Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Emera’s Q2 Analyst Conference Call. After the presentation, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Instructions will be provided at that time. Please note that this call is being recorded, today, August 10, 2018, at 9.00 AM Eastern Time. I would now like to turn the meeting over to your host for today’s call, Ken McOnie, Vice President, Investor Relations and Treasurer for Emera. Please go ahead, Mr. McOnie.

Thank you, Dan, and good morning everyone and thank you for joining us for Emera’s second quarter 2018 call and live webcast. Emera’s second quarter earnings release was distributed yesterday after market closed via newswire and the financial statements, management’s discussion and analysis and the presentation being referenced on this call will be available on our Web site at emera.com. Speaking on the call today is Scott Balfour, Emera’s President and Chief Executive Officer; and Greg Blunden, Chief Financial Officer. Scott, Greg and other members of Emera’s management team will respond to your questions following their prepared remarks. This morning, Scott will begin with an update on the business and our strategic initiatives and Greg will follow with an overview of the financial results. We expect the prepared remarks to last about 15 minutes, after which we will be happy to take questions from analysts. I will take this moment to advise you that this conference call will contain forward-looking information and statements with respect to Emera. Forward-looking statements involve significant risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Certain material factors or assumptions have been applied in drawing the conclusions contained in the forward-looking statements. Generally, these factors or assumptions are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties surrounding future expectations. Such risk factors or assumptions include, but are not limited to, regulation, operations and maintenance, energy prices, general economic conditions, weather, derivatives and hedging, capital resources, loss of service area, licenses and permits, environment, insurance, labor relations, human resources and liquidity risk. A number of factors could cause actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from the results discussed or implied in the forward-looking statements. And now, I will turn things over to Scott.

Thank you, Ken, and good morning, everyone. Before we dive into the quarter, I’d like to take a moment to welcome Jim Bertram and Jochen Tilk to Emera’s Board of Directors. Jim and Jochen are both accomplished executives with extensive experience leading in building Canadian publicly traded companies. I have no doubt that their business, board and public market depth combined with respective backgrounds in the energy and natural resource sectors will make them invaluable to our Board. Yesterday evening, Emera reported second quarter 2018 adjusted net income of $111 million or $0.48 per share compared to $117 million or $0.55 per share in 2017. Results for the quarter were slightly below our expectations and reflect the challenges of less favorable weather in key service territories, timing differences in our Nova Scotia and Maine utilities and a stronger Canadian dollar. However, for the year-to-date 2018, I’m pleased to report that Emera has delivered adjusted net income of $313 million or $1.35 per share and operating cash flow before changes in net working capital of $767 million. This represents a 6% increase in our adjusted EPS and a 9% increase in our cash flow year-over-year. I will also point out that the year-to-date results continued to track in line with our expectations of delivering adjusted EPS and cash flow growth in the range of 10% or higher for the full year. We’ve had a busy and productive first half of 2018. In addition to delivering strong year-to-date financial results, the team has made good progress on a number of key initiatives. In May, we announced that we would be proceeding with the opportunity to modernize our Big Bend Power Station in Florida. The modernization will include repowering Unit 1 and retiring Unit 2 early. Unit 1 will be repowered with two…

Thank you, Scott, and thank you all for joining us this morning. We released our earnings and filed our quarterly financial statements and MD&A for the second quarter of 2018 yesterday afternoon after market closed. In Q2 2018, Emera reported adjusted net income, which excludes mark-to-market adjustments, of $111 million and adjusted earnings per share of $0.48 compared with adjusted net income of $117 million and $0.55 per share in Q2 2017. Our June year-to-date adjusted net income was $313 million or $1.35 per share compared to $269 million or $1.27 per share for the same period in 2017. As Scott mentioned, while the results of the quarter were slightly below our expectations, we are pleased with the growth in our year-to-date results and are confident that we’ll deliver adjusted earnings per share growth of at least 10% for the year. We also reported an increase in our year-to-date operating cash flow before changes in net working capital of $64 million or 9% to $767 million. Operating cash flow is a key metric for our business because it a basis upon which our credit metrics are calculated. The increase was in line with our forecast and we expect that our annual operating cash flow growth will approximate earnings growth for 2018. And now the details for the quarter. Emera Energy experienced a typical shoulder season and performed as expected in the quarter. Margins in the marketing and trading business were flat to 2017 while the generation business realized higher capacity revenues in the quarter. Energy margins also improved over Q2 2017 reflecting the impact of the unplanned outage at Bridgeport Energy from mid-March 2017 to mid-June 2017. Florida and New Mexico experienced less favorable weather conditions in their service territory during the quarter. Compared to 2017, spring conditions in Tampa…

Thank you, Greg. This concludes the presentation. We would now like to open up the call to take questions.

Ladies and gentlemen, we will now conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions]. Your first question comes from the line of Robert Hope with Scotiabank. Please go ahead.

Yes. Good morning, everyone.

Good morning, Robert.

Just want to maybe touch on the cash flow guidance that Greg mentioned. The 10% year-over-year in CFO growth, that’s what we’ve seen in H1 versus H1. But if I recall on the Q1 call, which was a 28%-ish year-over-year growth in CFO, you thought that that higher cash flow growth could have been sustained. Just want to know if there’s been any moving parts there.

No, nothing of any material. We obviously had some smaller things both on the upside and on the downside, Robert. But directionally we would expect it to be kind of in line with earnings, meaning greater than 10% and probably somewhere in the 10% to 20% range on an annualized basis.

All right, that’s helpful. And then just – I realize that annual strategy sessions are ongoing, but when you do look at the revised dividend growth outlook as well as your large capital plan, can you provide some additional color on how you’re looking at the funding for 2018 as well as beyond?

Yes, Robert, I think the way we’ve always looked at it is through a traditional lens is work our way up the capital structure starting with maximizing our operating cash flow in our businesses which we’re very focused on. Obviously, the change in the dividend growth target allows us to retain more of that for our business as I’ve indicated, and we’ve done some financing at Tampa Electric already, the regular utilities where those investments will be made. We’ll have some OpCo debt issued. We’ve done 300 million of preferred equity. We still have room in our capital structure to do some additional preferred equity if necessary, but as far as we are for 2018 we don’t have any additional common equity requirements.

All right, I appreciate the color. Thank you.

Thanks.

Your next question comes from the line of Robert Kwan with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Good morning. There was a statement earlier of greater than 8% EPS growth out through 2020 and previously there was a discussion of 10% annual average EPS growth. I was just wondering, has there been a change? I recognize those two statement still could be roughly the same. But how are you looking at that EPS growth out through the end of the decade?

Yes, Robert, our view on earnings growth have not changed. I think really what we’re profiling here as it relates to the change in the dividend growth guidance is largely a capital allocation decision. And if you sort of look whether it’s over the last five-year period or over the last 10-year period, we’ve had and delivered strong earnings growth over that period. But our dividend growth has outpaced that. And so we’re looking to make sure that we drive a dividend return profile that’s still attractive to shareholders and still look for increases in that dividend on an annual basis, but looking to ensure that our earnings growth exceeds it. That is certainly our view. Our view of forward-looking earnings is not different than what it was or frankly what it has been. So no real change in our view around earnings. Really, all we’re doing is making sure that that dividend growth rate profile is sustainable and increasingly using that cash flow from operations to redeploy into the capital investment opportunities that we’ve gotten inside the business that frankly we think is the right thing to be doing for shareholders.

Got it. And as we think about dividend policy in general, you produced the growth rate but you’re – you reiterated your long-term 70% to 75% payout target while also making a statement that you expect to be above that range through the guidance period. How does – I guess at what point do you see yourself coming back into the range? And if you think about where you were, the fact that you’ve reduced your dividend growth was it completely unachievable to come back into the range prior to reducing the dividend growth rate?

Yes, so I don’t really want to get boxed in, Robert, to saying a timeline as to when or date as to when we’d get the payout ratio back towards our target. Certainly I’d say we remain comfortable that that is the right target and in the meantime we’re not uncomfortable with it being higher than that given the quality of earnings and cash flow profile that we’ve got within the business and recognizing the highly regulated nature of it well in excess of 90% regulated now, more like 95. So I think – as I say, if you look over the last 5 or 10 years, earnings per share over the last 5 or 10 years has kind of grown in the range of 6% a year, meanwhile our dividends have grown in the range of 10% a year. That’s obviously not a sustainable forever path and all we’re looking to do is to make sure as we continue to see a profile in front of us that has robust earnings growth driven by all the things that Greg and I spoke about, that are tangible and here and live now as we’re actively making those investments that we know drives strong growth in earnings, that we make sure that we have a dividend growth profile that is sustainable but also allows us to retain more funding flexibility within the cash generation that the business has in directing an increasing amount of that cash into that growth investment profile. And as we work our way through that, that dividend payout ratio of course is earnings growth is higher than that dividend growth profile that the payout ratio will over time come down.

Got it. And if I can maybe just finish on overall capital allocation. I think that the dividend growth target that you’ve got now makes a lot of sense. But when you look at your overall funding strategy and kind of having historically been regularly out for common equity and the amount of savings, notwithstanding it will compound over time, it’s relatively small compared to the amount of equity you’ve raised. So are there other actions that you are considering to help funding over and above just the reduction of the dividend growth rate? I guess specifically I’m looking at asset sales.

Yes, I understand. I might say it this way, Robert, that we recognize that our cost of equity today is relatively high as to where it’s been and so – and always part of our strategic planning exercises that we do on an ongoing basis that Greg also referred to. We’ve looked at and continued to look at all options as it relates to how to best allocate capital and finance that attractive capital profile that we have in front of us. And we’ve got a plan we’re looking to minimize to the greatest degree that we can the need for raising equity at this pricing level. And we’ve got a plan and we’re working that plan.

Okay. And just to be clear, were asset monetizations discussed at the same time as reducing the dividend growth rate, i.e. have we kind of just pasted that as part of at least this year’s strategic planning process or is that still on the table?

Yes, I think when we talked about and look at strategy, we think about everything and all those things are in the mix. And so all those things we work through and try to make the best capital allocation decisions that we can. And we’re comfortable that we’ve got a plan that addresses appropriately those needs over time. And when we have something more to share and talk about, we’ll do that.

Great. Thank you.

Thanks, Robert.

Your next question comes from the line of Ben Pham with BMO. Please go ahead.

Okay. Thanks. Good morning. I’m just wondering where debt repayment – does that play a role in your overall incremental cash savings to the dividend change?

No, Ben. It’s Greg. If you look at the majority profile that we have on our longer term debt, we like many of our peers have taken advantage of the yield curve over the last decade or so and gone maybe a little bit longer than normal. So we don’t really have anything material maturing either at the OpCo or at the whole co over the next three of four years. So that really didn’t come into play with any of the decisions that we’ve made to-date.

Okay. And then maybe going back to some of the disclosures, you had a couple of different data points that provide a particular impression where EPS could go and you said you can price to 8% plus EPS, dividend 4% to 5% but then the target payout is still going to be above that 70% or 75% range. But if you just simply take an EPS CAGR of 8%, it seems like your payout will get down to 70% to 75% in 2021, or is there something else that’s playing a role there, capacity payments that maybe is a little bit of volatility that you’re trying to reconcile there?

So let me try. I’m not sure I completely get where you’re going, Ben. But I don’t think we’ve said that our earnings growth target is 8%. We have talked about our 8% dividend growth target, of course. We have generally tried to stay away frankly from EPS growth guidance although obviously we’ve given a sense directionally as to where we see things now with the reference in my remarks to 2018’s expected growth of something in the range of 10% or higher. And that our longer term view of EPS growth over the guidance period, i.e. through 2021 is expected to exceed on average the dividend growth profile which is really the fundamental message that we’re trying to convey that our earnings growth profile is un-impacted. It remains robust or it remains consistent with levels we’ve achieved in the past. And all we’re really trying to do is set the dividend rate at a level that we think is sustainable and allowing us to, as I say, to take some increased funding flexibility into our financing plans.

Okay. Maybe can I ask you maybe another way? Is rate-based growth a good indicator of EPS growth?

Yes, Ben, it’s Greg. I think directionally. Obviously not all rate-based growth is the same. So obviously if you’re investing in certain utilities that have higher equity thicknesses and higher allowed ROEs, that would have a bit more of a – than overall impact on EPS growth than some other things. But I’d say directionally, you’d be right just recognizing that some is probably a little bit more helpful than others.

Yes, I think just to pile on to Greg’s point, I think if you look at the rate-based growth profile that is a part of the materials for this call, the component part of that that is in Florida where we’re seeing more growth and where relative to some markets, the allowed ROE ranges are a little bit higher and the equity thicknesses are a little bit stronger. The rate-based growth profile that we have that shows it on average, it is weighted towards those Florida utilities. Those Florida utilities are growing at a rate through that period that is an excess of that consolidated rate. So to Greg’s point, yes, it’s a helpful proxy but in this case I think you’re seeing some of the growth coming from some of our stronger performing operations.

Okay, all right. That’s very helpful. Thanks, everybody.

Thanks, Ben.

Your next question comes from the line of Linda Ezergailis with TD. Please go ahead.

Thank you. I realize there’s a lot of strategic iterations that are going on and it can be somewhat dynamic, but maybe you can help us understand where you’re at in your discussions with the debt rating agencies? And beyond capital structure, what sort of credit metrics kind of informed your views on optimizing your financing plans?

Hi, Linda, it’s Greg. We have regular dialogues with both the credit rating agencies. Obviously they’re insiders. They have full visibility on our plans. I’d say every step that we’ve taken to date is consistent with representations that we would have made to them last year when they did their annual reporting, including the equity issue last December, the preferred share issuance that we did in May. And so we’re continually evaluating our capital plans, making improvements on our operating cash flow and our FFO as an extension of that. And again, continually believe that we’re on track to maintain our investment grade credit ratings.

Thank you. And maybe also from an operational perspective, are there any changes that you’re considering with new leadership in terms of operationally how that might augment your rate base growth from a cost savings perspective or anything else that might be shifting?

No. Linda, I’m really comfortable certainly with the leadership team that we have in place. Obviously, there were some changes made over the last 12 months in some jurisdictions but I have every confidence in each of the leaders of the businesses that we’ve got. Of course, driving efficiency of cost and process is a core element of everything that we all do both at the corporate and the operational level as we – but that’s sort of a core part of the D&A here and something that is in focus for Greg and each of the business leaders and I have every confidence that all of those things are being done and tackled appropriately. But no, there’s no big changes or anything like that contemplated.

Okay. Thank you. And maybe if you can help us understand some of the – you’ve been very helpful in helping us understand the timing effects that we’ve seen in the quarter on earnings, but maybe if you could help us understand if weather was normalized for the first half of the year, what Florida and New Mexico earnings might have been to give us a sense of what sort of a base we should grow off of for next year?

Linda, I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me. But interestingly enough, if you think of what we experienced in Tampa Electric, I’d say over probably the first six months of the year it’s probably been relatively consistent from a weather perspective versus what we have seen over the last few years. What we’ve seen is it was a little bit colder than normal early in the winter in Tampa which helped both – not just Tampa Electric but also Peoples Gas. Then they did have some heating load or cooling load I guess to deal with late Q1 warmer weather. And then that kind of offset itself in Q2 with the cooler and milder weather. So what’s interesting is it’s kind of balanced out so far on the six-month basis. So I can’t say on a year-to-date basis there’s been anything material, although there’s been some ups and downs by month and obviously by quarter.

That’s helpful context. Thank you. I’ll jump back in the queue.

Thanks, Linda.

Your next question comes from the line of Andrew Kuske with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning. I think the first question is for Scott, and you mentioned something in the prepared remarks about 2.5 billion of accretive rate base opportunities with TECO since the acquisition. If you could maybe just give us a better context of how much did you contemplate at the time you did the TECO deal of the growth that you’ve actually seen thus far?

Yes, in terms of numbers I don’t know whether Greg has that handy, I don’t. What I can tell you is projects like the 600 megawatts of solar was not contemplated at the time of the acquisition. That is incremental that arose out of strategic planning work that was done during the – between the announcement and the close period thereafter. I know that sort of thinking around the Big Bend plant had been in the works but the ultimate project that we announced earlier this year was – there wasn’t full color around that and the scale of that would have been unclear at the time of the acquisition. So a component of that would be incremental as well.

Andrew, just to maybe provide a little bit more color about it. When we think about the '18, '19 and '20 period, when we originally acquired TECO we were expecting to spend in Canadian dollars a little bit north of CA$2 billion over that period. That number has effectively doubled because of the solar investment and the Big Bend modernization. So just to give you a rough number, so it’s gone from about $2 billion over that three-year period to about $4 billion.

That’s very helpful. And then maybe just an extension of that, so when we think holistically about just the dividend what you’ve done from a guidance standpoint and really the future of earnings, you’re going to be earning – effectively putting more capital to work at a greater a equity sickness of higher earnings, utility is also with U.S. dollars than you would have been doing previously.

That’s correct.

Okay, thank you. And then maybe if I just finish upon one thing on the advanced metering at NSPI and then there’s some commentary about best practices across the whole portfolio. Beyond just the capital that you’re deploying, what other benefits do you see the portfolio of utilities getting from the AMI initiatives?

Obviously AMI whether it’s second generation or third generation does provide much more efficiency as it relates to the process of meeting readers. And so that’s a first and obvious impact. But as we get into this, it’s really a digitization of what has been to this point a non-digital process. The third generation meter has computing power that is unlike previous generations. It will now allow things like remote connects and disconnects of electricity. That creates a lot of operating efficiencies for the utility that right now that obviously is a much more manual labor intensive process. So it gives much more and better data for the utility to share with its customers and so customers will have a better access to their energy usage and how that applies. So those would be some of the benefits.

So then ultimately you should land in the spot where you have lower OM&A associated with a lot of those activities and therefore greater efficiencies?

That’s exactly right.

That’s correct.

Okay, that’s very helpful. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Robert Catellier with CIBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good morning, everybody. I just wanted to clarify some of the numbers I think I heard on the call here. It sounds like you’re shying away from providing formal EPS guidance. The 8% CAGR you’re talking about, is that from the adjusted EPS number of $2.46 in 2017 through 2021?

So, Robert, it’s Greg. What we’ve said is that we expect our earnings growth over the guidance period to exceed our new dividend growth guidance. And we also expect earnings growth in the current year to be kind of in the 10% plus range in 2018 versus 2017. But in both cases, you’re correct. That would be versus the $2.46 in 2017.

And maybe what’s created the confusion, Robert, is the other reference was that we would still expect to meet the 8% dividend growth CAGR from when we put that 8% target in place even with this new dividend growth profile.

Right. So the question is what is the base that 8% is based off? I think that’s 2016 number.

So that 8% was a dividend number and so that would be based on when we first provided the 8% dividend growth guidance in 2015.

So the 8% effectively is not an EPS CAGR.

Correct.

So I just wanted to clarify that. And then just looking at the comments, I think I heard on FFO or cash flow relative to your debt and the target – I think it’s a 12% target you have. Have you socialized the expected cash flow growth with the – and where you’ll end up as a ratio with the rating agencies? And where are you able to see sort of managing the outlook on the credit rating?

Robert, it’s Greg. We have regular dialogue with the rating agencies on all of our plans in terms of both forward-looking as well as year-to-date results. And again, we are confident and I believe they are equally confident that we will achieve the targets that we’ve set for ourselves both in '18 and '19.

Yes, I guess where I’m struggling is getting to the 12% in 2018 with the FFO number that I think you said this year, 10% to 20% in cash flow.

Yes, Robert, so we’re working through that. We’re making sure we maximize as much of our operating cash flow as we can as we have indicated earlier. We’ve done a prep share issuance. We have room in our capital structure if necessary to do an additional prep share. So we’re making measurable progress towards that 12% goal.

Okay. And then just two other quick questions here. I think I noticed in the MD&A slight wording change on the timing of cash from LIL cash earnings due 2020 from late 2020. Has there been an appreciable change with respect to cash earnings there?

No.

No.

Okay. Then a similar question on the U.S. tax reform, there’s obviously wording in there still under analysis which is understandable given the nature of the beast, but is there anything that’s changed specifically related to your expectations on interest deductibility or the valuation of alternative minimum tax credits?

Yes, Robert, it’s Greg. No. Certainly the feedback we’re getting mostly through the efforts of Edison Electric Institute are that the interest deductibility and the methodology that will be employed is consistent with or maybe even slightly better than what most of us would have initially thought. So we’re not seeing any impediments to continue to deduct whole co interest as it relates to utility operations. So that’s a positive. Other than the one bulletin that the IRS came out with, there has been nothing else on the sequestration of the alternative minimal tax but we’re continually watching that and recognizing that – and that will be single digits of millions of dollars in cash flow if that was to play out. But there’s been nothing to update on that. And from an operating business perspective, obviously we made the reference to Emera Maine but again just to quantify we’re talking $1 million or $2 million on our overall cash flow, so nothing overly material that would impact ratings.

Okay, fantastic. Thanks.

Thanks, Robert.

Your next question comes from the line of Christopher Turnure with JPMorgan. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Scott and Greg. It looks like your disclosure today says that you’re bringing down the dividend growth rates in part to save cash flow, but you also mentioned that the payout ratio is going to remain above the range during the period. I’m wondering if that is your goal, why not bring the dividend growth down lower than you did today?

I think, Chris, as I stated in my remarks, it’s really about for us finding the right balance between making sure that we’ve got the dividend at a sustainable level and maintaining a growth profile that we think provides an appropriate and attractive value proposition for shareholders. As I mentioned we’re not uncomfortable with the fact that the existing payout ratio is higher than that target on a temporary basis recognizing the quality of the earnings stream and the predictability of that earnings stream and cash flow profile that is in front of us. And so really it’s just a goal to reduce that over time. And we didn’t see a need and didn’t see it as necessary to look to reduce the dividend growth profile. We’re comfortable with the target that we’ve set.

And is that in part informed by your post-2020 view being perhaps better on the EPS flipside than through 2020?

I’d say we’re trying to extend the guidance period beyond what we have stated it to the guidance period. But I think that we’re comfortable that that dividend growth profile allows us to reduce the payout ratio over time with an earnings growth profile that exceeds that dividend growth target.

Chris, it’s Greg. It’s important to remember to is that there is a number of other factors that are not necessarily reflective of the other underlying business that impact the EPS and by default dividend payout ratio in any given year. U.S. tax reform would have been one but foreign exchange is another and we alluded to it earlier in my comments about the impact of FX in the quarter and obviously the Canadian dollar has been stronger. That has an impact on earnings EPS and dividend payout ratio. And so it’s important for us to make sure that we have a dividend growth that’s reflective of the underlying business and discuss – point the fact that we maybe above our dividend payout ratio for other factors that are not necessarily tied directly to the underlying business doesn’t make us uncomfortable at all.

Okay. And then just modeling questions. I guess your 10% EPS growth this year and then your message is something above the dividend growth rate for next year. What is your EPS – pardon me, your rate-based CAGR these years or over the longer-term period? And is there anything in your 2018 plan that wouldn’t necessarily repeat in 2019?

No. Chris, we don’t provide annual EPS targets or growth guidance. We’re expecting about 6.5% growth in our rate base from the end of '17 through to 2020. There are some things in '18 that won’t necessarily be replicated in 2019 from a rate base investment perspective. So obviously some of the solar that we’re spending now wouldn’t necessarily be replicated, but we also have – starting up spending on the Big Bend modernization program at Tampa. So when you look at that in totality, we’re actually seeing an uptick in rate base investment in Florida. But other than that, I can’t think of anything material in any of our businesses where there’s an unusual investment in '18 that wouldn’t kind of be maintained going through the balance of the year.

But to Greg’s point, we are careful trying to say, look it’s – we expect the earnings growth profile to exceed that dividend growth target on average over the period. There can be impacts in any one year, timing of CapEx, those kinds of things that can impact that. So don’t want to think that it’s a year-by-year number. We think about it on average.

Okay, that’s helpful. And in terms of the repeating in 2019, I was referring more towards your net income or your EPS, anything in there that would not repeat next year?

No, I don’t think so. Obviously we’re having very strong performance of our Energy business this year in large part from the increased capacity payments which took another step up in June 1st of this year. So we’d expect it to be pretty consistent across that. I think as we look across our businesses, there’s nothing really unusually positive this year that we wouldn’t anticipate continuing.

Got it. Thank you very much.

Your next question comes from the line of Jeremy Rosenfield with Industrial Alliance. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Good morning. Can I just turn to the capital investment forecast for a second and I appreciate that you’re probably going to have an update at some point in this fall but previously I think you’ve elaborated on about 2.1 billion of capital investment in each of 2019 and 2020. And I’m just curious if you can provide some details on how much might be associated with AFUDC, so potentially not cash, capital investment particularly at TECO I’m thinking if there’s anything there?

Yes, Jeremy, when we generally quote capital investments, we do it on a pre-AFUDC level, so it should be the actual through the – obviously the rate base investments, depending on the nature of the investment would be slightly higher when you include AFUDC.

Okay, that’s good. And then just on the NSPI advanced metering investment, I’m assuming that that’s not or that was not in the previous 2.1 billion number just to be clear.

Not that exact amount and not exact timeframe. We did know that over the planning period that there would be some investments in AMI. We probably had a little bit – a significantly smaller amount a little bit earlier. And now that we’re not doing the pilot project and going to the full implementation, we see $133 million being spent predominately I guess in 2019 and 2020.

Okay. And then just in terms of the strategic planning and thinking of all options that are on the table and we’ve discussed asset sales and other things, but just a question on in terms of delaying future investments or trying to play with the timing of capital deployment opportunities. Is that something that you have some flexibility on as you go through the planning process?

Yes, we always have some flexibility on the timing to capital in some places if you’re making rate base investments and very strong regulatory regimes, it’s hard to see a compelling story why putting your foot on the brake would be helpful from that perspective. But there’s some things that naturally move between years. We just talked about AMI and probably a little bit larger spend, but probably in a different profile than we initially thought. As we look at some of our other markets whether it’s the Caribbean or Maine and given where we’re at in various regulatory hearings, we always have the flexibility to move some capital around. Although I’d say it’s probably the capital that we’d be thinking of moving around is relatively small to the overall capital program. The majority of our capital program is rate base investments in very strong regulatory environments with returns that we like.

And compelling customer benefits.

Yes.

Okay, that’s very helpful. Thank you.

Thanks, Jeremy.

And I am showing no further questions in the telephone queue at this time.

Okay. So with that, thank you all for participating in the call and the robust set of questions. We look forward to talking with you again after our third quarter results in the fall.