Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Fourth Quarter 2011 NRG Energy, Inc. Earnings Conference Call. My name is Chantilly, and I will be your facilitator for today's call. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded for replay purposes. I would now like to turn the conference over to your host for today, Mr. Chad Plotkin, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please proceed, sir.

Thank you, Chantilly, and good morning. I would like to welcome everyone to our Year-End and Fourth Quarter 2011 Earnings Call. This call is being broadcast live over the phone and through webcast, which can be located on our website at www.nrgenergy.com. You can access the call, presentation and press release through a link on the Investor Relations page of our website. A replay of the call will also be available on our website. This call, including the formal presentation and the question-and-answer session will be limited to one hour. [Operator Instructions] Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone to review the Safe Harbor statement provided on Slide 1 of the presentation. During the course of this morning's presentation, management will reiterate forward-looking statements made in today's press release regarding future events and financial performance. These forward-looking statements are subject to material risk and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. We caution you to consider the important risk factors contained in our press release and other filings with the SEC that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements in the press release and this conference call. In addition, please note that the date of this conference call is February 28, 2012, and any forward-looking statements that we make today are based on assumptions that we believe to be reasonable as of this date. We undertake no obligation to update these statements as a result of future events, except as required by law. During this morning's call, we will refer to both GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures of the company's operating and financial results. For complete information regarding our non-GAAP financial information, the most directly comparable GAAP measures and a quantitative reconciliation of those figures, please refer to today's press release and this presentation. With that, I'd like to turn the call over to your host, David Crane, NRG's President and Chief Executive Officer.

Thank you, Chad, and good job. And I want to -- before I begin, I want to start by welcoming Chad to his new position as the Head of Investor Relations. And for the many people on the call who were friends and colleagues with our former Head of Investor Relations, Nahla Azmy, I just want to say how much we appreciate the work she did here for the past 8 years and wish her well in her new position at Energy Capital Partners. So today, in terms of the presentation, I'm joined, as usual, by Mauricio Gutierrez, our Chief Operating Officer, who will give part of the presentation. We have another member of the management making, I think, his first appearance in a speaking role, that would be Jason Few, who's the President of Reliant, who's going to say a few words about our retail business. And then we have Kirk Andrews, our Chief Financial Officer, who will also be giving part of the presentation. Also available during the question-and-answer period to give answers about what's going on in the marketplace is our Head of Commercial Operations, Chris Moser. So as we normally do on this -- the year-end call, I'm going to spend just a little time reviewing the past year's performance before turning my attention to the period ahead. So if you're following along in terms of the slide presentation, turning to Slide 3. For us, 2011 was a year in which we stumbled in August and the commodity price cycle moved against us throughout the year. But nonetheless, we finished the year almost exactly or close to the middle of our original guidance range for adjusted EBITDA. In so doing, the business, overall, showed its diversity and resiliency. And particularly, our solid results reflected the advantage…

Thank you, David, and good morning, everyone. 2011 was a solid year in many respects, as I will discuss in the next few slides. But given the recent drop in gas prices, I want to focus most of my comments on how we are positioning our portfolio going forward. As you know, for the past few years, we have been engaged in a process to diversify our portfolio into one that can perform under multiple commodity scenarios. We believe our generation portfolio, with its diversity and merit order, and our integrated wholesale retail platform will not only withstand the low commodity price cycle but will thrive, as gas prices return to long-term fundamental levels. So starting with a quick look back at 2011 on Slide 8. On the environmental front, CSAPR was stayed on December 30 by the DC Court of Appeals, and while much spent much of the latter half of the year preparing to comply with the rule, the operational and financial impact of this stay on NRG is minimal. With respect to the Air Toxic rule or MATS, the final rule was issued in December with no major changes. This is the more important rule in terms of driving older, uncontrolled units out of the market and one that we can expect to fully comply with under our current environmental plan. After the installation of back-end controls at Indian River, our remaining capital spend for the next 5 years have decreased from $721 million to $553 million. On the development front, our EPC organization completed the Middletown project this past summer and it is in the process of testing and commissioning the Indian River back-end control projects. El Segundo Energy Center and all of our major solar projects continue to be on schedule. Turning to our plant…

Thank you, Mauricio, and good morning. Moving to Reliant retail operations performance on Slide 14. In 2011, Reliant had another strong year, achieving EBITDA of $593 million. And we delivered on our customer count commitment by growing customers, providing undeniable evidence of our ability to leverage brand, sales channel strength, along with pricing to effectively balance margin and customer count. Additionally, Reliant produced its best-ever bad debt result, achieving 0.8%. Our solid operational execution was aided by the overall strength of the Texas economy. For example, Houston, Texas was the last major metro to enter the recession and the first to exit, achieving replacement of 101% of job loss. Additionally, nonresidential electricity usage, a rough proxy for regional industrial production, increased by 2.2% in 2011 for the greater Houston service area, adding further evidence of overall Texas market strength. Building on this strength, Reliant grew volume by 6%, Q4 2011 versus Q4 2010 and by 3% for the full year 2011. Volumetric growth was achieved by growing customer count by 2% Q4 2011 and adding larger mass customers to our portfolio. Reliant also grew from virtually 0 to more than 2 terawatt hours outside of Texas. Moving to Slide 15. We remain quite positive on the state of our retail business, especially with our prospects within the Texas market, as we are now the largest retailer by customer count and volume. We began with our leading integrated model, which provides us collateral advantages in managing our portfolio and minimizing transaction costs. We expect non-integrated and less-capitalized retailers to face increased tightening, given the circumstances that occurred last February and August. As David and Mauricio discussed, our retail companies by comparison have taken meaningful steps to mitigate tail risk. What we believe is most compelling is the complement of our 3…

Thank you, Jason. Beginning with the financial summary on Slide 17. NRG is reporting fourth quarter and full year 2011 adjusted EBITDA results of $390 million and $1.82 billion, respectively. For the 12 months ended December 31, 2011, our wholesale businesses contributed approximately $1.155 billion, while our retail businesses added $665 million. 2011 wholesale results benefited from a 7% year-on-year increase in generation sold or 5.2 terawatt hours due largely to acquired assets, including Cottonwood, South Trent and our solar projects, which collectively contributed 5.3 terawatt hours. The results were, however, offset by lower energy prices, higher fuel and transport costs and lower capacity revenues compared to 2011 -- or 2010, rather. Meanwhile, retail performed well in 2011 with Reliant contributing $593 million, having added more than 30,000 net customers during the year. However, competitive offerings and higher supply costs impacted results versus 2010. The addition of Green Mountain Energy and the newly acquired Energy Plus has further enhanced our retail portfolio by adding over 470,000 residential customers in Texas and the northeast. NRG's 2011 capital allocation plan both exceeded our expectations and struck a successful balance among the return of shareholder capital, prudent balance sheet management and value-enhancing investments. We completed the 2011 share repurchase program totaling $430 million or 20 million shares, which includes an additional $250 million above the original stated plan. As a head start on the return of shareholder capital, we intend to continue in 2012 with the dividend. During the year, we successfully refinanced over $7 billion of debt and credit facilities, significantly simplifying NRG's capital structure and reducing corporate debt by $581 million in the process. NRG also made great strides in advancing our utility solar program in 2011, and we now have over 900 megawatts of projects in construction or operations that…

Thank you, Kirk. Ladies and gentlemen, we've taken a lot of your time already, so I'm going to be brief in summation. Consistent with our past practice for the first call of the year, we have listed on Slide 24 our most important 2012 objectives across our businesses. I'm confident that we'll make meaningful and measurable progress across all 3 segments of our business during what is likely to be an eventful year in our sector. Coupled with our focus on building and operating a set of core businesses that performs at the top of their peer groups is a focus on deploying the company's capital in a manner that generates a return to our shareholders, while protecting and enhancing our ability to increase the core value of the company for the benefit of the shareholders. We think and I think that the 2012 Capital Allocation Plan that Kirk just outlined strikes that proper balance. Finally, on Slide 25, we have displayed a diagram that tries to capture in simple terms the type of company NRG is becoming. Our future is not just about owning power plants, assets that no matter what fuel they consume are going to struggle to generate cash flow in wholesale power markets that are weighed down by chronically low gas prices. Our future is about owning a fleet of power plants that both enable and protect the thriving retail electricity business, which deploys a host of clean energy technologies to provide energy and environmental outcomes for individuals and businesses alike, utilizing a wide range of customized alternative energy products and services. We now have the pieces in place. Now we have to put them together and execute. And with that, operator, Chantilly, we're happy to take a few questions.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Ameet Thakkar of Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

David, I mean, in your remarks you indicated a desire to continue to grow the dividend. Just trying to understand, I guess, philosophically how you guys are kind of approaching that growth. I know Kirk mentioned the contracted generation portfolio will grow as the solar projects come online. But I mean, you're also looking to sell down 50% of the equity in those businesses and then El Segundo will come down -- will come online at some point. But to grow it further, I mean, what else is -- how else are you thinking about that, kind of, I guess what we see is kind of a finite number of projects in the portfolio right now.

Well, Ameet, your question properly captured why we want to dodge the question that you're asking in the sense that we definitely think that this dividend can grow based off the strength of contracted assets. When you have one of these quarterly calls it looks like the solar business -- because a quarterly call is a snapshot in time, it looks like our quarterly business is static. A certain number of projects are going to throw off a certain number of cash flow. But, of course, that's not the truth, Ameet. It's a very dynamic business, with a lot of more opportunities. We’ve talked about a tier 2 and a tier 3 set of development opportunities in terms of utility scale, solar. We're in the process of fast growing the C&I in the smaller-scale distributed solar. So we believe, off the strength of those contracted portfolio, we can grow the dividend. We're avoiding the question of at what pace we feel we can grow that dividend until we settle out the very question, the very point that you reference. We have a couple of sell-down opportunities underway right now. So I think over the course of the next couple of quarters and probably when we actually get to initiating the dividend in the third quarter, we're going to try and give you a better sense at that point based on what the portfolio looks like at that time, as to the pace at which we feel we can grow the dividend.

Okay. And then there was a comment in your presentation about not having the restricted payment basket necessarily limit you for capital allocation going forward. Besides taking out the 2017 notes, what are the other means to which you guys could kind of work around that issue?

Ameet, you've been around a long time. We've -- I think over the -- since 2004, we've bought back something like $3.2 billion worth of shares, and at all times, we had the restricted payment basket in place. And so there are a wide range of things that you can do, but I think probably the most noteworthy one is the one that you mentioned is we can just refinance the 2017. So as we looked at it, and looking at the RP basket in the future, we didn't think it was cost effective for the company, for the shareholders to refinance the '17s right now. But that's clearly one option, but there's the full range of other ways of expanding the RP basket that we've talked about over the past 8 years. So I think the bottom line for people who are concerned about the resiliency of the dividend that we announced today -- or the intention to pay a dividend that we announced today is that we don't see the RP basket as an effective constraint about us being able to pay the dividend for the foreseeable and the unforeseeable future.

Your next question comes from the line of Jon Cohen of ISI Group.

David and Kirk, you mentioned that you're going to wait a few quarters to see what happens in the gas market before committing to an additional buyback. Do you have a minimum, long-term gas price in mind that would make you feel more comfortable with buying back stock rather than incremental delevering here? When I look at your Slide 22, it looks like you're pretty close to your target debt-to-EBITDA metrics on 2011 results. So how do you think about that?

Jon, you came across a little bit faint, so I just want to make sure, you're asking is as we look forward and sort of think about allocating additional capital to buybacks or paying down debt, is there a minimum gas price that would cause us to pull the trigger on further buybacks?

Yes, that's right.

Okay. Well, the short answer is I don't think -- I mean, I know for a fact that we haven't discussed a bright line gas price. But the factor that you focused on which was the company's ability to comfortably cover the debt-to-EBITDA metric, looking out in the future, is the key one. Kirk, do you want to add anything to that?

I mean, rather than thinking in terms of minimum gas price, I think we certainly would say we feel comfortable in the current reduced gas price environment, both as a function of the fact that we have the capital flexibility that I discussed previously, as well as the significant increases in hedging that we put in place. We don't generally give forward guidance about our outlook on gas prices, and importantly, heat rates, because certainly our EBITDA-generative power is a function of both. But suffice it to say, as I said, we feel confident in the current lower gas price environment and our ability to comprehensively manage those ratios moving forward. And it will be that management and our ability to do so that will determine the magnitude and the timing of any share repurchases that would go on to accompany that.

Okay. And one other question. Can you talk a little bit about your net income expectations for 2012? And how the RP basket could grow under the old indenture using your current EBITDA guidance? And specifically, we've been looking at how the GAAP accounting treatment for some of the solar ITCs adds to net income and also to the RP basket as the projects reach COD in 2012 and '13. So how much could that add to the RP basket?

Yes, the non-cash grant component, certainly, the ITCs would be an increase to the net income component from a GAAP perspective. And while we don't normally give guidance from a net income perspective on things, part of our outlook for the foreseeable future, in terms of net income, is what is contributing to our confidence, that as David said for the foreseeable future, we believe that net income, which as you know is the contributing component to the RP covenant under the 2017 bond indenture, it is sufficient to permit us to pay this dividend under that old indenture. And I think, importantly, that sufficiency gives us the time to pursue the flexibility of the options at our disposal, should we choose to expand that RP capacity through various means.

Your next question comes from the line of Angie Storozynski of Macquarie.

I have a question about your retail business. Clearly, it's been an incredible investment so far. And you keep growing your customer base, but I'm trying to figure out how are you actually doing that? Is that, that you're basically lowering margins to sign up new customers? And also, how should we think about the fact that you -- I mean you clearly must be offering lower pricing in order to sign up customers, especially in Texas. And yet, you have proposed market changes that will definitely make this retail market significantly more risky for you as a retail operator, given proposed increases and price caps. So could you actually tell me how you managed the risk versus the reward in this business?

Angie, that's a multi-part question. And to answer one of your questions, it's going to take the combined intellectual might of myself and Jason. So I'm going to start to talk about 2 aspects of it. Let me ask Jason to focus specifically on Reliant, because, obviously, Reliant's the lion's share of it. But I would make 2 points, Angie. First of all, one of our approaches in terms of looking at retail is that we specifically don't want to just compete with the set of offerings that can only compete on price. So when we went out and acquired Green Mountain, and obviously, Green Mountain has a very distinct value proposition that involves environmental sustainability equally. So when we went out and bought Energy Plus, Energy Plus with their exclusive arrangements with various frequent-flier programs, loyalty programs, affinity programs, they also have a different approach that's not just based on price competition. So I think those 2 companies themselves have a very distinct proposition that doesn't depend completely on price. As to -- before I hand over to Jason, I also want to comment on your -- the rules, as they're changing in Texas, are definitely favoring the wholesale. And if you look at -- in the scheme of things, that's probably not going to be positive for any retailer, but in the scheme of NRG, where the wholesale business is still bigger than the retail business, it's good for us. And I will tell you that even for NRG's retail businesses operating in Texas, those rules are going to be a particular challenge that people that don't have the benefit of the wholesale supply to support their retail businesses. So in the long run, I would argue to you that for -- even for our retail businesses, which in Texas, obviously, led by Reliant, tougher rules on retail would make for a more rationalized competitive environment, which we think that Reliant can flourish with. And with that preamble, here's the main event, Jason Few to tell you how he adds customer count, while maintaining healthy retail margins.

If you think about our customer base, you have to think about it not only in terms of customer acquisition, but another dimension that drives customer count is your ability to retain the customers that you have. And as I talked about in my prepared remarks, I discussed the penetration that we've driven on our e-Sense products, as well as our home services solutions, which aids to our retention. And in fact, customer base, we actually see a higher level of retention. Beyond that as we look at acquisition, we think it is important that we leverage each of our channels differently. And so there's been comments about pricing and power to choose, that's one small channel, but we operate in about 9 different channels in which we acquire customers. Each of those gives us an opportunity to present a different offer to our customers with a different value proposition. And going back to the fact that customers make buying decisions on -- based on different reasons. We believe that we'll be able continue to maintain margins. We think that our value proposition allows us to deliver margins higher than the market norm, and that's reflected as well in the comments that David made as it relates to Green Mountain and Energy Plus. And if you look at Q4 2010 versus Q4 2011, our overall retail margins even at Reliant were basically flat. So we have a large customer base in which we manage pricing against the total portfolio, and we think with 1.3 million residential customers, as well as our commercial customers, we'll be able to continue to do that.

Angie, does that work for you?

Yes, yes. I'm just wondering, because you are now showing that your sustainable EBITDA for this business in a low commodity price environment is about $600 million to $800 million. So is this driven by simply growth in your customer accounts? Or is this just a rebound in margins, because it's hard for me to believe that in a low commodity price environment, you can sustain the current level of margins. I think it's just that there's a lag effect, but those margins should actually compress eventually, right?

Well, I think that what we've seen, I mean, that it's been a declining gas price environment now for 4 or 5 years and it seems that the margins have stabilized. And, of course, the $600 million to $800 million, I mean, I'm just restating the obvious here, Angie. This is more for other people on the call than for you, but clearly, we went from $400 million to $500 million in a mid-cycle to $600 million to $800 million. That's, obviously, boy, a great deal by Green Mountain and Energy Plus, both which are growing at a very, very fast rate. So there are a couple things at play here.

No, that's right, that number's reflective of all 3 retailers. Texas will continue to be a strong market for us, as well as the growth opportunity that we're seeing in the Northeast to aid that number. And we feel very confident that the 3 retail companies will be able to deliver in that range during this downcycle.

And my last question is given how low PRB prices are, why haven't you added more coal hedges?

This is Mauricio. I think the drop in PRB prices have been contained to the front part of the curve. And as you know, we are pretty well hedged in 2012 and 2013. So as you go beyond that time period, the drop hasn't been that significant. So we're waiting for a better entry point to add on our hedges.

Your next question comes from the line of Stephen Byrd of Morgan Stanley.

Mauricio, you had laid out on Page 12 of the slide deck the upside to gross margin in Texas if sparks were to increase. Just to confirm, is this true with your existing hedges in place for 2012? Or would your hedge position somewhat reduce this up side, if sparks were to rise?

This is on an open basis. So think of the portfolio as completely unencumbered. What we tried to show here is what would be the incremental gross margin, moving from current spark spreads to what we believe are new build economics. And just the order of magnitude is about $150 million to $200 million, if we were to see spark spreads on the high 20s on peak for Houston.

Okay, understood. So really, the sensitivity laid down on Page 11 that shows heat rate sensitivity, that shows very modest sensitivity for EBITDA to changes in heat rates for 2012, it looks like?

Well, yes, keep in mind that the sensitivity chart is only for the baseload portfolio. We don't disclose -- or we haven't disclosed in the past the position around our gas portfolio.

Okay. And for 2012, would this -- given the hedges that you have for your gas portfolio, would this sort of open sensitivity be materially lower?

Well, I will say that we have kept a significant part of our gas portfolio unencumbered, as David mentioned, and as I said on our last earnings call. And so I'm going to say significantly lower than these. But certainly, it has some hedges but not in great quantity.

Okay, great. And just as a follow-up for Kirk. Kirk, just as you think about the capital structure and credit profile, you laid out some very helpful metrics on Page 22. Given where we are today in terms of as you lookout at the forward curve and projected credit statistics, do you envision the need for material amounts of deleveraging? Or do you think given current market dynamics, as expressed in Forbes that you're generally in line with where you want to be from a credit point of view?

From the standpoint, while we don't normally give guidance in terms of our outlook on what those ratios look like in different environments. I think with the combination, as I'd said, of the hedges that we have in place in the near medium term, coupled with the fact that those have substantially increased, given the current market environment for natural gas and what we see moving forward on the heat rate component of things, while certainly, we feel comfortable with where we are from a balance sheet standpoint, given how that has -- how quickly that has moved around especially over the last month and the last quarter, that's the main reason why over the coming quarter or quarters, we're going to hold a little bit more of that capital back to actively manage that balance sheet moving forward. But in the current market environment, we don't see a substantial need for that.

Your next question comes from the line of Brandon Blossman of Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Brandon Blossman - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., Research Division: First question, David, in your prepared comments, you suggested something about building a war chest and maybe incremental non-core asset divestitures. Is there any incremental color that you can talk about as far as what non-core would be in this context?

The question was what sort of non-core? Brandon Blossman - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., Research Division: Yes. How do you define non-core today?

Well, I'm -- it's tough to talk about that too much, Brandon, because it can be demotivating sort of internally. But I think the sort of the most obvious one is that we're clearly a domestically focused company at this point. And we have some very valuable international assets, which we've looked at selling in the past and there are structural issues that make it difficult, different types of structural issues, both with respect to Germany and Australia. But there's more room for optimism now that those structural issues can be overcome. And so I would just leave that as an example. But there are a variety of other things around the portfolio that we could look at as well. Brandon Blossman - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., Research Division: Okay, that's helpful. And on the solar sell down side of things. How do you -- what is the thought process as far as selling down versus not selling down? Presumably, there's, as it stands, a pretty nice return built into those projects. So what's the thought process? And what is the alternative, as far as cash deployment in a project versus just stock buyback or…

Well, Brandon, what I would tell you, we have a thriving solar development portfolio and a top rate development team. We have a finite amount of capital that we can put to work in the solar area. So one of the tried-and-true ways of being very successful in a development business is that if you can bring to financial closure well-structured power deals, there's always been a market for sell down. And if you can sell at a premium, you can sort of lock in the return that you were going to achieve from owning that project, over 20 years, you can lock it in and bring it forward. And that's, obviously, a very appealing approach. And so as we look at the solar now, and I would say this is one area where our investors should really grade our paper over the course of the year is that I think we need to demonstrate both at the utility scale, solar and at the -- in the sort of the C&I space more to distribute solar that we can arrange ways of financing these things that are optimal, in terms of use of the company's capital, because we are not a low-cost provider of capital. The other factor I would say, obviously, is the changes in the gas price environment are changing our own tax position. And so since a lot of investment in solar projects has tax attributes associated with it, we're, obviously, going to look to maximize or optimize the tax attributes of our various solar projects, both the existing ones and the ones that are coming down the path. Brandon Blossman - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., Research Division: Okay, that's helpful. And then just real quick follow-on. Distributed versus utility, still thinking that near-term distributed looks like they have the biggest opportunity set? Or has that changed recently?

Yes. We think over time, I mean, the way we think that the solar space is going to evolve in terms of going from big to small, absolutely everything that's happening in terms of solar economics is supporting that idea. We still have a good portfolio, as I mentioned, of utility scale, solar projects. But the size solar projects that we started in the second half of 2011, the 200, 300 megawatts sizes, that's not going to be a part of the future. It's going to get smaller, and the cost of delivering distributed solar, we feel is working its way towards, quite quickly $2.50 a watt, which again, it's impossible for anything from a grid parity perspective to compete with gas-fired generation when gas is $2.50 per million BTU. But competing in terms of retail grid parity, which distributed solar, that's the metric for it to compete against, we see solar being able to compete on a basis of retail grid parity in over 20 states within 2 years. So that's why we have to learn to go small with our individual solar project.

Your final question comes from the line of Jay Dobson of Wunderlich.

Mauricio, I was hoping you could give us a little more granularity on some of the comments you alluded to on the coal-to-gas switching experience you're seeing. Particularly, in Texas, and I know you're a little insulated with PRB coal there. But just what exactly you're seeing? And then also, what you're seeing in sort of the PJM regions specifically for your assets?

Well, I mean, let me start with PJM. The coal-to-gas switching breakeven price, we think that is somewhere in the $5 range, so that happened a long time ago. And in Texas, just recently, this winter, due to the -- a combination of low gas prices and really mild weather, we have seen some parity against PRB coal prices. Clearly, we try to, at least, put some range on the chart on the slide that is subject to the actual prices of coal that you're hedged at and your transportation contract. But I think it's fair to say that when you have an on-peak price below $20, you will see some coal-to-gas switching. But I mean, we clearly have seen a pickup in gas generation, but this pickup has been at very low margins. And we will look at making the right economic decision to shutting down our units. But like I said we're not going to be chasing very small dollars and potentially increasing our cost structure or the wear and tear on our machines. So if we have enough visibility in terms of when we can buy back our hedges at a reasonable price over a long period of time, we will do that and bring our units down. That's as much as I can tell you, Jay. I mean, we haven't commented in the past about specific units and the operational status of them. So I'd rather just keep it at that level.

Okay, great. No, that's helpful, Mauricio. And then, Jason, I know you all haven't talked very much about sort of customer growth and margin expectations, but could you maybe give us some idea what you're looking at, particularly, given the very solid experience you had in 2011 now that you're sort of including Energy Plus and Green Mountain and that legacy Reliant retail altogether, sort of what you're looking at?

Yes, Jay, we expect to see customer growth across our retail platform in 2012. And we feel very confident from an overall margin performance that we'll be able to maintain, if not expand margins in 2012 as well.

Do you want to give a -- do you have any sense of -- are you intentionally avoiding the question of how quickly or how much you can grow customer count? You are intentionally avoiding that.

Yes, I am intentionally avoiding that.

I guess the last I'd go with is just sort of where we stand on the last Louisiana co-op. You saw contracted or recontracted, 2 of them. And what sort of indication that gives us for the last -- although, I guess that's out in 2014 as well.

Well, the third one is -- Chris, you want to mention that?

Jay, this is Chris. The information we've received is that they're probably going to go with a separate -- with another supplier. I believe they've signed with Cleco. So I don't think that's -- I mean, from our perspective, we're happy with the 2 that we signed. We signed some other loads prior to these. I think we're in very good competitive shape, but they wanted to go a different direction. It'll have to go through the PSC as well, but I mean, we'll see where it all shakes out. But for now there, we don't expect them to sign with us.

Thank you, all, for participating on the call. We'll look forward to talking with you next quarter. Thank you.

Thank you for your participation in today's conference. This concludes the presentation. You may now disconnect. Have a wonderful day.