Emera Inc (EMA) 2005 Q3 法說會逐字稿

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Emera third quarter results conference call. Please be advised that this conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the meeting over to Ms. Judy Steel, Director Investor and External Relations. Please go ahead, Ms. Steel.

Good afternoon, everyone. And thank you for participating in our call today. Joining me from Emera are Chris Huskilson, President and Chief Executive Officer; Nancy Tower, Chief Financial Officer; Ralph Tedesco, Chief Operating Office of Nova Scotia Power; Rob Bennett, President and Chief Operating Officer of Bangor Hydro; Ray Robinson, VP-Integrated Operations. Emera's third quarter earnings release, financial statements and management's discussion and analysis were distributed earlier in the day via Newswire. These documents are also available on our website at www.emera.com. Today, we'll have Chris begin with a corporate update. Nancy will then review the third quarter financial results in more detail. We expect the presentation segment to last about 10 minutes, after which we will be happy to take questions from analysts and investors.

Please note that all amounts are in Canadian dollars with the exception of Bangor Hydro-Electric ,where segment results are reported in U.S. dollars. I will take a moment to remind you that this conference call may contain forward-looking information which involves certain assumptions and known and unknown risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to be materially different from those that are expressed or implied by the comments. Those risks include weather, commodity prices, interest rates, foreign exchange, regulatory requirements and general economic conditions. In addition, please note that this conference is being widely disseminated via live webcast. And now, I will turn things over to Chris.

Thank you, Judy. And good afternoon, everyone. Emera's consolidated net earnings were C$16 million for the third quarter of 2005, compared to C$22 million for the same period in '04. Quarterly earnings per share were C$0.14 compared to C$0.20 in 2004. These results met our expectation and reflect significantly higher fuel costs year-over-year at Nova Scotia Power that are not currently covered by our customer rates. As you are aware, high fuel costs drove Nova Scotia Power to file for a average 15% increase in rates for 2006 earlier this year. Hearings are scheduled to begin on November 14.

Our business continues to focus considerable effort on our fuel procurement activity, ensuring we are meeting the needs and directives communicated by our regulator. During the third quarter, we filed our final report with the UARB outlining the changes we've made to our fuel procurement. We look forward to comment and ultimately confirmation of our fuel procurement plan through the rate hearing process. We know rate increases are never popular. But the reality is that the 2006 rate change is critical for our Company. We are working hard to ensure a successful outcome. As CEO, I'll be fully engaged in this hearing and participating on the policy panel with Ralph Tedesco and Nancy Tower. Hearings are scheduled for three weeks and we anticipate an decision earlier in 2006.

Emera sold its fuel and oil distribution business in the third quarter to the management team. The deal met the needs of both our shareholders and that team. This sale helps to enable us to focus on our core business, and was completed at the end of the quarter. With regards to our Hydro transaction in Vermont, our efforts to acquire the Bellows Falls Facility have effectively been blocked with the outcome from the August town vote and subsequent regulatory decisions. Our funds relating to that investment will be released from escrow soon. With that, I'll turn things over to Nancy for a financial update.

Thank you, Chris, and good afternoon, everyone. As Judy mentioned, our third quarter financial results were released earlier today and are on the Emera website. I'll take a few minutes to review them. Emera's consolidated net earnings were C$15.9 million in the third quarter of 2005 compared to C22.1 million for the same period in 2004. As Chris noted, the lower earnings in the quarter reflect higher fuel costs at Nova Scotia Power that are not sufficiently offset by the rate increase granted on April 1, of this year. Earnings per share in the third quarter were C$0.14 compared to C$0.20 in 2004. Nova Scotia Power's contribution to consolidated net earnings was C$2.7 million in the third quarter of 2005 compared to C$18.5 million for the same period in 2004.

The quarter-over-quarter change primarily reflects the increased fuel costs coupled with higher operating maintenance and general costs associated with some planned maintenance in the plants, storm costs and increased reliability spending on vegetation management. On a year-to-date basis, NSPI's net earnings of C57.2 million are C$25 million lower than 2004. We previously disclosed that NSPI's earnings for 2005 are anticipated to be C22 to C27 million lower than 2004 on a full year basis as a result of substantially higher fuel costs than what has been provided for in rates. As you will recall, the higher fuel costs, including the changes in the pricing structure of our gas contract, were largely phased in through the fourth quarter of 2004. Based on the timing of higher fuel costs and the additional electric revenues from the rate increase granted earlier this year, we believe our previous guidance is still appropriate.

On October 11, Moody's Investor Services revised its outlook on Emera and Nova Scotia Power from stable to negative based on fuel cost recovery concerns and regulatory uncertainty. We take Moody's recent action, in addition to Standard & Poor's similar action in the second quarter, very seriously. It is clear from all three bond rating agencies that without adequate fuel cost recovery in the future, unfavorable rating action can be expected. We have explicitly communicated this concern to all stakeholders as part of NSPI's current rate case. A financially strong utility is critical to Nova Scotia's future in terms of securing service reliability and future investments in environmental technology to reduce emission. As Chris noted, we remain focused on our fuel management to ensure as cost of service utility we recover all of our costs, no more but no less.

Turning to Bangor Hydro, our U.S. subsidiary's contribution to consolidated net earnings was US$3.6 million in the third quarter of 2005, unchanged from the third quarter of 2004. Increases in residential and commercial sales were offset by increased NEPOOL and depreciation expenses. Other operations, which include corporate costs and businesses outside of our regulated electric utilities, contributed C8.8 million in the third quarter of 2005 compared to a loss of C1.2 million for the same period last year. Quarter-over-quarter improvement is primarily result of increased energy marketing activities and foreign exchange gains relating largely to the translation of our U.S. denominated debt from our financing of Bear Swamp and amounts on deposit for Bellow Falls. The improvement in energy marketing margins is driven by two factors. First, and as we have noted before, energy services business is influenced to a large extent by market conditions.

If there is a major movement in energy prices or constraints in supply and demand, the services provided by our energy marketing group will be in higher demand. These market conditions were present in the third quarter. Secondly, as we develop the business, we are adding longer term contracts with customers. The fundamental risk profile has not changed. We still operate with minimal day-to-day commodity risk and monitor our counterpart exposure very closely. But clearly, the influence of longer term contracts in our portfolio of energy management services is a factor in this quarter with the mark-to-market gains, as the value of the full contract is recognized based on the pricing at the end of the quarter. As Chris noted, we sold Emera Fuels in the third quarter of 2005. The proceeds have since been received and used to pay down debt.

We have reported the operating contributions of this business after taxes as earnings from discontinued operations for both the current and prior periods. Consolidated net cash provided by operating activities was C116.7 million in the third quarter of 2005 compared to C93.8 million for the same period in 2004, and includes funds received from counter parties as posted margin that is directly offset by the increases in restrictive cash as reported in investing activity. That's it for my financial review. Thank you. And we'll be happy to take any of your questions.

Thank you. We will now take questions from the telephone lines. [OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS]. There will be a brief pause while participants register for their questions. Thank you for your patience. The first question is from Linda Ezergailis from TD Newcrest. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Just wondering if in your discussions with the debt rating agencies the topic of dividends for equity shareholders came up at all?

Chris, you want to take that one?

No, it hasn't in any of the discussions we've had to date.

Okay. And there have been some periods in the past where you've chosen not to increase your dividend annually, or the Board has chosen that. Can you give us an sense of what things are looking like next year, and how next year might be different than historical times when the dividend -- the Board has decided not to increase the dividend?

Well, Linda, the dividends, as you know, are a Board of Directors decision. And historically, that decision has been made in the first quarter of the year.

Okay.

I think what we can say is we certainly recognize the importance of the dividend to shareholders. We do not currently see any changes in our dividend policy. But again, it's a Board of Directors decision.

Okay. The last time the dividend wasn't increased, remind me, when did you get your decision again from NSPI? It was --

March 31. So last year, the decision would have come down in March -- March 31. But --

Okay. Then in 2003, your 2003 decision came when?

That decision came out sometime in the fall, Linda.

Oh, it did? Okay. Just moving on to your -- just an administrative question. What was the exact value before and after tax for your foreign exchange gain on your U.S. debt?

Well, the foreign exchange gain on the U.S. debt, that being on the Bellow Falls and Bear Swamp piece, was around US$6 million; and we expect that to reverse in the third quarter -- in the fourth quarter. We will get the amount from Bellow Falls back and we'll make changes to the financing of Bellow Falls in Q4.

Okay. Can you give us an aftertax number or what sort of tax rate should I use on it? 34%?

Yes. 38 -- 34%, yes.

Okay. That's great. Thank you.

Thanks.

The following question is from Maureen Howe from RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Thanks very much. Just clarification on the foreign exchange translation. On the reconciliation early on in the statements of earnings, the foreign exchange gains on U.S. denominated debt is in there at US10.3 million. I would have assumed that would have been an after tax number.

Maureen, I think that is the change to the reconciliation. So that's a change of year-over-year.

Okay.

So the actual -- the absolute amount in the quarter is about US$10 million.

That's before tax?

Before tax.

Okay.

And then around US$13 to US$14 million before tax in the -- for the three quarters, yea- to-date.

Right. So US10 million in the quarter before tax and then you're saying US6 million after tax?

Yes. So, yes, US9 million in the quarter pre-tax.

Pre-tax. Okay. And of that -- the US6 million after tax, can you tell us what portion of that is in the Other category? And is there any at all that's in NSPI?

There's a small portion in NSPI, about half of it we're expecting to reverse.

In Q4?

In Q4, right.

Okay. And moving on to your guidance for the NSPI year-over-year and the C22 to C27 million decline, you're looking for similar earnings in the fourth quarter as last year. You're saying that the fuel costs -- now, maybe I don't understand this. You're saying the fuel costs are the same or roughly the same because the rate increases or the coal increases were coming in in Q4, but then you got the rate increase this year.

Yes.

So I guess if you can explain that. Is the coal price increases were phased in over Q4 so you didn't get the full whammy in Q4 of 2004, and then the rate increase offset?

That's right.

Okay. Okay. And then I don't really fully understand the gas cost situation. I think I understand the first part, which is it's in arbitration. Can you explain the difference in positioning of NSPI and the seller of the gas that was presumable the producer? Like what is the point of contention?

Maureen, Ralph Tedesco. The situation with Shell is in arbitration. The arbitration was held October 17 through 22. And the arbitration panel has agreed they would render a decision by the 22 of -- I'm sorry, by the 15 of December. And beyond that there's not much I can say.

Okay. So it's just confidential and you can't really pursue it?

Correct.

Okay. But maybe you can provide some elaboration. The second point I'm not sure I fully understand, either, which is the rebate to be settled in November of 2007. I'm wondering if you can help us with that. And I mean, I've got the paragraph here, but I just -- I'm not sure I really understand how that works and what we can expect.

So I'm not sure that I can give much more information, Maureen that has not already been provided. But there are two pieces to it that cannot be offset. One is the price reopener. And that will be settled with the gas -- with the settlement of the gas contract. The second one is the price adjustment clause. And that will be settled in November 2007.

Okay. Can you explain how they're different? I mean, there's a reopener and then there's a adjustment. And are they on different volumes of gas?

Maureen, if I could just -- Ralph Tedesco again. If I could just suggest, given where we are, I'd prefer not to comment further on the contract.

Okay. So you're booking what you think you will pay for the gas.

That's right.

And if that was to be materially different, would that be a one-time charge that would come through in the fourth quarter?

Well, again, I think it depends on the first part when the contract gets settled. Ralph talked about fourth quarter settlement.

Right.

So perhaps. But again, there are a number of moving piece with this, Maureen, and it's difficult to talk about, just based on the confidentiality that Ralph talked about.

Okay. Okay, Yes, because it -- I mean, it's a risk. But I guess just trying to get a sense for when we would see the -- well, it might be positive, might be negative. But presumable that would be through the fourth quarter? I mean, might there be a ongoing impact as well but -- for what the difference between what you've booked and what the final price is?

Yes. In that regard, I would suggest that we believe that we've put in a number that reasonably characterizes a potential outcome.

Okay. Okay. Thanks very much.

Thank you. The following question is from Karen Taylor from BMO Nesbitt Burns. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Can I just come back, Nancy, to the answer you've given both Linda and Maureen now on this foreign currency adjustment just to make sure, because we threw around a bunch of numbers there. So it's US6 million after tax that arrives from the Bellow Falls and the Bear Creek -- or Bear Swamp, rather. And of that US6 million after tax, you're expecting half of that to reverse in Q4?

Not quite. It's US9 million pre-tax.

Yes.

About half of that -- about US5 million of that.

Pre-tax?

Pre-tax -- is the Bellow Falls/Bear Swamp piece.

Mm-

That's the piece that we're expecting to reverse in the fourth quarter.

And then you apply a 35/34% tax rate to those amounts?

Yes. Yes. So just to be clear, too, if I could, for the 9 months ended -- so the total amount for the 9 months year-to-date, US3.7 total amount pre-tax. US6 million of that is due to Bellow Falls and Bear Swamp. And again, that amount will reverse in Q4.

I'm sorry -- so the US9 million is just for the quarter?

Yes.

And 9 months is US13.7.

Yes.

Of which US6 pre-tax?

Pretax.

Is Bellows/Bear.

Yes. And will reverse in Q4.

And the US6 million in its entirety or half?

All of it.

All of it.

Karen, it's Judy. I think the confusion might be -- I think Linda's original question asked only about the Bellow Falls and Bear Swamp percentage, which was the US6 million. I think that's how we got a little buggered up here.

Okay. Well, it got me going. So hopefully that's clear. If it's not I'll have to phone you back at the end. Now, I just have a couple of other real questions, if I can. The -- can you just give me -- maybe this is for Ralph -- the comment on how the UARB received the fuel procurement report filed September 30. Because with the acquiescence that prices are going up because fuel costs are going up everywhere in other jurisdictions, you know, clearly the issue for the hearing is going to be prudent. So how did they receive that report? And are you comfortable, if I can use that word, that they're -- that they think you're prudent?

We put forth as part of our filing a very specific, defined approach to procuring fuel, including amounts, timing, and whether it be spot or term and this sort of thing. And the feedback from the board staff consultant in their testimony has been positive with respect to that plan.

Okay. Can you just -- I'll not going to pursue that -- the other fuel costs for the quarter of C9 million. What were those?

Other fuel costs. Just give me a second here.

It was in the Delta page. You were talking about the variance versus Q -- it's on page 7? And then it says "all other C9 million". It's a reconciliation for the three month September 30, 2004 to 2005.

I'm not sure what it is. We can look that up and get back to you.

Okay. Is there going to be any negative aspect with respect to Bangor Hydro given the fact I think it's the public advocate and the Board have determined that they are not going to engage in sort of a one-off redesign of rates, and there was some issue with 25 megawatts of load leaving the system. Is there going to be any negative effect from the fact the Board does not want to consider rate redesign until after the current settlement expires at the end of '07?

It's Chris, Karen. No, I don't think so. From our perspective, we were advancing that approach as a approach to take a look at beginning to make some changes in how distribution revenue was recovered. Because, -- fundamentally, it's not a kilowatt hour business anymore.

Right.

And so we were just advancing that approach. We've already configured the existing -- or the changes that we see from existing customers. In fact, one of the customers that was potentially looking at leaving the system we now have a settlement with them.

Okay.

And so, -- we see that this is something that over time we need to advance. But the timing of it is not that critical for us.

Okay. And if we could come back to the other segment, can you just tell me how much was -- well, maybe I'll just skip that one because I think it comes back to the mark-to-market. The mark-to-market gains that you talk about arising in the other segment, can you tell me how much they were? And are they all in the other revenue in that segment?

Mark-to-market gains were about C3 -- about close to C4 million for the quarter and around C5 million year-to-date.

So that's consistent, then, with the information in the back in the notes where it talks about other revenue mark-to-market gain is C3.8 and the interest mark-to-market looking like it was a loss of C.4?

Yes. That's right.

Okay. And I think that's it. Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you. The following question is from Bob Hastings from Canaccord Capital. Please go ahead.

Yes, thank you. I guess I hear or see the debt rating agencies have changed your ratings and are kind of worried about fuel prices. I see that you've had some asymmetrical regulatory risks where if you're -- if you didn't get the fuel costs right before in the long-term contracts you're forced to swallow it, but if it had gone the other way they probably wouldn't have let your shareholders get that. And so I guess I have two questions. One is, in your -- I'm sorry. The third part of that would be that your stock price has probably about 20% below the average performance of everybody else in the group because of that. And so my questions are twofold.

One is, -- have you updated your submission at all to sort of highlight the increased equity risk premium that you've got because of these kinds of decisions? And secondly, if you get an decision where you're not allowed to earn your supposed rate of return that they think is appropriate, will you have the courage to cut back on costs and services to make sure that you're working for your shareholders and not the government?

So on the first thing -- I'll take a attempt at answering the question. Certainly when Moody's changed their outlook as well as when S&P did, we have communicated that clearly as we said to all stake holders involved with the rate case. So certainly, we understand the seriousness of that and we expect now that stakeholders in the rate staff proceeding understands the seriousness of that. In terms of certainly from -- depending on where -- it's difficult to predict the outcome of the rate decision, certainly, but we would look to conserve cash and we would look to certainly increase earnings to the extent we could. But it's difficult to make any more prediction around that on a kind of speculative basis.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you. The following question is from Matthew Akman from CIBC World Markets. Please go ahead.

Thanks. A couple of questions. The first question is on the fuel budget. You're still saying on page 4, as would you were before that fuel expense is projected to be about C479 million in 2006. I'm just wondering why that number hasn't escalated given the escalation we've seen, especially in oil?

It's Ralph Tedesco. What we have been doing consistent with the portfolio strategy I referred to earlier has been to be buying fuel throughout the year. So for 2006, we are actually about 84% bought or hedged for '06. So we have some confidence around that number. And the positions that are open, for example, would be mid sulphur coal, and we're comfortable with the price targets that we've set.

Okay. But that doesn't really get at my question, which is why hasn't it gone up?

Again, a function of what we budgeted and when we bought.

Okay. Second question is on the Bear Swamp. And I guess we've now seen an contribution here, US2.2 million earnings before interest and tax. Power prices were extremely high on peak in that region, and I guess I just would have thought the performance might have been better considering the big on peak prices and the fact that you're selling power on peak there. So I'm just wondering if you could explain a little bit what happened in the quarter, and is this as good as it gets or can it get better than this? Thanks.

Well -- it's Chris, Matthew. I think this is reflective of the unit beginning to come into the market. It actually did have a couple of good months and so on, and really I think what's been happening this quarter is very strong as well. So I mean, I guess we're actually pleased with its introduction so far. We're beginning to learn more about how the unit should operate in the market and we think that this quarter will be strong.

So it did operate normally in the third quarter, though, is that correct?

Yes, it did. Yes.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Matthew.

Thank you. The next question is from Winfried Fruehauf from National Bank Financial. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Regarding your energy services, what is your strategy with respect to the near-term future for this particular division? Are you trying to expand its role or leave it where it is? Or make other changes to its scope, perhaps? Maybe you can describe it a bit.

Win, it's Chris. At this point, we're very satisfied with the performance of that part of our business. We've been very disciplined at the way that part of the business has worked. And it's fundamentally been moving towards more and more asset management and those kinds of services to customers. So what we've really focused on doing is increasing our customer list, increasing the number of parties that we're actually doing that work for, and ultimately looking to be able to have that part of the business manage more assets. And we've been successful in doing that this quarter.

Some of the gains you see right now in the business are related to contracts that they've signed up with various parties. So that's where this business has been operating well and we'll continue to move down that path with it.

Have you changed the head count in this business this year? And have you any plans for changes?

Well, I would say marginally we continue to add, you know, a person here and a person there in the business. And as they get more contracts with their managing, then they will continue to expand.

And is there anything new about the proposed international transmission line into the State of Maine?

Well, yes, I think there is. In fact, we got our Department of Environmental Protection permits last week, I believe. We're now in the appeal period. And we're very confident that before the end of the year, the rest of our permits will be forthcoming. So we would see ourselves beginning construction of the line starting in the new year.

And if you do, what is the scheduled date of completion?

Our expectation is that we will meet the end of December 2007. That's our target right now.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you. [OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS] The next question is from Dominic Barker from Credit Suisse First Boston. Please go ahead.

Hi. I just wanted a update on your percent contracted positions on coal. You said 84% for '06. What about '07? '08?

For '07 -- I'll speak in terms of our total portfolio -- for '07, we are roughly 35% either bought or hedged and for '08 about 20%.

Where are you sourcing that coal from?

We're sourcing coal from South America, Columbia, Venezuela, and we're also beginning to -- particularly as we look further out -- take more and more advantage of our new international coal; here so we're looking at Indonesian and Russian coals that we've been test burning. In the case of Indonesian coals, we will be test burning those in November.

And have you seen the prices coming off from Indonesian coal in particular?

We've seen some softening in the coal market in general; but the guidance we've been given by Hill & Associates is to expect that the current pricing levels are likely to be sustained, in large measure because of developments in India and China.

And can we also get a update on your [Kanzu] third quarter contracting?

Yes. With respect to the international coal here, we have put forth as part of the -- it is currently not in rate base. However, we have put forth monies to recover on that investment as part of our filing; and indeed, it's not only demonstrating benefits to customers, it's proving to be very successful in not only expanding the number of suppliers we have but helping to moderate the costs that we're seeing.

And what type of third parties are those on the commodities, then?

The third parties that we're using are really to operate the pier. So we have a contract with -- Status Services is the operator of the pier.

And then I just have a small nitpicking accounting question. On page 7 in your reconciliation, the changes of fuel, the chart that you have, you talk about year to date lower gas sales margin offset by higher gas margin in the quarter? Is that -- are those two different contracts? I was just confused by the wording.

No. What we're referring to there is for the 9 months ended September, we had lower gas sales margin.

I see.

But in the quarter, we obviously had higher.

I understand. Sure. Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you. The next question is from Sam Kanes from Scotia Capital. Please go ahead.

Thank you. With the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act under the new energy bill, I wonder what new opportunities, if any, or more flexibility for sure you may experience and what you want to do strategically with your U.S. Bangor Hydro, and what specific things might be benefiting Bangor Hydro in terms of, say, accelerated tax depreciation or other incentives that are part of the energy bill? Could you address some of that, general or specific?

Sam, it's Chris. Certainly, we're still digesting the bill, as I'm sure many people are. But we do see it as a positive that the holding company's act is now going to be repealed. And obviously, there will be some modifications in that. Of course, we'll still have some responsibilities there. But we do think it's a positive, though, for our business in that it will and little easier to do business and it will be helpful from that perspective. As well, if we think about the investment we're making in the transmission line -- the international transmission line, we will also see a benefit there from the tax effect. And also, we're looking forward to hearing Burke's ruling relative to the potential for premiums for new transmission investment, and we would think that that particular line will qualify for that as well.

So we're very encouraged; and as you well point out, it does cause sort of the geographic connection issues to be a little easier, and so those are things that we'll be looking at as time goes forward. But anyway, just in general, we think it's a positive.

Thank you.

Thank you. The next question is from Maureen Howe from RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Thanks very much. Just a couple quick things. The transmission line, will you be earning [ARPBC] on that?

Yes. Yes, we will.

Okay. And in terms of the capital spending in the U.S., can you tell us what you're expecting in 2006 and 2007?

Yes. It's roughly US$85 million during the course of the two-year.

And how much you will spend in 2006, and what portion in 2007, even sort of generally?

Yes.

It's just about 50 -- 50.

50/50? Okay. And then I'm just wondering if there's any update in Nova Scotia on the development of the hearing. Last -- I guess when the agenda came out there was no revisiting of ROE on it. Is that still the case, and has there been any other developments that we should be aware of?

No developments, Maureen. The issues list for the hearing did not contain ROE, so it would remain at 9.55 set point with a 25 basis point band around that. And there have been no changes since that issues list was put forth.

Okay. Thanks very much.

Thank you.

There are no further questions registered at this time. I would now like to turn the meeting back over to Mr. Huskilson.

First, I'll just answer Karen. It's Nancy. I will answer your question about the quarter-over-quarter fuel reconciliation difference of C9 million. About C5 million of that reflects the change in the maintenance schedule in the plants and the cost of replacement energy, and about another C5 million of it, round figure, is a mark-to-market adjustment in fuel last year. So that accounts for approximately the C9 million. So I'll turn it back to Chris.

Okay, thank you, Nancy. Before we sign off, I want to thank you all very much for your participation today and your continued interest in Emera. I also want to leave you with this thought: Our utilities are the foundation of Emera. While we are working through an challenging period, ultimately the success of our business depends on our ability to meet the needs of our customers and shareholders. The interests of our customers and shareholders are the same: A strong electric utility that contributes to the economic strength of our region and is able to attract the investment capital needed to thrive. I thank you very much, and I hope you have a great day.