Good day, everyone. Welcome to the NextEra Energy Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2013 Earnings Conference Call. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time for opening remarks, I would like to turn the call over to Julie Holmes. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Dana. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining our fourth quarter and full year 2013 earnings conference call. With me this morning are Jim Robo, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of NextEra Energy; Moray Dewhurst, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of NextEra Energy; Armando Pimentel, President and Chief Executive Officer of NextEra Energy Resources; and Eric Silagy, President of Florida Power & Light Company. Moray will provide an overview of our results, and our executive team will then be available to answer your questions. We will be making forward-looking statements during this call based on current expectations and assumptions which are subject to risks and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially from our forward-looking statements if any of our key assumptions are incorrect or because of other factors discussed in today's earnings news release and the comments made during this conference call in the risk factors section of the accompanying presentation or in our latest reports and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, each of which can be found in the Investor Relations section of our website, nexteraenergy.com. We do not undertake any duties to update any forward-looking statements. Today's presentation also includes references to adjusted earnings which are non-GAAP financial measures. You should refer to the information contained in the slides accompanying today's presentation for definitional information and reconciliations of the non-GAAP measure to the closest GAAP financial measure. With that, I will turn the call over to Moray.

Thank you, Julie, and good morning, everyone. NextEra Energy delivered strong financial results in 2013 while continuing to execute on the objectives we shared with you at our investor conference in March. At FPL, we continue to execute on our large construction projects, focused on productivity and cost effectiveness and identified and made substantial progress on our incremental capital investment opportunities. Achieving these objectives will help us to continue to deliver the best customer value in the state and one of the best in the nation. Also at FPL, the Florida Public Service Commission gave its approval for the natural gas transportation capacity contracts that will provide a commercial basis for a new third pipeline into the state, which ultimately will benefit all Floridians. This is an essential first step to enable Sabal Trail Transmission and Florida Southeast Connection pipeline projects to move towards construction. At Energy Resources, we continue to execute on our backlog in U.S. and Canadian wind projects and met our milestones for the development of our U.S. solar portfolio. We also remain focused on further developing our U.S. wind portfolio and securing incremental solar opportunities. In our Transmission business, we commissioned the Lone Star Transmission line during the first quarter on time and under budget. As we discussed last quarter, we were awarded development rights by the Ontario Energy Board to develop the East-West Tie Line Transmission Project with our partners Enbridge and Borealis, and we continue to pursue a number of other transmission opportunities in North America. Overall, 2013 was a very strong year that positions us well for 2014 and beyond. At FPL, our strategy is founded on offering the best customer value in the state and on finding ways to improve our value delivery over time. Consistent with our strategy, we continue to…

[Operator Instructions] And we'll go first to Dan Eggers at Crédit Suisse. Dan Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Before we get run over on the yieldco conversation, I guess if you could just talk a little bit about the wind portfolio and the difference between expected generation additions and what you have under contract, and when do you think those 2 numbers merge into a final decided number for '14, '15?

Well, if we go back to the investor conference last year. That time, we were talking about expectations for U.S. wind program for 2013 and 2014 with a range of 500 to 1,500. So what's happened since then really is, in particular with the IRS clarification of some of the language around eligibility for that PTC, we can clearly see a path to extend that program from 2013, 2014 to 2013 through 2015. So based on that and what we're seeing in the marketplace, we've revised upwards our view of the total portfolio opportunities, so that's the 2,000 to 2,500. And as you can see from the numbers, we're close to 1,500 already in the backlog, so that means we see the potential for another 500 to 1,000 of projects that could be contracted from here on. The timing of that will play out over the course of the year since, at this point, we're really thinking of it as a program through 2015. Anything that's going to come in service before the end of 2015, we really are going to have to have the contracting piece wrapped up by close to the end of this year. So we should know a lot more about where we are by the end of this year. Dan Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: And I guess just kind of on the yieldco, thanks for giving more detail on the thought process. But when you look at some of the decision points you have setting out there, what do you need to get comfortable with the impact on the credit ratings for the corporate? Is that an agency's conversation and a modeling conversation on your side? And then I guess, when you think about sustained value creation in a public equity, what do you need to see to get comfortable whether that's a durable opportunity or not?

All right. Well, I guess, first, I just kind of repeat the list in the prepared remarks. I mean, we're still working through a lot of the practical issues, structuring, tax, governance, composition of portfolio, all of those kinds of things. Certainly, the credit impact is very important to us. That's a function both of modeling and obviously of conversations and feedback with the agencies. I'm sure many of you are aware that Moody's put out a general piece on the subject of yieldco, which essentially says that the impact on credit depends, and so we want to push further to make sure we understand exactly what that dependence looks like, so it's going to be a variety of things like that. On the question of the sustained value creation, again, as I mentioned in the prepared remarks, ultimately, that comes down to a judgment call. I think we clearly have some evidence just through the passage of time that helps provide us some input on that. But that's just something that we're going to have to reach a point of comfort with on a judgmental basis, and we're not at that point yet. Dan Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: And I guess the last one. As you guys think about NextEra as a whole, how comfortable is the board with the idea of perspectively changing the rate of growth for the consolidated company from 5% to 7% to something else if you were to allocate more growth to the yieldco design?

Well, I think that, that really, the answer to that has really subsumed in the overall question of, is there a value creation opportunity for NextEra Energy shareholders if the trade up in growth that you're talking about ultimately run the results in greater value for our shareholders, and I think that's clearly a very positive factor.

We'll go next to Stephen Byrd with Morgan Stanley.

I wondered if you could just talk broadly about renewable economics that you're seeing in terms of improvements in the technology kind of the PPA levels in general that you're seeing. If you could just talk sort of holistically about the competitive dynamic for renewables as you're seeing, do you see the technology improvements helping to extend that market? How are the competitive dynamics out there?

A couple of general comments, and I'll ask Armando to expand. But just as a reminder for folks, we've seen very substantial improvements in wind economics driven by technology, larger machines, taller towers, longer blades, to the point where, as I think most people know, in a strong wind regime, it's possible to sign a long-term PPA with prices in with a 2 panels on them and still get acceptable returns. So in many parts of the country today, including the impact of the PTC, wind is the most economic form of new energy generation. We've also seen significant improvement on the solar side to PV with panel prices coming down, but solar is a much more limited market focused on primarily the Desert Southwest and a few other areas. So that's been the general trend. Relative to that general trend, I wouldn't say that in the last 6 to 9 months, there's been any major departure. But let me ask Armando now to comment on how that's playing out in market dynamics.

Yes, I'd agree obviously with all of that. The couple points I would add is, interestingly enough, I think we've talked about this before, in some areas of the country, we are seeing where solar is crowding out wind. The economics of solar have clearly improved across the board. It's not just the overall cost of the panel or the balance of the plant, but it's also small changes in efficiency. So although wind economics have clearly improved in some areas of the countries, primarily the west and the southwest, it's clear that solar is a better alternative. That's the first point I'd make. The second point I'd make is, a couple of years ago, we've talked about seeing more RFPs on the solar side, which we thought was a clear positive. We continue to see that. We continue to see that even in states that don't have requirements -- renewable portfolio standards for solar. So we were encouraged by that. We're seeing them all the way up through the Canada border and all the way down to Mexico. So I think that's a real positive for solar that we will continue to see.

Well, that's helpful. Then just as a follow-up on the yieldco. For a public option, I know one of your objectives has been to think about aligning incentives, ensuring that there is an alignment there. When you think about aligning incentives, would -- an approach where there are incentive payments along the lines what we see in the world of MLPs be something that could be a tool to achieve that?

Potentially, that's certainly a whole area that we're looking at and we think it's important, that there be as close an alignment of interests as possible.

Okay. So incentive payments in general, that's an area that you're focused on and thinking about that?

Yes. We're certainly studying how that has worked out in the MLP space, is there a way of incorporating some of those elements into different structures, all of those kinds of things, yes.

And we'll go next to Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS.

So first -- hitting the yieldco first off. What is it about end of second quarter? Is there something you're waiting for in particular? I just wanted to get a little bit more of a sense as to data points you might be looking for the market to get -- to make this decision? And when it comes to valuation discrepancy that you commented on of late, is it something that you see in the public market or is it something in the private market that is really driving the discrepancy in the valuations in your mind? Just to make it a little clearer.

The answer to the second question is really based on the market feedback that we've been observing on both sides over the last few months. So again, I want to stress that that's a judgment call because, obviously, unless you went out with a particular structure hypothetically in two parallel universes, 1 public and 1 private, you'll never really know. But that's what we are seeing based on our reading of the market data. On the bigger question of the timing, I appreciate that we are being frustrating to a number of folks out there, there's no one particular thing in the outside world that I can point you to like this is more a function of the ongoing process that we are working through. I think I've mentioned to a number of folks that I've met with over the past 6 months, that it seems like every session we have with our team internally, they answer a series of questions that we have and that turns to [ph] more questions. So we're continuing to work methodically through questions, but I do think that we will be in a position to give you an update by the end of the second quarter.

Great. And then looking at the supply business, obviously, you tweaked '14 expectations. How do you think about that in '15 onwards? Is this kind of a one-time impact from the first quarter's event or should we kind of structurally think about revising expectations from that segment?

Well, we're going to have to see. We'll just have to see how the quarter actually plays out. I mean, there's a big difference between what's happening or what's been happening in NEPOOL versus what's been happening in PJM, obviously. And so, in part, what the future looks like depends upon how rapidly the gas transportation constraints open up in different parts of that region. So clearly, the dynamics of the business and the pricing of that business are going to change going forward, but we'll have to see. We're certainly not going to change our return expectations for that business, so we will definitely expect to see higher pricing in the future.

Got you. And then just turning to the utility real quickly. You've talked a little bit in the past about opportunities to add E&P assets potentially within the portfolio to lock in pricing. Where are you with respect to that?

I would say that we are still in the very early days. And just as a background for everybody, after we worked through the opportunities to improve the efficiency of the generation fleet that made a huge impact on our fuel consumption and over the long term, reduces our expected fuel bill, which we passed through to the customer very substantially. What remains is still a substantial portion of the bill and it is subject to volatility, although we don't see gas prices going up to -- back up to the 2007 levels, there's clearly volatility in there. So it certainly seems to us that anything that we could do that would help lower long-term costs of that component and in particular, to reduce its volatility, will be highly valuable to our customers. So that's really the motivation for thinking about E&P reserves. So we're still in the very early stages. It's important to recognize that FPL is a very, very large consumer of natural gas. And so to have a meaningful impact that's beneficial, that the customer can really see. You've got to do a lot and we're probably not going to do anything on a large scale initially. So if we do proceed down that part, anything we do, we will start on a small scale, but I don't have any particular time frame in mind on that.

And then just quickly, lastly, in terms of the competitive dynamic with other yieldcos out there now, are you seeing more of a cost of capital compression in some of the PPAs up there? What's the dynamic, if you will?

No, we certainly haven't seen that so far that -- maybe that's a longer-term trend. But it certainly hasn't been the case so far.

And we'll take our next question from Steven Fleishman with Wolfe Research.

Could you give us a data point on what the current PTC-eligible project number ended up coming in at the end of the year in terms of meeting that 5%?

I'm not sure I'm following your question, Steve. Could you... Dan Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: The kind of amount of potential assets that will be able to get the PTC that expired meeting that kind of 5% threshold?

Okay, I get where you're going. Yes, it's significantly larger than the upper end of what we believe is reasonable given actual market conditions. So we're not going to be constrained by the safe harboring issue.

Okay. I guess my other question, and I apologize to beat on the yieldco, but in terms of the kind of credit analysis you're doing, could you just give us some sense of what you've heard or what the rating agencies have already said on the structure and potential impact on corporate credit?

I think at this stage, Steve, I'm sorry to say, that's been -- really, the only thing I can say is, the answer is, it depends. So we're not far enough along to know what the final structure or mix would be to make sure that it's still not negative to credit.

Now we'll go next to Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs.

Guys, two questions. One on the boring side. Just looking at the quarter and even at the year at O&M at both NEER and at the Corporate level, big year-over-year uptick, so I assume NEER is tied to new projects. But just any comments you may have to add onto that.

I'm sorry, on the FPL side, O&M actually was down year-on-year.

Right, NEER and Corporate.

I'm sorry, NEER and Corporate, okay. On the NEER side, it's really growth of the business. We did put a little more into development expenditures, particularly late in the year. But there's nothing unusual going on there. It's fundamentally growth in the business. It's actually less than we expected it to be at the beginning of the year because we started to see some early benefits from Project Momentum.

Okay. And then a solar-related question. You made a number of comments about the economics, you and Armando, about the economics of solar relative to the economics of wind. Is there any interest in NextEra in terms of the rooftop solar business? If so, what are the economics like when you look at it? How would you actually enter that business if you were to decide to do so?

Well, the short answer is yes, there's an interest, but let me be a little more clear when we say rooftop. That covers a wide range of territory. Sometime last year, possibly in 2012, we authorized the team to go ahead and do some basic exploration of the, I'll call it, the distributed solar space. The conclusion they came back with was that we don't see, at least at this time, an economic opportunity in the residential end of that space, which is often what people think of when they say rooftop. We do think there may be some opportunities in the C&I space. As you get towards particularly the largest C&I customers, those projects often tend to look not that different from a small utility scale project. So we are currently exploring that area, we acquired a small company that was already in that business and we have a little backlog of projects. But at this stage, I would say, that's definitely in the category of a toe in the water and we have to see how that goes. There's really -- at least at this stage, there's only useful markets for that in areas where rates are high. In Florida, we have a very low rate structures, so it's not such an economic incentive.

And finally, on the supply, the customer supply business or the retail supply business at NEER, how should we think about the worst-case scenario? I mean, we're expecting another couple of days of crazy weather here in the northeast. We've had heat rates blow out, we've had local gas prices at various northeastern gas hubs completely blow out. You've had, in prior quarters, going back to issues in Texas a year or so ago, and we've seen other companies like Reliant back in 2008 have some issues on the supply side in terms of just being caught short megawatt hours. How should investors think about what kind of the bare case outcome would that be for that business for you?

Well, first of all, just to say, inherent in that business, it obviously has a left tail, so when you have extreme conditions of high load and high prices, any portfolio like that is always going to underperform. How bad could it be, well, obviously, it depends upon how many days of extreme conditions you build into your anticipation. I think we'd been reasonably conservative in what we've -- what we're looking at so far. I don't think it's going to end up having a material impact on the year overall, but it's clearly going to weigh in on the first quarter.

We'll go next to Shar Pourreza with Citi.

As you think about growing solar and emphasizing that part of the business more, can you maybe comment on any potential impediments or bottlenecks to the tax equity markets? Are you seeing any bottlenecks? Or a little bit of color there would be great.

On the tax equity market, I guess I would say that there is really about the same amount of capacity now than they have been for the last couple of years. Not surprisingly, we think that rates in that market are way too high and they really should come down very substantially. But there hasn't been a great deal of change the last couple of years. We also would certainly like it if there was more depth in the market. But the reality is, there's only a certain number of players. So it's perfectly adequate for the kind of scale of activity that we have and that we anticipate for the future. But like any other capital market, you'd always like that to be more depth and lower prices.

Got you. And just one quick follow-up. As you think about potential public yieldcos, can you maybe just give us a sense on how to think about recapturing of any of kind of an ITC or PTCs for qualified assets that could drop down into a yieldco?

Well, one of the sort of criteria for thinking about asset suitability for yieldco is really whether they are in the PTC generation phase, because the way the yieldco vehicle would typically be structured, it would not be able to take advantage of PTCs and therefore, you would be better off -- in general, this is a general statement, might not always be true, but in general, retaining those at the sponsor level and utilizing PTCs in another way at that level. So it's really a matter of which project becomes suitable for a yieldco.

Okay, got you. And then just lastly, as you think about doing a yieldco, how much of your decision-making on whether to move forward or not is predicated on whether you see any movement in the MLP parity act?

That's really an independent issue. The decision-making that we're going through is looking at the vehicle or potential vehicles as they might exist today with today's tax law.

We'll go next to Brian Chin with Merrill Lynch.

Just a quick point of clarification. So you signaled that by the end of 2Q, you will have made your decision. Should we interpret that to mean that on the 2Q earnings call is when you'll announce something, or are you retaining the flexibility going out something earlier than that? Just a little bit extra clarification on the timing.

Well, to be clear, we're not saying we will have necessarily made a decision by the end of the second quarter, but we certainly expect to be in a much better position to give you our overall assessment. So by that, I mean, by the quarterly earnings call, could there be something beforehand if we arrive at a decision? Yes, I suppose that's possible. I just -- I'm certainly not going to commit to anything here.

We'll go next to Hugh Wynne with Sanford Bernstein. Hugh Wynne - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC., Research Division: Moray, I think in your conference on -- your investor conference in March, you forewarned us that NextEra could become a much more robust cash generator in the years ahead depending on the level of capital outlays. And looking at your cash flow statement for the year, that certainly seems have been the case. Now I was hoping I might get you to talk about some of the largest drivers of the changes on the cash flow statement. So for example, I'd say that cash from operations is up by over $1 billion or 25% largely on a $1 billion increase in depreciation and amortization and deferred income taxes, both of which were up by 50%. Then on the other hand, your CapEx or cash used in investment is down by almost $3 billion, which is a decline of 30%, with a net effect that your cash used in financing activities has reduced your borrowing requirement by about $3.8 billion or 75%. So those are dramatic changes, and I was just wondering if you might kind of take us through the highlights.

Sure. I guess I'll just go back to some of the things that I'm sure people have forgotten, but we've talked about in the March investor conference last year. On the growth in the operating cash flow, first, let's focus on FPL. We knew that we were entering a new rate agreement in 2013, and one of the key benefits of that was the reduction in the amount of surplus depreciation that we were going to need, really, the completion of noncash earnings into cash. So with the initial base revenue increase and then the subsequent GBRA rate increases, we're now getting real cash returns that are commensurate with the regulatory returns. Not exactly equal but commensurate. So we knew that, that was going to drive significant growth on the FPL side. On the Energy Resources side, we had -- in 2012, we had just completed the 1,500 megawatts of U.S. wind, and so we knew that, that was going to come into service and driving cash flow on that side. So those -- and that continues going forward. As the big new projects at Energy Resources come into service out of that construction phase, they start to contribute to the growth in the operating cash flow. On the CapEx side, we knew that 2012 was going to be a peak year for CapEx. We were right at the peak of the spending on the FPL side with the nuclear upgrades, modernizations and ongoing infrastructure spending. And of course, we had not only 1,500 megawatts of U.S. wind but spending on solar projects, which were not yet anywhere near coming into service, all of that concentrated in 2012. So 2013, so that start to come down to hopefully more normal levels. So those were both the principal dynamics that we…

No. To be clear, just to reiterate, it's directly driven off the policies that's maintaining a target ROE, regulatory ROE. The indirect driver that you're getting at actually was that we made quicker progress on the O&M front coming out of Project Momentum than we had originally anticipated going into the year, so -- and that's why we end up with a little bit more, $245 million leftover at the end of the year. Well, I think, at the end of last year, we're anticipating we'd be somewhere around $200 million or $220 million. Hugh Wynne - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC., Research Division: Got it, great.

Yes, we're feeling very good about where we are on the cost side.

And we'll take our final question today from Greg Gordon with ISI Group.

Two quick questions. First, Moray, you talked about the impact of the weather in the Northeast on your load-serving business. When we -- once we get through the season and you assess where you're at, are we going see that show up, if I'm looking at the equivalent EBITDA ranges that you gave for the different buckets in the year, will we see the impact of that show up in customer supply, power and gas trading, or in the spark spread and other line for the 1,000 megawatts or so you have in the Northeast?

Well, it's going to be spread across those. Obviously, it's a complex situation. The fuel requirements we book is in the customer supply line, so that will be much lower than we had originally anticipated. Some of the physical assets up there, in spark spread and other, will probably look somewhat better. How much better will remain to be seen? We'll have to see how the pure marketing and trading line looks. But there are puts and takes even within that, so there a lot of complex effects. And some parts of the portfolio have done very well, but the full requirements were clearly underperformed, and that's relatively speaking for us quite big in the northeast compared with our asset positions.

Great. And then the last question, of course, is on yieldco. When you gave your 5 sort of key issues that you're grappling with, 1 of them was that you wanted to retain the flexibility because you need to be opportunistic to find the best way to monetize each sort of asset in your portfolio. How do you marry that up with or balance that with the necessity for having a certain amount of sort of visible manufactured growth in the yieldco to attract a low enough yield to make it low enough cost of capital to be attractive? In other words, you have to promise people growth, but then you're saying you want to be opportunistic in the way you place your assets?

Right. And that's clearly 1 of, what I call, the pragmatic issues that we have to work through. We've got to make sure that if we were to pursue the yieldco path, we don't end up inadvertently compromising the value of some particular assets, which might have greater value realization that dealt with in a different way.

And that does conclude today's presentation. We thank you for your participation.