Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. My name is Angela, and I'm your event operator today. I would like to welcome everyone to today's conference, Public Service Enterprise Group's First Quarter 2015 Earnings Conference Call and Webcast. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session for members of the financial community. As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded today, Friday, May 1, 2015, and will be available for telephone replay beginning at 1 o'clock PM Eastern today until 11:30 PM Eastern on May 8, 2015. It will also be available as an audio webcast on PSEG's corporate website at www.pseg.com. I would now like to turn the conference over to Kathleen Lally. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Angela. Good morning. Thank you all for participating in our earnings call this morning. As you are aware, we released our first quarter 2015 earnings statements earlier today. The release and attachments are posted on our website as mentioned, www.pseg.com, under the Investors section. We also posted a series of slides that detail operating results by company for the quarter. Our 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2015, is expected to be filed shortly. I won't go through the full disclaimer statement or the comments we have on the difference between operating earnings and GAAP results, but as you know, the earnings release and other matters that we will discuss in today's call contain forward-looking statements and estimates that are subject to various risks and uncertainties. And although, we may elect to update forward-looking statements from time-to-time, we specifically disclaim any obligation to do so, even if our estimate changes unless, of course, we are required to do so. Our release today also contains adjusted non-GAAP operating earnings, as well as a new non-GAAP disclosure of adjusted EBITDA for PSEG Power. Please refer to today's 8-K or the other filings for a discussion of factors that may cause results to differ from management's projections, forecasts and expectations for a reconciliation of operating earnings and adjusted EBITDA to GAAP results. I'd now like to turn the call over to Ralph Izzo, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Public Service Enterprise Group. And joining Ralph on the call is Caroline Dorsa, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. At the conclusion of their remarks, there will be time for your questions. Ralph Izzo - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Thank you, Kathleen. And thank you, everyone, for joining us today. PSEG performed extremely well in the first…

Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question-and-answer session for members of the financial community. Your first question comes from Daniel Eggers with Credit Suisse. Please proceed with your question. Daniel Eggers - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker): Hey, good morning, guys. Good morning. Ralph, I was wondering if you could share your thoughts on the Artificial Island outcome. It went back and forth quite a bit. You guys got part of the project, but not all of what was originally awarded. How is that affecting your thoughts about future investment in transmission outside of the standard footprint opportunity? Ralph Izzo - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Thanks, Dan. Good morning. We have a complaint pending at FERC on the way in which PJM followed the process. And I have met with – the FERC commission is telling them that, we're a little concerned with both the unevenness with which FERC Order 1000 is being implemented nationwide and the fits and starts with which it's being implemented specifically within PJM. And we specifically filed that before PJM staff recommendation came out, because we didn't want it to be viewed as a case of either potentially sour grapes if we didn't win or beating of our chest if we did win. So I think the best face you could put on this is that, it's a nascent program and it's undergoing some growing pains. I have some broader concerns about it that the success of any market is in, the fact that you have multiple buyers and multiple sellers, and you have visibility to pricing and the needs of customers. And this thing has not had any of those characteristics associated with it and it's hard for me to imagine that it will be the case when it…

Next question?

Your next question comes from Michael Weinstein with UBS.

Hi guys. Caroline D. Dorsa - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Good morning.

Real quick question about, wondering if you could talk about the possibility of getting a low carbon portfolio standard in New Jersey, and how that might impact CapEx? Ralph Izzo - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Yes. Thanks Michael. So, I don't see a separate and independent low carbon portfolio standard in New Jersey in the near term. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, the state's official response and comments to the EPA 111(d) proposal was questioning actually the legality of EPA's ability to implement the program. So looking at sort of the progress we've made on the RPS in the state, I believe New Jersey is intent to proceed along those lines, as opposed to doing something more comprehensive in the form of using an energy efficiency standard or a carbon standard. As you know, we have consistently and still feel this way, believed that a nationwide carbon program is required, and that states going alone, creates all sorts of economic distortions. That doesn't change our point of view, however, that there is a need for the carbon standard nationwide.

Right. And have you guys specifically mentioned, what you're going to do with proceeds from Sandy insurance recoveries? Caroline D. Dorsa - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Sure. This is Caroline. Good morning, Michael. So no, we haven't – we haven't specifically earmarked them for things, of course money – I mentioned we're getting reimbursement, a lot of money was spent for Sandy recovery. So this fully compensates us. That money large part already spent. So the dollars that come in here really just support the strength of the balance sheet that we have and the reinvestment that we're making in new things at the utility and potential new opportunities at Power. So it just gives us more strength to pursue more growth opportunities and very pleased to have the settlement behind us.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Sure. Next question?

Your next question comes from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates.

Good morning. Ralph Izzo - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Good morning, Paul. Caroline D. Dorsa - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Good morning.

Just a few quick things. I notice that the deficiency letter, that the response that PJM made to it, there was – they didn't seem to have a problem with stop loss limits on the penalties removed, and I think you guys and maybe Exelon – I'm not sure, and tell me if I'm wrong, are not opposed to that, whereas some generators are, and I was just wondering, if you could give us a feel as to what you think might happen if those limits are removed? Ralph Izzo - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: If the limits are removed, in general, Paul, I think that the greater the potential for reward which comes along with greater risk, the better it is for us. We have a highly – a high performing fleet and what's important is both halves of that sentence, A, the first half being that they're high performing and second that it's a fleet. So the interchangeability of assets that do clear the auction with assets that don't clear the auction, the fuel flexibility, the different technologies we have, all give us greater and greater confidence about the ability of the assets to perform. So to the extent that penalties become tougher, or limits get removed, one would only expect that the reward would be commensurate with that risk, and we would perform well in that market.

Right, no, I can see that. I guess I'm wondering if you have any sense as to quantifiably, or just obviously approximate just general idea about how much that might impact? Ralph Izzo - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: No, we don't try. Even when the rules are clear, we don't predict the outcome of the auction.

That's true. Ralph Izzo - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: The rules aren't clear. (35:45)

Okay. I think that actually satisfies the second question that I had, then, and that's it, I guess. Thanks so much. Ralph Izzo - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Thanks. Caroline D. Dorsa - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Okay.

Thanks. Next question?

Your next question comes from Travis Miller with Morningstar.

Good morning. Thank you.

Good morning. Ralph Izzo - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Hi, Travis.

Looking at the slide 19, want to make sure I clearly understand this. The Power fuel costs, look at that oil and gas line. So generation in the quarter was up, and yet saw a substantial reduction there in that fuel cost. So I'm wondering if you could just go through that, and how sustainable that is? It's polar vortex related, or something else? Caroline D. Dorsa - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Yeah. So you're right, exactly right, Travis. I mean, you think about where gas prices were last year and where gas prices are this year, they are lower. And so, you see that come right through that line. Of course oil prices were lower too, but gas is the predominant – predominant fuel here. You're seeing that directly come into that line. Remember, I also mentioned that the prices for wholesale energy were lower and that goes along with that, right. So get lower gas prices and lower power prices, preserves spark spread for us and that's what also commented on the value that our hedges provided this year on a year-over-year basis because of that reduction. That is directly related to the observable market price for gas versus last year.

Got it. Is any of that gas monetization benefit in that number, in terms of reducing the fuel costs? Caroline D. Dorsa - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: No. This is just the pure fuel cost, and cost of goods sold.

Okay, and is it sustainable? Do you think you'd see trends like this over the next couple quarters? Is this a one-off... Caroline D. Dorsa - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: So that's really gas price forecast question, right. So we really just use what's in the forward curve when we think about gas prices going forward. The important thing to keep in mind though is we've got the base load is hedged, right, in the current year. So we're really talking about what's happening in the combined cycle, and therefore their ability to preserve the spark spread because of how gas moves, protects us to an extent, but other than using the forward curve, it's really hard to predict gas prices.

Great. Thanks so much. Caroline D. Dorsa - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Sure.

Next question?

Your next question comes from Shar Pourreza with Guggenheim Partners.

Good morning. Ralph Izzo - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Good morning, Shar. Caroline D. Dorsa - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Good morning.

So if you take your energy strong program, combine it with gas modernization, sort of what is that – how many miles does that cover, as far as replacement of the cast iron steel pipes, and sort of where do you see that program expanding to? Ralph Izzo - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: So I believe it's about 150 miles per year, and it would take us 30 years.

Okay. Got it. Ralph Izzo - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: So the (38:31) gas system is closer to 800 miles, but it would take us 30 years at that spending rate to replace everything.

Okay, got it. And one just reminder, what do you – as far as, your transmission ROE's right now? What are you earning on? Ralph Izzo - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: So it varies. Shar, it's – our base ROE is 11.18%. We get a 50 basis points RTO membership adder for 11.68%. We had, I guess, we still have a couple of projects that get anywhere from 25 basis points to 125 basis points in addition. However, our last four or five projects that we filed for have not received any incremental ROE incentive component. So a long-awaited answer, but there is no one simple number. It starts at 11.18%, it goes up to 12.75% or something like that, that being the Susquehanna-Roseland project being the only one that got that big an adder.

Got it, and if you'd think about it from a weighted average, it's still within the range of reasonableness that you're seeing? (39:34) Ralph Izzo - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: It comes down to about 11.7%, which is just a fraction of a bit outside the range of reasonableness.

Perfect, thanks so much.

Our next question?

Your next question comes from Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank.

Well good morning, guys. Caroline D. Dorsa - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Good morning. Ralph Izzo - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Good morning, John.

Could you, I think you said that the amount of this Hurricane Sandy recovery that was left in the operating numbers of the utility was $0.03, roughly, in the first quarter, but there would be some amount in the second quarter, but I don't think you gave us a breakdown of how much was in Power and how much was Utility. Caroline D. Dorsa - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Right. So sure, Jonathan. So the impact to PSE&G's earnings for the first quarter benefited $0.01 to the benefit of O&M from the Sandy recovery that goes to PSE&G. The remaining piece of the settlement that we have – the remaining about $54 million, we have to go through the allocation process, and we will do that and we'll discuss how that will flow when we do the second quarter results. So a couple of things to remember. So on the Power side, we don't flow it through operating earnings, that's below the line, which you can see in the reconciliation. We don't do that because Power spend was below the line as well. And on the Utility side, remember that the recoveries that we got, including a portion of the $50 million – a small portion of that was for PSE&G in the past, goes primarily to balance sheet because a lot of the spend for storm recovery that's recoverable under our policy's capital spend and that's on the balance sheet. So there is balance sheet or regulatory asset offset, and just $0.01 of impact for the P&L from the first quarter for Sandy at PSE&G, and we'll do the second quarter piece when we do the second quarter results.

Okay, but it sounds like it's unlikely to be that material to the year in the context of the guidance or what have you. Caroline D. Dorsa - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Yeah. I think that's right in the context of guidance, correct, right. So you've seen now we're almost done with the Sandy settlement being booked, with just $54 million to go and you've got a big piece already booked in the first quarter and the P&L impact for operating earnings purposes was just $0.01. So I think, proportionally you're thinking of it the right way.

Okay. Thank you. And then just on one other topic. We've obviously, it's very – just recently, we're seeing the change in the dispatch or at least the generation stack with some of the coal plants no longer there. What are you guys seeing in terms of just day-to-day, as you come into this front end of the summer? Are there noticeable changes in operations or the units of the shopping (42:19) just not really participating already? What are you seeing in the markets? Ralph Izzo - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: No, Jonathan. I think one of our slides shows you the capacity factors, and we had a slight dip in nuclear capacity that was purely related to an outage at Salem that wasn't planned, for and otherwise the units would have been at or better than last year in terms of nuclear. Our gas units picked up the slack from some of that, as well as some of the lower prices that Travis paid attention to earlier, but the base load coal units Keystone, Conemaugh had a strong winter season. Prices weren't – gas prices were not below that fateful $1.90 number of 2012 that resulted in some of the dispatch of those, and of course our New Jersey coal units as well as our Connecticut coal units did run a little bit during the winter months because of the unavailability. The head unit saw peakers (43:15) using the demand at the level that they would be called upon. So really no change in terms of the numbers this year from any kind of a fundamental shift in the market that we haven't over the past four years or five years.

Ralph, I was actually a bit more curious about sort of post the mid-April date, where MAPS (43:38) went into effect. It's obviously not in the quarter, so whether there's anyone that could just talk about more real-time? Ralph Izzo - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: No, I don't think so. I think if anything the forward price curve would suggest that we'll continue to see robust capacity factors for our combined cycle gas turbine units, and nuclear units will run flat out. I mean that's pretty much the same.

Okay. Well, thank you very much.

Next question?

And your next question comes from Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Hey, guys. Congrats on a great start to the year. Two items. One on the regulated side. Can you just highlight for us what's different in CapEx known for the next few years at E&G today, versus what you talked about at the Analyst Day? Several moving parts, just want to make sure we have them all. Ralph Izzo - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Sure, Michael. The one thing that's different that has been a – so what we like to show you in the March meeting is what's been approved. So, notwithstanding our complaint in front of FERC, there's $120 million – Caroline correctly described it as $110 million to $130 million in Artificial Island was not included in the March Investor Presentation as baked in. Similarly, so that's the only change of things that have been finalized and are now part of the plan. The other piece that's significantly different is that, we filed, have not received approval for $1.6 billion over the next five years in this gas system modernization program, and that's not in the utilities capital program that we showed you in March. Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Got it. The other question, thinking about your coal plants in New Jersey, so moving over to Power. Not running a lot, haven't been for a year or two. Just where are you, if at all, in the process of thinking about whether these plants will remain economic? And if not, kind of how on the edge are they, or are they clearly economic? And when you look out for the next three to five, five to seven years, they're a core part…

Sure, next question.

Mr. Izzo and Ms. Dorsa, there are no further questions at this time. Please continue with your presentation or closing remarks. Ralph Izzo - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Perhaps, this is – we're finishing ahead of schedule. Thank you all for joining us. I really do hope you view this as kind of a quintessential quarter for us as opposed to anything special. I grant you we didn't have anything fancy to tell you about just steady progress in terms of new investment opportunities at the utility and solid operations all around the company. In other words, what we like to do is just deliver on our commitments, and then some. I know that Caroline and Kathleen and to a lesser extent I, will be on the road over the next couple of months and we look forward to seeing you until then just enjoy your spring. Thank you all. Caroline D. Dorsa - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude your conference call for today. You may disconnect and thank you for participating.