Thank you very much. Good afternoon and thank you for joining us. I am Jeff Kotkin, NU's Vice President for Investor Relations. Speaking today will be Chuck Shivery NU's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; David McHale, NU's Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Lee Olivier, NU, Executive Vice President, who oversees our regulated businesses. Also in the room today is Shirley Payne, our Vice President and Controller, Jim Muntz, Head of our Transmission Segment and Jim Robb, Senior Vice President for Enterprise Planning. Before we begin I would like to remind you that some of the statements made during this conference call may be forward-looking as defined within the meaning of Safe Harbor Provision of the US Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, which may cause the actual results to differ materially from forecast and projections. Some of these factors are set forth in the press release issued today announcing our earnings for the first quarter of 2008. Additional information about the various factors that may cause actual results to differ can be found in our Annual Report on the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007. Now I will turn over the call to Chuck.

Thank you, Jeff and good afternoon. I know this week including today has been extremely busy for all of you as companies try to report their results in advance of the AGA conference. So we appreciate that you are joining us this late in the afternoon. The past six weeks have been a busy time for us. On March 24th the FERC issues an order on rehearing concerning the New England transmission owners return on equity. A week later we filed a formal request with ISO-New England to study the benefits of a new north-south transmission interconnections within New England and a new high voltage overhead DC link to Hydro-Quebec. First quarter of 2008 was a good quarter for NU. Today we released operating results that are consistent with our earnings guidance for the year, as well as with street consensus. Also we have continued to make very significant progress on completing our transmission upgrades in southwest Connecticut. By early next year we expect to report to you that in aggregate our $1.68 billion transmission upgrades in that congested part of New England have been completed on or below budget and that they were finished well ahead of the schedule we set out for you back in 2005. Lee and David will provide you with more detail on our operations and on the quarter. Well I want to take a few moments to discuss a very important focus for us right now. That is our work to provide the states we serve and the greater New England region with a portfolio of solutions to address energy issues. Increasingly this work focuses not only on meeting environmental targets such as greenhouse gas reduction and renewable portfolio targets, but doing so in a way that will benefit our customers who are already suffering from among the highest energy cost in the country. As we examine these issues and the potential for additional renewable and non-carbon emitting generation in our part of North America, we are struck by three realities. One, New England is already extremely dependent on natural gas fired units and that dependence is likely to increase, not decrease over the next few years. Two, Southern New England in particular does not have the in-state resources to meet the renewable portfolio and low carbon emitting standards that it set out for itself. And three, Maine and New Hampshire offer significant untapped potential in the area of wind and biomass generation. Additionally there is vast potential in Canada that generate electricity without emitting carbon and a great willingness to sell it to New England. Given these realities, we think there is a fundamental logic to tapping into the renewable resource potential of New Hampshire and Maine, as well as dramatically increasing hydro, wind and perhaps even nuclear power imports into New England over the next decade or two. We would expect this approach to lower the import of carbon based fuel into the region… [Technical Difficulty]

Thank you very much Christine. We're sorry, we lost our feed to Verizon [ph] so we are back in right now and I am going to reintroduce Chuck Shivery and Chuck is going to pick up from where we think we lost the feed about five minutes ago.

Thanks Jeff, I think where we ended up is we were talking about lot of the work that we have done to help improve the regions energy issues and I think the last comment, this is where I'm going to start is we were talking about, as we look at those issues and the potentially for new additional renewable non-carbon emitting generation. We're struck by three realities. The first one is, that New England is already extremely dependent on natural gas fired units and so that dependence is likely to increase not decrease over the next few years. The second reality is that Southern New England in particular, does not have the instate resources to meet the renewable portfolio and low carbon emitting standards it has set up for itself. And third Maine and New Hampshire offers significant untapped potential in the area of wind and biomass generation. Additionally there is a vast potential in Canada to generate electricity without emitting carbon and a great willingness to sell it to New England. Given these realties we think there is a fundamental logic to tapping into the renewable resource potential of New Hampshire and Maine, as well as dramatically increasing hydro wind and perhaps even nuclear power imports into New England over the next decade or two. We would expect this approach to lower the import of carbon based fuel into the region and potentially add more stability to the regions electricity cost. Thus since last summer we have been active in advancing the discussion about possible approaches that would best serve our customers and our shareholders. We are willing to commit significant capital to help the region meet its energy goals. We hope to connect renewable generation to markets through the construction of new transmission facilities and our willing to…

Thank you Chuck and everyone on the call for joining us here this afternoon. Before reviewing our operations in the first quarter, I want to follow up in some of the points that Chuck has just mentioned. Our future success in developing transmission related solutions to New England's Energy challenges will greatly be influenced for our track record in developing and completing today's major projects. With that in mind, let's turn to what we have accomplished on our four major projects. The first of which Bethel-to-Norwalk has operated extremely well, since entering into service more than 18 months ago, reducing the cost of congestion in Connecticut over a $150 million during the first 12 months of operation. To-date we have spent about $1.25 billion on those four projects. The replacement undersea cable between Norwalk-Connecticut and North Portland Island was laid in the first of this year. Final connections with substations are complete in Connecticut and New York. Burial of the cable in shallow waters on the New York side of the Long Island Town is ongoing. The project is on time on budget and could be in service as early as June to help meet the summer's peak demand. Our $223 million Glenbrook cables project is about 79% complete. This 100% underground project will allow us to increase reliability and power flows deep into lower Fairfield County and despite some very challenging soil and rock conditions and a large amount of existing infrastructure it is on schedule to be in service by the end of this year. Our Middletown-to-Norwalk project continues to run ahead of our schedule. It is now about 79% complete and based on the current case of construction. We expect it to be in service in early 2009. For every month we can finish the project before…

Thank you, Lee. As Chuck mentioned NU's financial performance was strong in the first quarter of 2008, after the Con-Ed litigation settlement earned $88.2 million or $0.57 a share in the first quarter. Compared with earnings of $75.1 million or $0.49 a share in the first quarter of last year amounted to a 16% year-over-year increase in earnings per share. This improvement was driven by our regulated transmission and distribution segment, where earnings totaled $86.3 million in the first quarter of this year. Up nearly 35% from the $64.1 million, we earned in those segments in the first quarter of last year. The most significant increase was in our transmission business, where our earnings totaled $32.5 million in the first quarter of '08, more than double what we earned in the first quarter of last year. This increase was due primarily to the approximately $800 million we have invested in the transmission projects during the 12 months ended March 31st, 2008. That investment significantly increased our rate base to $1.57 billion at March 31st, '08, excluding of our $810 million of construction work-in-progress that has not yet in service. This amount in rate base is about 50% higher than the $1.08 billion transmission rate base at March 31st, 2007. In addition, to a higher rate base our transmission segment benefited from higher AFUDC earnings of $4.4 million on the projects that will not into rate base until the new lines are in service, including that 50% of our Southwest Connecticut project. The transmission segment also benefited from our FERC order on rehearing concerning the return on equities allowed by the two New England transmission owners. On March 24 FERC amended its October 31st, 2006 order by recognizing a calculation error and adding 20 basis point to the base ROE for…

And, I will turn the call back to Christine, Christine if you could give everybody instructions on how to enter questions. Question And Answer

Thank you, sir. [Operator Instructions]

We have question from Maury May from Power Insights. Maurice?

Yes, good afternoon folks, and congratulations on a solid quarter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My question has to do with the updated projected cost for the news projects. It's my understanding that there is a conference sponsor by ISO New England on May 19th, and that they are going to discuss the cost for the news projects. Should we get the cost from you shortly after this seminar?

Yeah, hi Maury, this is Lee. We as I've discussed we are working with ISO on this final design and should we conclude the final design for the Greater Springfield area, then we would be able to provide the updates for news, and I won't say the final updates because as you know as you go through the siting process that could change, but we would provide the next round of cost updates and those are consistent with what we have just said, at least $1.4 billion and likely to slightly increase. So, if we make enough progress, we'll have that ready by May 19th or slightly before.

Okay and the $1.4 billion that includes the Springfield project? Right?

That's correct. That will include what we have talked about is the Springfield underground cables as well.

Okay. And the Springfield underground cables are $350 million. Is that correct and that number is not expected to change, is it?

Well the project as we've described it before was $350 million. We could end up with a design that includes much of the aspects of what we have known as Springfield underground cables inside of the Greater Springfield design, so that design could look very, very different to the point where we solve it through upgrades of the 345 K/V and other upgrades on 115 KV systems.

Okay. Now, I don't want to sound stupid here, but just to go over one more thing, the Springfield underground is 350 which is part of that 1.4.

That was part of that $1.4 billion.

And, I thought the 350 was a fairly hard number but you're saying that there may be, the design changes that could actually increase that.

Yeah, I think what I'm saying is that if you take that project, if you solve the project through a bigger design of the Greater Springfield, the only project for 345 K/V and 115 KV. Then what we have known as the cables could be part of that design. It would still be in total more than the $1.4 billion, but the design solution would be a different design solution then we described before.

Okay good. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Maurice. Our next question is from Ted Durbin from Goldman Sachs. Ted?

Yeah, hi. I have a question for you about, when you would actually complete the Middletown and Norwalk projects specifically but the other ones as well? How bigger of an impact would that make if you were to complete those before the end of this year versus early next year in terms of returns?

Well, I'll just go over the capital and Dave can talk a little about the earnings impact on that but as we've said, for every month on average that we finish the project early, it takes about $4 million of cost of the project from AFUDC cost. So, realistically that could take $30 or $40 million of cost off that budget, it could, based upon the current pace that we are making with the project. Dave you may want talk about any earnings impact? Yeah, and as Chuck indicated the other two projects both the Glenbrook cables project which was scheduled to be done this year will be done this year, and we expect that to finish basically right around that cost of $223 million. And, the Long Island cable replacement project will finish for a cost of total of about $72 million for the NU portion of that project.

Then I would only add that there may be some modest upside overall on earnings, but because the acceleration of the project actually reduces the carrying cost of that. You've got a small amount of CapEx even though you are actually getting it completed in service earning some OAF you just see and alike so. There may be some positive benefit but in the fiscal year '08 not a tremendous amount.

Okay and I think I heard you say that, you would assume that you would receive that the 12.6% even if you were completed in early '09.

That is our view and if it was completed in 2009 our sense is that would require a separate dialogue and potentially an application with the FERC.

Yeah, and Ted I would say that, the way that project is working much of that project would be in service by the end of this year. You're probably talking $600 million to $650 million of that project will be in service. Part of that project, the first major segment, segment-1 is already in service, as well as one of the major switching station. So much of that can be put in service over the course of this year, which would leave approximately about $400 million to go into service in early 2009.

Okay, great and then probably next question is on the distribution side. Where are you in your thinking in terms of filing your next round of rate cases, given sort of where your ROE levels are? Given that it looks like sales growth has actually been pretty weak at least in the first quarter. Just may be you explain your thinking on that?

Yeah, let me first touch on that last point. Ted, I think it's instructed to know what we actually expected for sales growth and what was sort of driving guidance and alike. I say that the experience at... for western Massachusetts is not inconsistent with what we expect to going forward as we sort of developed our plans for the year down about a 1%, 1.5%. CL&P had more of a flat expectation probably where we see a little bit more erosion's at PSNH we expected sales to be up about 2%. So even at flat we're sort of running, running under there. On rate case strategy, I think it is safe to say that you'll not see this organization file rate cases at least that's our existing view in the year 2008, its likely that in 2009, we will begin a new cycle of distribution rate increases, which means generally we filed for rates that will be in service, very late in the year or more likely at the first of January 2010. And that's something that we continue to strategize, but I think it's safe to say that 2009 will be a year of filing as opposed to a year in which we actually get rate relief across all of our utilities.

Okay and then if I could just do one more. Where is the Connecticut staff coming up, right now in terms of the various peaker proposals. Have you had a sense from them in terms of which one they might be favoring or what they are looking for?

Those hearings are ongoing right now and I think it's too early to say what that outcome will be. The AG's comments and the OCC comments ranked us I think either number three or number four. Its part of the hearings that are ongoing right now, I think we have provided some additional information that perhaps would have the staff reconsider that. Part of the rankings where are the generators located for instance and giving additional credit for generators located in southwest Connecticut. The fact of the matter is when you finish the Middletown-to-Norwalk line it really doesn't matter where you put the generator. And if you look up, the fact that our proposal at least the one in Lebanon is solely fuel oil and when you look at the spreads between oil and gas they are closing and also I think they probably estimated too much time in terms of the plant actually being in operation. We think that plant will be used very sparingly and therefore what you want is the lower overall capital cost, which we think our proposal stacks up quite well. So we're looking for a decision on that around the middle of June timeframe from the DPUC.

Okay thanks very much.

All right

Thank you Ted. Our next question is from Jonathan Arnold of Merrill Lynch. Jonathan?

Hi good afternoon

Hi.

Just wanted to ask a question on the, well we missed some of the calls waiting in and out and then we had to jump off. I apologize if you, if you may have a very specific on this. That the timing of your update that you're planning to give on news, are you saying that there could be an adjustment to the numbers before you go ahead with siting and then it maybe further adjustments as you more through the siting process or you still, you intend to still to kind of do this in one go?

Yeah Jonathan, now this is Lee Olivier. Very similar to what we previously did with the South West Connecticut projects. You update... we will update, hopefully update the project on May 19th at the Planning and Advisory Committee leaving ISO-New England. I say hopefully we're working through some final details on what that final design would look like for ISO-England now. We'll update that project and what we will do is we'll update it for the current cost of materials, of labor. We will also put in that a, an inflator for the years of construction and then you should go through the siting process to the tune that changes are made on the project and you get the so called ISO-England technical approval the I39. Generally speaking from our past experience what happens is, as the cost of the project goes up as a result of those changes. Either cars buy more equipment that needs to be added based on ISO's review or the fact that you end up under grounding or taking some other mitigation action associated with the project. So, our experience has been, is to those projects increase and then as we go out for the competitive bids, we will provide another update at that point in time. So, if the prices of materials and labors goes up that will be reflected in the project.

Do you anticipate here despite the May 19th, meeting where you have communicate something with the street around the time of that or will people need to go? How will that?

That will be communicated through the 8K process.

Okay. And were they affiliated in a [ph] open meeting of the ISO effectively.

Well, we would actually in our likelihood Jonathan have the 8K out before the meeting.

I see

Because our presentation would be posted, I think its three days before, 72 hours before the actual meeting.

So, the meeting is on May 19

Yes

And we may learn it before that That's what you are saying?

That's correct.

Okay. And one other thing, I was, I don't know if you can talk about this at this point, but just generally speaking, I know you have been able to show with prior projects the impact on congestion is such that customer is actually at least neutral and potentially went from having the new investment in transmission? Is this project or the series of projects, something you expect to be out and to say same thing about the kind of cost numbers were likely to be looking at?

Yeah I do. I think, when we look at the congestion essentially to and from Connecticut, in other words versus Connecticut versus the rest of the region of the differential MNP prices, there is probably $150 million saving somewhere between $100 and $150 million of savings. That the project can eliminate in terms of congesting cost or MNP cost, differential MNP cost. The other aspect of this is, is that if you go back to Chuck's discussion on bringing renewable energy into the region, the only way you can get that renewable energy into Connecticut in the volume that you need to make a difference to meet things like registration RGGI and RPS is through the new transmission lines that we would built as part of the news project. So, from that standpoint it is absolutely needed both for reliability and to solve the whole host of other energy issues in the state.

With 100 to 150, to be, that's purely just congestion as opposed to these renewable benefits?

Now that - yeah that would not include any renewable benefits and that those numbers I'm using are pretty good estimates right now. And of course, as you know congestion can change in any given day as a result of various circumstances.

And those numbers, you've been part of your previous filings or that's more of kind of a up to date number?

I think in terms of the congestion, we haven't filed any numbers on congestion. Those are, that's kind of the behind envelope math that we've done on what we see in terms of the differential pricing both in Connecticut and the rest of the region.

Thank you very much

You are welcome.

Thank you Jonathan. Our next question from Neil Kalton from Wachovia, Neil.

Good afternoon everyone. Just a question, it seems like the lines in Northern New England are moving along a little bit faster and there is a lot of motivated party, so to speak but, I think in the past you discussed upon the challenges, you'd have pulling down power especially from the Northern Canada is the inability of United States to enter into long-term contracts? And, I wanted to know, if there has been any movement on that front at the state level? What kinds of hearings are being held with rating? And, what it would take, would it take a change in legislation or at the commission level?

Neil this is Chuck. There actually was a movement in that direction in Connecticut where there was some legislation pass that allows to enter into long-term contracts. The commission currently has defined that as about four years. That may not be long enough, if we are talking about bringing power in to Connecticut, so it would require potentially some legislative, but certainly some regulatory changes to do that. We are having conversations with variety of other stake holders now around those projects, and I think we will continue to do that during the rest of this year. Our goal as we said a while ago was to have a specific project that people could actually analyze associated with cost and benefits before the end of this year.

Okay. Thanks.

Thank you Neil. Well, we don't have any more questions. I want to thank you for joining us today. Thank you for bearing with our, through our little interruption early in the call. If you have any questions please give us a call either later this afternoon or tomorrow and David and I, as David mentioned will be down at AGA conference starting on Sunday. So have a good weekend everybody, and we will talk to you.