Tag Archives: utilities

El Paso Electric – A Regional Utility Worth Considering

Summary The utilities sector declined nearly 4% on Friday amid strong hiring news. El Paso Electric is now trading at under 18X earnings, cheaper than S&P 500 and Dow Utility Index. After a hiatus beginning in the late-1980s, El Paso Electric is again making dividend payments, including its most recently announced .28/share payment, its 16th straight quarter. Largest market is El Paso in Texas, which is viewed as a pro-business positive net-migration state. Decision not to participate in the renewal of aged coal power-generating plant reflects the modernization and commitment of the Company to provide sustainable long-term energy production. El Paso Electric (NYSE: EE ) is a regional electric utility company that provides generation, transmission, and distribution service to the southwestern United States and Northern Mexico. Its 10,000 square mile service area includes parts of Texas, New Mexico, and two connections to Juarez and the Mexican national utility, Comision Federal de Electricidad. The Company’s principal industrial and large customers operate in the steel production, copper, oil refining and defense industries (including Fort Bliss Army Base and White Sands Missile Range). El Paso Electric’s net dependable generating capability of 1,852 megawatts. Key events and catalysts – A substantial portion of the Company’s fossil fuel generation facilities are over 50 years old. Over the last five years, El Paso Electric has spent nearly $1 billion dollars for the replacement of plant and equipment and for additional generation, transmission and distribution. – El Paso Electric constructed its first new plan in nearly 30 years, a 288 MW Newman 5 natural gas-fired combined cycle plant – Additional cap-ex expected to top $1.5 billion in the next five years – Due to favorable location in high desert and reduction in cost of solar panels, El Paso Electric has introduced significant utility scale solar generation at costs competitive with fossil fuel alternatives – The Company’s Montana Power Station (a $372 million local generation facility) is expected to go on-line by summer of 2015 – El Paso Electric will not participate in extending the operation of the nearly five decade old coal-fired Four Corners Power Generating Station after its scheduled retirement in July 2016. – New Mexico rate case finalization in April 2015 and Texas rate case finalization in August 2015 will seek to recapture costs related to construction, load growth and facility retirement Service Area (Source Annual Report) (click to enlarge) While the population of the state of New Mexico grew a paltry 1.3% from April 2010 – July 2013 (compared the US as a whole – 2.4% – most recent data available from Census Bureau), the state of Texas grew 5.2%, more than double the national rate. Power Generation Station Primary Fuel Type Owned Net Dependable Generating Capacity (NYSE: MW ) Ownership Interest Location Palo Verde Station Nuclear 633 15.8% Wintersburg, Arizona Newman Power Station Natural Gas 732 100% El Paso, Texas Rio Grande Power Station Natural Gas 316 100% Sunland Park, New Mexico Four Corners Station (Units 4&5) Coal 108 7% Fruitland, New Mexico Copper Power Station Natural Gas 62 100% El Paso, Texas Renewables Wind/Solar 1 100% Hudspeth/El Paso Counties, Texas Total   1,852     (Source: Most recent annual report) Notes on power generation: – The Nuclear Regulatory Commission renewed the license of all operating units at Palo Verde which now expire between 2045 – 2047. – The estimated decommissioning costs related to the Palo Verde plant is $381 million. El Paso Electric’s trust fund had a $214 million at 12/31/13. – The 50-year participation agreement among the owners of the Four Corners Station expires in July 2016. El Paso Electric has informed the other owners that it has decided to cease it participation in the plant by July 2016 opting for more economical and cost effect energy alternatives. Customer growth Growth Rate Since 2009 Total growth: 29,335, 1.5% per year Residential growth : 25,482, 1.5% per year (click to enlarge) Customer growth has been positive since 2009, but at a very modest rate in total. Earnings per share EE Net Income (NYSE: TTM ) data by YCharts While earnings per share and net income are generally positive trending over the past decade, El Paso Electric has seen drop-offs in the last several years as decommissioning and other costs have outweighed rate and customer increases. El Paso Electric’s continued profitability hinges on its ability to successfully manage delivery and production costs in a rate-regulated environment. Last Friday, positive hiring news led to declines in “safe-haven” assets including gold, bonds and utilities stocks. El Paso Electric shares fell 4.34%, consistent with sector declines. The Company now trades at 17.72x TTM earnings , which is a lower multiple than the S&P 500 (20.03x) and the Dow Jones Utility Index (19.63x). Reliance on nuclear sourced power   2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 Nuclear 46% 46% 45% 45% 45% Natural Gas 34% 32% 30% 27% 22% Coal 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% Purchased Power 14% 16% 19% 22% 26% Nuclear power makes up a substantial portion of the Company’s sourced electricity. Despite the recoverability of fuel costs for nuclear power generation, it is still expensive and can result in additional regulatory costs associated with production, waste storage and disposal. The Company current sources less than 1% of its power from solar, wind and other renewable sources, but continued investment in these alternative energy sources can help El Paso Electric to remain profitable and competitive. Weather and energy (click to enlarge) (Source: Investor Presentation) Demand for energy is in part driven by climate and weather patterns. As show above, cooling degree days (CDD) dipped below their ten year average for the first time since 2008, while heating degree days (HDD) days are down to levels not seen since 2006. Assuming global warming is real , it is not unreasonable to expect larger and more frequent temperature swings which could drive demand for electricity. Selected Ratio and financial analysis (all information from morningstar.com unless otherwise noted) Ratios and metrics   TTM 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 Gross margin % 65.6% 67.5% 70.5% 67.5% 66.7% 64.4% Operating margin % 16.3% 18.6% 19.8% 20.8% 19.3% 16.1% Debt/equity 1.12 1.06 1.21 1.07 1.05 1.11 Book value per share 24.13 23.51 20.57 19.10 19.10 16.51 The Company’s gross and operating margins have been fairly consistent, while maintaining a health debt/equity ratio and increasing tangible book value per share. One risk facing the El Paso Electric is the continued availability of debt and equity financing for construction and other projects. Cash flow and dividends   TTM 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 Operating cash flow 237M 247M 273M 252M 239M 269M Capital expenditures 326M 289M 269M 236M 224M 252M Free cash flow -89M -42M 4M 16M 15M 17M Dividends 1.09 1.05 .97 .66 – – Operating cash flow has been on the decline since 2012, which is not what I look to see from a utility. The Company is investing in business, growing capital expenditures each year since 2010, which hopefully will result in more attractive power generation, distribution, and delivery mechanisms. As previously mentioned, prior to 2011, El Paso Electric had not paid dividends since 1989. Since the reinstitution its dividend policy, the company has grown the total payout each year since 2011. Understanding the Mexico opportunity While El Paso Electric serves a limited geographic (southwestern United States and northern Mexico), it has a fairly diversified customer base within this region. According to El Paso Electric’s most recent annual report, no customer makes up more than 4% of non-fuel base revenues. Most of the energy distributed to the Comision Federal de Electricidad is consumed in Juarez, a city of 1.5 million. While Juarez has a reputation for crime and violence, the city represnts a solid investment opportunity for El Paso Electric as it has nearly doubled in population since 1990. Continued growth and modernization of Juarez will be a long term benefit to El Paso Electric’s bottom line. Leadership El Paso Electric announced Thursday that Chairman of the Board Michael Parks resigned to accept a job with a global investment management firm. Parks served on the board since 1996. He was replaced by long-time board member Charles Yamarone as the new chairman. Bottom line If I was looking for a moderate risk/reward small cap utility play, I would be satisfied owning El Paso Electric at current prices. It has a reasonable 2.8% forward yield , conservative 50% payout ratio, and is taking steps to move away from dirty energy and to cleaner renewable sources. There are a substantial number of utilities that offer higher yield, a longer and more consistent dividend history, and more years of profitability. El Paso Electric may be the right stock for your portfolio, but not the right stock, right now, but if you are on the fence and need a sign, put it on your watch list, and consider scaling into a position when any of the following occur: – Alternative energy as a percentage of net dependable generating capacity exceeds 10% of total. This would mean El Paso Electric has entered a new era of largely clean (natural gas and alternative) energy generation that could be a competitive advantage when the freeze-period expires and competition is introduced into EEs Texas service area. – Yield rises to 5% (but payout stays same or increases). For this to occur, El Paso Electric would need to be trading at $22.40 per share, or a dirt cheap 10.2X earnings. – All Coal and Nuclear operations are ceased and all decommissioning costs settled and final. This would remove substantial uncertainty and potential earnings volatility for intermediate horizon investors (3 – 5 years). Disclosure: The author has no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) The author wrote this article themselves, and it expresses their own opinions. The author is not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). The author has no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

EQT Corporation: Understanding Marcellus Economics

Summary The Marcellus macro environment remains challenging, even for low-cost producers with strong marketing portfolios. Using the EQT example, the article lays out various components of the “buildup” between the wellhead price in the Marcellus and the Henry Hub price. The analysis lends support to the thesis that the current depressed natural gas price environment is not sustainable. IMPORTANT NOTE: This article is not an investment recommendation or research report. It is not to be relied upon when making investment decisions – investors should conduct their own comprehensive research. Please read the Disclaimer at the end of this article. EQT Corporation (NYSE: EQT ) is not immune to the challenges the current deeply depressed natural gas price environment presents for North American natural gas producers. In the Marcellus and Utica, the problem is exacerbated by the wide local differentials that have persisted at many pricing points, often diminishing the area’s geologic and economic advantage over other supply sources. Thanks to its extensive marketing portfolio, which includes firm transportation agreements and basis and Henry Hub hedges, EQT has remained relatively well protected against the extreme weakness of natural gas prices within the Marcellus/Utica area. By settling its basis hedges, selling excess transportation capacity and moving some of its gas to more attractive pricing points, EQT has been able to “recover” a significant portion of the local basis differential. Still, in 2014, the company effectively sold its natural gas at a discount to Henry Hub. In 2015, EQT’s price realizations will continue to benefit from such basis recoveries, as well as Nymex hedges and price uplift from NGLs. Still, the combination of depressed Nymex prices, deep local differentials and weak oil and NGL pricing may take a heavy toll on the company’s drilling economics this year. Having said that, the extreme weakness of natural gas prices cannot be sustained for long. Understanding Marcellus Price Realizations Understanding price realization build-ups for Marcellus natural gas producers can be a tedious and confusing task. Reporting formats differ from company to company, and there is no uniform convention that operators would use when presenting data. The following table may be helpful in understanding production economics in the Marcellus using EQT as example. The table shows historical price realization reconciliation for Q4 2014 and full-year 2014, as reported by the company, as well as my illustrative scenario for 2015. (click to enlarge) (Source: Zeits Energy Analytics, February 2014) One could think of the net price realization as a “build-up” that takes the Henry Hub price as a starting point, with several add-ons and deducts: The “Btu uplift” line in the Natural Gas section of the table reflects the fact that, on average, EQT’s natural gas sold has a higher Btu content than the NYMEX specification, primarily as a result of ethane rejection. Because of that higher Btu value, the company realizes a higher price per Mcf. For example, in Q4 2014, EQT realized a Btu content premium for its natural gas of $0.39 per Mcf. The “average differential” line includes: the impact of local basis (the differential between Henry Hub price and the average price that EQT would realize by selling its natural gas at local trading hubs); recoveries received from selling some of the company’s natural gas into higher-priced markets and recoveries from the resale of unused takeaway capacity; and the impact of cash-settled basis swaps. In Q4 2014, EQT was able to “recover” a portion of the basis differential equal to $0.88 per Mcf. In addition, it gained another $0.30 per Mcf via basis swaps, for a total of $1.18 per Mcf. As a result, the company’s Q4 2014 price received per processed Mcf, before hedges, was effectively higher than the Nymex price ($4.08 per Mcf versus $4.01 per MMBtu). The company’s natural gas hedges and other price derivative contracts also contribute to (or deduct from) the net price realization. In Q4 2014, EQT realized a combined gain of $0.14 per Mcf from this category of contracts. Crude oil and NGL components of the production stream provide a further uplift to the average price realization. On an equivalent basis, including hedges, EQT realized $4.24 per Mcf of equivalent production in Q4 2014. In order to deliver its natural gas from the wellhead to various sales points, EQT must pay gathering and transmission fees (in some cases, under take-or-pay contracts). In Q4 2014, the company’s combined gathering and transmission fees per Mcf averaged $1.36 per Mcf. Much of this amount ($0.91 per Mcf) was paid to the sister company EQT Midstream. Adding all these components together, EQT Production’s Q4 2014 net price realization was $2.88 per Mcfe. EQT is a low-cost operator. Its total cash operating cost (including LOE, production taxes and SG&A) in Q4 2014 was $0.47/MMcfe. This cascade leads to a cash netback to EQT Production in Q4 2014 of $2.41 per Mcfe. The above layout helps to single out key factors that drive economic margins (for EQT Production, in this case) and may help to address some common misconceptions. Henry Hub is not the most indicative benchmark for Marcellus operators. Many pricing points in the Consuming East region are characterized by strong seasonality, and may yield high premiums during peak seasons and trade at discounts during shoulder seasons. Access to premium pricing points requires transportation contracts. As a result, many Marcellus producers have diversified and highly complex portfolios of marketing arrangements. Transportation contracts and basis swaps are integral components of such portfolios. Calculating the net price realization on a quarter-to-quarter basis may be a difficult task for outsiders. “Macro hedges” (typically using Nymex) are perhaps the only component of the net price realization that can be completely disintegrated from the marketing portfolio. Its impact can be calculated separately. Gathering fees and transportation fees are the largest (and in many cases fixed for decades) cost components for the majority of natural gas producers in the Marcellus and Utica area. The very wide local basis differential for volumes not covered by transportation agreements is, in essence, a spot transportation cost . Field operating costs (LOE, production taxes and field G&A) are the smallest cost components. This cost category often reflects the operator’s position in the field’s exploitation life cycle and the liquids content in the production stream: operators that are still delineating their acreage and operate in the rich and super-rich windows will tend to have higher field operating costs. The price uplift from NGLs may be not as significant as sometimes portrayed due to the very high third-party processing fees that often apply. EQT’s 2015 Cash Flow May See Strong Contraction Using the current Nymex futures strip for 2015 and making certain assumptions, I estimate that even after giving credit to EQT’s hedges, the company’s cash netback per Mcfe will decline by approximately one-half year-on-year in 2015 to ~$1.24 per Mcfe. The company will be able to capture additional economic benefits via its ownership of EQT Midstream. However, this illustrative calculation shows that in the absence of a strong improvement in the overall natural gas price environment, new drilling would be marginally economic even for a low-cost operator like EQT. Using the price realization model outlined above, I derive 2015 EBITDA for EQT Production of ~$750 million, an almost two-fold reduction from 2014, despite the expected meaningful growth in production volumes. (click to enlarge) (Source: Zeits Energy Analytics, February 2014) On a consolidated level, the decline in the company’s cash flow will be partially mitigated by the resilience of its midstream business: EQT is experiencing strong volumetric growth, and its operating margins are largely protected by the long-term contracts. Still, the company may have to utilize most of the $950 million cash balance it had at the end of 2014 to fund its current spending plan. Despite the significant announced reduction in the number of new wells drilled, EQT Production is still expected to spend substantially in excess of its cash flow. The company’s 2015 drilling and completion budget is currently set at $1.85 billion, a slight uptick from $1.7 billion in 2014. The plan envisions an average of 12 operated rigs run throughout the year (8 deep drilling rigs running and 4 spudder rigs), down from 15 rigs currently. A significant portion of the 2015 capex is designated for completing wells that have already been spud. As of year-end 2014, EQT had 191 wells spud but not yet on production, including 23 wells that had been already completed but were not on-line yet. The company’s guidance of 575-600 Bcfe total production in 2015 implies continued strong growth of ~24% year-on-year (slide below). (click to enlarge) (Source: EQT Corporation, February 2015) However, as a result of the extremely weak commodity prices, this growth will come at the price of a significant outspend relative to the internally generated cash flow. Over half of EQT’s natural gas volumes are protected with Nymex hedges with attractive prices (the graph below). In the absence of such hedges, the outspend in 2015 would be even more pronounced. (click to enlarge) (Source: EQT Corporation, February 2015) Drilling Economics The review of EQT’s drilling economics in the Marcellus indicates that the current natural gas price environment is hardly sustainable for long. The following two slides from the company’s latest presentation suggest that even in its most prolific and most economic areas, a realized price of $2.80-2.90 per Mcf is required to generate a competitive drilling return at the well level (which I define as at least 20%). Assuming that the “realized price” measure on the slides corresponds to the “Average realized price by EQT Production” (which was $4.24 in Q4 2014), the company’s upstream operation was highly economic in 2014. In 2015, the company will continue to generate compelling returns on its new drilling program. However, these returns will be driven by short-term financial macro hedges (Nymex Henry Hub hedges). In the absence of such financial hedges, the company’s drilling would be marginally economic or uneconomic, assuming no improvement in natural gas prices from their current levels. Given that the degree of hedge coverage throughout the industry will decline in 2016 relative to 2015, natural gas prices would have to recover or supply will decline due to significant new drilling curtailments. (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) (Source: EQT Corporation, February 2015) Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein by the author are not an investment recommendation and are not meant to be relied upon in investment decisions. The author is not acting in an investment, tax, legal or any other advisory capacity. This is not an investment research report. The author’s opinions expressed herein address only select aspects of potential investment in securities of the companies mentioned and cannot be a substitute for comprehensive investment analysis. Any analysis presented herein is illustrative in nature, limited in scope, based on an incomplete set of information, and has limitations to its accuracy. The author recommends that potential and existing investors conduct thorough investment research of their own, including detailed review of the companies’ SEC filings, and consult a qualified investment advisor. The information upon which this material is based was obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but has not been independently verified. Therefore, the author cannot guarantee its accuracy. Any opinions or estimates constitute the author’s best judgment as of the date of publication, and are subject to change without notice. The author explicitly disclaims any liability that may arise from the use of this material. Disclosure: The author has no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) The author wrote this article themselves, and it expresses their own opinions. The author is not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). The author has no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

TECO Energy (TE) Q4 2014 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

TECO Energy (NYSE: TE ) Q4 2014 Earnings Call February 09, 2015 10:00 am ET Executives Mark M. Kane – Director of Investor Relations Sandra W. Callahan – Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer and Senior Vice President of Finance & Accounting John B. Ramil – Chief Executive Officer, President, Director and Member of Finance Committee Analysts Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Research Division Paul Zimbardo – UBS Investment Bank, Research Division Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Research Division Andrew Bischof – Morningstar Inc., Research Division Scott Senchak Operator Good morning. My name is Keisha, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to TECO Energy’s Fourth Quarter Results and 2015 Outlook Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Mark Kane, Director of Investor Relations. You may begin, sir. Mark M. Kane Thank you, Keisha. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the TECO Energy Fourth Quarter 2014 Results Conference Call. Our earnings, along with unaudited financial statements, were released and filed with the SEC earlier this morning. This presentation is being webcast; and our earnings release, financial statements and slides for this presentation are available on our website at tecoenergy.com. The presentation will be available for replay through the website approximately 2 hours after the conclusion of our presentation and will be available for 30 days. In the course of our remarks today, we will be making forward-looking statements about our expectations for 2015 and beyond and our integration of New Mexico Gas Company and the sale of TECO Coal. There are number of factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those that we’ll discuss today. For a more complete discussion of these factors, we refer you to the risk factor discussion in our annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013, and an updated and subsequent filings with the SEC. In the course of today’s presentation, we will be using non-GAAP results. There is a reconciliation between these non-GAAP measures and the closest GAAP measure in the Appendix to today’s presentation. The host for our call today is Sandy Callahan, TECO Energy’s Chief Financial Officer. Also with us today is John Ramil, TECO Energy’s CEO, to assist in answering your questions. Now let me turn it over to Sandy. Sandra W. Callahan Thank you, Mark. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. We appreciate your flexibility with the revised date for our call, which was necessary in order to work through the accounting impact of amending our agreement to sell the coal company. We were in discussions with the purchaser, and it became clear that a revision to the selling price was necessary. And since the appropriate accounting was to reflect that impact in the fourth quarter, we rescheduled the call in order to make the required changes to our financial statements. Today, I’ll cover our financial results, what we’re seeing in the Florida and New Mexico economies, the sale of TECO Coal and 2015 guidance as well as the longer-term outlook. As usual, the Appendix to this presentation contains graphs on the Florida and New Mexico economies and reconciliations of non-GAAP to GAAP measures. In the fourth quarter, non-GAAP results from continuing operations were $45 million or $0.19 per share compared with $0.18 last year. GAAP net income was $10.8 million, which includes a loss in discontinued operations of $16.6 million reflecting impairment charges of $11.6 million and the operating results of TECO Coal. Net income from continuing operations were $27.4 million in 2014 and includes $17.6 million of charges, consisting of transaction and integration costs of $3 million related to the New Mexico Gas acquisition and the $14.6 million adjustment to deferred state income taxes related to the pending sale of TECO Coal. Excluding these items, the non-GAAP results for continuing operations were $0.19 per share. For the full year, non-GAAP results from continuing operations were $1.03 per share, 11% higher than 2013’s $0.91. GAAP net income of $130.4 million or $0.58 includes a loss in discontinued operations of $76 million, which largely reflects value impairments at TECO Coal. Net income from continuing operations was $206.4 million or $0.92 and includes $23.3 million of charges and net tax adjustments related to acquisition and sale activities. Excluding these items yields the non-GAAP results of $229.7 million or $1.03 per share. Tampa Electric reported slightly lower net income in the fourth quarter. While customer growth was a strong 1.6% and we had 1 additional month of higher revenues from a 2013 rate settlement, energy sales were lower due to milder weather resulting in fourth quarter revenues in 2014 about the same as the prior year. AFUDC increased this quarter with higher investment balances in the Polk conversion project and the related water project; and O&M expense was lower. The quarter-over-quarter increase in depreciation expense represented more than just the normal increase from additions to facilities. That’s because in 2013, fourth quarter depreciation had included the benefit of a full 12 months of lower amortization costs to retroactively reflect the change in software life agreed to a November 2013 rate case settlement. Weather patterns resulted in retail net energy per load in the fourth quarter that was 2.8% below 2013. Looking at degree days, which were 10% below normal and 12% below last year, you might expect energy sales to be off more than they were even with the customer growth we saw. In Tampa, we actually have both heating and cooling degree days in the fourth quarter. In this quarter, heating degree days were about normal and cooling degree days were well below normal, and that combination produced a milder impact on energy usage than the 10% and 12% degree days variances would suggest. Peoples Gas experienced strong customer growth of 2.3% in the fourth quarter, which was higher than our full year estimates. That was due to robust growth in several of the southwest Florida markets that had been the most impacted in the economic downturn, as well as substantial growth in northeast Florida. We saw higher therm sales to all customer segments, residential, commercial and industrial, as a result of the periods of cold weather in the quarter, as well as continued economic growth. On the expense side, O&M was lower in 2014 while depreciation was up. New Mexico Gas fourth quarter results benefited from customer growth and the start of the winter heating season even though it was actually milder than normal and milder than 2013. New Mexico Gas is much more seasonal than Peoples Gas, and the fourth quarter is a very strong quarter for them, which resulted in about $0.03 of accretion to our consolidated fourth quarter earnings. The other net segment is what we used to refer to as parent other. The net cost in this segment was higher in the fourth quarter compared to last year driven by interest expense at New Mexico Gas Intermediate, which is a parent of New Mexico Gas Company; and the interest that we no longer allocated to TECO Coal following its classification as a discontinued operation. The Florida economy continues to be a good story. Statewide unemployment at the end of the fourth quarter was 5.6%, an improvement of 7/10 from a year ago. At the same time, the state has added more than 233,000 new jobs over the past year, with the largest number of new jobs occurring in business services, trade transport and utilities and leisure and hospitality. The biggest percentage gain occurred again this quarter in the construction sector, which has posted 8% to 10% employment gains every quarter this year. Hillsborough County, Tampa Electric’s primary service territory, also continues to do well. We appear to be back to the pattern that was normal before the economic downturn, with Tampa area unemployment being better than both the state and national level. The employment rate in local area is down to 5.2%, 6/10 below where it was a year ago, and it is not a function of people leaving the workforce, as workforce grew by 0.5% in the same time frame. Over the past year, the Tampa-St. Pete area added more than 14,000 jobs, with the largest gains in business services followed by trade transport and utilities. Supported by the oil and gas industries and the large presence of governmental facilities in the state, the unemployment rate in New Mexico never came close to the levels we saw in Florida, where job losses in the construction and financial services sectors were severe due to the housing market crash. The largest gains in New Mexico’s 2014 job growth of 13,000 came in trade transport and utilities and education and health services. To put some perspective on the job numbers here, it’s interesting to note that the population of New Mexico of about 2.1 million was actually less than the population of the Tampa-St. Pete MSA, which has a population of about 2.8 million. Taxable sale, both in Florida and in Hillsborough County, continue to grow at the strong pace we’ve seen pretty consistently over the last 4 years. We don’t have that statistics here for New Mexico, as we haven’t yet found a ready source of similar information. On the housing front, more than 5,000 single-family building permits were issued in Tampa Electric service territory in 2014, and existing homes continue to sell at a strong pace. The January Case-Shiller report shows that selling prices in the Tampa market increased 6.8% year-over-year, which doesn’t seem to have dampened sales, and the housing inventory remains at a healthy level of 4 months. The New Mexico housing market saw 5,500 building permits issued statewide in 2014, which was an 8% increase over 2013. In Albuquerque, the state’s largest metro area, existing home resales have trended up steadily although slowly since the downturn, and the housing inventory is about 6 months. You can see all of these trends on the graphs in the Appendix. I’m not going to cover all of the details on the New Mexico Gas acquisition, but I do want to point to a few important takeaways. Consistent with the outlook we provided in our third quarter call, the acquisition was accretive to fourth quarter earnings by $0.03; and for the full year, $0.01. You’ll recall that it diluted EPS $0.02 in the third quarter as we had the associated shares outstanding in the entire quarter and 1 month of ownership during the typical seasonal loss period. With our 2015 business plans in place and with the rapid progress implementing our integration plan, we expect the acquisition to be accretive to full year 2015 earnings, and that’s earlier than we originally anticipated. Last October, we announced that we had entered into an agreement to sell TECO Coal to Cambrian Coal Corporation, a subsidiary of Booth Energy, a central Appalachian coal producer with operations in the same general areas as TECO Coal. The sale was contingent upon the purchasers obtaining financing. The coal markets have continued to weaken for several months now. And last week, we amended the agreement to adjust the selling price to reflect market condition and to extend the closing date to March 13. Under the amended agreement, we will receive $80 million at closing and have the opportunity to receive an additional $60 million over the next 5 years if benchmark coal prices reach certain levels. The purchaser launched financing activities last week after the amended agreement was executed. In the third quarter, we classified TECO Coal’s operations as discontinued operation and its assets as assets held for sale. At that time, we recorded noncash impairment charges of $64.8 million after-tax. We recorded additional impairment of $11.6 million in the fourth quarter, and the $16.6 million fourth quarter loss in discontinued operations includes that additional charge and the operating result of TECO Coal. Those operating results were impacted by costs related to preparing the company for the sale, such as severance and other employee termination costs. As we’ve disclosed previously, the actual closing of the sale will trigger an additional liability-related charge, which we estimate at $7 million. Turning to guidance. We expect 2015 earnings from continuing operations in a range of $1.08 to $1.11 excluding non-GAAP charges or gain. This is a tighter range than we’ve provided in the past, and that’s because our business mix is now all regulated utilities. And while weather is always a variable that can affect utility performance, our operating companies have typically been successful responding to weather variation within a reasonably normal range. We expect Tampa Electric to earn in the upper half of its allowed ROE range. That’s driven by customer growth that we expect will be in line with 2014; energy sales to retail customers other than phosphate, off an estimated 1%; higher AFUDC as we enter a peak spending year for the full conversion project; and an additional $7.5 million of higher base rate that became effective November 1 last year. On the expense side, continued investment in facilities to serve customers will drive higher depreciation and interest costs. We’re projecting lower O&M expense, however, in part, as we realize benefits from acquisition-related synergies and also from lower employee-related expenses including pension and retiree medical costs. 2015 changes to the retiree medical program and growth in planned assets are among the factors contributing to the lower expense. And because the acquisition of New Mexico Gas and sale of TECO Coal caused us to remeasure pension expense last year, that remeasurement captured the negative impact of lower discount rates and mortality improvement in 2014. We expect Peoples Gas also to earn above its allowed mid-point return, which is 10 3/4%. Like Tampa Electric, we expect the customer growth trends we saw last year to continue into 2015 and expect continued interest in vehicle fleet conversion to compress natural gas as well. Although current gasoline prices are helpful, the economics are still favorable, and there are environmental benefits that users like to promote. At the end of 2014, Peoples Gas had 31 CNG filling stations on its system, and the annual volume was the equivalent of about 60,000 Florida residential customers. We expect that number to grow again in 2015. And finally, the Peoples Gas expense profile should be similar to what I described for Tampa Electric. 2015 will represent our first full year of ownership of New Mexico Gas Company. And as I said, we expect it to be accretive in that first full year. And I’d like to be clear that there’s no creative math in that statement as I’m taking into account the performance of the regulated company, NMGI interest costs and the shares we issued. We expect customer growth to start the year at about the same levels as 2014 and trend up through the course of the year with growth in therm sales largely in line with customer growth. We expect lower O&M from acquisition synergies, and we also have the REIT credit of $2 million in the first 12 months post-closing and $4 million in each subsequent 12-month period, which have the effect of sharing some of the synergies with customers. Since we only have 4 months of ownership with New Mexico Gas in 2014, the slide shows some information on previous years to provide some full year context. The Form 2 filed with the New Mexico Commission reported New Mexico Gas Company net income of $23.7 million in 2013, which was a strong weather year with heating degree days about 5% above normal; and $18 million in 2012, when heating degree days were well below normal; and higher rates approved by the commission became effective after the January peak load that already occurred. This slide is just to remind us to show the normal seasonal earnings pattern we expect from NMGC. They make their money in the cold weather in the first and fourth quarters, a fairly normal pattern for a gas LDC that’s heavily residential. It actually complements our existing earnings pattern nicely as Tampa Electric’s strongest quarters are typically the second and third quarters with summer air-conditioning load. The segment we refer to us Other net includes interest at the unrelated finance company, interest at NMGI, certain unallocated corporate level expenses and consolidated tax impacts and smaller operating companies, the only one of note being TECO’s pipeline. We anticipate that the net cost in 2015 will be slightly higher than last year because of a full year of interest expense at New Mexico Gas Intermediate. Although we won’t be allocating any interest expense to TECO Coal as we have in the past, the negative impact from that will be offset by the benefit of refinancing a maturing note series that has a coupon of 6.75%. I would summarize our longer-term outlook in this way. Our regulated businesses are investing in infrastructure to serve customers in our growing rate base 5% to 7%. Our target is to deliver ratable earnings growth that’s in line with rate base growth. The challenges in 2016, recognizing that Tampa Electric’s rate base growth is heavily influenced by full conversion projects while an additional $110 million of annual revenue will become effective when that project goes into service at the beginning of ’17, the base rate increase that benefits 2016 is only $5 million. So a key to delivering earnings growth in 2016 will be effective management of cost across the organization. You can see this on the graphic representation of Tampa Electric’s rate base, which shows it stepping up significantly in ’17 when Polk goes in service. The base revenue pattern is very aligned with the rate base growth you see here. The 2013 rate settlement provided additional base revenues of $57.5 million effective November 1, 2013, which coincided with 2014 rate base growth; $7.5 million at November 1, 2014; $5 million at the same date in ’15; and then $110 million when Polk goes in service in ’17. This graph shows average rate base, and it excludes the assets that we earn on separately through the environmental cost recovery clause and the construction work in progress that earns AFUDC above a threshold amount that is included in rate base. As a reference point, at the end of September of ’14, actual average rate base was $4.1 billion, the environmental assets were about $400 million and that clip was about $200 million. Also, with our upcoming Investor communications schedule, we expect to file our 10-K at the end of this month, and we will be at the UBS and Morgan Stanley conferences the following week and at the Barclays conference in Atlanta in the middle of March. And now I will turn it over to the operator to open up the lines for your questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions] And your first question comes from the line of Ali Agha with SunTrust. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Research Division A couple of questions. One is, you recently raised your dividend by 2.3%. And I wanted to just get a sense of what is the philosophy on the dividend and growth going forward. I know we’ve talked previously about the NOLs, but they’ll go away in a few years. So can you just remind us again how you’re looking at the dividend? And ultimately what’s the payout ratio, and when do you expect to be in that payout ratio? John B. Ramil This is John Ramil, and I appreciate you asking that question. When we look at our payout ratio versus our guidance for next year, it’s a little bit above 80% as opposed to our kind of normalized target of 60% to 70%. And we expect over time with the 5% to 7% earnings per share growth, coupled with a modest dividend growth that we will work ourselves back into that more normalized range as we work ourselves out of the NOL position, and that’s expected to be in about 2019. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Research Division Understood. Great effort. Second question, John, as you, I think, pointed out on the coal sale, the buyer, I guess, started their financing plans last week as well. Any concern at all about their ability to raise the financing? I know that’s the contingency left to close this. John B. Ramil Well, you’re right, they did kick off their financing on Friday of last week, and we’ve been working very closely with them on where they are in their financing, what the markets are doing and in working with them with the objective of getting this deal closed and moving the coal business out of our portfolio. That’s why we agreed to an amended deal to really strengthen the ability for them to get the financing for this transaction to close. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Research Division Okay, and you’re very confident that, that financing will close. I mean, there’s no — I mean, from your perspective as the seller, any concerns? John B. Ramil All the indications we have and the advice that we’re getting is where we’re at in pricing and where the markets are expected to be, that transaction can close. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Research Division And my last question. On New Mexico, as we think about calendar 2015, you were talking about your expectations for Tampa Electrics on the ROE and Peoples Gas on the ROE. How should we think about New Mexico’s on the ROE? I believe their authorize is 10%, if memory serves me right. So how should we think about what — where — roughly where they should be earning in the order of magnitude? John B. Ramil That’s correct. And with all of our people doing very, very good cost control work, as you can see, that is continued in 2014. And with the synergies that all of our utilities are seeing from the integration, it’s helping improve all the ROEs. And New Mexico Gas has been low — earning closer to 9% ROE, and we expect to keep moving that up towards that 10%. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Research Division Okay. Somewhere between 9% and 10% should be the expectation for ’15? John B. Ramil That’s correct. Operator And your next question comes from the line of Paul Zimbardo with UBS. Paul Zimbardo – UBS Investment Bank, Research Division I just had a question about what your thoughts are on possibility of rate base gas and solar opportunities. nexAir has talked about it on some of the recent calls. And just how do you think about that going forward for you? John B. Ramil Well, we’re watching what’s happening with Florida Power and Light very closely. They reached — got some approvals along the way, and there’s still more things to happen there. And with the proper regulatory treatment, it’s a reasonable investment for utilities to make. So we’re keeping our eyes closely on it. We’re also very interested in large-scale solar. We expect that over time, that’s going to make more and more sense. We think that the commission is receptive to the right projects. In fact, last year, late in the year, I think it was during the fourth quarter, we announced the plans to install a larger scale solar facility at the Tampa International Airport. So we’re moving in that direction. We looked ahead to our next capacity need after the Polk expansion, being in about 2020, and while we have that kind of penciled in as a combustion turbine at this point, we think it’s likely that through some combination of various size solar projects, we’d see that CT replaced with solar capacity. And we think that the commission, the economics and the realities of additional environmental requirements will make that good decision. Paul Zimbardo – UBS Investment Bank, Research Division Okay, so no real plans to do anything in the next 3, 4 years, take advantage of ITC or anything like that? John B. Ramil Well, I just mentioned we announced a project in the Tampa International Airport, and that will go into service in that time period. But beyond that, I mean, our immediate need is being met by the Polk expansion, which is driving our growth through 2016 — I’m sorry, through 2017. Paul Zimbardo – UBS Investment Bank, Research Division Okay, got it. And then one other last question. On the current refinancing of the 6.75% notes, are you able to quantify the magnitude if you plan on letting any of that roll off? Or will it just be a straight refinancing? Sandra W. Callahan We will likely refinance the whole maturing amount. Operator And your next question comes from the line of Paul Ridzon with KeyBanc. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Research Division If parent companies in Cambrian have issues, kind of can you talk about Plan B? John B. Ramil Sure. We’ve been working with them for quite a while. We have had other expressions of interest but feel that they are the most likely candidate to get this transaction done. If, for some reason, that doesn’t happen, we will look to others as possible buyers, and we’ll also look at other ways of selling the asset. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Research Division And given the lower economics, does that impact equity needs at all? John B. Ramil No. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Research Division Okay. And then lastly, can you kind of give the next couple of years’ CapEx schedule? Sandra W. Callahan Well, we will be filing a revised capital spending forecast in our 10-K. Paul T. Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Research Division At the end of this month? Sandra W. Callahan At the end of this month, right. Operator And your next question comes from the line of Andy Bischof with MorningStar. Andrew Bischof – Morningstar Inc., Research Division LI know the total potential future consideration came down as part of the amended coal deal. But can you speak to whether or not the benchmark pricing come down at all? John B. Ramil The future consideration actually went up to $60 million and the benchmark number stayed the same. Operator And your next question comes from the line of Scott Senchak with Cannon. Scott Senchak Just you have some debt maturities also in ’16 and ’17. I was just wondering what your plans were there. John B. Ramil Scott, would you repeat that? I’m not sure exactly what you asked. Scott Senchak Sorry, you have some debt maturities in 2016 and 2017. I was just wondering what your plans are for those as well. Should we expect a straight refinancing there or what the plan is there? Sandra W. Callahan For the most part, Scott, probably refinancing, but we may retire some portion of those maturities in those years. Operator [Operator Instructions] At this time, there are no further questions. I would like to turn the call back over to Mr. Mark Kane. Mark M. Kane Thank you, Keisha. Thank you, all, for joining us today. We know there are other activities occurring in this morning, so we appreciate you taking your time to join us on our call. And we look forward to seeing you at various Investor conferences in the future. This concludes our call. Thank you. Operator Thank you, all, for your time and participation. This does conclude today’s conference call. You may now disconnect.