Spire Inc (SR) 2017 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Good morning, and welcome to second quarter earnings conference call. (Operator Instructions) Please note this event is being recorded.

I would now like to turn the conference over to Managing Director of Investor Relations, Mr. Scott Dudley. Please go ahead.

Good morning, and welcome to our second quarter call. We issued an earnings release this morning, and you may access it on our website at spireenergy.com, under News. There's a slide presentation that accompanies our webcast today, and you may download it either from the webcast site or from our website, under Events and Presentations.

Our call today is scheduled for about an hour and we will include a question-and-answer session at the end. The operator will provide instructions on how you may join the queue to ask a question.

Our CEO, Suzanne Sitherwood, who normally presents on our earnings call is not able to be here today, as she's attending the family celebration. So presenting on the call in her place will be Steve Lindsey, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Distribution Operations and as usual, Steve Rasche, Executive Vice President and CFO, is on the call to provide a review of our results and an update on our outlook. Also in the room with us today is Scott Carter, Senior Vice President of Distribution Operations, and Mike Geiselhart, Senior Vice President of Strategy and Corporate Development.

Before we begin, let me cover our safe harbor statement and use of non-GAAP earning measures. Today's call, including responses to questions, may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Our forward-looking statements speak only as of today, and we assume no duty to update them.

Although forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, various uncertainties and risk factors may cause future performance or results to be different than those anticipated. For a more complete description of these uncertainties and risk factors, see our Form 10-Q for the second quarter ended March 31, which we plan to file later today.

In our comments, we will be discussing financial results in terms of net economic earnings and contribution margin, which are non-GAAP measures; net economic earnings exclude from net income the after-tax impacts of fair value of accounting and timing adjustments associated with energy-related transactions as well as the after-tax impacts related to acquisition, divestiture and restructuring activities.

Contribution margin adjusts revenue to remove the costs that are directly passed on to customers and collected through revenues, which are the wholesale cost of natural gas and propane and gross receipts taxes. A full explanation of the adjustments and a reconciliation of these non-GAAP measures to their GAAP counterparts are contained in our news release.

So with that, I will turn the call over to Steve Lindsey.

Thank you, Scott, and let me add my welcome to everyone, who has joined our call and webcast this morning. Before discussing our results, I want to take a moment to say a few words about the tragic loss experienced by my our Spire family on Thursday, April 20. On that day, 2 of our Laclede gas field employees were shot and killed while on the job site. It was a senseless, random act of violence that took the lives of 2 very fine men, that exemplified everything Spire stands for. They were caring, hard working people. They were fathers, husbands, brothers and sons, and they were great employees that took pride in delivering safe and reliable natural gas to families and communities in St. Louis. We'll never forget these men. In this moment and on this day, I want to ask you to join me in remembering them, holding their families, loved ones, friends and coworkers in your hearts and prayers, for a very long time to come. Thank you.

Turning now to our financial and operating performance. We are continuing to deliver on our promises, which shows up in the solid results we've achieved in the second quarter and the first half of fiscal 2017. On the financial side, our gas utility earnings grew despite warm weather, and we saw further improvement in our already strong operational performance and are executing well on our plans and strategies. We continue to grow our gas utility business through investments and infrastructure upgrades as well as implementing organic growth initiatives that are delivering modest customer growth especially in the Kansas City area. We're also on track with the integration of our acquisitions, mostly recently, EnergySouth, where we're now implementing our detailed integration plan and if completed, the separation of the IT platform from their former parent. As part of the overall integration process, we are transitioning our gas utilities to the Spire brand late this summer.

And finally, we're investing in innovation, which includes information technology to improve our ability to connect with our customers while redefining what it means to serve both our customers and communities.

Turning to Slide 6. Let's touch on a couple of highlights so far this year. Earlier today, we reported second quarter net economic earnings, or NEE, of $2.38 per share, up from $2.37 per share a year ago. On a dollar basis, NEE for our gas utilities grew by more than 9%. Steve Rasche will cover the earnings in more detail, but let me take a moment here to talk about the weather, which really was the story for this quarter and for the first half of the year. As we touched upon the last 2 years, weather is just a part of operating the gas utility because it is rarely exactly normal. During colder winters, contribution margins and off-system sales rise, and operating expenses are higher due to the additional stress on the system and on our team. In a warmer winter like the last 2 heating seasons, we experienced lower margins and lower costs. Throughout our entire heating season this year, we experienced a much milder than normal winter. In the second quarter, temperatures were warmer by -- warmer than normal by 23% in Missouri, and 37% in Alabama, and temperatures were more volatile as well. As a result, our second quarter gas utility contribution margin was lower by $9.7 million. In the first half of the year, we had similar weather, and the margin impact from lower demand and system volumes was $19.8 million. However, the weather benefited certain costs in both periods including employer-related costs and bad debt expenses. And warmer temperatures allowed us to have an even stronger focus on capital investments.

Overall, gas utility earnings were up due to the benefit from the addition of EnergySouth, cost controls, and the recovery of higher level of capital investment we are making, particularly for infrastructure upgrades. As I just noted, we continue to improve on our already strong operating performance. As a gas company everything we do, begins with safety both for our employees and our communities. During the first 6 months of the year, we improved in the area of leaks with both overall faster response times and the reduction in leaks across our system. Through our efforts working with third parties and communicating with the public, we've also made important strides in preventing damage to our distribution pipelines.

In terms of safety, we are very focused on making sure our employees do their jobs free of injuries and accidents. And thanks to ongoing trainings and reinforcement of our safety culture, we're achieving further reductions in employee injury rates.

We continue to invest in our systems and processes for providing excellent customer service, and we're seeing positive results from these efforts. We handle customer calls better and faster, we process service requests more efficiently while achieving very high point of retainment rates, and the entire billing process is smoother and more customer-friendly.

Now turning to Slide 7, weather helped us continue to ramp up the capital spend of our gas utilities according to our plans. In the first half of the year, capital expenditures were $187 million, that's an increase of $65 million over last year or a growth of 53%, with the majority tied to our gas utilities. Investment for our Missouri utilities and Alagasco totaled $169 million, up $49 million from last year. And we spent over $100 million on infrastructure upgrades including replacing 138 miles of our pipelines. We've also invested another $29 million in new business, which will add to our bottom line over the near term. Based on the higher run rate of investment in infrastructure and new business, we have increased our fiscal 2017 capital expenditure forecast to $445 million. This reflects a 12% increase in our gas utilities spend to $415 million.

I would note that we continue to expect about 3/4 of our gas utility expenditures will be recovered with minimal regulatory lag. That includes all of the investment in Alabama, which essentially has real-time rate making, and our spend in Missouri that's eligible for recovery under the infrastructure system replacement surcharge or ISRS. And if you consider that the remainder of our Missouri spend in fiscal 2017 will be included in the update period for our rate cases, essentially all of our remaining utility spend will be recovered with minimal regulatory lag. Late last month, the Missouri Public Service Commission approved an increase in ISRS revenues of $3 million each for Laclede Gas and MGE effective June 1. With these increases, our annual ISRS run rate becomes $49 million.

Before I provide an update on other regulatory and legislative matters, I want to take the opportunity to formally introduce Scott Carter. Before Scott joined Spire at the start of the year, he served as Senior Vice President of Commercial Operations and Chief Regulatory Officer at AGL Resources, where he held leadership positions for 15 years. As a senior member of our team, he serves in a similar role here with his responsibilities that include regulatory and governmental affairs, customer experience, organic growth, and gas supply and operations. We are pleased to have him on board and have already benefited from his background and experiences, as he and his team prepared our Missouri rate case filing 3 weeks ago.

Turning to Slide 8. Let me review those rate case filings, which are the first base rate increase request for Laclede Gas and MGE in roughly 4 years. As you may recall, we were required to file concurrent cases as part of the MGE acquisition approval by the Missouri Public Service Commission. And under Missouri law, we must file a rate case every 3 years in order to maintain eligibility for ISRS. Our requests, which are net of amounts we are currently recovering through ISRS, are $29 million or about a 5% increase for Laclede Gas and $37 million or a 9% increase for MGE. Even with these increases, the average residential customer bill will be lower than they were a decade ago. Our filings reflect the continuing growth and enhancement of our utilities, namely our proven commitment to investing in significant infrastructure upgrades and the technology enhancements underway to better connect with and serve our customers. Our filings incorporate important operational and financial benefits for our customers as well. We also propose enhancements to how rates are set and administered across our Missouri utilities. We see benefit in harmonizing Laclede Gas and MGE so that, overall, there's greater consistency between both sides of the state. We're also putting forth recommendations to modernize the rate-setting approach, similar to the approach we have taken with our legislative initiatives. We continue to work to advance Senate Bill 242 and the companion house measure, House Bill 747 and are staying involved as these bills work their way through Missouri legislature.

With that, I'll turn the call over to Steve Rasche, who will review the rate case filings in a bit more detail, and review our results and update you on our outlook. Steve?

Thanks, Steve and good morning, everyone. Let's start with the review of the key financial details of our Missouri rate cases on Slide 9.

The filings are based on a test year ended December 31, 2016, and as a standard practice in Missouri, there will be an update period that we anticipate being the end of our fiscal year, September 30, 2017. Laclede Gas' filed rate base was just over $1.2 billion, up from $944 million at September 2012 for a compound growth rate of 6.4%. Similarly, MGE's filed rate base was $793 million, a 9.6% CAGR from their last filed rate base of $565 million at April 2013. The reasons for the growth are twofold: the significant investment in infrastructure upgrades that Steve just talked about a minute ago, and to a lesser extent, the growth in net regulatory assets. I should also note that it is likely that the combined rate base will grow by roughly an additional $100 million based on our capital spend plan for the balance of this year. Back quickly to those net regulatory assets, which consist of items like prepaid retirement benefits, energy efficiency plans and integration cost. Our filings reflect cash recovery and amortization of many of these assets, representing roughly 40% of the overall net requested inquiries.

Turning to capital structure, the 2 rate cases are filed based on the Laclede Gas operating company long-term capital structure, consistent with the way in which we have operated the utilities for many years and clearly since our 2013 MGE acquisition. That capital structure at calendar year-end, was 57.2% equity. We anticipate, based on our forecast and planned borrowings during the balance of this year, that the capital structure at update will be approximately 54% equity. The weighted average cost of capital in these filings is based on Laclede Gas' actual interest rates on existing debt and a 10.35% return on equity.

Looking quickly at the next steps. The procedural schedule will be finalized shortly and we anticipate testimony to be filed later this summer from the Missouri Public Service Commission staff and other interested parties. The overall process can last up to 11 months in Missouri, and we'll share -- give more information as the process continues.

Let we give you a quick update too on our Spire STL Pipeline. As we discussed last quarter, we formally filed for FERC approval in January for a 65-mile pipeline. And separately, Laclede Gas signed a precedent agreement as a foundation shipper. Since then, we've had several parties weigh in on the project as expected, and we have addressed our concerns in subsequent filings. Most recently, on April 21, we filed an amendment with FERC to change the preferred route of the last 6 miles of the project, replacing an existing pipeline currently owned by Laclede Gas Company with a new build route. As we outlined in our filing, this new route offers a number of benefits including eliminating the risk of supply disruption for the customers of existing pipe, eliminating uncertainty regarding upgrade cost, and reducing long-term integrity management cost. Overall, the Spire STL Pipeline remains on track in terms of timing and cost.

Now let's turn to our financial results, beginning with our second quarter results on Slide 11. Net economic earnings were $109 million, up 5.3% from $103.5 million a year go. The increase was driven by a gas utility segment, which posted earnings of $112 million, up 9.5%. Gas marketing earnings were down by $3 million with breakeven results this quarter. Note that the earnings per share, which is up $0.01 from last year to $2.38 per share, also reflects the 2.2 million shares we issued in late 2016 to finance the EnergySouth acquisition.

With that as a backdrop, let's walk down the income statement. Turning to the next slide. For the quarter, total operating revenues were $663 million, up 9% from last year, with the increase due to the addition of EnergySouth and higher commodity cost, which represent a majority of the customers' bill. These were offset in part by lower sales volumes due to the warm winter weather, as Steve just touched on. Contribution margin was up 7% overall and 8.6% or $26.5 million for the gas utilities segment. EnergySouth added $27.6 million this year, meaning that the margin for the remaining utilities was $1.1 million lower than last year. That variance includes the headwinds that reduced our margins by $9.7 million, almost completely offset by higher ISRS revenues in Missouri of $3.5 million and a lower year-over-year RSE adjustments at Alagasco of $4.6 million. Remember, all rate adjustments in Alabama to true-up actual and authorized ROE flow through to the margin line. And this quarter, that adjustment was lower than last year, thus benefiting the year-over-year margin comparison.

Gas marketing operating revenues year-over-year were down $3 million, as both higher volumes and higher commodity prices were more than offset by a higher mix of trading activity, which is recorded net of cost. Contribution margin was also lower than last year, just below breakeven, and down from $3.9 million in 2016. This decrease is primarily due to market conditions and especially lower market volatility as well as the timing of storage optimization.

Looking at our operating expenses, all categories with the exception of fuel cost were higher than this year, and much of that increase is due to the addition of EnergySouth. I'll focus my comments on the variances after that addition. Net gas utility O&M expenses decreased $6.2 million as weather favorably impacted bad debt expense and employee-related costs. Depreciation and amortization expense was up marginally due to higher capital spend over last year. Taxes other than income were also slightly higher reflecting higher property taxes, again, tied to our capital spend. And interest expense was up a little more than $1 million, reflecting higher rates on floating rate on short-term debt.

Gas marketing operating expenses were higher by $1.2 million for the quarter, as higher volumes in the commodity prices were largely offset by that mix of trading activity.

On Slide 14, you'll see the results for the first half of fiscal '17. Net economic earnings were up nearly $8 million, or 4.3%, and per-share earnings of $3.42 were up $0.01 from last year, again reflecting the increase in shares related to the EnergySouth acquisition. Gas utility earnings increased $11.5 million, or 7.5%, driven by the addition of EnergySouth as well as higher earnings from our Missouri utilities and a slightly lower earnings contribution from Alagasco. These earnings reflect adverse weather impacts of just under $14 million, including both the margin and drag offset in part by lower O&M cost. That impact was more than offset by the benefit of higher resource, cost efficiencies, and the favorable timing of expenses. Gas marketing earnings were down $1.3 million from last year, reflecting the lower contribution margin in the second quarter. And other corporate costs reflect higher interest expense from the addition of EnergySouth and on floating-rate debt.

Quality of our earnings remains very high with earnings before interest to income tax, depreciation and amortization up 8% from last year to $349 million as shown here on Slide 15. This slide also highlights that we've been more than a little busy in capital markets over the last 3 months. During that period, Spire completed a series of planned debt and equity transactions tied in many ways to the 2014 Alagasco acquisition. As you will recall, at that time, we issued approximately $2.9 million equity units consisting of nearly $144 million of remarkable junior subordinated notes and an equity forward requiring unitholders to purchase common shares 3 years in the future. At the same time, Spire issued $250 million of floating rate notes maturing August of this year. Well, it was 3 years later, and we completed several transactions as planned that had the net impact of, first, increasing Spire equity by $142 million, essentially the net proceeds from the 2.5 million common shares issued upon settlement of the equity forward; and second, we reduced total long-term debt including current portions by nearly $1.44 million or the value of the junior subordinated notes. Spire's resulting pro forma long-term capitalization, including the equity issuance that actually closed on April 3, increased to 51.3% equity from 48.9% at September 30, 2016. This is an outstanding result, and included on this slide are the series of Spire transactions that ensured we achieved at the top end of the potential outcomes we outlined originally in 2014.

Lastly, I'd point out that Laclede Gas finalized terms on a $170 million of first mortgage bonds, with tranches at 15, 30 and 40 years. This private placement commitment allows us to fund the debt at any point up to September 15, and it remains unfunded at this time.

Stepping back, we were able to take advantage of very favorable market conditions this year. And given the uncertainty surrounding income tax policy changes that may be on the horizon, we have positioned ourselves very well from a liability management standpoint. I would also note that our Board of Directors declared the next quarterly dividend of $52.5 per share payable July 5. We're in our 14th consecutive year of increasing dividends and this year's annualized dividend is 7% above last year's run rate.

Turning to Slide 16, let's update our outlook for 2017 and beyond. First, starting with our capital expenditure forecast, as Steve Lindsey mentioned, we have increased our forecast for 2017 by 8.5% to $445 million. We have also increased our 5-year capital spend forecast to nearly $2.3 billion. This forecast now covers the 2017 to 2021 period and reflects higher anticipated spend for infrastructure upgrades. As importantly, we still anticipate that roughly 70% of the total spend will be recovered with minimal regulatory lag. And on top of that, an additional almost 10% is forecasted to support new business that, by its nature, will add earnings over time. Second, our long-term annual net economic earnings per share growth target remains 4% to 6%. This long-term target applies to both earnings per share as well as dividend growth. In the near term, as we work to get to the middle of our target payout ratio of 55% to 65%, we're below that point currently, we expect dividends to grow at a rate near the top end of the 4% to 6% range.

And finally, we reaffirm our fiscal 2017 net economic earnings guidance range of $3.50 to $3.60 per share, acknowledging that we will fall likely in the lower half of that range given the warm weather we experienced during the first half of the year, the heating season, in our service territories.

So in summary, we delivered a solid first half of the year despite the warm weather, in terms of executing on our growth strategy, accelerating our investments to upgrade our system, all while maintaining our strong financial position. More importantly, we continue to deliver on our commitments to our customers and our communities, and as Steve mentioned in the outset, to our employees and families in this time of loss. We're also putting the finishing touches on our plans for the AGA Financial Forum in May, and all of us, including Suzanne, look forward to seeing you there.

Operator, I think we're ready for questions.

(Operator Instructions) Our first question comes from Mike Weinstein from Credit Suisse.

I was wondering maybe if you could expand a little bit more about the rerouting of the STL Pipeline, the 6 miles that you talked about and what advantages that may have? And just confirm, I guess, it doesn't seem to change the cost estimate of the pipeline at all, right?

Yes. Thanks, Mike. I'll start this and I may turn it over to Mike Geiselhart to add a little bit. Yes, when we originally proposed the pipeline, we proposed that the last 6 miles of the route included a piece of the current pipeline infrastructure owned by Laclede Gas called Line 880. And as we evaluated the opportunity to use that pipe, including a significant amount of rework and upgrade to the pipe versus other alternatives, it became clear that there was actually a preferred route, that was a new-built route for about the same length of pipe, through a newly developed area, mostly rural ground that would actually achieve a better long-term outcome. And so well, in April -- earlier -- late last month, when we filed, we filed to include that route. And as you think about it overall, it's really about mitigating risk and lowering the expected long-term cost of operating the pipe. And it's really -- the benefits fall in those 2 buckets, including minimizing the risk of cost that -- we have yet to be firmed up and how much upgrade was going to be needed in order to get Line 880 to where we needed it to be for the interstate pipe versus where it's currently being operated to serve our residential customers and also the long-term integrity management costs. Mike, did you want to add anything else besides that? Okay. There you go, Michael.

And just wanted to see if I can get an update on your view of M&A in the space, in light of the recent rejection of the Great Plains-Westar deal. What's your view on and your appetite for M&A going forward?

I'm note sure that, Michael, our view on M&A has changed at all. We remain in a consolidating industry, and so over time, we think there will be opportunities. Having said that, I know we've said in the past, that the valuations in the industry have certainly run ahead of what we would consider to be the fundamental values for some of the deals, especially the ones that have been announced in the public market. You're right. It's clear that there has been a little bit more regulatory pushback recently on a number of deals. The most recent of which was our friends on the western side of the state and in Kansas, and we'll continue to watch that closely. And I'm not really sure how to think about the cost of capital in the near term, and we've talked about this in the past that with the uncertainty around income tax policy and the changes that might come from Washington and whatever form those will ultimately take, right now, it just adds another moving part to the evaluation of what a potential acquisition might deliver in terms of value to us. Ultimately, our long-term growth is predicated on the things that are already within our wheelhouse. And that's essentially in investments in things like the Spire STL Pipeline and in organic growth initiatives and accelerating our investment in infrastructure upgrades. And we're very comfortable with our ability to achieve in that range with the things that are in our wheelhouse. If we were to move forward with another acquisition, you can rest assure that it would be a deal that would add to value, as we look at it. And value isn't just defined as earnings per share although that's one of the key components, but you look -- we look at the overall system and how we can create value in the medium and long term.

Our next question comes from Chris Turnure from JPMorgan.

I wanted to ask you about a comment you made in your prepared remarks on truing up the rate case ask you mentioned briefly, but I would just wanted to understand the dates that, that occurs and which items in the rate case are actually trued up?

Let me start, and then I'll look to Scott Carter if he wants to add anything. Yes, in Missouri the way the process works is we have to file -- that we have to snap a line. We snapped a line at the end of the calendar year, 12/31, and that includes establishing the 12-month run rate cost to operate the business and also the capital structure and rate base, all snapped at that line at that point. And that was the basis for our filing, as I talked about in the prepared remarks. The typical process in Missouri allows for an update, rate-based capital structure and key components of run rate cost through an update period, which, given our long history of doing this, will likely fall at the end of our fiscal year or September 30. And so what will happen, you'll see filings for -- if the staff and any other interveners will file this summer, then later on, some time after that, we'll file a response to their filing. And then we'll, lo and behold, get to 9/30. And so a little bit after that, 30 to 45 days we'll finalize all the numbers. And then the update period will likely -- will be subject to prudence review. And all of those numbers including rate base and run rate cost and the actual capital structure will be finalized at that point. And then all of the other proposals that we have in the rate case are going to be -- will be subject to lots of discussion and ultimately, negotiations during and after that time period, especially as we get into the fall and winter of this year and going into the late winter, early spring. Because if you think about an 11-month process, and we'll have to see how it plays out and what the procedural schedule actually says. An 11-month process would point to the second week in March as when the process would have to be completed based upon legislation and the 11-month timeline. But we'll see how it all plays out as we walk down the path. Scott, anything else?

Okay. Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you guys off.

No, no. I think I covered most of it, Chris.

Okay. So you mentioned basically all of the items or the majority of items in terms of data points in the filing would be updated and that would be as of September 30, and you'd actually make the filing shortly thereafter or the update shortly thereafter?

Yes, we've got to get the books closed for the fiscal year. And it's clear, the rate base and capital structure are actually updated. Run rate cost, it really -- a lot of the review in the data request that the staff and other parties will be looking at now will be firming a lot of those costs. So we really tend to look at the larger cost that move the needle and those are the ones that would be updated. I can't say that every single piece of run rate cost is updated, otherwise, it would just extend the entire process to a timeline that wouldn't be acceptable to us or to the regulators.

Got you. Okay. And then if memory serves, you guys had a settlement 3.5 years ago or so around the time of the MGE deal for both rate cases in Missouri. And I just wanted to get a sense as to kind of when that occurred in the process and some of the key kind of puts and takes around the settlement? What went into it? What was the outcome? And any readthroughs obviously that you think might be relevant to this go around?

The -- we -- a couple of comments, first of all. We typically do settle our rate cases, our long history for Laclede as to get to a black box settlement after we've -- or read a lot of the issues in the case down by not trying to negotiate the final nouns and verbs of the last view if we can get to an outcome that makes sense both for us and for the folks on the other side. So a settlement is not an unusual outcome, although we'll see how these 2 cases play out over time. Both of those cases that you referenced, in fact both of the last 2 Laclede rate cases in 2010 and 2014, when they were settled, and also the MGE case, which was filed in '13, and I think, settled in '14, Laclede Gas case may have been '13, were all ISRS-only rate cases, which essentially meant, although, we initially proposed a full filing, which -- including amortizing net regulatory assets, changing rates and all of that, we ultimately agreed with the staff and the commission to roll ISRS into base rates, reset ISRS to 0 and move on. And we did that, especially in the last set because in the Laclede rate case, we were in the middle of the MGE negotiation before closing. And we really wanted to get the rate case behind us and, frankly, we didn't need to be in a rate case. We actually were compelled or had to file in order to keep our ISRS writer active, as Steve mentioned in his prepared remarks. And MGE was filed literally within 2 or 3 months after we closed the deal and so we really wanted to get that case closed so we could begin the integration process, and unlock all -- everything that we've now seen over the ensuing 3 years. So we were motivated in both times to really just get the rate case done and to move on. You'd actually have to go back quite a ways to a black box settlement that was a full rate case settlement. And I believe that would be the Laclede Gas case that was filed in 2010 at that point. And off the top of my head, I don't remember what the settlement was, but it was roughly half of what we ultimately filed for.

And Chris, one other point to add to that, as part of that, as we had mentioned earlier with the acquisition approval, we agreed to file these cases concurrently. So that's why we have both the Laclede Gas as well the MGE rate cases filed at the same time right now. And to give you just a little flavor, the gross increase that are being requested, in this case, for Laclede, is a $58 million, about $30 million of that is in ISRS, which will move over, just as Steve mentioned, in the previous case. So that's why your net ask in this case is about $29 million, and for MGE, it's about $50 million gross and about $13 million of that is ISRS. So if you just take the ISRS pieces out, that gets you, really, to where we're filing this case. And in those previous cases, it was basically just moving the ISRS into the new rates.

(Operator Instructions) Our next question comes from Brian Russo from Ladenburg Thalmann.

Just a quick clarification. You mentioned $9.7 million negative impact due to weather in the second quarter. Was that -- that's margin, correct? Pretax? And then also, is that relative to normal? Or year-over-year?

Yes, Brian, you're absolutely right. The $9.7 million for the quarter and the $19.8 million for the year is the margin shortfall versus normal, which is essentially how we plan our business every year as you would expect.

Okay, got it. And remind me, do you guys have any weather normalization mechanisms at any of your utilities?

Well, we do have some weather sensitivity and some of that is particularly on the MGE side. One of the things we're proposing in both our legislation and in this rate proceeding is a revenue stabilization, which takes away some of that volatility on both warmer as well as colder winters. So there is some of the sensitivity as you can expect. And so having these 2 -- really, 2 years in a row of warmer winters, we have seen the margin impact. And to give you a little bit of color, last year, during the same 6-month period, it was roughly about $17 million impact. And this year, it was a little bit more. So again, we do a lot of things to help mitigate that through managing expenses and through our increased capital, which gives us the opportunity to do as well as you have some lower cost such as bad debt expense. So while we do have some exposure there, we're working on some opportunity going forward to limit that risk and, primarily, that's to help limit that risk for customers. And so that if you do have that weather extreme conditions, their exposure is limited as well.

Yes, and Brian, I've got one more thing on that. The exposure in Missouri, in both sides of the state, because we do have different rate structures, right now is really the variable component of our rates, which is somewhere between 15% and 25% of the overall recoveries that we expect. The rest is absolutely mitigated and what you're seeing is the adjustments on the margin, so to speak. In Alabama, it wasn't just the temperatures, it was the volatility of the temperatures. Their temperature rate adjustment mechanism, which had worked splendidly for many years, this year, because of the sheer change in the temperatures on a daily basis, which would have been 20 or 30 degrees, wasn't contemplated in that temperature adjustment mechanism. And so that's why we saw a little bit more weather exposure down in Alagasco than we haven't seen in the past. And again, as Steve mentioned, we'll work to improve our [lie] there. But again, weather's part of operating a utility and we do have a natural hedge in our operating expenses and we'll just continue to operate the business and move forward.

Got it. Okay. So if I just tax effect the $9.7 million, it's maybe roughly $0.12. And if I adjust the midpoint of your guidance of $355 million, it gets you down to $345 million. Is it safe to assume that the lower bad debt and some of the O&M expense controls bring you back up to that lower half of the guidance range, which is -- is that the way to look at it?

Yes, that's exactly the way you need to look at it. We -- if I think about the year, and I tend to think about first 6 months of the year, we were $19.8 million of margin headwind, our O&M expenses were lower by -- in the range of $6 million, and then as Steve mentioned, our capital plan for the rest of the year will actually help to keep our expenses in line as we go through the rest of the year. It's really both the combination of those plus operating smarter, that allowed us to get to the point that we guided to in our overall earnings for the year.

And I think one other piece that we touched on earlier is every 6 months, we will have ISRS filings in Missouri and those go into effect, again, shortly after that filing period. So you kind of layer all those pieces together and I think, again, given the challenges of the winter, through O&M, through increased margin relative to investments, that's how we really focus.

Okay. That's helpful. And then what is your current actual shares outstanding versus the average share count with the April conversion?

Hold on a second. I have a piece on that. Give me just a second to go to it because you're right, I live in the world of average shares. The actual shares outstanding at 3/31/17 are 45.7 million shares.

Okay. So is that the run rate to -- or the base to grow off of on a triple or...

So actually...

Okay. That excludes the conversion?

Yes, that excludes the converts. So if I add that, we're at 48.2 million shares and that would be the actual outstanding shares. In my mind, I tend to lump 4/3 and 3/31 together. And that is how you should think about it going forward. And when you think about it in terms of the earnings per share calculation and we included that in one of the slides in our presentation, because of the way that, that works through, half of that 2.5 million shares will hit earnings per share estimate this year and the full amount, 2.5 million, will hit the earnings estimate for fiscal 2018.

Got it. And then just on the CapEx. I mean, it looks like you've increased '17, '18, and '19, $30 million to $40 million, yet you reaffirm the 4% to 6% CAGR. Can I assume you're kind of growing into that 4% to 6% CAGR with the incremental CapEx? Is that one way to look at it?

Yes. We're growing in and moving to the higher end of the range. And it is something that we look at, and you are absolutely right that capital spend is one of the ways in which we can deliver growth by growing the rate base over a period of time. So I tend to think of it as more insurance that we can get to the middle or higher part of our guidance range.

(Operator Instructions) Our next question comes from Selman Akyol from Stifel.

Just a couple of quick ones if I could and a little bit of follow up from the last set of questions. So when you guys -- you've done year-to-date $29 million for new business, is that a good run rate for the full year?

Yes, thank you for the question. It actually is and it's a fairly sizable increase relative to, I would say, our past 2 or 3 years. A couple of the areas were getting a lot of pick up. As I mentioned, on the Western side of the state, the MGE territory, we've had a lot of success there. We're starting to see some nice entries into the multifamily area, which, prior to these past couple of years, we had some struggles. And then in Alabama, we've run some pipe into an area in East Montgomery, which has proven to be very successful for us. So a lot of that spend is, like we said, versus last year, it's an increase and we're about 14% ahead in terms of where our projections were on actual new meter set. So while our growth is -- we characterize as modest, I think we're positioning ourselves very well for the go forward as we make this capital investment right now with the subdivisions and commercial developments that should come with that. We're also seeing some fairly good conversion opportunity on the Western side of that state, some propane and things like that. So overall, I think we're well-positioned going forward and we really view this as an opportunity to continue organically grow these utilities that we have.

Got you. So it looks like you're seeing some low-hanging fruit or some opportunities, and then I guess, longer term, as you think about your capital budget, you've got $2.3 billion out there and you said 10% that for new business. So that works out to roughly $46 million a year. So you're expecting it sort of moderate going back, the further you look out?

Well, I think you have to look at the other side of that is, continued increase in the infrastructure upgrades that we're doing. For example, this year, in the first 6 months, MGE on the western side of the state is actually -- had about the same capital spend level as Laclede Gas was. And if you think back to 3 years ago or when we brought them into our company, they were replacing anywhere from 18 miles to 20 miles a year. This year, they replaced about 120 miles. So I think it's the continuous build, and we're doing the same things in Alabama, at Alagasco and we'll even do some with Mobile and Willmut in terms of our increase. So I think what you're seeing is that the new business spend, on a go forward basis, while increasing, is having to really compare to the upgrades that we're doing and increasing all those utilities. So I think you're seeing a good trajectory on both, but you're probably going to be outpaced a little bit by just the infrastructure upgrades.

Okay. And then last one for me. And I appreciate that you guys said you have a history of settling. So I guess, what would be the earliest? If it's an 11-month clock, when will be the earliest you guys could think of settling the case?

Boy, Selman, I hate to project out as especially since we don't have our procedural schedule. If you think about the fact that we need to get through our update period and we need to get our books closed and get those numbers finalized, that already puts us late in this calendar year, under the very, very earliest. There will be a lot of -- a lot of work including community meetings and public testimony that has yet to be scheduled. So I think once the procedural schedule comes out, it will come out in the not-too-distant future, it will then probably better define where the early settlement period might happen, but we have to get through the community meetings, we have to get through the public hearings and those have yet to be stapled on to the calendar, so to speak.

And I think the one other piece is, keep in mind, these are 2 separate rate cases that are going on at the same time even though we're filing them, again, together. And so there's still some different complexities around different tariffs and rate structures and some other things that are being presented in this case, that aren't in a traditional case. So I think it might take -- the normal process will work its way through, but in this instance, there's a few more things that we're going to be dealing with as we go through the process.

This concludes our question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Managing Director of Investor Relations, Mr. Scott Dudley, for closing remarks.

Well, thank you all for joining us. I know it's a busy earnings week. We appreciate you spending time with us. Steve Rasche and I will be around the rest of the day for your follow-ups, and we look forward to catching up then. And we'll see you at AGA. Thank you.

The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.