Alliant Energy Corp (LNT) 2007 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Thank you for holding, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Alliant Energy's second quarter 2007 earnings conference call. Today's call is being recorded. At this time all lines are in a listen only mode. I would now like to turn the call over to your host, Becky Johnson, Manager of Investor Relations at Alliant Energy. Please go ahead.

Good morning. I'd like to thank all of you on the call and on the webcast for joining us today. We appreciate your participation. With me here today are Bill Harvey, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and Eliot Protsch, our Chief Financial Officer, as well as other members of the senior management team. Following prepared remarks by Bill and Eliot we will have time to take questions from the investment community. We issued a news release this morning announcing Alliant Energy's second quarter 2007 earnings. The release is available on the investors page of our website at www.AlliantEnergy.com.

Before we begin I need to remind you that the remarks we make on the call and our answers to your questions include forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks that could cause actual results to be materially different. Those risks include, among others, matters discussed in Alliant Energy's press release issued this morning and in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. We disclaim any obligation to update the forward-looking statement. At this point I'd like to turn the call over to Bill.

Thank you, Becky. Good morning, and thanks for your continued interest in our company. My comments this morning are primarily focused on the quarter, updating you on our progress with our generation build out and other strategic initiatives. Later in the call I'll turn it over to Eliot to provide a regulatory update and a more detailed discussion of our financial guidance.

To briefly comment on the quarter, both our utility and nonregulated businesses posted solid financial results in what we consider shoulder months, given the seasonal nature of our midwestern operations. The second quarter utility results showed weather normalized retail sales growth in our service territories predominately driven by ethanol expansion and increased demand from some of our larger customers. Given the geographic location of our utility service territory, the ethanol industry is something we follow closely in our planning process. Our current ethanol driven load of almost 80 megawatts related to ethanol and biodiesel plants in production is expected to double when all of the ethanol and biodiesel plants currently under construction are completed by late 2009. The improved second quarter results of our nonregulated businesses reflect lower interest expense, which is attributable to our asset divestitures and associated debt reductions.

Moving onto utility operations, we fared well in the 2007 J.D. Power's electric utility residential customer satisfaction survey. Alliant Energy tied for fourth place in the midwestern region in overall customer satisfaction. Our score improved over the prior year, and we continue to score well above the average for our region.

Our rebuilding efforts in Iowa have gone well. Last week our (technical difficulty) especially during the recent periods of 90 degree plus heat and humidity. IP&L currently estimates total ice storm related restoration and rebuilding cost of approximately $44 million, including capital expenditures of approximately $37 million and operation and maintenance costs of approximately $7 million. We have incurred approximately 80% of these costs through the second quarter.

Turning to our generation build out, we continue to make progress in Wisconsin on the development of a 300 megawatt coal plant. This facility is slated for commercial operation in late 2012 at WP&L's existing Nelson Dewey site in Cassville, Wisconsin. The proposed unit will utilize circulating fluidized bed technology, a commercially demonstrated clean coal technology. CFB technology reduces the amount of sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides emitted to the air and lends itself to tremendous fuel flexibility, including biofuels. We intend to rely on biomass for 5% to 10% of the BTU input to this facility.

Last February, in tandem with our request for approval to build Nelson Dewey three, WP&L also filed for fixed financial parameters and rate-making principles for the recovery of this investment. In our filing we requested 50% equity in the capital structure, a current return on construction work in progress and a 12.95% return on common equity. Under the auspices of Wisconsin Act 7 the rate-making principles approved would be fixed for the life of the investment. We currently estimate the cost of this facility to be in the range of $800 million to $900 million, excluding AFUDC if applicable. This range also includes expenditures for materials handling equipment that will be shared with the existing two units at the Cassville site. We are moving through the various stages of the regulatory approval process and anticipate an approval in the second half of 2008. This would allow for an in-service date of late 2012. In addition, we are finalizing the EPC contract negotiations for the Nelson Dewey baseload expansion.

Turning to wind generation in Wisconsin, in early May we received approval from the commission on our application to construct Alliant Energy's first of many planned rate-based windfarms, the Cedar Ridge Wind Farm. This 70 megawatt windfarm is expected to be operational by the end of 2008 at an estimated cost of approximately $160 to $180 million. WP&L has entered into an agreement with Vestas for the purchase of turbines for this project. Construction will begin this month with the installation of turbine access roads, foundations and the substation. Turbine assembly, erection and commissioning, along with public road improvements and cabling is expected to take place in 2008. We plan to use traditional rate-making procedures for the recovery of and the return on the investment in Cedar Ridge.

In addition to Cedar Ridge, WP&L continues to evaluate sites for an additional 200 megawatts of owned wind generation. Our focus has been on sites in southern Minnesota, in our southern Minnesota service territory where the wind regimes are superior to those found in Wisconsin. We currently expect half of this capacity to be online in 2009 with the remainder in 2010.

In April to WP&L filed an application to purchase the Neenah generating facility, an existing 300 megawatt simple cycle gas-fired facility located in Neenah, Wisconsin. That regulatory process is proceeding as expected. This purchase by WP&L is intended to replace the output currently available under a purchase power agreement with Calpine's RockGen facility. WP&L plans to purchase the Neenah facility for the net book value of the plant, which is expected to be approximately $95 million at the projected time of closing. WP&L will also be seeking FERC approval for this transaction. Pending regulatory approvals and the conclusion of our RockGen PPA, the ugh purchase is expected to occur in 2008 or 2009.

I will now turn to the status of our IP&L generation projects. IP&L has previously announced plans to build a baseload coal facility at our existing Sutherland generating station site in Marshalltown, Iowa. We plan to utilize supercritical pulverized coal technology for the new unit. The boiler will be designed to burn biomass fuels, such as switchgrass. We intend that at least 5% of the BTU input will come from biomass. Provisions are also being made to allow for cogeneration.

In May we issued a request for proposal for an EPC contractor, and are currently in final negotiations. Last month we filed a citing application with the Iowa Utilities Board seeking approval to construct Sutherland unit number four. At the time of our filing, we announced that the expected size of the facility increased by 30 megawatts to 630 megawatts. IP&L plans to utilize up to 350 megawatts of the plant's output, 100 megawatts more than in our original plan. The increased need is driven by expected growth in our Iowa service territory.

Corn Belt Power Cooperative and Central Iowa Power Cooperative have signed letters of intent to become joint partners in the facility. We also expect to complete all negotiations with our potential partners by year-end. IP&L anticipates the IUB decision on the citing application in the second half of 2008. At that time we will file for advanced rate-making principles under the auspices of House File 577, similar to the process we used for our Emery plant. Pending regulatory approvals we currently expect this facility to begin commercial operation in 2013. We estimate that a 350 megawatt share will cost between $840 million and $910 million excluding AFUDC.

Turning to wind generation in Iowa, IP&L previously announced that it was negotiating with Clipper Windpower to purchase the Eclipse Wind Farm located in western Iowa. While we are continuing to negotiate with Clipper for the purchase of its Liberty series turbines, we have decided not to pursue the purchase of the Eclipse site. We had entered into negotiations with another developer for the purchase of a 200 megawatt site in northern Iowa. We expect to sign an agreement for the purchase of this site within the next month. IP&L plans to make the requisite applications to build this project and pending regulatory approval, expects the 200 megawatt windfarm to be completed in 2009 or 2010 for a total cost of approximately $360 to $440 million.

Next, let me give you an update on our planned sale of IP&L's transmission assets to ITC holdings. We continue to move forward through the various regulatory processes. Hearings before the Iowa Utilities Board are ongoing. As we've stated in the past, this transaction will only close if the regulatory approvals from the IBU and others produce outcomes that ensure the sale will be in the best interest of both our shareowners and our customers. We expect a decision from the Iowa Utilities Board by the end of September. For your reference we have posted the IBU procedural schedule and filed testimony on our website's investor page.

For those of you who are following the process with the IUB, you saw that in rebuttal testimony IP&L put forward an alternative transactional adjustment which calls for IP&L to pay $13 million a year of cash refunds to customers each year for eight years. The proposed refunds would begin in the first year customer rates reflect the higher costs associated with ITC Midwest providing transmission service. This alternative was offered in response to the concerns raised by the Office of Consumer Advocate and other interveners in the Iowa proceeding. If chosen, we expect this alternative adjustment would be made in lieu of the regulatory liability account that was contemplated in our direct filing last March.

In addition to Iowa, we have made applications jointly with ITC in Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri and at the FERC. FERC and the other state commissions do not have a defined period within which to act. However, we expect to receive their decisions later this year. In addition, both parties have made their Hart-Scott-Rodino filings with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC completed its investigation in May. We continue to believe that the sale of IP&L's transmission assets will be positive both for our customers and our shareowners. We anticipate that we will be allowed to complete this transaction by year-end.

In summary, I will touch on the key takeaways from the second quarter. First, results were in line with our expectations. Second, we are reaffirming our earnings guidance and are tracking toward the midpoint of that guidance. Third, the commencement of the construction of the Cedar Ridge windfarm is imminent. And finally, the regulatory proceedings which must be completed before we can build our coal plants or sell our IP&L transmission assets are well underway. We appreciate and thank you for your continued interest in our company, and at this time I will turn the call over to Eliot.

Thanks, Bill and thanks to all of you for joining us today as well as for your continued support of our Company. Our earnings release is posted on our website. Bill has touched upon the quarter, our generation plan and the transmission sale, thus my primary focus here this morning will be on updating you on our various rate matters and our financial guidance.

With regard to Wisconsin rate matters, in June the Public Service Commission agreed with our request reopen WP&L's retail electric and natural gas rate case. The scope of the reopener is limited to two primary issues. First, by what amount should electric rates be adjusted to reflect customer credits that will be fully amortized by year-end; and second, clarification that all construction work in progress balances in excess of amounts included in the most recent test years in net investment rate base can accrue AFUDC. In the past such excesses were determined on a percentage basis, not a dollar amount.

Because of the significant investment WP&L plans to make in generation it is important for us to ensure all construction work in progress dollars, not in rate rate-based will accrue AFUDC. The procedural schedule for the WP&L reopener is posted on the investors page of our website. We are engaged in discussions with commission staff and the major interveners to facilitate a positive outcome in this case. We currently expect the Commission's decision sometime in the fourth quarter of this year. We are pursuing this reopener because both the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin and WP&L have a desire to transition to a biannual rate case cycle. WP&L currently plans to file its next base rate case in early 2008. This case will have a 2009-2010 forecasted test year.

WP&L also has a fuel only rate case pending at the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin. As previously announced in May WP&L filed a notice with the PSCW indicating that its annual 2007 retail fuel related costs are projected to fall below the fuel monitoring level, effective June 1, rates will be subject to refund pending determination of what future rates should be as a result of lower expected annual fuel related costs. We are currently negotiating with key stakeholders to reach settlement regarding overall fuel cost recovery for the remainder of 2007.

Our 2007 earnings guidance anticipates that we will recover all fuel related costs. As we had previously reported work also continues on a revised mechanism for recovery of retail fuel related costs at WPL. Good progress has been made, and we anticipate new and improved fuel rules before the end of the year. Any potential changes to the fuel related administrative rules will require legislative review before they become operative.

Turning to WP&L's wholesale electric business, formula rates became effective June first subject to refund. These interim rates represent an increase of approximately 12% over previous rates. We are currently engaged in settlement discussions with our wholesale customers and are optimistic that a constructive settlement will be achieved. We look forward to having formula rates being an ongoing component of our wholesale business as we embark upon our generation build out program.

Summarizing our capital plans, our projected capital expenditures for 2007 remain unchanged at $580 million. Future capital expenditures beyond our maintenance capital needs are a function of the timing of the capital spending associated with our various generation projects. This spending is dependent upon a number of variables. The most significant of which are the related regulatory approval processes and the EPC contracts which we are currently negotiating.

In our second quarter 10-Q that we plan to file later today, we are updating our long-term estimated spending for environmental controls required to meet multi-emission compliance requirements. In that regard in June WP&L filed an application with the PSCW requesting approval to make environmental upgrades to the two existing units ay our Nelson Dewey site. We estimated the proposed upgrades will cost approximately $116 million and expect these upgrades to reduce the S02 emissions from these two units approximately 94%. We anticipate regulatory approvals in the second half 2008 and plan to complete this project in 2012. Alliant Energy's fleetwide estimated capital expenditures for air pollution controls to meet multi-emission compliance requirements are estimated to be in the range of 1.4 to $1.7 billion for the ten-year period 2008 through 2018. These estimates represent escalated capital expenditures and exclude AFUDC if applicable.

Our second quarter 10-Q provides a breakdown of these expenditures between IP&L and WPL. This revised estimate for 2008 to 2018 represents an increase over our previous disclosure of 520 to $725 million. This increase is attributable to escalating material and labor costs, technology selection and timing as well as the use of escalated as opposed to current year dollars. Emission controls in our plant include a combination of pre and post combustion technologies. They also plan to utilize allowance markets as a balancing mechanism to achieve overall compliance.

Finally, with respect to 2007 capital expenditure guidance as we have stated previously, the proposed IPL transmission sale is not expected to impact our 2007 capital expenditure or earnings guidance nor our share repurchase plans. Because we anticipate the sale taking place in 2007, our 2008 capital expenditure guidance does not include any transmission spending.

I will now provide an update on our various financing activities. WP&L has received the necessary regulatory approvals to issue up to 300 million of long-term debt, which we anticipate doing by the end of the year. This financing will facilitate reduction of our short-term debt, refund a recently matured $105 million debenture, fund the capital expenditures and recapitalize WP&L in concert with the retail rate order received earlier this year.

Earlier this year we also announced our decision to double the size of our share repurchase program with the intent to repurchase up to $400 million of our common stock by the end of 2007. As noted in our earnings release there is $61 million remaining, and the parent company has sufficient cash to complete the program. Our guidance reflects the assumption that the remaining $61 million of repurchases will be completed this year. As Bill stated, we are also reaffirming our earnings guidance range of $2.42 to $2.62 per share.

I would reiterate Bill's comment that our current forecast shows us trending toward the middle of this range. We are also reaffirming our 2007 cash flow guidance of $525 million to $575 million. In closing, we look forward to the opportunity to meet with many of you in conjunction with our ongoing Investor Relations activities. At this time I will turn the call back over to Audra to guide us through the question-and-answer session.

(OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS) Daniele Seitz, Dahlman Rose.

Thank you, I noticed that you were planning on building two coal plants on pulverized coal technology. Is your intent to adapt to any CO2 coal later on and to have an option to do that on the construction?

Yes, we are proposing to build two plants. One will be circulating fluidized bed technology. The other will be pulverized coal. And the answer is yes on a systemwide basis we obviously will comply with whatever sort of carbon-based legislative requirements are put in place at either the federal or the state level. The pulverized coal facility that will be built in Iowa has a substantial footprint. So it will be retrofittable by whatever kind of retrofit technologies are appropriate. The site at Cassville is more constrained than the site in Iowa. We intend to use a substantial component of biofuels as the feedstock for that facility. But the facility itself at least given what technology retrofits might currently be on the drawing board, will not because of space constraints lend itself to an awful lot of retrofit.

Steve Fleishman, Catapult Partners.

Maybe on that same topic could you just talk about what the citing process would be for the two coal plants and kind of the timelines on that?

Yes, Steve, the Wisconsin plant is -- the filings have been made. The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin goes through a process of determining whether or not the application is complete before a 180 day review period kicks into place; the application has not yet been deemed complete. We are hopeful that will occur within the next month or two and that the 800 day review period on it will commence at that point in time.

In Iowa the application has been filed. There is a 180 day review period that can be extended to as much as 360 days. But we are hopeful that some time in the latter part of next year a determination will be made with respect to the construction of the Iowa plant.

That is for the commissions, though. How about like the -- are there are others citing requirements needed from --

Yes. There obviously are a considerable number of environmental permits that must be secured in both states. We would expect those processes to be proceeding contemporaneous with the reviews by the Iowa Utilities Board and the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. I don't see them as a sequential process. I see them as contemporaneous.

And I think you are mainly, you are building at least in Wisconsin on an existing site?

Both sites are existing sites.

Both are existing sites so does that help limit the opposition to your plants?

It certainly should be from the standpoint that we are already dealing with heavily developed sites that have substantial transmission built into the sites; consequently the incremental transmission construction that is required is minimal in comparison to new sites. We already have fuel delivery capability into the sites. The local and regional communities and economies are well adapted to the existence of our current facilities. And in fact in both Wisconsin at Cassville and in Iowa at Marshalltown we have just tremendous local and regional support for the development of these facilities.

David Grumhaus, Copia Capital.

Good morning, guys. One or two questions on the earnings and one on the coal plants. The retail fuel related impacts, the $0.05, can you explain exactly what that is again Eliot?

The $04.5?

Variance year-over-year.

Yes, that focuses on the contribution or hit associated with the Wisconsin fuel clause last quarter and represents a delta against this quarter. So it is the net change across (multiple speakers).

So it was the hit from last year.

Yes, one being down; the other being up.

And the incentive related comps, the $0.03, is that just more a Delta factor or what is driving that?

As you would know it from our proxy statement, we have a variety of incentive compensation plans, some of which are short-term; others are long-term and we accrue every quarter along the way based on how the parameters of those plans are performing. So it is sort of a self adjusting mechanism and last year it was -- in Q2 we had about $0.015 for long-term and $0.015 for short-term. And this year they are both down to zero. So there is no accrual of incentive plans impacting Q2 2007.

And why is that? Did you have more in the first quarter or given that you are sort of focused on the midpoint of your guidance --

Our incentive plans are, as you point out in the short-term, is keyed off of the budget, which would have a relationship to guidance and our accruals reflect where it is that we estimate to being as we approach the end of the year. The long-term incentive is in turn a function of stock price.

That's helpful. On the Wisconsin coal plant can you give a little bit more detail on the process there? Obviously you've got the original filing back; just what you are sensing from staff and the commission about approval of this? And whether you're feeling like there's going to be a lot of green opposition to it.

It would be facetious to suggest that there is not going to be considerable attention paid to the licensing of a proposed coal plant in today's environment. The process that is unfolding, David, at the Commission is normal. There is nothing peculiar or unusual going on in the process. The Commission builds a substantial database in connection with its review, and I would -- I think it is a fair characterization that the information solicitation and collection that is going on is nothing out of the ordinary. But suffice it to say it is thorough. The level of, as you characterized it, green opposition certainly we expect it to materialize. It would be unrealistic for it not to in today's environment. But I would not characterize anything that we are experiencing in the Wisconsin process as unanticipated or out of the ordinary. In fact, we have a tremendous base of support not just from local officials and regional officials, but also from important customer contingencies in the state. So while we wish it were moving faster, we see no cause for alarm as it relates to the Wisconsin licensing process today; we feel our chances of getting the facility licensed are good.

One last question for you; on the new Iowa site, the 200 megawatt site, is your expectation that you will build that all in one phase?

Yes -- oh, did you say wind?

Yes, the wind site.

Wind w will probably be staggered over a couple year period of time. It is unlikely that we would commence construction on the entire 200 megawatts at one time. But we do expect to stage them back-to-back, year-to-year.

So when you get into 2009, 2010 you might have half in one year and half the next year?

Yes, we would expect them to be placed into service sequentially over that two year period of time.

Terrific. Thanks for the time today, guys.

(OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS) [Steve Gambuza], Longbow Capital.

Good morning. You mentioned that your CapEx estimates long-term will be dependent upon the EPC contracts that you signed at the timing of the expenditures. I was just wondering (technical difficulty) that you are also in final negotiations in Wisconsin entering negotiations in Iowa. Can you lock in your EPC contracts before receiving the CPCN and the environmental permits? (inaudible) jurisdiction or do you need to have those in hand before you can enter into an EPC contract?

The answer is that we can lock in substantial portions of them before we have received the final regulatory approvals. We would expect that would be the case with respect to both of the facilities.

Okay, and will those contracts -- would you expect them to be a combination of fixed cost and cost-plus or more skewed toward one type of contract?

We would expect that in both instances we would be using something that convention in the industry refers to it as a target priced DPC contracting mechanism.

Can you explain how that works?

In general the way it works is that there is a period of time over which bids are taken with respect to most of the materials portion of the contract that is a structural steel, turbine generator, things of that nature. And prices are fixed and determined with respect to most of the equipment components that would go into a facility at a point in time where most of those costs are fixed a target price. Or completion of the project is agreed upon between the owner and the EPC contractor with incentives and disincentives made available to the EPC contractor for completion at that target price.

(OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS) Daniele Seitz, Dahlman Rose.

I was wondering if states like Wisconsin and Iowa have a reassessed resource plan for the next ten years? And actually asking you for input in building up this resource plan for the next ten years or is it more you building up this and whatever happens happens?

In Wisconsin the Commission develops what is referred to as a strategic energy assessment, which is a look at the requirements for the entire state over I believe a 10 or 15, 20 year period of time. It is really a little open-ended on the back end but that is a relatively informal noncontested sort of proceeding where the Commission simply -- I shouldn't say simply. There is nothing simple about it. But attempts to get a good look at the state's overall resource requirements over a substantial period of time. Iowa does not have a similar process. However, because IP&L provides electric service in the state of Minnesota, the state of Minnesota does have such a long-term resource planning requirement, and we have filed plans in the state of Minnesota that reflect the forecasted requirements for IP&L. And that is a formal process that is ongoing in the state of Minnesota.

And when do you expect the state of Minnesota to come out with their assessment?

Daniele, I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that question but we will get it to you.

And I guess what the Wisconsin will come up with is how much of the new energy should be coming from coal and how much from renewable resources; I guess they already have that in hand, correct?

Yes, they do, and what the Commission -- what the strategic energy assessment process does is it is really more of a look at what the states requirements might be and what the alternatives available are for meeting those forecasted requirements. Again, it is on a statewide basis. It is not so much a company by company but an aggregation.

And I mean are they assuming that some cogeneration is going to be built? Is that part of the plan or they are not going into the specifics?

They have in previous strategic energy assessments made that assumption. We will see whether or not the process underway envisions further coal construction in the state. I would expect that it would.

And if you had to guess -- I mean not guess because you probably know the numbers; but the CapEx number for '08 and '09, do you sense a gradual increase or do you feel that it might be relatively steep?

That which we have disclosed in our 10-K Danielle, for 2008 new generation is about $450 million, which includes wind farms, as well as the early expenditures on the coal plants. So I guess I would refer you to the 10-K and the regulatory filings that we've made, and we will be updating those estimates along the way if need be.

But given the new plants that you will those impact '08 and '09 as well, or is it more -- for example the environmental expenditures? Will that have an impact or change of estimate?

The 2008 capital guidance is around the corner, so we have pretty good visibility there in terms of contracts that we are executing and infrastructure that is plans that are underway. The '09 '10 CapEx numbers are really going to be a function of the regulatory processes relating to the two coal-fired power plants. So I am not really in a position to get any more granular than that at this point.

That's great.

As soon as we get greater visibility on those themes we will of course incorporate all of that in our Investor Relations materials.

I was most thinking of the change of estimates in your environmental expenditures.

Environmentals?

Yes.

I would say that the '08 CapEx is not going to be materially affected by that, but in 2009 and 2010 there will be impacts.

Great. Thanks a lot.

You bet.

Michael Gresens, Robert W. Baird.

Good morning, gentlemen. A non-utility question. I noticed in the past couple quarters you signed up a contract with Wisconsin Energy within your WindConnect business. And another one with Xcel Energy in your RMT unit. And I'm assuming you're going to be doing a lot of your internal environmental and wind power projects through those units, as well. Is there an opportunity or meaningful opportunity in the nonregulated business for earnings growth from those several units in particular?

The simple answer is yes, the WindConnect business, which is a part of RMT is well positioned to generate incremental earnings growth over time because let's face it, wind is a hot market today. I would not expect that net income growth to be staggering, but nonetheless, we would expect it to materialize.

Are you going to continue to look for third party projects or just focus more on the internal projects that are going on?

We hope to do both.

At this time we have no further questions. Ms. Johnson, I will turn the conference back over to you for closing remarks.

With no more questions this concludes our call. Thank you for your continued support of Alliant Energy, and feel free to contact me with any of your follow-up questions. A replay of this call will be available through August 12, 2007 at 888-203-1112 for US and Canada; or 719-457-0820 for international. Callers should reference conference ID#2174040. In addition, an archive of this conference call and a script of their prepared remarks made on the call will be available on the investors' section of the Company's website later today. Thank you.

That does conclude today's conference again, thank you for your participation.