Tag Archives: weather

Duke Energy (DUK) Lynn J. Good on Q1 2016 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Duke Energy Corp. (NYSE: DUK ) Q1 2016 Earnings Call May 03, 2016 10:00 am ET Executives Bill Currens – Vice President-Investor Relations Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Analysts Greg Gordon – Evercore Group LLC Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Andrew Levi – Avon Capital/Millennium Partners Operator Good day, and welcome to the Duke Energy First Quarter Earnings Call. Today’s conference is being recorded. And at this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Bill Currens. Please go ahead, sir. Bill Currens – Vice President-Investor Relations Thank you, Yolanda. Good morning everyone, and welcome to Duke Energy’s first quarter 2016 earnings review and business update. Leading our call today is Lynn Good, Chairman, President and CEO along with Steve Young, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Today’s discussion will include forward-looking information and the use of non-GAAP financial measures. Slide two presents the Safe Harbor statement, which accompanies our presentation materials. A reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures can be found on duke-energy.com and in today’s materials. Please note that the appendix to today’s presentation includes supplemental information and additional disclosures. As summarized on slide three, Lynn will cover our first quarter financial and operational highlights and provide an update of our recent strategic and growth initiatives. Then Steve will provide an overview of our first quarter financial results, an, update on economic activities within our service territories and close with our key investor considerations. With that, I’ll turn the call over to Lynn. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Good morning, and thank you for joining us. I’m very pleased with our solid first quarter financial results, our continued focus on operational performance and the progress we’ve made on our strategic portfolio transition and important growth initiatives. I’ll provide an update on our progress on these initiatives in just a moment. First, let me begin with a few financial and operational highlights of the first quarter as summarized on slide four. This morning we announced first quarter 2016 adjusted earnings per share of $1.13. Results for our regulated utilities were modestly below our internal plan as a result of significant storm costs in the Carolinas, milder weather and weaker than expected customer volumes. We continue to see strong customer growth and our 12-month rolling average volumes continue to track consistently with our expectations. Operating results for our international business were in line with our expectations as hydrology began to return to more normal levels in Brazil. We also recognized tax adjustments at international during the quarter, which Steve will review in a movement. As we’ve looked at the balance of the year, we are affirming our full year 2016 guidance range of $4.50 to $4.70 per share. Daily operational excellence continues to underpin our commitment to our customers, communities and investors. That commitment starts with our focus on safety. For 2015, Duke Energy’s employees safety record received the top rank among large utilities as recognize by EEI. Our generation fleet also performed well during the quarter. Our nuclear fleet achieved a 95% capacity factor, building on its record breaking performance in 2015. In Indiana, our Edwardsport IGCC facility continues to improve its operational performance. In February the gasifiers achieved 100% availability, our best month ever. Our growing natural gas fleet is also benefiting customers and the environment, taking advantage of low natural gas prices. In March of this year, our gas-fired plant set a record for monthly natural gas consumption, surpassing the record set last June. This is indicative of the strategic coal-to-gas shift in our generation portfolio, which has enabled us to reduce carbon emissions by 28% since 2005. Our organization responded well to weather challenges in the first quarter. In January, Winter Storm Jonas struck the Carolinas causing approximately 600,000 customer outages. There were also ice and wind storms in February, impacting more than 500,000 customers in the Carolinas. Our teams performed admirably during these events, continuing to provide customers with the level of service they’ve come to expect. Next let me update you on our coal ash basin closure activities in the Carolinas. We continue to make outstanding progress with closure activities underway at six sites. For each of our basins, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality is required by statue to recommend risk classifications. Preliminary classifications were released at the end of January followed by a public comment period. We expect DEQ to finalize their classifications shortly. The risk classifications will impact basin closure methods, timing and costs. Based on our comprehensive engineering analysis of our basins, we believe the majority of the remaining unclassified basins meet the requirements for a low classification, allowing 15 years and closure methods which include storing the ash in place. W are committed to safe basin closure in a way that protects our communities and the environment, while minimizing cost to customers. We will keep you informed as the regulatory review process continues to advance. Turning to slide five. I’ll highlight several recent milestones in our important growth initiatives. Our five-year capital plan through 2020 includes a deployment of between $25 billion and $30 billion in growth capital in new natural gas-fired generation, grid investment, commercial and regulated renewables and gas pipeline infrastructure. These investments are directed at improving customer service, modernizing our generation fleet and the electric grid, as well as investing in natural gas infrastructure that is complementary to our system. These investments support our transition toward businesses that provide stable, long-term growth in earnings and the dividend. During the quarter, we received approval from the North Carolina Utilities Commission for our $1 billion Western Carolinas modernization project in Ashville. This allows us to move forward with retiring the Asheville Coal Plant by 2020 and replacing it with two highly efficient natural gas combined cycle units. In South Carolina, construction of our $700 million W.S. Lee Natural Gas Combined Cycle Plant is well underway. The project is on budget and on target for a November 2017 in-service date. We also broke ground on our $1.5 billion natural gas-fired Citrus County Combined Cycle Plant in Florida, staying on track for a 2018 in-service date. We’re building on our success and growing our commercial and regulated renewable assets. In our commercial portfolio, our two 200-megawatt wind projects, Los Vientos IV and Frontier are on target to come online later this year. Since the beginning of the year, we’ve announced the acquisition of nine new solar projects including eight in North Carolina. In our regulated utilities, we’ve announced 100 megawatts of planned solar installations for 2016 in the Carolinas, Florida, and Indiana. That’s already about 75% of what we achieved in 2015, which was a very strong year for solar investment. In fact, Duke Energy progress was ranked third among all utilities in 2015 for bringing new solar capacity online. Additionally, as pictured on this slide, we recently completed an iconic solar farm to serve the power needs of Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando. In the first quarter, we also made good progress in our grid modernization efforts. In March, we announced a settlement agreement with nearly all interveners including key consumer groups on our seven-year Indiana T&D infrastructure investment program. The $1.4 billion plan will provide much needed technology and infrastructure upgrades that will benefit customers, providing improved reliability and safety, fewer and shorter power outages, better information, and overall energy savings. In addition, the settlement allows us to continue evaluating the installation of smart meters in our Indiana service territory, which would be eligible for recovery in a future rate case. The grid modernization hearings with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission began yesterday, and we expect a decision around mid-year. Our two commercial natural gas pipeline infrastructure projects, Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Sabal Trail, continue moving forward. Sabal Trail received FERC approval in February, and the pipeline is on target to begin construction in the second quarter and be in operation in 2017. Atlantic Coast Pipeline is also progressing and has adopted several alternate routes, increasing the lengths of the pipeline from about 550 miles to just under 600 miles. The project partners recently submitted updated information related to these alternative routes as well as responses to all of FERC’s outstanding environmental information requests. We’re confident that FERC will soon be able to issue its draft environmental impact statement, the next important project milestone. And in fact, I believe that statement was issued this morning. The project partners have devoted significant time and resources to ensure that the environmental issues have been fully addressed. And as a result, we’ve adjusted our expectation for receipt of the FERC certificate to mid-2017. We are still planning for a late 2018 in-service date for the project. Turning to slide six, I will address recent activities around the strategic transition of our overall business portfolio toward regulated and contracted electric and gas infrastructure businesses. The two strategic transactions highlighted on this slide will complete the realignment of our portfolio to focus entirely on domestic businesses that drive more stable earnings and cash flows. Let’s start with our pending acquisition of Piedmont Natural Gas. In March, we received approval from the Tennessee Regulatory Authority for a change in control upon acquisition by Duke Energy. The final remaining approval is with the North Carolina Utilities Commission, which has scheduled hearing for July 18. We remain confident of closing the transaction before the end of this year. Additionally, at the end of February, we successfully priced a common stock offering to fund the equity portion of the Piedmont acquisition. The $766 million offering was well received by our investors. As a reminder, the shares were offered in a forward structure. This means we will not issue the shares until the forward is settled at the time the Piedmont transaction closes. We are also progressing on the planned exit of our Latin American generation business. We’ve begun initial steps in marketing the assets including signing nondisclosure agreements and providing information to interested parties. This business includes high quality assets, which we believe will attract significant interest for potential buyers. We will keep you updated on this important strategic transition. In conclusion, I’m pleased with our financial results for the quarter and our progress in advancing our growth investments. We’re also maintaining a sharp focus on operational excellence, which includes our commitment to safety and cost efficiency. Our business portfolio transition positions Duke as an industry-leading domestic infrastructure business with stable, transparent earnings and cash flows. We’re looking forward to continuing our progress on this transition throughout 2016. Now, let me turn it over to Steve. Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thanks, Lynn. Before I begin, I’d like to take a moment to thank Bill Currens for his seven years as a leader with the Investor Relations team. Bill’s tireless commitment to delivering accurate, transparent information to our analysts and investors has been outstanding. I will look forward to continuing to work with him in his new role as our Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer & Controller. As many of you know, Mike Callahan is succeeding Bill as Vice President of Investor Relations. Currently Mike serves as Director of Regulated Utilities Forecasting. He has also had extensive experience in treasury, financial planning and analysis, and investor relations. We’re delighted he’s returning to IR to lead the team, where he will continue our efforts to serve our shareholders and investors. Today, I’ll focus on four primary areas. First, I’ll discuss the major drivers of our first quarter results and provide an update to our full-year adjusted EPS guidance range for 2016. I’ll discuss our retail volume trends and the economic conditions within our service territories. I’ll spend a few moments on the continued cost management efforts underway, and then I will close with a review of our key investor considerations. Let’s start with the quarterly results. I will cover the highlights on slide seven. For more detailed information on segment variances versus last year, please refer to the supporting materials that accompany today’s press release. First quarter adjusted diluted earnings were $1.13 per share compared to $1.24 in the first quarter of 2015. The lower results in the current year reflect milder winter weather in 2016 and the absence of Midwest generation results due to the successful sale of the business in April 2015. Additionally in 2016, we incurred significant winter storm costs and somewhat softer retail volumes, which were offset by a tax adjustment at international. On a reported basis, 2016 first quarter earnings per share were $1.01 compared to $1.22 last year. Let me briefly review key quarterly earnings drivers at each of our business segments. On an adjusted basis, regulated utilities results declined by $0.11 per share, principally driven by the milder weather in the Carolinas and Midwest. Higher revenues from pricing and riders in the Carolinas and Ohio were mostly offset by higher depreciation and amortization expense due to additional plant in service, including the acquisition of the NCEMPA assets in July 2015. Additionally, we incurred higher O&M expense during the quarter as a result of winter storm cost in the Carolinas, which were higher than our planning assumptions by $0.05. Offsetting emergent storm expenses were lower outage costs and increased cost efficiencies throughout the organization. As expected, our commercial portfolio declined by $0.11 per share in the first quarter of 2016, primarily due to the absence of the Midwest generation business, which was sold in April of 2015. Our commercial renewables benefited from improved levels of wind production this quarter and growth from new renewable projects. Other was down $0.06 per share, primarily due to prior year tax adjustments and higher interest expense in the quarter. Moving to international operational performance, in particular in Brazil, strengthened during the quarter. Hydrology in Brazil has improved significantly during the recent rainy season. Reservoir levels in southeast Brazil are approximately 60%, compared to around 30% this time last year. This improvement has resulted in increased hydro production throughout Brazil and lower purchased power costs to meet our contractual commitments. We also had $0.11 of favorable tax related items associated with the international segment during the quarter, which represents the impact of several events. You will recall in the fourth quarter of 2014, we declared a $2.7 billion dividend at international in order to efficiently bring funds back to the US. In early 2016, we announced our intent to exit the international business. This decision, combined with the extension of bonus depreciation by Congress in late 2015, allows us to more efficiently utilize foreign tax credits and reduce our US income taxes. As a result of our intent to exit the international business, we will recognize additional US income taxes for international up until the point of sale. Overall, and with our first quarter results, we remain on track to achieve our 2016 guidance range of between $4.50 to $4.70 per share. Moving onto slide eight, I’ll now discuss our retail customer volume trends. On a rolling 12-month basis, weather-normalized retail load growth was 0.7% through the first quarter. For the first quarter, our retail load growth trends were soft. Within the residential sector, we continued to experience strong growth in the number of new customers, approximately 1.3% over the recent 12 months. However, after moderating for most of 2015, residential customer usage trends have declined during the quarter due to the slow economic recovery and adoption of energy efficiency initiatives. Employment and wage growth trends continue to be favorable for the residential sector, along with the improving housing sector. The commercial and industrial classes continue to grow, to show growth of 0.2% and 1.1% respectively over the rolling 12 months. The commercial sector continues to be supported by office vacancy rate declines and job creation remains strong. Offsetting this growth is the governmental sector, as many agencies face tighter budgets, elimination of jobs and adoption of energy efficiency measures. As for the industrial sector, construction, automotives and textiles continue to show strength in the Carolinas and Midwest. Other industrial companies continue to reduce production as they work through unusually high inventory levels accumulated in 2015. However, the softer global economies and the stronger dollar is still impacting companies that compete globally, such as steel and metals. Our 12-month trends continue to track to our planning assumptions, despite a weak first quarter. We will continue to closely monitor customer usage patterns as we progress through the year. Moving to slide nine, as we continue to position our company for a low load growth environment, I’d like to spend just a moment discussing the progress that we made in managing costs across the organization. So far this year, absent the emerging storm costs, O&M is tracking favorable to the prior year, which is consistent with our expectations. We are focused on standardization of our operational processes and systems to manage our business much more efficiently. We also continued to take advantage of the flexibility and cost savings associated with the transition of our generation portfolio from coal to natural gas. Also within our nuclear and fossil generation fleets, we’re making changes in how we plan and execute our plant outages and how we utilize resources across our fleet. Although the Nuclear Promise is an industry-wide approach to controlling costs, activities are already underway within our nuclear fleet to drive out cost and place more discipline on capital allocation. In our transmission and distribution businesses, we continue to pursue technology that not only provides greater reliability and information for our customers, but also helps control work volumes, metering costs and contractor needs. I’ll close with slide 10, which summarizes our key investor considerations. Duke Energy has tremendous scale, offering an attractive investor value proposition, which includes balanced growth in earnings and dividends over time. As Lynn mentioned, we are making excellent progress on the acquisition of Piedmont and the exit of the international business. After the completion of this strategic transition, we will operate a portfolio that provides lower risk and higher quality earnings and cash flows to support growth in both earnings and the dividend. Our strong capital plan includes the transition toward a lower carbon future as we retire coal and build new efficient combined cycle natural gas and renewable resources. We’re excited about the growth opportunities for natural gas infrastructure across our service territories, particularly in the Southeast. Our electric grid investments allow us to deliver higher levels of reliability and offer new innovative products and services to our customers. Our dividend is very important to us. We continue to target annual growth in the dividend consistent with our long-term 4% to 6% earnings growth objective. Strong cash flows from our core businesses support our dividend. We are only one quarter into the year, but remain on track to achieve the $4.50 to $4.70 adjusted earnings per share guidance range for 2016. With that, let’s open the line for your questions. Question-and-Answer Session Bill Currens – Vice President-Investor Relations Okay. Greg, I think we’ve got you first in the queue. We’ll go to Greg Gordon. Greg? Operator, if you can hear us, we’ll go ahead and take Q&A now. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer We appear that we having some technical difficulty. So, we’ll wait for a few minutes to see if we can establish the line for questions. Bill Currens – Vice President-Investor Relations If everyone could just bear with us for one second. They had a fire alarm over at the operator’s location. So just bear with us for a second here. Operator We’ll take our first question from Greg Gordon with Evercore ISI. Please go ahead. Greg Gordon – Evercore Group LLC Hey. Thanks. Bill, first of all I wanted to say congratulations. You’ve run a fantastic IR program. You’re leaving it in great hands as well. Bill Currens – Vice President-Investor Relations Great. Thank you for that comment Greg. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Good morning, Greg. Greg Gordon – Evercore Group LLC Yes. Good morning. How are you? So, couple of questions on tax. So you’re ahead of the game on tax and international. I was a little bit distracted when you were going through that part of your script, so can you rehash what’s going on there? And does that effectively put you ahead of target for the year for that segment, since you’re already more than halfway there in the first quarter on your targeted guidance assumptions? Or is the tax drag year-over-year from other parts of the business offsetting it? And finally, you’re at a 26% effective tax rate year-to-date. Are you still expecting it to be 32%, 33% levelized over the course of the year, or is that also trending better? Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer So Greg, let me start with a little explanation on the tax adjustment, then I’ll turn it to Steve on specifics around effective tax rate. So coming into this year, we had the extension of bonus depreciation and then the planned announcement of the exit of international, put us in a position where we could relook at the tax consequences of the sale of the business and we are going to be in a position to utilize more of our foreign tax credits, which is real economic benefit from the combination of the extension of bonus and the decision to exit. And so that economic benefit is being reflecting in the first quarter. It does put us ahead of our first quarter plan on international as a result of that. But also as we indicated in the script, we will begin recognizing tax expense, because we will no longer be making the assertion that the proceeds do not come onshore and that tax expense will be reflected over the balance of the year. So, ahead of plan through the first quarter, good economic benefit from the tax planning that the team has accomplished here, and I’ll turn it to Steve to talk about effective tax rate. Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Yes, we had expected and forecasted an effective tax rate for the year of about 32% to 33%. I think it will be lower than that. You might lower it by 1% on that range, as a result of the tax strategies we put forth related to international. Greg Gordon – Evercore Group LLC Okay. So some portion of that $0.11 will flow back, but there will be a net benefit when we look back at the end of the fiscal year. Is that a fair summary? Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer That’s correct. Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Yes, that’s true. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer That’s correct. A modest amount will turn, Greg. Greg Gordon – Evercore Group LLC Okay. I think I understand. Thank you, guys. I’ll cede to the next question. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Okay. Thanks so much. Operator We’ll take our next question from Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Thank you, guys. That was actually going to be my first question. So, I’ll ask my second one which was on the international sale. Can you give any insight at this stage whether you feel it’s more likely the assets get sold in one block or in packages or some other structure? Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Jonathan, we’re pleased with where we are on the process. There’s been good market interest in the assets. We’re still in preliminary phases. So, I can’t speak to whether or not the transaction will be a single transaction or a combination. Our objective will be to optimize the value of the portfolio. And as the year progresses, we’ll keep you informed on timing and expectations. But I would say we’re off to a solid start on the process. Jonathan Philip Arnold – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Are you committed to exiting everything, or is it possible that there would be a partial sale if that was the better value outcome? Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer We’ve made a decision to exit, and are certainly in that process today, Jonathan, and as we move through it we’ll have a better sense of timing and approach. So, I think that’s a question that we’ll be prepared to give more specifics on as the year progresses. But again, we’re off to a good start with the degree of market interest we’re seeing in the assets. Bill Currens – Vice President-Investor Relations Thank you. And thank you to you as well Bill. And good luck. Bill Currens – Vice President-Investor Relations Thank you, Jonathan. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Thanks, Jonathan. Operator We’ll go next to Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research. Please go ahead. Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Yeah. Hi. Good morning. Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Good morning. Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Thanks for that peaceful moment there earlier. Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President We didn’t know what was going on for awhile. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer I know, when we figured out it was a fire alarm, it has to be one of the first ever. Mr. Currens (32:20) on his final call. Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Yes. So, we’ll always remember your final call, Bill. So, just one other clarification on the international. There were Bloomberg Radio story headlines this morning that seemed to imply there was a comment from that saying that the dilution from the sale would be less than you had thought going forward. That’s not what you said though here in this call. So, could you just clarify, did you say something about that or is there anything to add there? Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Steve, thanks for that question. So it’s kind of all a part of this discussion around economic value from this tax adjustment. So, we still intend, believe the transaction will be dilutive. We’ll give more visibility on valuation as the process continues. But the fact that we’ve had a tax planning strategy here that has provided an economic value reflected in the first quarter is significant. It’s a combination of bonus and the decision to sell. So that was the point I was making. But we’ll know more on the valuation of the entire transaction as the year progresses. Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. But there just to, I’m sorry to clarify again. So you were referring to the benefit that you got in this first quarter. There is not some other tax benefits that occur post sale that we weren’t. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer That’s correct. Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. Great. And then, just maybe on the clarifying kind of going back to last call. So you had said before, the 4% to 6% growth rate and it’s going to be kind of maybe kind of lower toward the beginning of the period, then rising toward the end of the period. Is that still kind of the way you look at it? Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer That’s correct, Steve. Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer We don’t expect linear, just given the timing of our capital deployment, the approach we take toward rate cases and resetting our prices. But over the five-year period, we believe we have the capital investments, the growth initiatives that will drive growth within our 4% to 6% targeted range. Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. And then lastly, I think Piedmont has a stake in the Constitution Pipeline. I mean, I’m sure that’s not a huge part of the company, but just does that affect much at all your kind of expectations there, the delay? Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer So, we’ve been following that closely. Steve, and of course are disappointed in the ruling in the State of New York. I think the partners in the projects have been very clear on where they are and the fact that they are reviewing a number of options to go forward. At this point, we’re planning for a delay in the project. But as these options are pursued, some of which could include resubmission or appeal through the courts, we’ll have a better sense of timing and outcome, so more to come on that. Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC And their stake is like $250 million, is that the right number? Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Around $200 million. Around $200 million, Steve. Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research LLC Okay. Okay. Thank you. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator We’ll move next to Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS. Please go ahead. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Hey. Good morning. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Good morning, Julien. Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Good morning. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Get it started. So, a few clarifying questions here. Following up on Steve’s last question, how do you think about hitting the bottom end of the range through at least the near-term period? Just to kind of clarify that. Do you expect to be able to hit that 4% in the subsequent years, especially given the year-to-date start and where the sales process is et cetera? Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer You know, Julien, I think our guidance on that is as it was at the end of the year. We have reaffirmed our range of $4.50 to $4.70 for this year. We’re in the midst of portfolio transition with the sale of international and the acquisition of Piedmont, both of which we expect to make substantial progress on in 2016. That will have bearing on 2017 and forward, so we’ll give you a better sense of 2017 as we get close. We’re confident in the range. We believe it will be nonlinear, as we’ve talked about, but don’t have anything further to say on that at this point. But we’re working hard on all elements of both growth initiatives, capital deployment, pursuing rate cases at the right time, and moving aggressively through the transition in the portfolio. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC And then a quick follow-up on pension accounting here. We’ve seen some companies in the sector pursue some new policies on discount rates. I’d be curious, is that something you all are reviewing? Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President We keep abreast of the various accounting rules and options available to us and those are things that we look at with a regular basis and we’re keeping an eye on those things. We’re aware of the different methods of selecting discount rates, yield curves, bond methods, spot methods, so we’re keeping an eye on that. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Just no decisions at this point. Julien. Those decisions will be finalized in connection with our year-end planning process. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC So, would that still affect potentially this year? Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer No, no decisions have been made at this point. Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President No decisions, and typically a decision like that would impact prospective years. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Okay. Thank you. And then, more strategic question here. As you think about the gas expansion that you are undertaking by the acquisition of Piedmont, how are you thinking about future expansions or exposures on the gas side of the equation? And specifically here, either more gas utilities or more importantly, I suppose the more direct midstream pipeline exposure. I’d be curious. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Julien, we’re excited about what the potential of the Piedmont acquisition represents for Duke and our focus here in 2016 is on closing the transaction and also progressing Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Sabal Trail. We also see growth within the Piedmont franchise, both with customer additions as well as infrastructure that would support gas generation here in the Carolinas. So, we expect to continue to build on that platform in particular. We’ll look at assets that make sense for Duke, whether they’re midstream or local distribution companies, but don’t have anything more specific to share with you at this point. We’re focused on closing the transaction and integrating it in a successful way. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Securities LLC Got it. Thank you. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator We’ll take our next question from Chris Turnure with JPMorgan. Please go ahead. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Good morning, Chris. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Good morning. I had a more specific question on timing for the international sale. I do respect that it’s still relatively early in the process, but it’s my understanding that you really got the ball rolling back in January, so it’s been a couple months now. At least you do have those I guess confidentiality agreements in place, and you are in discussions. Maybe it would be helpful to hear a best case scenario here knowing what you know, in terms of timing for the ultimate close of the transaction. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Sure. And you know, Chris, the ball was rolling in January and February on planning. The ball began rolling into the market with discussions with counterparties on non-disclosure agreements and interest more in the late March, April timeframe. And so we are two months into that process. The data room, the data book is in the hands of prospective buyers, and over the next couple of months, we’ll be learning more about degree of interest, number of parties that intend to stay in the process, and we’ll have more to update in the second quarter. I just you know, given where we are, I don’t have any more specifics to share with you. Jonathan I believe or someone asked earlier about, is it one transaction or multiple. That of course would impact timing. Our objective is to optimize the value of the portfolio, and we’re going to move through this in a thoughtful way to accomplish exactly that. And we’ll give you more specifics when we are further into the process. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Great. And then my second question is on Atlantic Coast Pipeline. We did have the delay in the start of construction I guess that you gave some color on in your prepared remarks, but the overall cost and completion date remains unchanged. Is there any more information that you can give us there in terms of the drivers of that delay and start of construction and maybe moving pieces within the lack of change of completion date and lack of change of total costs that might have kind of netted to no effect there, I guess. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Chris, there has been a very active engagement on the part of the partners throughout this process and the delay in receipt of FERC approval has really been the result of pursuing alternate routes and addressing environmental and stakeholder concerns along the way. So the schedule, as originally developed, had contingency timing in it which we’ve continued to work actively with our partners, including you know the way we’re engaging with contractors. And at this point believe that we are on target for a mid-2017 approval from FERC, which should give us an ability to continue to target late 2018 for in-service. So, a lot of good work has been going on to look at a variety of alternatives and to work with the contingency that was within the original project plan. Christopher J. Turnure – JPMorgan Securities LLC Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Our next question will come from Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Hey, guys. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Hi, Michael. Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Couple of easy ones. Can you all talk about how much utility O&M was down year-over-year in the quarter excluding the impact of storms? Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Yes, Michael. The O&M, the non-recoverable types O&M was down $0.04 year-over-year in the quarter. And again, we had about $0.05 of storms delta quarter-over-quarter offsetting that. But we had the $0.04 benefit. Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Okay. And then CapEx in the quarter came in, like if I just annualize that number, that would imply a year-end number several billion below kind of what you highlighted for 2016 levels. Should we just assume CapEx is very back-end loaded in the course of this year or is there a kind of downside potential to that CapEx number? Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President I think our original capital plans for the years are still intact. I think it’s just a shaping during the year. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer And Michael, if you look back even at 2015, we spent about 20% of capital last year. We’re kind of in that range this year in the first quarter, and then it picks up over the course of the year. So the pattern looks similar to what we’ve experienced in previous years. Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Got it. And then finally, can you just remind us what are your thoughts or plans around rate case timing across the various utilities or across your system? Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Yes, Michael. As we had mentioned in the February call, we’re looking at the majority of these cases to be back loaded in the five-year timeframe. But that’s always subject to scrutiny of costs and events that are going on at the time. And in fact, we are looking at accelerating a rate case. We may file a notice this year for our filing for Duke Energy Progress South Carolina jurisdiction. So we’re always looking at what’s the appropriate time to go in, what’s our cost structure look like and the investment timing related to that. I’d still say that the majority of the cases are in the back end of the five-year timeframe. But the South Carolina is an example of an opportunity we have that we need to move on perhaps earlier. Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Got it. Yeah. I asked that question only because if I look at the quarterly demand rather than the rolling 12 months, while it’s really strong in the Carolinas, Florida has been a little bit weaker and Indiana and Ohio especially in this quarter were significantly weak on a weather normalized basis. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Michael, the rate case timing in Florida, you may recall, we have the GBRAs in place in connection with the building of the plants and that along with that, has a stay-out through 2018, I believe. And then in Indiana, we’ve been pursuing the T-disc, the grid investment, which will give us an ability to track and that will in hearing hopeful to get approval in Indiana, which will give us an opportunity to reset prices for those investments. And we’ll continue to monitor whether load trends and other things would change our timing in Indiana, but we believe the tracker that we’re pursuing is the highest priority rate activity in that jurisdiction. Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs & Co. Got it. Thank you, guys. Much appreciated. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thank you. Operator Our next question will come from Jim von Riesemann with Mizuho. Please go ahead. James von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. I am all set. Thank you. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Thanks, Jim. Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Thanks, Jim. Operator We’ll move to our next caller then, Praful Mehta with Citi. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Hi, guys. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Hello. Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Hello. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) So, my quick question was, you mentioned on growth on the gas side that you might look at other gas assets. So just to clarify, are you talking about building on your platform for gas with acquisitions or are you looking for organic growth to build on your gas platform? Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer The first objective is to close the sale, or close the purchase of Piedmont Natural Gas. And we believe that we’ll have organic growth opportunities within that platform not only for new customer additions but expansion of the interstate pipeline system in the Carolinas as we continue our strategic move from coal to gas. And then beyond that, for midstream or LDCs, there was a question earlier that address our interest in that. We will consider those types of additions to the portfolio that make sense, complement what we’re trying to do. But our primary objective is closing the transaction, focusing our attention on integration, focusing our attention on growth organically as I outlined, and then other opportunities we’ll evaluate as they arise. Praful Mehta – Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Got you. Thank you, guys. That’s all I have. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator Our next question will come from Ali Agha with SunTrust. Please go ahead. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. Thank you. Good morning. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Hello. Good morning. Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Hello Ali. Bill Currens – Vice President-Investor Relations Good morning. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. Good morning. Can you remind us for this year, the commercial power earnings that you’ve budgeted, how much of that is essentially coming from recognition of tax credits? Is it almost all of it? Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer If you look in the slide deck, Ali, on slide 13, it gives you the full year assumption for commercial, and that business is commercial wind and solar, which as you know have tax credits as an important part of their economics. So, that gives you a range or a perspective on the magnitude of that contribution. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. And Lynn, what is the mix between ITC and PTC recognition there? Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer More heavily PTC, just because of the nature of our portfolio, Ali. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. Okay. And what’s current the average life of contracts on the PTC side? Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President On the PTC side, we look at PPAs that are in the range of typically 15 to 25 years, in that type of range. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer And the PTC benefit, Ali, as you know is a 10-year benefit. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. Yes. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Yeah. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. And you are relatively early in that recognition, right, for most of the portfolio? Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer You know, certainly, we’ve been in the business, started modestly in 2007 and then you can look at our kind of capital contribution in growth 2012, 2013, 2014, so I would say early in that PTC period generally. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. Yeah. And lastly, Lynn, I know when you provide us full-year guidance, you lay out what you’re expecting adjusted ROEs to be across the portfolio as well. And in general, I mean would you say is there much in terms of, because looking at those numbers, it doesn’t seem to be, but is there much in terms of regulatory lag that you would say exists in your portfolio that perhaps can be captured in future years or are you thinking generally speaking the ROEs will move when you file those rate cases in the back end of the five-year forecast? Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Let me make a comment and then Steve can continue. Steve commented a moment ago, Ali, that we see the potential for rate cases in South Carolina in 2016 that’s consistent with capital spending and cost structure and earned returns. And so we do have rate case potential in South Carolina in the very near term. And then later in the five-year period in North Carolina, that will be the result of regulatory lag showing up on capital investment that is occurring now and will occur into the future. I commented on trackers in Indiana and Florida, but at some point, we’ll address updating those rates as well. So, I think regulatory lag for any jurisdiction where we have historic test periods or the need to use base rate increases to achieve prices is going to have some regulatory lag associated with it. And that’s the careful analysis that we closely watch in determining the timing for filing. Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President And I would add, as we said in February, we had a slide on our five-year growth and we showed the lag was about 3% negative. And that’s an average number over the five-year period. It will vary year per year. And it is as Lynn said related to the jurisdictions where you’ve got gaps between rate cases and you build up investments during those gap periods. So, we’re working on that and planning around those events. Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. Thank you. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Thanks, Ali. Operator We’ll take our next question from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Please go ahead. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Good morning. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Good morning, Paul. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Congratulations again, Bill. Bill Currens – Vice President-Investor Relations Thanks, Paul. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC I wanted to just sort of touch base on the storms. Is there a normal number for storm costs that we should be thinking about in this quarter? Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President It is hard to predict storms obviously. The past three years we’ve seen winter storms that have hit us in the range of $50 million or $60 million a year, but whether that’s normal or not, I would hesitate to say. We try to impute an amount that we think about in our budgeting, but you’ll have during the summer season the potentials for hurricanes in the Southeast and then in the winter storms across our jurisdictions other than Florida, typically there’s the potential. there. Hard to predict, but we’ve seen winter storms the past three years in the neighborhood of $50 million or $60 million. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. On slide 19, it looks like you guys are indicating that for the utilities, only about $0.01 was impacted by unfavorable weather. And I mean, is that solely because of it seems – it’s a little surprisingly, it seems a little low. Does that take into account storm outages that might lower customer usage or, because when we look at slide eight, it looks like non-weather adjusted sales were down 4%, and I think that does not include leap year, correct? Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President That’s correct. Yes. Let me give a little color on this. But typically, outages from storms do not affect volumes very significantly, as one point to make there, when you’re looking at the whole breadth of things. I would say that the, I always want to say this, when you’re looking at a quarter in particular, short periods of time, you have to be careful about weather normalized data. I think the first quarter of 2016 was mild, particularly March, and I don’t know whether we pulled all of the weather impacts out appropriately in the first quarter of 2016. Correspondingly, the first quarter of 2015 was very, very cold. And I don’t know whether all of the weather was pulled out of that quarter as well. So you’re comparing these two weather normalized periods, and it shows that the weather impact may not have been that significant. I suspect that it may have been more mild than what we showed in the first quarter here, but I don’t try to guess at what that could be. So we just roll with the data. I like to look at the 12 months rolling more critically there. We did as we acknowledged it, it was a bit of a soft quarter, but I think the 12-month rolling numbers are in line with what we’ve been forecasting. And I would want to emphasize that in response to a relatively weak load, we have aggressively pursued our cost structure to offset that. That’s part of our long-term plans. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Okay. Great. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer You know Paul, the only thing I would add to it is, we have standard methods of identifying what is weather related and non-weather related. And what Steve is commenting on is those standard methods can be impacted in periods where there is extreme temperature. So extreme cold or extreme warm weather that we experienced in March. So that all leads us to look at longer time periods, so that we don’t have those anomalies that could exist in any quarter. And that is really what has led us to this 12-month rolling average discussion on load because we think that is more indicative of trends we’re experiencing. And as you can imagine, we watch this really closely and manage the business for a low load growth environment. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC Excellent. Thanks a lot. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Thank you. Operator And our final question will come from Andy Levi with Avon Capital. Please go ahead. Andrew Levi – Avon Capital/Millennium Partners Hi. Good morning. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Hi, Andy. Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Hey, Andy. Andrew Levi – Avon Capital/Millennium Partners How you guys doing? Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Good. Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Well. Bill Currens – Vice President-Investor Relations Yes, sir. Andrew Levi – Avon Capital/Millennium Partners You’re one of the best ever, even though you never won that award, okay. I just want to say that. I would have given you that award. Bill Currens – Vice President-Investor Relations You just gave it to us, so thank you. Andrew Levi – Avon Capital/Millennium Partners Okay. But maybe next year Michael will win it, so. Actually I think most of my questions have been answered, but just back on the sales. So leap year is what, about 30 basis points on an annual basis, is that? Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President That’s roughly right, Andy. Andrew Levi – Avon Capital/Millennium Partners Right, so I guess for the quarter, you times up by four or something like that, or is that not the right math? Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President Yeah I think you could get in the ballpark there, and it’s a little, that’s a rough way to do it. Andrew Levi – Avon Capital/Millennium Partners Right. Steven K. Young – Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President But again, I think getting weather normalized data is as much art as science and when you get an extreme period like we had in March and comparing it to an extreme period like a prior year, I think you can get fluctuations that make that comparison a little distorted. We think our customer growth and volumes are in line with our broad prediction levels and we’ll keep an eye on it. Andrew Levi – Avon Capital/Millennium Partners What do you guys think, I mean just in general, because it’s not just you who are seeing like decent customer growth or weak sales trends and it’s not just this quarter. Is it still energy efficiency or what else could it be? Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer The other thing that we look at, Andy, is multifamily housing versus single family homes. We’re starting to see some positive trends in the Carolinas where there are more single family home construction opportunities. But coming out of the economic downturn, a lot of the growth was in multifamily units, which by their footprint use less energy than a home. So, I think we’re closely monitoring this and the call to the action for us is to ensure that our cost structure and the way we manage our investments and assets are consistent with the trends we’re seeing at the top line. And we believe we have a demonstrated track record in managing our business that way. Andrew Levi – Avon Capital/Millennium Partners Yeah. And then, just in general I guess, international is doing better than expected. Part of that is the tax benefit; part of that is hydro and then I would assume for the second half of the year, you’ll have some tailwind from currency if things kind of stay where they are. So that’s a positive for this year. But it also seems that the utility itself, because of the sales trends and I guess lack of rate increases, seems to be towards the low end of your range at this point. Again, it’s early in the year, but is that a fair statement? Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Andy, we’re on target for the range of $450 million to $470 million that we talked to you about. This is the first quarter. I think to give you any more specifics on placement within the guidance range is just premature. As you know, the third quarter is our most significant quarter, and we’re managing the business with identifying rate increase opportunities. Steve talked about South Carolina of course watching costs as part of that. And we’d like to see a longer trend on the sales growth to continue to monitor where that is progressing. So on track to achieve what we set out to achieve at the beginning of the year. Andrew Levi – Avon Capital/Millennium Partners Okay. Thank you very much, and Bill, again congratulations. I think you’ll be a great Controller and keep everyone in the straight and narrow, because I guess that’s what a Controller does, and I’m sure your kids will be happy to spend more time with you than they have for the last few years. Bill Currens – Vice President-Investor Relations All right. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Thanks, Andy. Bill Currens – Vice President-Investor Relations Thank you, Andy. Andrew Levi – Avon Capital/Millennium Partners Yes. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Okay. Operator With that being our last question, I’ll turn the call back to Lynn Good for closing comments. Lynn J. Good – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Okay, Yolanda, thank you. And thanks everyone for hanging in with our fire alarm and our farewell to Bill Currens and welcome to Mike Callahan today. And most of all, thank you for your interest and investment in Duke. We look forward to meeting with many of you over the next several weeks and months and look forward to continue discussions. So, thanks again. Operator That will conclude today’s conference. Thank you all once again for your participation. 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!

NorthWestern’s (NWE) CEO Robert Rowe on Q1 2016 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

NorthWestern Corporation (NYSE: NWE ) Q1 2016 Earnings Conference Call April 20, 2016, 03:30 PM ET Executives Travis Meyer – Investor Relations Robert Rowe – President and Chief Executive Officer Brian Bird – Vice President and Chief Financial Officer John Hines – Vice President, Supply Analysts Paul Ridzon – KeyBanc Brian Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann Jim Von Riesemann – Mizuho Jonathan Reeder – Wells Fargo Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates Chris Ellinghaus – Williams Capital Operator Good day, everyone, and welcome to the NorthWestern Corporation first quarter 2016 financial results conference call. Today’s call is being recorded. And at this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Mr. Travis Meyer. Please go ahead, sir. Travis Meyer Thank you, Vikki. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining NorthWestern Corporation’s financial results conference call and webcast for the quarter ended March 31, 2016. NorthWestern’s results have been released and the release is available on our website at northwesternenergy.com. We also released our 10-Q, pre-market this morning. On the call with us today are Bob Rowe, President and Chief Executive Officer; Brian Bird, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. And in addition, we have several other members of the executive team along with us in the room today to address your questions. Before I turn the call over for us to begin, please note that the company’s press release, this presentation, comments by presenters and responses to your questions may contain forward-looking statements. As such, I will remind you of our Safe Harbor language. During the course of this presentation, there will be forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Safe Harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements often address our expected future business and financial performance and will often contain words such as expects, anticipates, intends, plans, believes, seeks or will. The information in this presentation is based upon our current expectations of the date hereof, unless otherwise noted. Our actual future business and financial performance may differ materially and adversely from expectations expressed in any forward-looking statements. We undertake no obligation to revise or publicly update our forward-looking statements or this presentation for any reason. Although, our expectations and beliefs are based on reasonable assumptions, actual results may differ materially. The factors that may affect our results are listed in our press releases and disclosed in the company’s Form 10-K and 10-Q, along with other public filings with the SEC. Following our presentation, those who are joining us by teleconference will be able to ask questions. The archived replay of today’s webcast will be available, beginning today at 6:00 PM Eastern Time, and can be found on our website, again, at northwesternenergy.com, under the Our Company, Investor Relations, Presentations and Webcasts. To access the audio replay of the call, dial 888-203-1112, then access code 9488422. Again, that’s 888-203-1112, access code 9488422. I will now turn it over to our President and CEO, Bob Rowe. Robert Rowe Thank you, and thank you all for joining us this afternoon. We are gathered at our new general office in Uptown Butte, Montana. Over the last several days, we’ve had our Board meeting, and then our Annual Meeting. This morning, if you happen to look at our deck from the Annual Meeting, you’d see that one of our most respected Directors, Louis Peoples, is not running for reelection of our Board though, and we’ve reduced the size of our Board by one. Louis is dealing with cancer. We’ll very much miss him. He was able to participate in all events by phone though over the last two days. Last night we had a wonderful dedication for this new facility and folks from all across the community, and in fact from around Montana arrived to express their support and appreciation for the investments that we are making here. I’ll start with recent significant activities. Net income for the quarter was $38.1 million or $0.79 per diluted share, that’s as compared with net income of $51.4 million or $1.09 per diluted share for the same period in 2015. And this $13.4 million, which is a 26% decrease in net income, is primarily the result of lower revenue from recent regulatory decisions in Montana, combined with factors including higher property taxes and depreciation expense. Partially offsetting these unfavorable earnings impacts are higher revenues from increased electric rates in South Dakota. Non-GAAP adjusted earnings per share was $1.01 as compared to $1.18 for the same period last year. We filed our biennial Electric Supply Resource Procurement Plan with the Montana Public Service Commission just several weeks ago, tremendous amount of work went into that, and we’ll come back and spend some time on that as well as other matters, that provides us a roadmap, actually a roadmap for all of our stakeholders, particularly including our regulators and customers, as to how we expect to respond to future Montana electric supply needs. The Board approved a quarterly stock dividend of $0.50 per share that is payable on June 30, 2016. I’ll turn it over to Brian to start the financial results. Brian Bird Thanks, Bob. For a summary of financial results, on Page 5. Our net income for the three months ended March 31, 2016, was $38.1 million or $13.4 million worse than the prior year results. Our earnings per share were $0.79 per diluted share compared to $1.09 per diluted share in the prior year or $0.30 lower on a year-over-year basis. Obviously, we’re disappointed in our first quarter results and that disappointment really starts with gross margin. Our gross margin was $217.1 million, which was $16.5 million less than the prior year. It goes without saying the fact that we have higher guidance on a year-over-year basis. We expected our margins to be up on a year-over-year in this first quarter, and I’ll get into the details in terms of what happened to margin in a moment. But not only did we expect gross margin to be up on a year-over-year basis, we expected net income to be up on a year-over-year basis. So, again, disappointed with our first quarter results. Regarding gross margin on Page 6, I mention the $16.5 million unfavorable variance versus the prior year. I’ll go through each of those items certainly on the good news front. The South Dakota rate increase contributed $8.6 million improvement. We did see some slight improvement in Montana natural gas retail volumes that certainly helped. But offsetting that and first and foremost, the most detrimental thing to the quarter was the $10.3 million MPSC disallowance for replacement parts associated with the Colstrip 4 outage, based upon a recent MPSC decision was a primary driver for the quarter. Below that though, we did have other decisions in the fourth quarter of 2015 by the MPSC that resulted in a rate adjustment to our natural gas production. That was the primary driver for the $2.4 million decrease there. Also of course, we’ve talked in the past about the elimination of our lost revenue adjusted mechanism. That resulted in a $1.8 million reduction for this quarter. Another disappointing element that occurred during the quarter, OASIS revenues are down. And so people utilizing our transmission system has been impacted. That was $1.3 million. And on top of that, electric retail volumes were down, and primarily as a result of some of industrial load being opt certainly for the quarter, that was $1 million that impacted our results. $400,000 due to a Spion Kop rate decrease that was built into the order upon approval. Spion Kop there’s a requirement to periodically adjust those rates, and you certainly did that in the fourth quarter of 2015, that had an impact for the quarter. And lastly, it’s $900,000 in the other category. Those items collectively added up to $9.3 million unfavorable change in gross margin. I’ll come back to that in a moment. Below that, we had $5.9 million reduction in margin associated with the Kerr conveyance. As you recall, Kerr is no longer with NorthWestern and that left our fold, if you will, later last year. We do have production in the tax credits that flow through the trackers. That is offset in income taxes. You’ll see by the way for the hydro operations and the reduction in revenue, you also are going to see corresponding reduction in expenses. And lastly, property taxes recovered in trackers. Those items do not have a change in impact — had no impact on net income. They’re offset another spots. Those totaled $7.2 million. The combination of that $7.2 million and the $9.3 million change in gross margin impact in net income resulted in the $16.5 million decrease in consolidated gross margin. Staying with that $9.3 million change in gross margin impacting net income, I’d summarize the quarter on margin this way. Effectively the MPSC disallowance associated with the Colstrip 4 outage is the primary driver of that $9.3 million. We did see, obviously, the improvement expected in the South Dakota rate increase that certainly offset that degree. But all of that increase was pretty much offset by decrements we’ve seen to our Montana electric and gas business, as a result of MPSC decisions and as a result of impacts on our OASIS and retail volumes for the quarter. Moving forward, just to speak about weather. Weather basis, we saw the weather’s impact to us. Last year we had warmer weather. We did again this year. On a year-over-year basis, weather was about the same. And matter of fact, if you look at the top right-hand side of Page 7, versus last year we had slightly colder Montana this year, but that was pretty much offset by a much warmer South Dakota and Nebraska business. As compared to normal or historic average, you can see we were much warmer in all jurisdictions, thus the $7.1 million or $0.09 add-back you see in our GAAP to non-GAAP reconciliation. But last thing I’d just point out on this page, and we do kind of show how warm it was in our service territory. They’ve been keeping weather records for 122 years in all three of our states, where we primarily do our business. We’ve seen some of the warmest temperatures during that 122 year history. Regarding operating expenses on Page 8. Operating expenses are up $5.5 million. That increase is primarily associated with property taxes, I think Montana property taxes and depreciation. That increase in depreciation is primarily associated with Beethoven, and they completed Big Stone pollution control investment that we made increased the depreciation. On the operating, general and administrative expenses, those expenses did come down on a year-over-year basis. The primary driver for bringing those down was, again, the Kerr conveyance. We no longer have Kerr in the fold as I said, and obviously the expense associated with that is no longer in the fold. So that’s $5.6 million reduction, again, offset in margin. Non-employee directors deferred comp, we always talk about that, resulted in an increase in expense there. That will be offset, of course, in other income with no impact to net income. So that remains really two items. We’re having higher insurance reserves on a year-over-year basis, primarily as a result of booking a billings refinery litigation claim to our financials. And lastly and all other, and from an OG&A perspective, the company’s done a good job, managing its O&G expense, so not a lot of increase there. But we’ll tell you on this page and we’ll certainly discuss it again. We need to do much better on a going-forward basis, as a result of the impacts in our margin. Moving on to Page 9, thinking about going from operating income to net income real quickly. Interest expense is up, primarily associated with incremental debt, associated with the Beethoven project. Other income, as I mentioned moments ago, is primarily up and is associated with the $3.1 million increase in non-employees director deferred compensation. And income tax expense is down significantly $7.5 million, as a result of lower per-tax income, and I’ll talk about that in a moment. Balance sheet on Page 10. Not a lot of change from the end of 2015 and end of first quarter ’16. You do see at the bottom of the page, the ratio of debt to total capitalization is down, under 54%. That’s primarily the result of — we could see pretty good receipts of course in the first quarter of the year, and that allowed us to reduce our short-term borrowings and that drove part of that ratio down a tad. Moving on to the cash flow statement on Page 11. We see cash provided by operating activities are up. That’s up primarily as a result of an $18.4 million settlement of an interest rate swap that occurred in the first quarter of 2015 that negatively impacted 2015 results. So when you take a look at investing activities, pretty much the same on a year-over-year basis. So cash from operating activities allowed us to increase the amount of repayments of borrowings during the quarter on a year-over-year basis. Moving forward to the income tax reconciliation. I had mentioned that pre-tax income is down and that’s the primary driver for the change in income tax. As you see at the top of that page and you calculate against our 35% federal statutory rate. You see at the far right the variance is $7.3 million, favorable variance. You compare that variance to the very bottom income tax expense of $7.5 million, primarily the same variance. And in fact what that means is our permanent flow-through adjustments on a year-over-year basis were approximately the same. Major impact, if you will, in that reduction in income tax expense, particularly on a percentage basis with the same level of permanent flow-through items reduces your tax rate from the 16.3% you saw last year during the same period to 6.1% for the quarter. Moving to Page 13, again, our GAAP to non-GAAP reconciliation. I mentioned earlier in the call, if you go to bottom of that page, the diluted EPS of $0.79 a share compared to the far right $1.09 on a GAAP-over-GAAP basis. In both years we added back $0.09 associated unfavorable weather. Additionally in 2016 we’re adding back $0.13 associated with the prior year impact in the Colstrip disallowance we discussed earlier, that add back of $0.13 gets us to $1.01 per share on a non-GAAP earnings versus $1.18 a share non-GAAP earnings or on an EPS basis $0.17 differential year-over-year. Moving forward to Page 14, on our non-GAAP adjusted EPS, and I’ll probably dig into this page. The main thing I really want to say, as a result of the recent MPSC decisions along with the reduced OASIS, reduced industrial load and we’re seeing use for customer not attributed to whether being down as well. As a result of those items, we are tightening our guidance to a new range of $3.20 to $3.35 a shares. So really shaving the top $0.05 off our original guidance. On the page itself, you can see where we show the first quarter, the $1.01 versus the $1.18 of adjusted diluted EPS. And then what it’s going to take for the remaining three quarters nearly $2.19 to $2.34 to get to our new guidance range at the end of the year of $3.20 to $3.35. That three quarters, $2.19 to $2.34 compares to $1.97 for the three quarters last year. So even with shaving the $0.05 off of the top-end of our guidance, we still have a lot of work to do, due to the expectation of continued margin concerns persist. We implemented significant cost controls, and with that effort and a lower tax rate, we are comfortable with our revised guidance range. On Page 15, we show this graphically in terms of tightening the range at the top of that page, $3.20 to $3.35. The only thing that we did change in our language associated with the guidance is we do expect our income tax rate for the year to be 6% to 10% versus the previously 9% to 13%. And as I’ll remind folks, as we do every quarter, all of our guidance assumes normal weather. And with that, I’ll turn it back over to Bob. Robert Rowe Thank you, Brian. And I’ll walk through some of the things happening on the operational front. Obviously, we’ve talked a lot over the last several years about the hydro facilities. I mentioned to you in the past that one of the key initiatives for the last year has been an asset optimization study. And in fact that was completed and was a key driver going into the Montana Electric Supply Plan that I mentioned, and we’ll come back and talk about that. We did successfully complete the conveyance of Kerr Dam to the confederated tribes, made a compliance filing in December 2015 to remove the Kerr project from the high growth cost of service in January of this year. The Montana Commission approved an interim adjustment to rates. They opened a separate contested case docket, noticed issues for parties to address, and the next major item likely to be any testimony from the Montana Consumer Counsel and we are looking forward final decision there in the second half of the year. Very importantly, and I mention this on earlier calls, last year, the system was stressed from a weather perspective, but nonetheless, and really thanks to the diversity of assets in essentially in four different basins, we came in right at capacity. So we are very pleased with the operation of the system. And then as I’ve noted before, we’re also very pleased with the price we were able to negotiate for these assets, which was fairly significantly lower than what Talen had sold other assets to Brookfield Renewables for backing their home jurisdiction. A lot of activity in South Dakota over the last year, again, the Beethoven Wind Project came into our system in September of last year at 80 megawatt project that really has allowed us to significantly diversify our South Dakota supply portfolio and the Commission took very constructive action in folding that project into our rate base concurrently with the South Dakota rate case. And we’ve already mentioned, we reached a settlement in that case, which was approved in October of last year resulting in an increase in base rates of little bit over $20 million for an overall rate of return of 7.24% and then in addition to that allowing us to collect about $9 million annually for Beethoven. So we anticipate net income to increase by about $13.6 million in 2016 as a result of the full year impact. An important project in South Dakota has been moving our South Dakota operation into the Southwest Power Pool. We’ve been active in marketing activities in SPP, which were handled by a third-party for us also working through a rate case in the advanced stages of FERC rate case there, significant that our ownership of Beethoven will produce over the life of that project, significant benefits for our customers, which of course is the basis of the Commission’s approval. Turning to the Electric Supply Resource Plan, and this really is a landmark document for all relevant periods, up and to now our supply plans in Montana have really been driven by the need to meet our energy requirements, as we transition from a company that was 100% on the market to a company that now owns significant assets dedicated to serve our Montana customers, so tremendous amount of work internally and externally went into preparing this document. And first of all, you see the benefit of the diverse set of assets that we have in Montana. And we’re able then to co-optimize each of those assets to provide the greatest long-term benefit to our customers at the lowest possible risk. We used to be an outlier in the Pacific Northwest and that we own no generation. Now, we look like the rest of the region and that we really moved away from our energy planning focus to planning to meet capacity needs. We still look quite unique and that we have no reserve requirements — we have no reserve capabilities, so we need to plan for reserve as well. So I’d say the main themes of this plan are resource optimization, capacity and reserves. An exciting opportunity is that at the existing hydro facilities, we have about 86 megawatts of potential additional hydro capacity. Some portion of this would essentially be what are called rehabilitation projects, consistent with the current FERC licenses. So from a regulatory perspective those are relatively easy lifts. Several of the projects that area potentially a little bit larger would require us to go in for license modifications to the FERC. But again, this was a great potential asset. Notably, under any scenario that we looked at, we would continue to have an extremely low carbon-intensity to our Montana portfolio. Next step, Commission has planned public works session for June of 2016. In Montana, the Commission does not approve or reject the plan, but takes public comments and then issues their own comment. And then that will guide our implementation actions. What you’ll see on Page 18, at the top of the page is a build up of potential supply additions, and then at the bottom of the page, a breakdown of the kind of unit, likely or possible year, it could be added to that project cost, the supporting infrastructure cost and then the total cost. And these plans are, of course, are revised on every two year basis. We will be looking to comments that the Commission receives and ultimately the comment that the Commission issues on the plan and will take that into strong conservation as we move forward, but this does give us, I think a great roadmap. A little footnote, but I think it’s significant, we refer to this as the economically optimal portfolio, and this is what an extraordinarily sophisticated modeling process produced. The term of art typically is preferred portfolio, and we selected economically optimal as the best way to focus on this, recognizing that there are some times non-economic or non-resource values that can be important and certainly one of those would be carbon intensity of the portfolio. Page 19 is our regulated utility five year capital forecast, and this would rollup to about $1.66 billion. This does reflect a significant increase from our 2015 10-K. We do, as we have said before, continue to anticipate being able to fund these projects with the combination of cash flows, importantly for us, aided by our NOLs, which we expect to be available now through 2020 and long-term debt. As we’ve said previously, of course, if other opportunities arise, as occurred last year with Beethoven, then we would evaluate the need for new equity. We are laying out this capital forecast again based on understanding our current needs trying to minimize and manage capital needs, and its possible as we refine this in the out years, we would be able to smooth out the capital overall year-to-year. Finally, before we open things up to you, obviously regulatory questions in Montana and at the FERC are top of mind for us, and I know are often top of mind for you, so we collapse these into a table. Always I get questions about the FERCs likely action on DGGS. We requested rehearing back in May of 2014. I have not heard anything about that yet. A footnote, back to the Montana Electric Supply Plan is that we now with the diverse set of resources are going to be able to use each of them differently, and this will particularly free up DGGS to be operated actually quite cost effectively to provide some services that it wasn’t free to provide before, so again the idea of co-optimization of multiple assets. Next, on the chart, the regulatory item is the Montana Commission’s October 25 order eliminating our lost revenue adjustment mechanism. Future rate filings obviously will set rates to recover test year costs and rate of return, and we’re evaluating other revenue based regulatory mechanisms. We had previously supported once through the legislature and once in front of the Commission a decoupling proposal. There have been statements by Commissioners that they might be interested in pursuing something like that going forward to address these kinds of revenue losses, so that’s something that that we will certainly welcome the opportunity to work with them or other parties to pursue. Second, the October 25 natural gas tracker order revising interim rates for our last two gas production asset acquisitions and then requiring a filing prior to October 2016 to place them into rate base. And we do intend to make that filing, and in conjunction with the required filing, we do expect to submit a natural gas, call it a general rate case for distribution, transmission and storage, based on our 2015 test year. And obviously, we would make that filing in the third quarter of 2016 for the Commission’s October deadline. And there’s language in the Commission’s orders directs us down that path and we agreed we’ll do that. And then, finally, the Commission’s vote in March directing staff to draft an order disallowing recovery of replacement power costs included in the electric supply tracker; those, of course, related to 2013 outage at Colstrip Unit 4. We’re looking forward to seeing the Commission’s final order within the next several weeks. And we will read it carefully, and we’ll evaluate our options at that time. And with that, I will turn up for your questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions] And we’ll take our first question today from Paul Ridzon with KeyBanc. Paul Ridzon Can you just give a little more background on what is driving these oasis revenues down? Is this something fundamental that we expect for the rest of the year or is it just an unusual quarter? Robert Rowe We are assuming that the pattern will persist for the rest of the year. We can’t guarantee that. And obviously, we would like to see that reverse. We think what’s driving it down is basically relatively low power prices in the region, so less revenue, less reason to move power over the system. Certainly it could reverse and that would be a benefit. But as Brian said, we’re being very, very serious about managing our expenditures over the rest of the year and we are not planning for that. Paul Ridzon I recall there was a drop in oasis revenues a few years back, it was more related to economic activity, but this is more just pricing? Brian Bird I think it’s an excellent point, Paul. We talked about that here recently. We saw this back right after when the recession started, oasis looked like this, so we hope it’s not some precursor to from an economic standpoint, but it’s a similar look that we saw years ago. Paul Ridzon And is it safe to say that you won’t be looking to file another rate case on the electric side in Montana? The next update will be a year from now? Robert Rowe Yes. Paul Ridzon And in this gas rate case, this should get your reserves kind of formally in rate base, correct? Robert Rowe Correct. Paul Ridzon And then lastly, on the lower tax rate, how much of it is a continuation of the phenomenon we saw in the first quarter due to lower taxable income with constant flow-through items versus anything fundamentally changing the taxes. Robert Rowe No. I think in fairness, Paul, I would just say, we’re looking at our full year forecast, and we gave you the new range in terms of what we look at. And I will tell you that we expect to be income tax to be plus than we originally forecasted, but I’m going to leave it at that. Operator The next question comes from Brian Russo with Ladenburg Thalmann. Brian Russo Bob, maybe you could elaborate a little bit on the quote in the press release regarding significantly reducing capital expenditures in ’16 due to regulatory decisions, yet on Slide 19 CapEx is still $308 million? Robert Rowe See, the quote refers to significantly reducing our expenditures, but doesn’t refer to capital. So we will continue to focus on capital projects that are very important to serve our customers, but we are looking to manage expenses really across the board. Brian Russo And then, just want to understand the $0.05 reduction to the 2016 guidance range. What are the positives and negatives? Because it seems like a big positive was the lower tax rate, so I would imagine that there were quite a bit of negative drivers to only net a $0.05 decline? Maybe you could just kind of dig a little deeper in that? Brian Bird Yes, Brian, I would say, obviously, margin’s the main reason for the cost reductions that are required, but we do not need to have as many cost reductions as reduction in margin, because of the tax benefit that you saw as a favorable. So net-net our expectation is we’ll get back into this guidance range based upon where we think margins are going to go now and this expense control along with lower taxes. Brian Russo And then the incremental $187 million over the five year capital plan, I mean, how do you seek recovery of some of these projects like the combustion units in Montana. Would that require a rate case filing? Robert Rowe Yes. To be included in rate base, they would have to go in through some kind of a rate filings, that’s correct. Brian Russo Sorry, if I missed this earlier, but post 2016 tax rate, should it start trending higher or should we kind of assume that this lower rate is sustainable? Brian Bird Did you say post 26? Brian Russo 2016? Brian Bird 2016. Now, I think what we said here recently, and I don’t expect this to change Brian, but we obviously mentioned that NOLs would go, we’d be able to utilize those into 2020 and we would expect our tax rate to creep back into 20s until 2020 as well. And there is nothing that I see that’s happened after this first quarter to change that. Brian Russo And then could you just elaborate a bit on the lower production bridge rates? And then what exactly was driving that? Brian Bird Well, I think the issue is these are depleting assets that has an impact on those assets on a going forward basis. So the issue is they have been flowing through the tracker, it’s fair to say that each year they’re depleted. And so from a cost perspective, those costs have declined each and every year. And so based upon the way things are happening today that reduced cost being captured by the Commission and as a result, ultimately would be captured with this filing that will be making in 5 September, 2016. Brian Russo And then lastly, the optimization opportunities for Dave Gates captured in the resource plan, is it captured in particular window of time or is it just kind of the more of a high level type of potential? Robert Rowe No, the operations are being modified directly according to the plan. The same time we’re doing that there is a new transmission level protocol in the region, the liability based control. John Hines, our supply Vice President is here. He can probably provide some more flavor as to what’s happening on the ground. John Hines Bob, it’s exactly correct. We are already running our entire fleet of resources in more optimal manner and we’re using Dave Gates in both a regulation manner, ancillary services manner and a capacity manner as we speak. So it’s providing multiple different values in many different pieces of the portfolio. Operator Next is Jim Von Riesemann with Mizuho. Jim Von Riesemann Couple of questions for you. One is on Slide 14, can you help bridge the $0.29 year-over-year earnings improvement from Q2 to Q4, what that consists of? How much of its cost reduction? How much might be tax rates and other? Brian Bird Well, Jim, I don’t have that broken out myself for each of those quarters. That’s at a very, very high level that we’ve shown it that way. Jim Von Riesemann What’s driving that increase of nearly $0.30 last year’s second to fourth quarters and then this year’s projected second to fourth quarters to get you into the range? Brian Bird Good question. The primary impact in our original guidance, you would have seen obviously an increase on a year-over-year basis in our original guidance, that would have been primarily associated with margin increases. Now, what we’re going to see for that is certainly still margin increases on a year-over-year basis, but we’re going to see improvements in cost as well and improvement in taxes, but that’s going to be — Jim Von Riesemann Do you have any idea what that breaks down just roughly speaking, is it like $0.05 of that is taxes or $0.10 is taxes. $0.10 is the cost efforts and then the other delta is other margin improvement? Brian Bird I don’t at this time, Jim. Jim Von Riesemann On the 7% to 10% total return proposition, how do you think about that going into 2017 and 2018? Brian Bird It’s a good question. I think in light of what we’re seeing from, obviously, there is concern here with the most recent decisions here in the fourth quarter and the first quarter of 2016. I have to say it, I don’t feel as good about it, but I know that this company continues to strive to do what we need to do from a shareholder perspective to deliver those results, and so I know that this management team is focused on delivering results that we shared with investors in terms of our guidance. Operator The next question comes from Jonathan Reeder with Wells Fargo. Jonathan Reeder I’m going to try to ask one of the earlier questions a little differently. So just to truly understand the guidance change drivers, I guess what exactly is new that’s driving, I guess, the gross margin. You have the lower transmission revenues. You expect that to continue through the remainder of the year. You have the lower industrial volumes from one the large customer and then that’s going to be partially offset from the cost reductions and the lower tax rate. Is that essentially it, because I mean, the MPSC stuff is either actions in 2015 or stuff that you’re reversing out in ongoing in 2016, is that fair? Brian Bird I think that’s fair. I think though as you saw on the first quarter results, when you combined both the decisions by the Commission that’s impacted our going forward results. And as I’ve pointed out the three things, I’ll put out again, in oasis we think that persists, industrial loads being down we think that persists, and we just continue to se see retail weakness bit more than we expected. And Jonathan and whoever else for that matter, we’ve been seeing decent customer growth, we’ve been seeing decent new connections, we expected to see that turn into higher volume metrics, of course, for us, and not what we’ve seen. Obviously, we described some of the detriment in the first quarter due to weather, but there is more to it than that. So that would be the third thing, it’s just that retail weakness — and again, that’s on top of, as you saw all of the things in the first quarter that impacted our business. But to your point about what’s new, I think in fairness what you talked about those margin items will be offset to great degree by cost control and to a less degree by income tax. Jonathan Reeder And on the industrial one. Is that a temporary kind of — is it some sort of outage at a facility or is it just weakness in the overall industrial sector? Robert Rowe Really, I think, the focus ought to be on the natural resources sector specifically. It’s primarily mining at this point. And then reinforce a point that Brian made, we’ve seen really pretty impressive growth in residential commercial new connect. So in that sense, we’re seeing an awful lot of activity and working hard to keep up with that, but the per customer volumes even backing out weather are down and John Hines and his folks in putting together the supply plan, we’re mindful of that as well. Jonathan Reeder And then, Bob, on the 86 megawatts of hydro capacity addition, would that take the place of some of the gas fired capacities that you outlined at the bottom of Slide 18 rather than us viewing them as an incremental? Robert Rowe No. They’re complementary. But the gas additions, particularly the internal combustion engines are required to meet very, very specific needs on the system. The hydro additions would potentially contribute at peak, at the capacity, but would also have a significant energy contribution. John, is that a fair statement? John Hines Right. We’re looking to provide around 2020 around 400 megawatts of additional capacity. That 86 megawatts are incremental hydro would be complementary, as Bob noted, to meeting both our base load and some peak load. But we will need the internal combustion engines to be specific for those following and our capacity requirements. Jonathan Reeder So the hydro could help meet the base, but you’d still need the gas for the peaking needs essentially. Robert Rowe Yes. It’s an incremental addition. I would note though that we still need to prove out those. As we identified in the plan, that’s going to be a key task for Q2 and Q3 of this year is identifying all the cost associated with those. We are expecting some of that to be able to address also our incremental renewable portfolio standard requirements. So we’re very optimistic. Jonathan Reeder So really the increase in the CapEx budget, if hydro, that 86 is pursued that’s potential upside. Robert Rowe Correct. And I think as you’ve seen in the past from capital perspective until we nail down again the timing and the dollar amount associated with that add-back, we have more specificity around the gas units that we’re talking about in the plan. But until we have more specificity around the hydro in terms of the amount and timing, it’s not going to show up in these plans. Jonathan Reeder And then last question. Brian you somewhat alluded to this with Jim, but the recent actions of the, how do you view them bigger picture, because historically Montana has been considered challenging from an investor perspective, but you’ve been able to reach reasonable outcomes over the past few years. With these latest outcomes is the tide shifting? Robert Rowe I’m so appreciated that you directed that question to Brian. Jonathan Reeder Bob, feel free to weigh in too. Brian Bird The microphone is open. When we agree with the Commission, when we get our numbers wrong, when they see an issue, they want to have us address, we do it. And when they’re right, we just ask how high to jump. There are questions where we have substantial concerns about direction. And obviously, LRAM and replacement power are two very important subjects. And we are concerned about predictability and stability in the environment where we make the preponderance of our investments. I want to be able to see the order. We’ll address a number of issues. My expectation is that much of what the Commission has to say, we will agree with. We are especially concerned, especially concerned about the replacement power analysis, because in the home state for the Colstrip Units, the only Commission that looked to be issue, that actually found imprudence on the part of the owners is the Idaho Commission in the context of Avista, and then most notably, the Washington Commission, not considered a friend of coal, has specially made a determination that the replacement power costs were prudent. So again, everything we do with any regulatory body is first and foremost from a position of respect. We want to understand the directions that they’re going. We want to understand their analysis. If we’re wrong, we need to own that. And if we disagree, as we expect, we will in response to the final order here, we need to pursue that in an appropriate way. Jonathan Reeder Are those concerns at all factored into your decision not to file on the electric side this year? Robert Rowe Brian? Brian Bird I think what I would say on that, as you might recall, we talked about this on previous calls, our 2014 Annual Report for Montana that we show actually by jurisdiction. The last year electric was at 11%. Again, there was some tax benefits associated with that, of course, that made that higher than our authorized rates. But nonetheless, it was at 11%. Our gas at that time was 8%. So if you would just assume, and my expectation and we’ll come out with these reports at the end of April, but you just assume that those are going to be a lot less for the ’15 reports than they were in the ’14 reports. And it’s going to be clear that from a gas perspective it’s going to be necessary to file a case and the fact that we’re required to come in anyway on the gas production assets. And you certainly were given the option to bring in a full blown gas case. I think once you see those annual reports, I think it will be clear to you in terms of the decisions we made. Operator We’ll now go to Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Paul Patterson Most of my questions have been answered. Just wanted to sort of double back, I think, Brian’s question on the tax post 2016. I think you said that it was trending closer. You thought over time to 20%. How should we think about it in the more sort of 2017 sort of 2018 area? How should we think about taxes trending then? Brian Bird I think the specificity I gave you was that you’d expect it to get in the 20s. I don’t know that I tell you that it’s exactly linear. But obviously, if your pre-tax earnings are going up, and let’s just say, your permanent flow-through items are staying relatively the same, you’d expect your tax rate to go up. Does that make sense to you? Paul Patterson Yes, that makes sense. So I mean that’s what’s the driver on it. We shouldn’t think of any change outside of an increase in net income as driving your effective — driving this tax rate of 6% to 10%, is that right? Robert Rowe I think the main thing is just think about a pre-tax basis, as pre-tax increases and if your permanent flow-through stay relatively the same, expect that your tax rate is going to go up. Paul Patterson And then just in terms of O&M control, et cetera, how should we think about that post 2016? Brian Bird I’d like to tell you that we’re going to manage our business as we need to in order to provide the growth. Obviously, the decisions we’ve seen here recently and other impacts are forcing us to make some decision operationally. We hope that we wouldn’t have to continue to do some of those things on a going-forward basis. But it’s really difficult to tell, as we sit here in early 2016. Robert Rowe Just a little bit more flavor there. When we benchmark ourselves, we do quite well by most all measurements and we do that on a common size basis. So that’s an important part of what we do and the commitment that we make to customers and to you to be cost effective that continues. But we are recognizing the need to go deeper and be disciplined, and I expect that clearly that will happen in 2016. There are things we will need to get back to in 2017 that are very important, but we expect that that discipline is just a part of life. Brian Bird I’d only add to that. I think the company has done a phenomenal job over the years to control costs. And as a result of controlling costs, it’s kept us out of rate cases for a number of years. And we like to think that’s a good thing for customers. Robert Rowe And for shareholders. Operator And we’ll now go to Chris Ellinghaus with Williams Capital. Chris Ellinghaus Brian the decline in gas production gross margin, was that purely a depletion issue? Brian Bird No. There were some other things we talked about, some other delivery charges I think in there. And I think that was probably a-third of the cost, slightly less than that. But the depletion was the primary driver. Chris Ellinghaus As far as the change in Dave Gates dispatch plan, how do you see that affecting the return on that plan? And when do you expect to see benefits from that? Brian Bird I think, it’s too early to tell. I think now at some point in time there will ultimately need to be a rate case, the fact that we’re using Dave Gates differently. I expect that there have to be a rate case both from a FERC and MPSC perspective at some time in the future. I mean, right now, we’re in the optimization mode, certainly still testing how this works. We heard earlier about RBC and how that impacts things. And so as John talked about, we’re still looking through that and ultimately get it resolved from a revenue requirement perspective. There will be rate cases in our future. Chris Ellinghaus And Bob, as far as the natural gas filing in Montana, do you feel that there is any risk of sort of getting drawn into an electric rate case, as you go through those proceedings? Robert Rowe Certainly, there is that possibility. We acknowledge that. But the Montana Commission was I think quite direct in inviting us to file a natural gas case. And we think that it makes sense to focus there this year. Operator And there are no other questions. So I’d like to turn the conference back to Bob Rowe for any additional or closing remarks. End of Q&A Robert Rowe Well, thank you all for the good questions and for your support for the company throughout the quarter. We’ll see a number of you, I know, over the next month or so down at AGA and elsewhere, and look forward to visiting with all of you next quarter. And this concludes the call. Operator Thank you very much. I’d like to thank everyone for your participation. And have a great rest of your day. 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!