TXNM Energy Inc (TXNM) 2011 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Good day ladies and gentlemen. And welcome to the PNM Resources' second quarter conference call. At this time all participants are in listen-only mode. (Operator Instructions) As a reminder, this conference may be recorded. I would now like to turn it over to your host Ms. Gina Jacobi, the Director of Investor Relations. Ma'am, you may begin.

Well, thank you everyone for joining us this morning for a discussion of the Company's second quarter 2011 earnings. Please note that the presentation and accompanying materials for this conference call and supporting documents are available on the PNM Resources' web site at www.PNMResources.com. Joining me today are PNM Resources' CEO, Pat Collawn, and Chuck Eldred, our Chief Financial Officer, as well as several other members of our executive management team.

Before I turn the call over to Pat, I need to remind you that some of the information provided this morning should be considered forward-looking statements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We caution you that all of the forward-looking statements are based upon current expectations and estimates and that PNM Resources assumes no obligation to update the information. For a detailed discussion of factors affecting PNM Resources' results, please refer to our current and future annual report on the Form 10-K and the quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, as well as other current and future reports on Form 8-K filed with the SEC. And with that, I will turn the call over to Pat.

Thank you, Gina. And good morning everyone. Thank you for taking the time to join us on what looks like a very volatile morning so far on Wall Street. Earlier today, we released our second quarter results, and reported ongoing earnings of $0.20 per diluted share, which is just shy of last year's mark of $0.21. Our GAAP results reflect the impact of regulatory disallowance's based on what we know about the PRC's oral decision in PNM's rate case. Chuck will discuss this issue in more detail.

Both utilities, particularly TNMP, posted better ongoing results this year, compared with the same period in 2010. First Choice Power had strong sales volume growth for the quarter and results in Optum Energy were affected by the low price energy market, [Intercot], which has limited performance for all generators including Optum. This morning, we are also affirming our ongoing earnings guidance range for 2011. If you turn to slide 5, I want to touch on our retail load at both PNM and TNMP. Both utilities had moderate retail load growth for the quarter, and while we've been cautious to say it in previous quarters, I think we can now, safely say that we are in a load growth trend, particularly for PNM.

For PNM, the 1.4% weather normalized load growth this quarter compared with 2010 represents the 7th consecutive quarter of load growth we've had here at PNM. TNMP had load growth of 1.5% this quarter compared with last year, and that continues TNMP's trend of producing steady moderate growth. You will remember that the economic conditions did not impact TNMP as severely as they did PNM. We also continue to have customer growth at both utilities, although modest. A 0.5% at PNM and 0.8% at TNMP.

I want to turn to slide 6 for a moment, on the regulatory discussion. As you all know by now, last Thursday, the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission orally approved modifications to our original stipulated rate increase proposal, and we are awaiting a written order. We believe the stipulation was a fair and reasonable compromise and the Commission's decision last week was less than what we had hoped.

Based on conversations during last week's open meeting, the PRC has granted us rate relief of $72 million. The Commission's decision eliminates the phase-in approach, meaning if PNM and the stipulation signatories do not oppose the order, the full $72 million rate increase would go into effect almost immediately. Most of you have already recognized the Commission's order has incremental benefits for 2011 without the phase-in. The order, as discussed last week, would also move up the stay-out period to an earlier date, as of 2013. If this is correct, moving up that stay-out period would give PNM the opportunity to file for updated rates that would capture most of what we would recover -- would have recovered in the rider.

So, we're still awaiting the written order and once we get it, we will review it carefully. We are disappointed in how the regulatory process unfolded, and that the Commission modified the stipulation on the $85 million reached with key parties and supported by the hearing examiner and the Commission's own general counsel. As I said though, we will assess the written order in light of our unrelenting focus to earn our allowed regulated returns, and we will take the appropriate steps to ensure we reach those goals. Moving forward, we will continue to synchronize our PNM expenses with our revenues.

For TNMP, that utility operates in a constructive regulatory framework, and its earnings reflect that it is earning it's allowed ROE year-to-date. PNM has also come to a resolution of its advanced metering systems case. On July 8, the Public Utilities Commission of Texas approved a stipulation that allows the utility to recover $113 million over 12 years. The AMS rider will be in place starting August 11. And as we have previously reported, the advanced metering system will increase rate base and will result in an incremental return of $0.01 per share annually.

We turn to our competitive business, on slide 6. As expected, performance for First Choice Power and Optum Energy were lower in 2011 than 2010. It is no surprise that margins continue to compress in the competitive retail energy environment, and the pressure caused by low energy prices continues to impact results for Optum Energy. For First Choice Power, the Company continues to successfully execute its strategy to grow its commercial customer segment. Additionally, First Choice has developed and deployed new programs to expand its residential and commercial offerings which have resulted in a more loyal customer base.

On the Optum side, like most, if not all generators in Texas, Optum energy continues to be impacted in its performance by the low priced energy markets. Optum is doing an outstanding job mitigating that situation, with good plant performance at Twin Oaks and Cogen; and by their using alternative fuel at Twin Oaks. Twin Oaks and Altura are running at or better than expectations, and at Cogen, on June 14, the plant celebrated 4 years without a loss time accident, which is a testament to their focus on safety and operations. As has been the story for the past several quarters, Optum Energy continues to focus on cost control, managing its liquidity, and its cash flow.

That concludes my summary. I will turn it over to Chuck for a more detailed discussion on financial results and guidance.

Thank you, Pat. And good morning to everyone. As Pat reported, ongoing earnings were $0.20 for the second quarter, down $0.01 from last year. However, a breakdown of our EPS by segment shows earnings at our regulated businesses were up a total of $0.06 from last year, demonstrating the continued progress we are making towards earning our allowed ROE. Total earnings at our competitive businesses which include First Choice and Optum were down $0.06. However this trend has been fully expected given the low power price environment in Texas and the expiration of the Twin Oaks contract in December of last year. Both of which have been factored into the guidance we issued earlier this year. Despite the expected drop in competitive earnings, we remain pleased with First Choice Power's performance which remains very strong during the second quarter.

Turning now to the individual business segments on slide 10, and starting with PNM. In the second quarter, New Mexico Utilities' ongoing earnings were up $0.02 from last year. On the positive side, outage costs were down $0.04 from last year, reflecting the reduction in the number of planned plan outage days. Realized gains from the Palo Verde Nuclear Decommissioning Trust also added $0.04. Another positive was weather normalized load growth of 1.4%, which added another $0.01 to earnings. As you recall, we had expected PNM's annual load to increase 1% to 2%. And the 1.8% load growth experienced during the first half of this year is inline with our original expectations. Negative factors affecting PNM's performance this quarter included the expiration of the Palo Verde 3 toll on December 31 of last year. As you know, this unfavorable variance had been expected and is currently reflected in our guidance for the year. For the quarter, the toll's expiration reduced earnings by $0.07.

Now turning to TNMP. At TNMP, earnings were up $0.04. The implementation of new transmission rates last year, along with new rates that were put in place in February of this year, added $0.03. Warmer weather contributed an additional $0.01 to earnings as cooling degree days in TNMP's territory were up over 11%, compared with last year. Now, turning to slide 11, as I mentioned earlier, earnings at our competitive businesses were lower than last year. But the decline had been fully expected.

Starting with First Choice Power, we continue to be pleased with the Company's performance. For the quarter, commercial sales were up 32% from last year, reflecting First Choice's continued efforts to diversify its customer base. Because of the strong commercial growth experienced year-to-date, First Choice Power now expects its commercial sales volumes for 2011 to increase 20% to 25% over last year. The Company's second quarter EBITDA of $14.5 million was down about $3 million from last year. However, the decline had been fully expected.

First Choice total gross margin was down slightly year-over-year, as the expected reduction in unit margins was almost entirely offset by an increase in customer usage and warmer weather. Compared with last year, First Choice's O&M in the second quarter was up $2.6 million, primarily reflecting higher advertising and marketing expenses, the cost of new local offices and the implementation of First Choice's prepaid program. On the other hand, bad debt expense continues to decline. During the second quarter, bad debt was 4.7% of revenue, down 5.1% last year.

And moving on to Optum energy, Optum generated about $4 million of EBITDA, in the second quarter, down about $14 million from last year. As you know, we had been expecting the decline of this magnitude given the expiration of the above market sales contract at Twin Oaks. In the second quarter, the roll-off of the contract reduced Optum's EBITDA by about $9 million. Another unfavorable driver was the timing of Twin Oaks annual maintenance outage which reduced EBITDA by about $6 million. The outage was completed as scheduled and came in under budget. However, the number of planned outages, days, were higher than last year, as the outage was more comprehensive. On the positive side, slightly higher power prices in ERCOT during the second quarter, helped to offset the negative impact of the Twin Oaks contract expiration and the plant's outage.

Before turning to slide 12, let me address the $0.30 regulatory disallowance that is reflected in our second quarter GAAP losses. Comments made during the Commission's opening meeting last Thursday indicate that the revenue requirement associated with prior debt refinancings, was one of the items excluded by the Commission in arriving at the $72 million rate increase. As a result, in accordance with GAAP, $30 million of prior debt refinancing costs were written off. While the hearing examiner agreed that the stipulated $85 million rate increase in total was just and reasonable, she did state that the Company did not demonstrate a net benefit to customers from the refinancing cost and would exclude them in a litigated cost of service proceeding.

The Company disagrees with the hearing examiner's conclusion because the customers have and continue to benefit from PNM's refinancing of higher cost debt. In fact, a portion of these costs were approved by the Commission for Recovery in prior litigated rate cases. PNM expects to include these costs in its next rate case filing. If they are approved, the regulatory asset would be restored to our balance sheet.

In addition, another $15 million write-off was recorded for amounts that had been fully anticipated. As part of the stipulation, the Company agreed to forego recovery of $10 million of the under collection in PNM's seal clause balancing account. Additionally, the Company had agreed not to seek recovery of external rate case related costs of $3.8 million, and the $1.25 million contribution to the Good Neighbor Fund. Keep in mind, these charges do not impact our ongoing results.

Now, let's turn to the impact of the oral decision it is expected to have in ongoing earnings. Assuming a $17 million increase in implementation and new rates in mid August, we expect to earn an incremental $0.20 over last year. And in 2012, we expect to add another $0.27 to earnings reflecting the full year impact of the $72 million rate increase. Although we're disappointed in the New Mexico rate case process, our regulated business have certainly made a lot of progress over the last couple of years. In 2009, PNM's regulated rate base return was 3.7%. This year, we expect to earn approximately 7.5%. And next year, our return on rate base will be even higher, reflecting the full-year impact of the $72 million rate relief. Lastly, I want to show you that we have not lost our sight of the ultimate goal, which is to earn our allowed return, and we will not stray from this path.

Now, moving on to slide 13, as Pat mentioned earlier, we are affirming our original earnings guidance for the year. We still expected consolidated ongoing earnings to range between $0.80 and $0.92 with the regulated earnings coming in between $0.89 and $0.96. And our unregulated businesses contributing between $0.06 and $0.16. I do want to add one caveat. Our guidance assumes the $72 million rate increase and implementation of new rates in mid August. We are also maintaining our original guidance range of $0.62 to $0.67 for PNM Electric, despite the PRC's denial of inter-rate relief, and the delay in the rate case ruling. We remain confident that PNM can deliver earnings within the range, for a number of reasons. With the mid August implementation, we expect an incremental $0.04 to PNM's earnings this year.

Additionally, as Pat mentioned earlier, we plan to continue to synchronize our expenses with our revenues. The Company currently has more than 40 process improvement projects underway to increase efficiencies throughout the organization. The focus of these projects is wide ranging, and incorporates all functional areas within PNM Resources. Currently, we expect these projects will create a number of cost synergies that will carry forward into next year. We plan to provide you with an update on our progress on or before we issue 2012 earnings guidance. Also unchanged from last quarter, are unregulated EBITDA guidance ranges and our outlook for cash earnings.

Before I turn it back to Pat, I want to briefly discuss some internal changes that we will be making in our Investor Relations department. As we have mentioned many times in the past, we are continually looking for ways to streamline our operations and control our costs. Furthermore, we're actively engaged in developing our employees and increasing their breadth of experience. As a result, effective August 15, Gina Jacobi our current Director of IR will be moving to Enterprise Risk Management and Lisa Eden currently our Assistant Treasurer, will be adding to her current duties by taking on the role formally held by Gina.

Lisa is currently responsible for communicating with the rating agencies and our relationship banks, so adding equity investors and analysts to the mix is a natural fit. If you have any questions, feel free to call Gina through the 15th. Thereafter, Lisa Eden will be your primary IR contact. And we've included all contact information in the appendix. And with that, I will turn it back over to Pat for her concluding remarks.

Thank you, Chuck. At the end of the first quarter call, we said we would have much more to report than we did back in May regarding our key strategic goals and the checklist on page 14. As far as our goal of earning our regulated return on equity, we continue to make significant strides towards achieving solid returns. As Chuck mentioned, the rate base return for PNM has doubled from 2009 to 2011. At TNMP, from 2009 to 2011, our regulated rate on return has increased more than 80%. I talked at length about PNM's rate case, and updated you on the TNMP AMS docket. Regarding PNM's FERC rates, those went into effect on June 1, subject to refund. Both PNM and TNMP remain on-track for finishing the year with good operational results, while controlling costs. On the competitive side of our business, First Choice continues to have strong and steady performance. And Optum Energy remains poised to capture opportunities that arise in the market.

Before we go to questions and answers, I want to talk about 2 things. First, I would like to comment a little more on our competitive businesses. We have continually said that one of our goals is to maximize the value of our competitive businesses, and have recently said that we are looking at strategic alternatives for those businesses. Any decisions regarding our competitive businesses will be made in order to maximize shareholder value. And although there have been a lot of rumors in the market about possible strategic alternatives, we have a strict policy of not commenting on market rumors. Therefore, we won't discuss that issue any further.

And finally, while we are disappointed that the stipulation was not approved, we are moving forward with what we can control, and remain relentlessly focused on earning our allowed return on equities. With that, I will turn the call back over to our operator to start the question-and-answer portion.

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

Did I interpret your comments correctly, from earlier, that load growth is on track with your expectations, and your cost-cutting efforts are also on track with your expectations, both were key components of earning near your allowed ROE?

Yes, Brian, and both of those are on track. We said our load growth at PNM would be between 1% and 2% and we're at about 1.8%, through the first half of the year. We actually set a new peak, if we wouldn't have called our demand response here at PNM but since we were able to call that, we didn't set a peak. And our costs remain firmly under control.

Can you quantify kind of the cost cut run-rate you are assuming or targeting?

Brian, at this point, as I mentioned in my notes, that we have a number of processes under way that would establish some cost efficiencies in the organization that would be permanent and sustainable going forward. But at this stage, I would rather just refrain from any details until we get a little further along with those projects and the results of those. And then hopefully later this year, if not the latest during the 2012 guidance, we will give you more clarity around that, and some numbers that would reflect the results of that.

Okay. And just to clarify, the second quarter adjusted earnings, does that include or exclude Optum's loss?

It includes Optum's loss. Keep in mind, we're continuingly, as we stay involved in the competitive business, we include Optum's losses within our guidance range.

Okay. And also, I know the final order from the Commission is still pending, but I'm getting the sense that you are almost -- you're going to agree to it, I guess? I mean I guess that is one option that you have. But what are the other options available to you?

We have three options, Brian. And we haven't decided until we see the order. One is to accept or at least not oppose the order. The other is to ask for a re-hearing on the order or specific parts of the order, and then the other one is to not accept it and move to litigation. And until we see the order and remember, there are more signatories to this order, and we all have to agree, so we need to be able to see the order, examine it, and talk with the signatories before we make a decision.

Okay. And then lastly, I'm surprised, your First Choice Power results or expectations weren't better or increased, given what we see in Texas load demand, not only in June, but in July and August to date. Can you comment on how First Choice Power is performing?

Yes, and actually, Brian, Brian Hayduk is here from First Choice Power so I will let him give you a little color commentary on the past. We obviously won't comment on July, so.

Brian, we obviously talked about the performance year-to-date, and I think it is just too soon. I mean coming into a year like this, you're not obviously through the summer yet. Our thoughts were just not to change guidance based on the first six months. It is really as simple as that. Obviously we're performing well, but there is a ways to go.

But I guess it would probably be a bias to the higher end of that range? Is that safe to assume?

Yes, you know just, we obviously can go back and look at the original guidance range, and given year-to-date performance and strong performance, we continue to look to be on the higher end of the range, but as Brian pointed out, we still got six months more to go for the year. So that is kind of where we are now.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Our next question comes from Ali Agha from SunTrust Bank.

I just wanted to be clear on the way you're positioning the Commission's order. On the one hand, I hear you saying that obviously you haven't yet made a decision on how to proceed, waiting for the final order to come out. But if I am also hearing you right, the guidance that you've given us for '11 specifically, and the numbers you showed for '12, that assumes that you accept the order as is and the numbers flow starting mid August. Is that correct?

Yes, and keep in mind that the accounting treatment, the GAAP information I reported reflects the best available information. And we talked about the oral decision, the Commission did vote on the $72 million. So we're waiting for the order itself to take a look and review the written piece of this. But certainly the $72 million is a reasonable assumption to make given the fact that they voted on that during the hearing last week. So that's why we're comfortable. And one, for the accounting treatment to reflect that. And two, to make that assumption at this point in our projections.

It is really the best information we have at the time. And until we see it, and decide whether or not to accept it, we're going to reflect that $72 million in the guidance.

Also related to that Chuck, if I heard you right, you're saying that because it is not a step-up, or a two-step deal, I think what you're saying is there is an extra $0.04 of earnings you're picking up in '11 than you would have in your original two-step assumption? If that is the case, why not raise your guidance for '11? What is offsetting that?

Ali, if you think about -- when we set guidance, and you think about for the entire year, we expected roughly around -- and I will give you a little detail, around $0.23. But when you look at the delays and the interim rate relief and the other factors that are caused during the process and proceedings for the rate relief itself, we essentially lost around $0.07. And so when you go back and make the adjustments and the projections going forward, and assume that this is no longer a two-phased approach, but it's $72 million effective on August 15, we pick up another $0.04. But it does not fully recover all of the costs that we had essentially lost in the original guidance this year.

Right. Got it. Also, in the decision making, as you're waiting for the final order, I would imagine is one of the key -- perhaps the key element for you the stay-out provision, is that going to be in the main determinant of whether you accept it or not accept it? Is that a fair way to think about it?

I think that is one of the things that we will look at when we get the order. We will obviously weigh the litigation risk, because you can't put new rates into effect if you're litigating, so we will weigh the litigation risk. We will weigh what our other signatories think. We will look at the stay-out period. We will look at things like the environmental re-opener, to make sure it is there. So there is a whole number of things that we need to see if they're there or not.

Okay. And another question, the realized gains that you picked up for the nuclear decommissioning trust, was that factored into your guidance for the year? And remind us you know how recurring of an event, should we be thinking of that?

No, this is -- we don't budget for any realized gains in nuclear decommissioning. It is just the fact that the way that the portfolio, it is about $168 million, the way it is managed and it's balance between equity and fixed income securities, if in fact those -- that portfolio is rebalanced, or there is a change in this case of a portfolio manager, there is some readjusting on the securities that are currently outstanding. So we are fortunate to hit the market at a good time, and there was some securities sold, and we don't normally budget for that. But it certainly has helped hold us within the guidance range this year.

And in some years, we have had losses and we've had those in earnings and we've made up for the losses by other things, so.

Last question. Pat, I heard you on your comment on the unregulated businesses, and the strategic thinking that you're going through. Would you at least just give us a sense of -- is this something that we should have a definitive answer on by the end of this year? What is the time frame that you're looking at for making a decision there?

Ali, you asked that question last time, didn't you?

He did.

Well, you have become a little more proactive in talking about it, I figured I would take it another level.

Well we understand your persistence.

When we know, you will know.

Well, we don't want to comment as Pat pointed out and I think that is the right answer.

Okay. We will stay tuned. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. (Operator Instructions) Our next question comes from Paul Fremont from Jefferies & Company.

First question is just a quick clarification. When you say that the third option is not to accept and move to litigation, I'm assuming that is the litigated track of the rate case and not to a court challenge, or which of those two is it?

It would be to the litigated track on the rate case.

Okay.

To litigate that original $165 million.

And then just following up on Ali's question, on the Nuclear Decommissioning Trust, I think you've recorded through the first half about $11.7 million contribution. How much of that is sort of just the earnings power on the portfolio and how much of that I guess Chuck, you referred to some accounting adjustment in terms of changing portfolio manager? How much of that is sort of just not non-sort of nonrecurring?

Well, as you mentioned it is probably about $0.04, as I said, for this last quarter and we had some for the first quarter as well. So, it is essentially non-reocurring. We don't budget for that. We don't expect that to occur. It is just how the portfolio is managed and the way the accounting treatment requires for realized gains to go through the income statement. So it just, as it turns out this year, there were some changes in the portfolio manager, and certainly the market, during the first six months, reflected some rebalancing of the trust fund, and it is reflected in the earnings. But it is not an ongoing and not something that we typically reflect. And as Pat pointed out, there were many years that we took losses in the account as well. So it is just the way that the income and the accounting treatment is handled.

And then with respect to guidance, based on your comment earlier, that you were also looking to see what potential cost reduction was possible in your future budget. Should we assume that the guidance would not come shortly after the issuance of a final rate order? Would this be more likely in conjunction with the third quarter conference call, end of year, beginning of next year?

Yes Paul, you're talking about 2012 guidance?

Yes.

We typically don't give our 2012 guidance until the February time period. So if we have anything before then, or if we change our guidance schedule, we would do that at the end of the year, but typically we would give that in February.

Okay. And the last question I have is when I think about -- when I think about the rate order, is there any impact in terms of plant in-service that might be used to calculate federal tax benefits under some of the tax legislation that was adopted last year?

No, not that I'm aware of. We will just follow-up and be sure but I'm not aware of anything in particular.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next question comes from [Matt Ballen] from Talon Capital.

Just wondering on the San Juan Bart update and that capital that may be spent, what is the timing on that capital? And what have you included in your current CapEx plan?

Hi, Matt. Two things. We should know today. Today is the day, the deadline for the Environmental Protection Agency to issue its FIP, so we will know today. Right now we do not have anything included that is in that capital forecast in the appendix because we just don't know what the EPA will end up doing. If they give us a FIP that requires a selective catalytic reduction, which is the more expensive capital, we believe, as opposed to the three years in the original filing, it could be up to a five-year compliance period, so that capital would be spent over a five-year period. Obviously, the capital gets spent in the first part of that is less, because you're basically working on design and engineering. But that's one of the reasons why, when we look at the rate order, one of the things that is going to be important, is the environmental outpiece of it. And if you look at our balance sheet and our cap structure, we are very much able to borrow the money we're going to need to put in, whether it is FDRs or SNCRs. But as soon as we know from the EPA, we will issue a press release.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Our next question comes from Michael Bolte with Wells Fargo.

I also have a question on the order. If you ask for a rehearing on a specific aspect of the order, is the review specifically limited to changes to that item? For example, so if you go in and on one of the items that brought it down from $85 million to $72 million and win on that, can they then go back and try to change something else to basically net back down to $72 million?

It is a little bit of a gray area. Theoretically, if we would just go in perhaps for a rehearing on one, it should do that, but that does give somebody the opportunity to reopen Pandora's box. So that is part of the risk that we will look at.

Okay. Thank you.

Our next question comes from Chris Shelton with Millennium.

Just wanted to follow-up on a comment on just obviously the other signatories need to also sign-on to the revised order, was there anything from talking to them or anything that you would perceive that they would push back on, based on what we heard at the meeting last week?

I don't want to speak for them, but I will say that one of the -- I think the silver linings out of this is that our relationship with the staff and the Attorney General and NEMIAC and the other signatories is excellent. And it is as strong as I have seen it, which allowed us to get to that agreement that we thought was very fair and balanced. So they haven't seen an order, we haven't heard anything from them. They could come up with something, but that is -- it is an excellent working relationship the Company has with them.

Okay. So there will be obviously other -- well, you will be in discussions with them after the final order comes out, obviously.

Yes. Absolutely. And very quickly we expect to come to resolution.

Okay. And then as far as the stay-out period, what is your expectation on what that stay-out period will end up being?

What we believe, based on what we heard, was that the stay-out period would be moved until mid 2013.

Okay. So that would mean you could file a case in anticipation of rates going into effect mid '13?

Correct.

And that would be what we should anticipate you doing, I suppose? No reason to delay?

I wouldn't think there would be any reason to delay.

Okay. Great. Thanks a lot.

Thank you. And now I would like to turn it back over to the speakers for their final comment.

Well, again, thank you very much, everyone, for joining us this morning. We are watching the market, as I am sure you are all, and it remains volatile. As soon as we have the final order and have it evaluated, and talk with the signatories, we will get a release out to everyone with our decision, and the same on the EPA. We appreciate you joining us as we continue to focus on earning our allowed returns on our regulated businesses, and making sure that our competitive businesses maximize the value for shareholders. We will talk to you all next quarter if not before.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude your call for today. You may now all disconnect. Thank you very much. And have a wonderful day.