of consumers in the PJM and New York ISO regions. We will continue to provide updates as this project moves further along. Also in Pennsylvania, we’re awaiting a decision from the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission on PPL Electric Utilities’ request to replace its $1.4 million electric meters with new, more advanced meters. The company has proposed replacing its meters between 2017 and 2019 to provide expanded benefits to customers and to comply with state-mandated regulations on metering technology, estimated to cost about $450 million, of which $328 million is expected to increase rate base. A PUC administrative law judge has recommended approval of that plan. In addition, PPL Electric Utilities’ March 31 distribution rate case remains pending before the Pennsylvania PUC. As part of this regulatory process, the company has engaged in ongoing settlement discussions with the parties. We’ll of course keep you updated as the case proceeds. The company has requested an increase of $167.5 million in annual base distribution revenues. The request is driven by continued investments required to renew, strengthen and modernize our Pennsylvania distribution network. We’ve already seen significant improvement in system reliability based on the investments made to-date as we’re experiencing 38% fewer outages than five years ago. And the average length of time our customers are without power has been reduced by 43%. The investment being requested in this rate case is expected to further improve system reliability by another 20% over the next five years. We expect the revenue increase to take effect January 1st of 2016. In Kentucky, the Kentucky PUC in late June issued final orders that resulted in an increase of $125 million in annual base electricity rates at Kentucky Utilities and a $7 million increase in annual base gas rates at Louisville Gas & Electric. The new rates became effective July 1st as anticipated. And after more than two years and over two million construction hours, the new $530 million 640-megawatt Cane Run Unit 7 combined cycle gas plant is now commercially available. This unit is the first of its kind in the state and represents our commitment to put resources in place to meet the future energy needs of our customers. Since the start of the operations, the unit has been running as a baseload unit. Finally, our WPD subsidiaries in the UK transitioned to the new eight-year price control period, RIIO-ED1, on April 1, 2015. While it’s only been a few months under RIIO-ED1, so far, we’re performing very well in either meeting or exceeding our performance targets. With that, I’ll turn the call over to Vince to provide a more detailed look at our financial performance. Vince? Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Thank you, Bill, and good morning, everyone. Let’s move to slide 15 for a review of segment earnings. Our second quarter earnings from ongoing operations increased over last year by $0.05 per share driven primarily by higher earnings from the UK Regulated segment and lower cost in Corporate and Other resulting from the corporate restructuring efforts which are essentially complete. As Bill mentioned earlier, PPL’s reported earnings for the quarter and year-to-date reflected losses from discontinued operations associated with the June 1st spinoff of our competitive supply business. The accounting rules required us to evaluate whether the fair value of the supply segment’s net asset was less than our carrying value as of the June 1st spinoff date, and we determined that it was. This resulted in a loss on spin of $875 million. In addition to the loss on spin, supply’s operating results and all costs associated with the spin are classified on the income statement as discontinued operations for all current and prior periods. You can find additional details on the spinoff, our valuation methodologies used in determining our estimated fair value for supply, and information on our transition services agreements with Talen in our second quarter 10-Q that we are filing today. Let’s briefly discuss domestic weather for the second quarter and year-to-date compared to last year and compared to the 2015 forecast. Overall, domestic weather was flat until last year for both the quarter and year-to-date periods. However, compared to our 2015 forecast, weather had a positive $0.03 impact year-to-date and was flat for the second quarter. Let’s move to a more detailed review of the second quarter segment earnings drivers starting with the Pennsylvania results on slide 16. Our Pennsylvania regulated segment earned $0.07 per share in the second quarter, a decrease of $0.01 per share compared with the year ago. This result was due to higher O&M expenses and higher depreciation due to asset additions, partially offset by higher margins from additional transmission investments. Moving to slide 17, our Kentucky-regulated segment earned $0.09 per share in the second quarter of 2015, flat compared to a year ago. This result was due to higher gross margins from returns on additional environment capital investments, offset by higher O&M expenses related to costs for the retirement of the Cane Run coal facility. Moving to slide 18, our UK-regulated segment earned $0.36 per share in the second quarter of 2015, a $0.03 increase compared to the same period last year. This increase was due to lower income taxes from a lower UK tax rate and lower U.S. taxes on dividends in 2015 compared to 2014 and lower depreciation expense from the asset life extension we discussed last quarter. These increases were partially offset by lower utility revenues as we transition to RIIO-ED1 on April 1 of this year and the effects from foreign currency. Moving to slide 19, on this slide, we provide an update to our GBP hedging status for 2015, 2016 and 2017 including sensitivities for a $0.05 and $0.10 downward movement in the exchange rate compared to our budgeted rate of $1.60. As you can see, we continue to be fully hedged for the remainder of 2015 at an average rate of $1.58. For 2016, we increased our hedge percentage from 72% at the end of the first quarter to 90% today at an average rate of $1.61. We also continue to layer in hedges for 2017 during the quarter, and we are now 40% hedged for 2017 at an average rate of $1.62, up from the 20% we reported in the first quarter. You can see from the sensitivity table that there’s basically no exposure for the remainder of 2015, minimal exposure in 2016 and about $0.03 of exposure in 2017 if the average hedge rate on our open positions is $1.55. Also on this slide, we have updated our RPI sensitivity. As we discussed last quarter, under the RIIO methodology, our revenues for the 2015, 2016 regulatory year were set using a 2.6% inflation rate. Our revenues in 2017-2018 will reflect the true-up for the actual inflation rate for the 2015-2016 regulatory year. Current RPI forecast using the HM Treasury forecast of the UK economy would suggest a 2015-2016 inflation rate of about 1.8% compared to the 2.6% included in our revenue. We are providing a sensitivity for a 0.5% downward move in RPI for the 2015-2016 period. RPI forecast for 2016 and beyond continue to be either above or at our assumed 3%. RPI affects three primary drivers for WPD: Our revenues, our O&M expenses, and the interest expense on index-linked debt. For 2017, since this is the first year we see the RPI true-up in revenues, a 2015-2016 RPI of 50 basis points below our budgeted rate, or an RPI of about 2.1%, would have a negative effect on earnings of about $0.02 per share in 2017. As noted in the footnote, we updated the sensitivity to include the partial O&M and interest expense offsets in the sensitivity. Let’s move to slide 20. As Bill mentioned earlier in his remarks, we have announced an increase in our common stock dividend to $1.51 per share on an annualized basis. We have received several questions regarding our ability to fund and continue to grow our dividend during this period of high CapEx spending. We’re providing a new disclosure this quarter which presents how we view our domestic cash flow picture. We start with our domestic cash from operations and subtract the domestic maintenance CapEx as represented by depreciation expense. We then add the cash distributions we received from the UK. But as you can see in the table, we have sufficient domestic cash flows to fund our maintenance capital and the common stock dividend. So, the debt and equity issuances in the U.S. are funding our domestic growth CapEx and ongoing debt maturities. From a cash perspective, we believe this is the appropriate way to look at it since the UK is a completely self-funding business. Before I turn the call back over to Bill for the Q&A, I’d like to reiterate Bill’s comments that we are confident in our ability to achieve our stated 4% to 6% earnings growth target through at least 2017. This growth directly reflects our robust capital expenditure plan combined with very constructive regulatory structures at significantly reduced regulatory lag, driving an expected 8% to 10% EPS growth at our domestic utilities. That level of growth, combined with lower corporate and other costs, which will add an additional 2% earnings growth over this period, more than offsets the relatively flat earnings growth profile expected from UK during the period. We continue to believe that U.K. is a premium jurisdiction, given an eight-year rate cycle with revenue and RAV index to inflation and an incentive-based model that, given our historical best-in-sector performance, provides us the opportunity to continue to earn very strong ROEs in the UK, expected to be in the mid to upper teens through 2017. We also believe our common stock dividend is not only very competitive, but very secure and poised for future growth. That concludes my prepared remarks, and I’ll turn the call over to Bill for the Q&A period. Bill? William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Thank you, Vince, and operator, we are now ready for questions, please. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. Our first question is from Daniel Eggers of Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Hey. Good morning, guys. William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Good morning, Dan. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Thanks for all the updates today. I guess, you know, always been a little bit greedy, you talk about through at least 2017. When we kind of look beyond that, the UK should be through the transition period as far as the normalization of incentives. When we look at the U.S. utilities, how do you guys think about the growth, and I guess with CPP coming today, how are you guys sort of think about layering that into your capital budgeting? William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Sure. Well, with the Clean Power Plan just being released today, obviously, we’re going to need a little bit of time, as I think you are, to kind of look through what this all means. But I think as you noted in your note this morning, I think it does support potentially higher CapEx for the utilities segment, generally speaking. And I think the pieces that I’ve read about the Clean Power Plan are pretty consistent with what we would have expected. I think in Kentucky, we’ll need to study it a little bit more closely to kind of see what the impact on our Kentucky operations might be. But I think going beyond 2017, clearly, we’re going to look to incorporate whatever we may need to do to respond to the Clean Power Plan. And I think in PPL’s case, as I indicated in my prepared remarks, we do have the Compass program or project which is obviously a fairly large chunk of transmission spend that potentially start to come into our capital plans post-2017. So, we’ll continue to monitor that specific project and any other transmission projects as we go forward. So, I think those would be kind of the key drivers, Dan. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) And I guess, Bill, anything about the CPP? I know it’s early, but how do you – what kind of dialogs are you having with the states particularly in Kentucky? And how are you planning to work with those different states and trying to devise plans or work with them to try and meet with the EPAs laying out from a goal perspective? William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Sure. Relative to Kentucky, I’ll ask Vic Staffieri to give you more color on that. Go ahead, Vic. Victor A. Staffieri – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, Kentucky Utilities Co. Yes. We have been meeting with the state, as have the other utilities, to try to develop a program that best accommodates the earlier draft of the CPP. We now understand that the new one is coming out today. There may be some stricter requirements. I’m confident that we’ll go back to the commission and work with them to find a way that meets those requirements and in best interest of all of our stakeholders. I think we have, in place, the regulatory structures to allow us to recover the cost. We were looking at a power plant that we were going to put in place in 2018. We’ve delayed that a little bit, and we still have – we know where we want to put it. We know where the transmission would be. And those are kinds of some the options we would look at. We have a very favorable DSM program in recovery. If we have to accelerate that, we can. So, I think we have the regulatory tools to accommodate it, but until I see the final – we see the final requirements today, it’s hard for us to comment definitively. But we do have a good relationship with our commission. We have been working on putting in place a program to accommodate the previous draft of the CPP. And I’m confident that we’ll work again once we get these final regulations out. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Great. Thanks. I just want to ask one additonal one on the UK performance. Obviously, you guys keep doing better each quarter than probably we were expecting or even where guidance has fallen out. Can you just give a little color, more holistically, as to what’s going on in the UK that allows you guys to keep exceeding expectations? And are you set up in a way where you’re going to maybe do better than this normalized flat growth over the next couple of years? William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Rick, why don’t you take that question? I think overall, Dan, that the UK continues for us to be a tremendous success story. I think you’ve seen us consistently outperform, and, obviously, we believe we’re the best network operator in the UK. And clearly, our integration of the central networks went exceptionally well and really was just flawless. So, Vince commented that we believe it’s a premium jurisdiction and it’s really going to help bring cash back. It’s going to help fund our domestic growth as well and support the dividend. So, in terms of outperformance going forward, maybe Rick, you could talk about some of the things that might drive the outperformance as we look to the future. Rick L. Klingensmith – President, PPL Global, Inc. Now, Bill, as you mentioned, the outperformance, especially in customer service, customer reliability, that we have announced in the last Q1 earnings call about $130 million of incentive revenue that resulted from our performance for the regulatory year ending in March. This year, though, as you look at our outperformance, we had also discussed that, in Vince’s remarks, that in Q1, we did talk about an asset life extension. We had a major engineering study that we had performed at the end of our last regulatory period here as we head into RIIO-ED1. And as a result, we did extend the asset lives of a number of our assets. And so the 2015 outperformance and the reason we can increase guidance for 2015 was really driven by the lower depreciation expense than what we had expected or planned for, for this year. Dan L. Eggers – Credit Suisse Securities ( USA ) LLC (Broker) Got it. Thank you, guys. William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Thank you, Dan. Operator Our next question is from Julien Dumoulin-Smith of UBS. Please go ahead. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Hi. Good morning. William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Good morning. Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Morning. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Excellent. So, first, quick question here, just where do we stand on synergies and parent cost guidance after the spin here? I suppose that’s a first consideration? Then in tandem with that, I’d also be curious, given the charge today, how do you think about tax benefits and ability to bring back cash from UK to the consequence of the charge as well. How did that play into your tax planning, if you will? William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Sure. Let me start and then I’ll ask Vince to supplement my comments. But I think first on the corporate shared services cost or what we’ve called dyssynergies of the spin transaction, we’ve done an excellent job of identifying how we were planning to reduce many of those shared services costs that otherwise would be stranded. And we’re well on track, if not ahead of plan on that. We’re actually looking at opportunities for additional synergies or cost reductions as we go forward. So, I think we’ve done a really great job of addressing what could have been a drag on earnings. And as I mentioned in my initial remarks, part of the growth, domestically, that we’re going to see comes from corporate shared services costs coming in lower than we had originally expected. So with that brief bit of background, maybe Vince, you want to put some more details around those two questions. Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Sure. So, Julien, let me cover your tax question. So, the spin, as I think you know, was designed to be a tax-free spin, so the $875 million loss was a pre and post tax number. There was no tax consequence of that, so the whole thing was treated as a tax-free transaction. So, really, no impact on our future tax position. I think extending bonus is probably the biggest item that would favorably, actually, impact our tax position going forward. William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Great. Thanks, Vince. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC And then just last one, it’s actually a little detailed question here. As you look at your FX hedging program, you’ve obviously shifted the – I suppose, the contango in the – or perhaps this contango that emerged in your hedging program for FX. Can you talk to that? Basically, in the quarter, did you shift hedges on FX or is this really just what’s arrived that we’re organically layering in FX hedges against each of the respective years 2015, 2016, 2017? Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President We did, Julien. We did shift some hedges from 2015 now into 2016 and 2017. The total impact for 2015 is about $0.035. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Got it. And would it be fair to say that’s pretty similar to what the uplift is in subsequent years? Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President It is. Yeah. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Okay. Great. Well, thank you, guys. William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Thanks, Julien. Operator Our next question is from Greg Gordon of Evercore ISI. Please go ahead. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Thanks. Just a quick follow-up on Julien’s last question. So, essentially, the way I think about the hedged disclosure is you’re doing well enough this year in terms of meeting your earnings guidance, that you’re able to raise lower end of the guidance range while still moving some of the impact – moving essentially some of the benefits of hedging out a year, is that right? Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President That’s correct, Greg. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Oh, that’s good. Great. The second question is, as I think about the slide where you talked about the cash sources and uses, you give us a projection for 2015. If I look at that going out into 2016, it is right that the cash flow being repatriated back from U.K. rises to between $300 million and $500 million. Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President That’s correct. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Okay. Fantastic. And then finally, the… Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Wait. I’m sorry. What – rephrase the question. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Yeah. You’ve got – page 16 of your cash repatriation guidance for the UK Regulated segment… Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Right. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI …has cash coming back going from $290 million to between $300 million to $500 million? Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Oh, yes. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI So, all I’m saying is you show $290 million on the slide associated with cash coming back from the UK on that new cash sources and uses, on page 20. Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Yes. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI And that goes up to somewhere between $300 million and $500 million as they go out to 2016 to 2018. Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Yeah. I would expect the next few years to look – if you look at that cash available for reinvestment line, that $250 million, I would suspect it will be around that level improving a little bit over that period. Don’t forget, we also had net about $130 million that we received from supply. So, that’ll go away in the 2015 number, and that’ll be replaced by the higher dividends from the UK. So… Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Okay. Got it. Got it. Great. Okay. Thank you. And then, my final question is the CapEx and rate base forecast for 2019. I just want to be clear, does that include or exclude this potential Compass project in Pennsylvania? William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer That excludes it, Greg. It’s not in there. Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Okay. Great. Congratulations on the quarter. William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Thanks very much, Greg. Appreciate it. Operator Our next question is from Paul Patterson of Glenrock Associates. Please go ahead. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Good morning. How are you? William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Morning, Paul. Very good. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC My question has been answered, really. But just – could you just go over again what happened in terms of the charge associated with supply? Just if you could just break it down like what exactly is causing it to – what’s actually driving that? I mean, if you could you just sort of break it down sort of layman’s terms. William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Sure. I’ll let Vince take that one. Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Good morning, Paul. So, yeah. So, what happened was, we need to do an estimate of fair value at the date of spin, and then, compare that to the book value. And what we did was we used the combination of thee different valuation methodologies, basically two market approaches and one income approach which is a discounted cash flow approach. One of the market approaches was the use of a Talen market value of their equity as of the spinoff date which was the last day, as you know, of their when issued trading period. And so, that number – and we waited about a 50% weighting to that because it was publicly available information. And that was a lower number than we were expecting to end up at the end of when issued. So that, I think, drove some of the decrease in fair value, say, since year end and then just power prices have come off in PJM. So, I think when you look at the DCF, that was lower and the market approach was lower than what we were expecting combined resulted in about a $3.2 billion fair value against the $4.1 billion book value. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. Great. And is that pretty much over? We shouldn’t expect anything going forward on this? Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Yeah. No. Yeah. That’s it. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. Thanks so much. William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer You’re welcome. Operator Our next question is from Gregg Orrill of Barclays. Please go ahead. William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Good morning, Gregg. Gregg? Operator Mr. Orrill, your line… Gregg Gillander Orrill – Barclays Capital, Inc. Sorry. I was on mute there. Sorry about that. William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer That’s okay. Go ahead. Gregg Gillander Orrill – Barclays Capital, Inc. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit more about the pay-out policy. As you look out into 2016 and beyond, I know you’ve talked about getting below a payout of the U.S. businesses and the cash flows from the UK. How are you looking at that going forward? William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Just to be clear, Gregg, are you talking about the dividend payout ratio for the total dividend or just the dividends coming back from the UK? Gregg Gillander Orrill – Barclays Capital, Inc. I guess really the dividend policy 2016, 2017, et cetera. William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Yeah. Yeah. So, I think where we sit today in the 65% to 70% range is, I think, a comfortable range for us to continue to be in. So, I think as Vince and I have stated in the past, we’ll continue to look for opportunities to modestly raise the dividend, particularly as we’re going through a fairly large CapEx spending program and post that large program look to see if we could enhance it even more. But I think where we are in terms of the dividend payout ratio today is fairly consistent with our new peer group, and we’re fairly comfortable with it. Gregg Gillander Orrill – Barclays Capital, Inc. Great. Thank you. William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Sure. Operator Our next question is from Keith Stanley of Wolfe Research. Please go ahead. Keith T. Stanley – Wolfe Research LLC Hi. Good morning. One quick clarification on the asset life extension and depreciation changes in the UK this year. I think it was a $0.10 benefit for this year. How much of that benefit was in your initial 2015 guidance and is it fair to assume it’s fully baked into the updated guidance now? Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President So, there was $0.10 year-over-year that represented about $0.06 better than expectation and yes, we have that. That basically continues going forward. So, that is in our updated guidance. Keith T. Stanley – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. So, there’s $0.06 increment from the initial guidance to the updated guidance. Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Yes. Keith T. Stanley – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. Thank you. Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Okay. Operator Our next question is from Neel Mitra of Tudor Pickering. Please go ahead. Neel Mitra – Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc. Hi. Good morning. I had a question on the ROE in the UK. You guys mentioned that it’s roughly 15% to 18% through 2017. What’s your overall target, I guess, once the UK earnings start to grow off at the 2017 base for that ROE? William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Well, go ahead, Vince. I’ll let you take a stab at that one. Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Sure. Neel, when you say ‘target’, you mean where do we think ROEs are going to be kind of in the middle of RIIO? Neel Mitra – Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc. Yeah. After you start growing there again since, I guess, there’s three years of flat earnings there? Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Yes. So, I would say we kind of stay in the low to mid-teens out through 2019 would be our expectation. I think we’re going out a little – a little too far even at that level, to be honest with you, to give you ROE projections. But still quite healthy ROEs as, I would say, even throughout RIIO. Neel Mitra – Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc. Okay. And is 2017 the last year, I guess, of flat earnings, you start growing off of that base or could there be further years out where there’s flat earnings? William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer So, I think on the previous calls, we’ve really just talked about it being flat earnings through the 2017 period. And beyond that, beginning in 2018, we’ll kind of assess as we go forward. Obviously, a key, in terms of earnings, for bringing back to the U.S. is going to be what the FX rates are, the RPI. There’ll be a lot of other moving factors that could help or hurt the projection of earnings per share coming from the UK. So, I think it’s a little early to make any significant projection at this point. Neel Mitra – Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc. Got it. And last question, with the RPI, if that were to come down, would there be some sort of – kind of pass-through with just lower O&M cost from your side or are you guys kind of managing the business as efficient as you can right now? William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer We’re always managing as efficient as we can. But I think to the extent that inflation is driving the RPI down, that could have a ripple effect – a positive ripple effect on our cost of maintaining the networks through lower contracted cost for either labor or material. So, yes, it could have a potential offset. Neel Mitra – Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc. And that’s not included in your sensitivity? Vincent Sorgi – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President No. We did – we updated the sensitivity to include all three components. Neel Mitra – Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc. Okay. Great. Thank you. William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer You’re welcome. Operator, we have time for one more question, please. Operator Our last question is from Brian Russo of Ladenburg Thalmann. Please go ahead. Brian J. Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (Broker) Hi. Good morning. William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Good morning, Brian. Brian J. Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (Broker) Just referencing slide 5 and the pie chart with capital recovery and earning on investment, does that imply that you got a high level of confidence that you can earn your allowed ROEs or is there any sort of structural lag that we should incorporate in our outlooks? William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer I think with the regulatory mechanisms we now have in place in Pennsylvania and Kentucky, our ability to earn near the authorized levels is greater than it’s ever been, quite honestly. And so, I think the regulatory lag is minimal, probably, looking forward. And I’d also point to the fact that in both Pennsylvania and Kentucky, we’re using forward test years which is the first time we’ve done that, historically. So, I think, those, combined with the regulatory mechanisms that we have all would suggest that we should be able to earn near the authorized levels with pretty minimal regulatory lag. Brian J. Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (Broker) So, you probably – so after the conclusion of the current pending Pennsylvania rate case and with the recent Kentucky rate case outcome, do you think you could stay out for a few years given the mechanisms you have in place? William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer I think, in Kentucky, probably not because, number one, we’re going to have to comply with the Clean Power Plan as talked to earlier on the call, which probably will drive some different decisions that are not incorporated in the plan today. In Pennsylvania, that potential depending on the outcome, how strong the outcome is of the current rate case would be a possibility. But until we get the outcome from the rate case, it’s kind of hard to tell at this point. Brian J. Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (Broker) Okay. And just lastly, can you quantify the lower amount of depreciation at the UK year-over-year? William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Yeah. We had indicated it was about $0.10 per share year-over-year. Brian J. Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (Broker) Okay. William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer For the full year. On a full-year basis. Brian J. Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (Broker) Okay. Got it. William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Soon, we’ll be asset realized. I mean we are continuing to spend CapEx in the business, and so there is higher depreciation resulting from our additional spend. But just due to the engineering study that resulted in the asset realized, that the amount of $0.10 per share year-on-year change. Brian J. Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (Broker) Okay. And lastly – and forgive me if I missed this earlier – but what’s the total potential upside of, on an annual basis, for performance incentive revenues in the UK? William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer We indicated what we have built into our plan at this point. I believe we laid those numbers out on the last call. And if you go to slide 9 in the deck, you can see there for 2015, it’s $125 million; 2016, it’s $122 million to $130 million; in 2017, $80 million to $100 million; and 2018, $60 million to $90 million. So, the upper ends of those ranges would be kind of our expectation of kind of the upper end of the outperformance. It’s not necessarily the maximum, but it’s kind of our guesstimate, if you will, at this point or best estimate of the ranges that we will likely fall into. Brian J. Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (Broker) Okay. Great. Thank you very much. William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer No problem. William H. Spence – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Okay. Well, thanks, everyone, for joining us today and appreciate the questions and look forward to speaking with you on the next earnings call. Thank you, operator, as well. Operator The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today’s presentation. You may now disconnect.