Good day, everyone, and welcome to the NextEra Energy and NextEra Energy Partners’ Conference Call. Today’s conference is being recorded. At this time for opening remarks, I would like to turn the call over to Amanda Finnis.

Thank you, Hanna. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the third quarter 2014 combined conference call for NextEra Energy and for NextEra Energy Partners. 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, all of whom are also officers of NextEra Energy Partners, as well as Eric Silagy, President and Chief Executive Officer of Florida Power & Light Company. Moray will provide an overview 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 correct or because of other factors discussed in today’s release, in 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 on our websites www.nexteraenergy.com and www.nexteraenergypartners.com. We do not undertake any duty to update any forward-looking statements. Today’s presentation also references to non-GAAP financial measures. You should refer to 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, Amanda, and good morning everyone. NextEra Energy had a very good third quarter with strong performance at both FPL and Energy Resources. At Florida Power & Light, earnings per share increased approximately 6% over the prior year comparable quarter, driven roughly equally by our continued commitment of new capital to the business and by growth in wholesale power sales. Operationally, our performance was strong despite a challenging period of summer weather, as our investments in our transmission and distribution network are helping us deliver improvements in our system reliability. We continue to make good progress on the third of three generation modernization projects, at Port Everglades, which remains on track to achieve commercial operation in mid-2016. Our gas reserves petition advanced through the regulatory process and we expect the Public Service Commission to consider the matter in early December, which we expect will permit a decision either late this year or early next year. Also during the quarter, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Commission’s decision to approve our 2012 rate case settlement. The court’s order comprehensively rejected all the arguments raised by The Office of Public Counsel and made it very clear that, as long as the PSC follows appropriate procedures, as it did in 2012, it has wide latitude to determine whether a settlement agreement is in the public interest, taking account of all the prevailing facts and circumstances. We believe this is a very positive development that will encourage and support our efforts to negotiate future settlement agreements that, like the 2012 agreement have new and innovative elements in them. Energy Resources had an outstanding quarter. Adjusted earnings per share increased roughly 16% over the prior year comparable quarter, primarily as a result of additional investments in our contracted renewables business, and the business…

Thank you. (Operator Instructions) And we’ll take our first question from Stephen Byrd from Morgan Stanley. Stephen Byrd – Morgan Stanley: Good morning.

Good morning, Steve. Stephen Byrd – Morgan Stanley: Moray, I wanted to explore the PTC structure that you outlined, that could permit perhaps more assets to be dropped down to NEP earlier than we had expected. Can you generally speak to that – you mentioned some of the assets could be eligible. Is this something we should be thinking as fairly broadly eligible for your assets with PTCs or is it a more limited field of assets? Just trying to, sort of, generally get a feel for how significant this structure is.

Sure. I guess the first point to be made is it applies to new projects going forward, so anything that’s already in the portfolio either has a structure against it or probably is very far along in its 10-year window of eligibility and it wouldn’t make sense for us to go back to some of those, but potentially for all PTC projects going forward, subject to available market capacity, this could be applicable. Now when I say available market capacity, the tax equity market is a relatively specialized part of the overall capital excess possibilities that we have available to us. And the capacity of that can vary from year-to-year. So depending upon just how much capacity there is, we determine really how much we can do in any particular year, but I think it could be quite broadly applicable going forward. Stephen Byrd – Morgan Stanley: That’s helpful. And then, just looking at the wind business, obviously you’ve had some great progress in terms of additional contracts, and it looks like the outlook is positive for additional contracts. Could you speak broadly to which parts – within the U.S., which part of the U.S., which regions look most attractive in terms of growth, is it more the upper Midwest, more Texas or which parts of the country are you and your colleagues seeing the most opportunities in?

Sure. I would ask Armando to offer a few more – a little more color, but broadly speaking our development efforts have been and will continue to be concentrated on the best wind resource areas because that drives the best economics, and that tends to be all up and down in the middle part of the country, but Amanda can speak more specifically to some of the areas we’re focused on.

Sure. I think it’s – number one, it’s the middle part of the country. I call it the Midwest, but I’m not a geography teacher when I talk about the Midwest, it’s a very broad section, starting up in the Dakotas, going all the way down to the Texas region, including a little bit of Colorado, but I would include the Northeast in that. So it’s a wide area. We’ve developed very well in the area in the past and we continue to do well. I think what you’ll see as some of the newer projects come forward that we do have now some projects actually out in California, some wind projects that are starting to make sense. And we continue to look at the Canadian development for new projects. And just this past quarter, we’re able to sign another 50 megawatt PPA.

Yes, Stephen just to add on. We have traditionally not focused a great deal of effort on the Northeast and the East Coast and that continues to be the case. The development challenges are greater, our projects tend to be smaller and the wind resource tends to be weaker. So the overall economics get much more challenging. So we tend to go where the economics are most favorable. Stephen Byrd – Morgan Stanley: Great. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And we’ll take our next question from Dan Eggers with Credit Suisse. Dan Eggers – Credit Suisse: Hi. Good morning, guys.

Good morning, Dan. Dan Eggers – Credit Suisse: It’s very good job with the pipeline additions on the renewable side at NEER. Can you maybe talk a little more, A, on the wind side, if you’re going to qualify for the PTCs, or if you need an extension on PTCs to hit the upper end of the new guidance range? And then, on the solar additions, kind of, what markets you’re seeing better opportunity, or you’re even to add more significant backlog?

Sure. Again, I’ll ask Armando to comment.

All right. Good morning, Dan. Everything that we announced today on the wind side and including the potential to go over the high-end of the range would be built in 2015 or by the end of 2015. And we feel very comfortable that they would all qualify for the production tax credits. Interestingly enough, I’d say over the last two to three months, we’ve started to get into discussions with some customers that are looking for 2016 wind. Now obviously those contracts, if we sign them with those customers, would be PTC contingent, but everything that we talked about today would be built by the end of 2015 and would qualify for the PTC. In terms of solar, I’d say it’s just about everywhere. We’re seeing good activity all the way from the south, and from the south, I would mean anywhere from Texas, all the way really to the Southeast United States, but we’re also seeing interest really because of the improvement in economics that the reduction in the panel prices, the reduction in the balance of plant, we’re seeing interest all the way up to the Canadian border, which is a positive. The contracts that we announced today, we announced I think roughly 304 megawatts of new projects. Those projects span from California, all the way to the Southeast United States. Dan Eggers – Credit Suisse: Okay, very good. And then, Moray, on the 375 megawatts projects at the utility. Can you remind us, how those will go into rates, or how you guys will get recovery on those in the midst of the four year deal you have in place?

We would not be looking for any adjustment to the rate agreement. So we will live with the base rates that we have in place. Dan Eggers – Credit Suisse: Okay, very good. Thank you, guys.

Thank you.

Next we’ll take our question from Steven Fleishman – Wolfe Research. Steven Fleishman – Wolfe Research: Hi Moray, how are you?

Good morning Steve. Steven Fleishman – Wolfe Research: Just the first question and I’m not sure if you can answer this now, but you mentioned the 5% to 7% long-term earnings growth but 8% to 10% long-term cash flow growth. Could you maybe give us some sense or if Jim’s there, when you’re thinking about dividend policy, are you going to focus more on earnings growth or cash flow growth?

If you recall how we got to – the logic that got us to the current target 55% payout ratio, it was fundamentally based on a shift in portfolio mix. So with the portfolio shifting to a higher concentration of regulated and long-term contracted assets, we felt that that supported and justified slightly higher payout ratio than we have had in the past. If you carry that logic forward, while the same trend continues from 2014 on, it’s sort of really at a slower pace. So at this point, I don’t see a particular logic for recommending a change in that payout ratio with one possible exception, which I’ll come back to in a minute, but assuming that we go on that obviously means, dividend growth roughly in line with EPS growth. The exception that I have noted on a couple of occasions is, should we at some point in the future get to a position where our capital deployment opportunity set starts to slow down, then the rapid growth in the cash flows would quickly move us into a free cash flow positive position. And if you saw that being a sustained phenomenon for multiple years, then in that circumstance, I think we would be inclined to recommend an increase in the payout ratio. So I think those are kind of the two broad policy things that keep in mind. Obviously, we are always sensitive to the overall dividend position and how it compares with other companies we are competing for capital against, so we will always be taking that into account but from a policy perspective those were the two points I will make. Steven Fleishman – Wolfe Research: Okay. And then I guess, a question, maybe this is for Jim, just historically while you’ve talked about the 5% to 7% growth, and Jim has said it several times, he would be disappointed if he didn’t hit the upper end of that, is that still the view? And just with all these kind of different moving parts, it seems like you’re executing really well on the growth investment. Is that going to show up into what kind of you’ve said on getting to the higher end?

Yes, Steve. I will continue to say that I’ll be disappointed if we don’t in ‘16 earned at the top end of the range at $6, and we’ll be giving an update on that ‘16 guidance in January, as Moray said earlier on the call. Steven Fleishman – Wolfe Research: Okay. One last quick thing on the Florida solar, and you might have answered this, but how would those projects work, would you just do them and sell the utility under just the current rates, or would you look for like the solar clause [ph] or something of that sort?

No. It would be recovered within the current base rates. Obviously we want to make sure that they are those cost effective solution for our customers, we’re pretty close on that. We think that we can demonstrate that’s the case, because these are kind of specific projects where we’ve already done a lot of work and they happen to be in a particular locations work from a transmission perspective. So if we can do that, we would expect to go ahead and construct them and demonstrate that, net-net they are a good deal for customers from a total build perspective, in which case, they should roll into base rates going forward. Steven Fleishman – Wolfe Research: Okay, great. Thank you.

We’ll take our next question from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS: Hi, good morning.

Good morning, Julien. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS: So just following up on the latest NEP GP guidance. The $200 million that was depicted for the end of the decade, is that consistent with the 12% to 15%, and to the extent to which it is, can you give us a sense for dropdown assumptions etcetera, that would be baked in?

Julien, I’m not quite sure I followed the question. Today, we talked about $75 million to $100 million around the 2018 time. If you carry the growth forward a couple of more years, yes, I think you can reasonably see getting to the $200 million a year level. I believe that was the number that I mentioned in speech I gave at Platts the other day. So it’s really just an extension of the growth profile. As I said in the prepared remarks, we are right now really working through one of the specific asset that it makes most sense to make available to NEP for the short-term acceleration, but the longer-term growth profile and expectations are continue to be supported by all the projects in the Energy Resources’ portfolio that we talked about in the past, including potentially contracted fossil assets and including potentially pipeline projects. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS: In order to be more specific, what about the dropdown multiples that you’re thinking about broadly, is it still kind of in that 9% to 11% range?

As a broad generalization, yes. Although one of the things that I’ve observed as we’ve gone through these first transactions is that EBITDA multiple and not necessarily a very good metric for thinking about dropdown valuation, because the profile of the projects can be quite different and it depends if you have a project where you have, CITC for example, whether it’s pre or post the tax effect. But we haven’t really changed our view of the long-term valuation, which as I said on several occasions is going to depend upon the individual project first and foremost. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS: Got you. And then secondly, you’ve talked about disproportionate cash flow growth. Obviously some discussions are laid around large utility acquisitions. What are you thinking about use of cash flow structurally, is the business orienting towards more resources-like businesses, or are we talking about more utility growth in the future, be it outside of FPL or within it etcetera?

Well, as this actually implicit in the part of my answer to Steve’s question earlier, both sides of the house continue to have very strong growth prospects. And so as we go forward, the balance is remaining roughly equal. We still continue to become a little bit more regulated and long-term contracted, but not greatly so over the next few years. And so we will continue to pursue the opportunities that we see in the existing portfolio as much as we can. In terms of third-party acquisitions or corporate large deal acquisitions, as we’ve said before, we are in principal open to the possibility. We don’t need to do a big deal. We continue to be very successful. We’re going to be very disciplined if we do look at anything, but it’s not fundamental to our strategy. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS: Got you. And then just a quick clarification to Dan’s last question on the solar PV side, while you might not be filing for it in the immediate sense, once you are through the current stay out, those would indeed roll into base rates?

Sure, I would. Assuming that they indeed act to reduce total customer builds over the long-term then they would roll in the rate base and they’d be reflected in our filings in 2016 assuming we file as we expect to in 2016 and for what revenue rates would go into effect in 2017. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS: Great. Excellent, thank you

Thank you.

And we’ll take our next question from Shar Pourreza with Citigroup. Shar Pourreza – Citigroup: Good morning everyone.

Good morning. Shar Pourreza – Citigroup: Just on the solar in Florida. When you mentioned it’s the most cost-effective solution for the rate payers, are you referring to the projects being at retail rate parity, or are we talking more an LCOE reaching like a natural gas high heat rate peaking asset. So can you just maybe comment on what you mean by cost-effective?

Sure. The way to think about cost-effective is for these projects is to think of them in the context of a constantly evolving integrated resource plan. So solar in Florida obviously has energy value, it also has capacity value based on its coincidence or degree of coincidence with the load curve. So essentially what we do is in the IRP, we plug in different combinations or potential future generation and figure out on a present value basis, which of those are cheaper for our customers. And so if we can get to the stage where, as we think we now can with these three specific projects, we can introduce them into the mix and have the overall present value as seen through the customers eyes lower. That’s a good thing for our customers and something that we want to go ahead with. Shar Pourreza – Citigroup: Got you. And then, with the latest solar projects you’ve added to your pipeline, and then maybe comments that the solar to become very economical at the end of the decade. Can you just maybe talk about the current LCOE trend versus a higher heat rate peaking asset, or are you – with and without the investment tax credit?

I can try, but it’s very hard to think about LCOE, because you really need to think, as I’ve just described for the FPL situation, in how these assets work into an integrated system. So you’re really not, or you shouldn’t compare assets side-by-side. That would maybe be appropriate if you were thinking about building new system from scratch, but in our case we’re talking about introducing new capacity into an existing system. With that as a caveat however, I would say that we are getting to the stage where potentially by the end of the decade, assuming that we revert to the 10% ITC that’s embedded part of the tax code, that in many regions of the southern part of the country, we could see something that is competitive on an energy basis with combined cycle unit. Whether or not that makes it fully competitive on an integrated basis, then depends upon capacity value and shape of the load curve and a whole variety of other things in the region that we’re talking about Shar Pourreza – Citigroup: Got you. That’s very helpful actually. And then just lastly, on the rate basing of the E&P reserves. Is there any potential in how large this could be relative to what FPL’s gas needs are?

I think for the next few years, we’re going to be limited more by sort of the pragmatic factors than theoretical long-term potential. So in theory, if we could get to 30%, 40%, 50% of the gas burn, I think that would be a very attractive proposition from a customer perspective, but I think it’s going to take us time to get there. I think first of all, we’ve got to get the initial deal approved and up and running and show that, that works as we anticipate it will. And then, I think we want to build on that at a moderate pace, and demonstrate that the overall strategy is effective. I think the other factor that could be limiting here is simply the available opportunity set. FPL is looking for something a little bit different in gas reserves than where the general market is, and by that, I mean FPL is really obviously focused on dry gas. And a lot of the places that are being pursued out there tend towards the wetter or oilier spectrum. So there may be some limitations just driven by the availability of sets. So all of that is in my mind says that I think we have realistic odds of scaling the thing up to the point where within the next few years, we can commit several hundred million dollars of capital each year into it, beyond that, it’s too far for us to look right now. Shar Pourreza – Citigroup: Terrific. Thank you very much.

And we’ll take our next question from Greg Gordon with ISI Group. Greg Gordon – ISI Group: Thanks. Good morning.

Good morning, Greg. Greg Gordon – ISI Group: So, sorry to beat a dead horse on the regulated utility side, but just following up on the solar question. Presumably, you’re making headroom in under current base rates through the continued improvement in costs under Project Momentum, such that you would still expect to be able to earn inside the ROE range, until you roll these into base rates?

Yes, that’s generally true, not just at these assets, but more generally infrastructure CapEx that needs to be recovered under the current – in terms of the current base rate agreement. Our ability to invest, for example, in our reliability initiatives is conditional upon our ability to manage the O&M effectively. So the fact that we’ve been very effective there, and as I said in the prepared remarks, ahead of where we expected to be in the sense creates more headroom to allow us to deploy capital. Now that capital still needs to be productive from a customers’ viewpoint, either increasing reliability or as we just discussed with respect to the solar units, improving the long-term cost-effectiveness of the system, but assuming it is, then from an investor perspective, we can sort of afford to accommodate it within the terms of the current settlement agreement. Greg Gordon – ISI Group: Great. Two more questions, one on accounting. You mentioned that the accounting treatment for dropdowns would be to amortize those gains starting 12 months after the initial drop, and over the life of the – over what’s the time again, I’m sorry, I don’t recall the last piece.

Yes, let me just repeat that. In the structuring of NEP, because of the presence of IDRs, we have subordinated our LP interest. Those subordination provisions go away one year after we have sustained the high – the LP distribution corresponding to the high level of the splits. Until that time, from an accounting perspective, we defer all the accounting gains that are recorded on the transfer of assets from energy resources to NEP. So once we clear that one year period, then we can start amortizing those gains. Greg Gordon – ISI Group: And those gains would be amortized over what period?

Over the life of the assets. Greg Gordon – ISI Group: Okay. And we would expect those to run through NextEra Energy Resources’ ongoing earnings?

Correct. Greg Gordon – ISI Group: Right. And so you get the cash in, and you’re doing the drop. You amortize the gain over starting the year out over the life of the asset?

We are subject to the – well, the technical description that I gave, going forward, it would then be the case, but then for subsequent projects, you would be getting the cash and starting to realize the gain simultaneously. Greg Gordon – ISI Group: Got you. Great. One final question for Armando. We talked a bit last time we saw you about the opportunity for storage as a growth investment at NEER, California has this RFP going on. Can you talk about whether or not storage is in fact, a piece of the growth opportunity at NEER, and if so, what is the magnitude and when might we start seeing those investments?

I think it is. I think I’ve been pretty consistent in saying that at least my expectations for storage investments to become a significant part of our CapEx spending at NEER is really towards the later part of the decade. I mean there are – as you mentioned there are opportunities in California, opportunities in Hawaii, opportunities in New York, and actually there are some smaller opportunities in PJM. We are looking at and playing in all of those markets, but I would not expect in the near-term through 2016, even if we’re significantly successful for the CapEx to be very meaningful in terms of what it adds to earnings. Having said that, the team that we have put together, I think is a good team, and I continue to believe that towards the later part of this decade, we will be able to make some significant investments. Greg Gordon – ISI Group: Thank you, gentlemen.

I think we have time for one more.

We’ll take our question from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: Good morning.

Good morning, Paul. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: Just to recap a little bit here on the NEP accelerated growth and maintaining the long-term growth outlook as well. Is that basically being driven by just a more robust outlook in terms of the opportunities for renewable development or – I just wanted to clarify as to what – just making sure that I understand exactly how you’re able to accelerate the growth in the near-term, and maintain long-term growth. Is that what’s driving it?

Yes, I mean the underpinning of it obviously are long-term expectations for the evolution of the Energy Resources’ portfolio because that’s the principal source of the projects that create the opportunity set for NextEra Energy Partners. So we’re feeling very good about that. We’ve had great success this quarter in the relatively short-term or the long-term fundamentals that clearly for us to be very encouraging. So that’s kind of a fundamental driver. Then assuming that you can get comfortable with a long-term growth expectation for the opportunities set, then the next question is, what’s the right sort of shape to the growth profile, and clearly we’ve recognized that, other things equal, meaning as long as you can sustain a long period of good growth, by good I mean 12% to 15%, then it’s better to have more earlier rather than later. And then if you couple that with recognition that with this tax equity structure, we may have some assets that previously we would have thought about as not being available for 10 years, now being eligible earlier. It makes sense to get those transferred when we can. So there is more opportunity, particularly in the short-term, and hence acceleration in the short-term at least was to make a lot of sense. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: Okay. I just want to make sure I understood that. Then with respect to Slide 20, and the new investment – now I realize things have changed. You have changed things a little bit here. Provide a lot more information, but it does look like the new investment line has dropped a bit, obviously we have NEP on the top part there. Is there anything that’s – I mean, could you elaborate a little bit more about what’s changed in new investment, other than the allocation to NEP in that slide?

It’s going to be difficult for me to do that on the call. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: Okay.

Let me just couple of caveat. That Slide 20, it does have some differences from the part, what I call gross margin hedged chart. So it’s very difficult to compare those directly. Among other things, we have in the new disclosure, we have allocated into the adjusted EBITDA across the various lines the G&A that we have supporting that respective elements that the business that we didn’t have before. So all those were intended to be a little bit lower. One of the things that is on our list to do, is now to go back and compare these pieces and understand precisely why is some of the line items might look a little bit different. I would say there is no major change to the 2015 numbers. Most of the developments that we’ve seen in the last quarter will tend to affect ‘16 and ‘17 much more. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: Okay, great. And then just finally, weather versus normal. I’m sorry if I missed this. What has it been year-to-date, the impact of weather versus normal?

On Energy Resources year-to-date on the wind side is a little above leverage, the quarter was a little bit below average. Solar has been about on. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: And the utility? Has it been big at all [ph]?

No, it’s been in average year overall. The challenges we’ve had here in Florida have been associated much more with heavy rainfall and thunderstorms and lightening, but in terms of average cooling degree days, it’s not been greatly different. Now recognize of course, that all of that gets absorbed by pluses or minuses and simple as depreciation and amortization at FPL. So it doesn’t have a direct immediate ROE impact. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: Right. Okay. Thanks so much.

Okay. Well, thank you very much.