Good morning, and welcome to the PPL Corporation Second Quarter Earnings Conference Call. All participants will be in listen-only mode. After today's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. Please note, this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Joe Bergstein. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining the PPL conference call on second quarter results as well as our general business outlook. We're providing slides to this presentation on our website at www.pplweb.com. Any statements made in this presentation about future operating results or other future events are forward-looking statements under the Safe Harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results may differ materially from such forward-looking statements. A discussion of factors that could cause actual results or events to differ is contained in the Appendix to this presentation and in the company's SEC filings. We will refer to earnings from ongoing operations or ongoing earnings, a non-GAAP measure, on this call. For reconciliations to the GAAP measures, you should refer to the press release, which has been posted on our website and has been furnished with the SEC. At this time, I'd like to turn the call over to Bill Spence, PPL Chairman, President and CEO.

Thanks, Joe, and good morning, everyone. We're pleased that you've joined us this morning. With me on the call today are Vince Sorgi, PPL's Chief Financial Officer; as well as the Heads of our U.S. and U.K. Utility businesses. Moving to slide 2; our agenda this morning starts with an overview of our quarterly and our year-to-date 2017 earnings results. We'll provide an update to our full 2017 year earnings guidance as well as a brief operational overview, including an overview of Ofgem's RIIO-2 process. Vince will then review our segment results and provide a more detailed financial review. As always, we'll leave time to answer your questions. Turning to slide 3; PPL had another strong quarter with very solid results through the first half of the year, and we are reaffirming our earnings guidance for 2017. PPL's earnings for the quarter and year-to-date are lower compared to 2016, as expected, primarily driven by lower foreign currency exchange rates in 2017. Today, we announced second quarter of 2017 reported earnings of $0.43 per share, compared with $0.71 per share a year ago. Year-to-date through the second quarter, reported earnings were $1.01 per share, compared to $1.41 per share through the first half of 2016. Adjusting for special items, second quarter 2017 earnings from ongoing operations were $0.52 per share, compared with $0.56 per share a year ago. Lower foreign currency exchange rates negatively impacted second quarter of 2017 earnings from ongoing operations by $0.07 per share, compared to 2016. The remaining quarterly increase in earnings from ongoing operations of $0.03 per share was due to lower operating and maintenance expenses in Kentucky and in the U.K. Through the first six months of 2017, earnings from ongoing operations were $1.14 per share, this compares with $1.23 per share through the same…

Thank you, Bill, and good morning, everyone. Let's move to slide 11. Our second quarter earnings from ongoing operations were lower by $0.04 per share, driven by lower earnings from the U.K. Regulated segment of $0.05, partially offset by $0.01 in the Kentucky Regulated segment. The Pennsylvania Regulated segment and Corporate and Other both remained flat, compared to a year ago. Weather was not a significant factor for the quarter, compared to bulk budget or prior year. However, domestic weather has negatively impacted our year-to-date results by about $0.03, compared to bulk budget in prior year, primarily in Kentucky. Let's move to a more detailed review of the second quarter segment earnings drivers, starting with the Pennsylvania results on slide 12. Our Pennsylvania Regulated segment earned $0.11 per share in the second quarter of 2017, flat compared to the same period last year. This result was due to higher transmission margins of $0.01, offset by higher depreciation of $0.01. Higher transmission margins resulted from additional capital investments, but were partially offset by a lower peak load billing factor. Moving to slide 13; our Kentucky Regulated segment earned $0.12 per share in the second quarter of 2017, a $0.01 increase compared to a year ago. This result was driven by lower operational and maintenance expense due to timing and scope of planned outages, and lower plant operating costs. Turning to slide 14; our U.K. Regulated segment earned $0.31 per share in the second quarter of 2017, a $0.05 decrease compared to the same period a year ago. The lower result was from lower foreign currency exchange rate in 2017, compared to 2016 of $0.07, partially offset by a decrease in O&M, primarily from lower pension expense. Gross margins in the U.K. were flat for the quarter, primarily due to the April…

Thank you, Vince. In summary, we had another good quarter and PPL remains on track to deliver on its 2017 earnings forecast. We remain confident in our ability to deliver 5% to 6% compound annual earnings growth per share from 2017 through 2020. As you know, we've raised the dividend 4% earlier this year and we continue to target annual dividend growth of about 4% through 2020. We're executing very well on our low-risk business plans. And we continue to deliver for our customers as evidenced by our industry-leading customer satisfaction awards. With that, operator, let's open the call to questions.

The first question is from Greg Gordon at Evercore ISI.

Good morning, Greg.

Good morning, guys. Good morning. So I mean, I have a hard time not seeing how you are, at this point, either just given how successful you've been at hedging currency and some of the lack of immaterial near to medium-term regulatory exposures, in terms of rate filings. How you're not theoretically above the 6% earnings growth rate, given how successful you've hedged the currency? And so does that mean that we should assume that you are going to take the value in excess of what would drive the 6% earnings growth rate and just continue to roll that forward into the next decade? Or how are you contemplating using that dry powder?

Yes. So that is one option, rolling forward the value into 2020 and beyond. But you are correct, if things stayed as they are today, with the forward curve being above our targeted budgeted rate of $1.30 per pound, we would be at the high-end of our earnings forecast. So you're absolutely correct on that. I would say that probably as we finalize our hedging for 2020, we'll be able to give a little bit more color around how we expect to use the value to the extent it continues to sit out in the forward years, and whether we're going to adjust our earnings forecast through 2020, or push that value forward into future years.

Okay, that's great. And then I guess, look, the tension in the stock from my perspective and you clearly have tried to address that in your scripted comments is that, while the earnings outlook looks incredibly robust with great visibility for the next three to four years, now there's this overhang of potentially more astringent return environment in the U.K. So, what are the things that you did, maybe you could give us some examples of the ways that you managed through the last transition, so people can understand the tools that you have at your disposal should you face some sort of reset in terms of base return on equity or shaping of revenue streams like you did last time?

Sure. Well, a couple of things there. One is, the tools that we've used in the past, I would say our tax planning and pension planning. So those are things that we've been effective at doing in the past. You mentioned shaping the revenue profile. That's something as we go through the consultation process, we'll look at how we develop our plan and whether that's an appropriate avenue to pursue as well. Vince, I don't know if you have any other comments around that and then, I can ask Robert as well.

Yes, I would say one of the items within the framework itself is how you set, what we call, fast pot versus slow pot. And that – you may recall that the U.K.'s cost recovery structure is called toad tax (21:56), it's not capital and O&M, total expenditures. And then, within the business plans, each distribution company can determine how much you want of that toad tax (22:04) to go towards, rate base growth and how much you want in current period recovery. WPD was at the high-end of the slow pot ratio under RIIO-ED1 at 80%, basically going to the rate base growth and 20% going through the current P&L. That definitely improves the long-term intrinsic value of the company because you're growing rate base, which is the engine that generates return. However, many of our peers were in the 70%, even some were in the low 60%. So that's an item that if returns were, for some reason, to be impacted, maybe we would have to dial that back commensurate with what our peers were doing through RIIO-1. But it would be stumping that we would have to look at in totality. The business plans are put together understanding the rules for the new price control in totality. And so, I wouldn't sit here today and say we were going to do that. But really depend, it is a lever that we could potential pull down into RIIO-2.

I think, Vince has got a good point. You have to look at the whole thing in the round, there are so many different things within a price control, and cost of capital is one of them, as Vince has pointed out, as a mix of OpEx and CapEx. Also when you think about the future, you also will consider what's happening in the U.K., and that's a move towards electrification of vehicles. And Michael Gove announced a couple of weeks ago that from 2040, there would be no more petrol and diesel vehicles produced in the U. K. And that, from a National Grid point of view, their estimate is that generation will have to go up 50%. Its impact on distribution businesses will be quite massive. And so maybe, CapEx plans will be much larger, looking at RIIO-ED2 than they have been in RIIO-ED1.

Great.

That was a terrific answer. Have a great day.

Great, thank you, Greg.

The next question is from Michael Lapides at Goldman Sachs. Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Hi, guys. I actually, want to turn attention to the U.S. businesses. And especially, when you look at slide 18, which is the slide – and I'm kind of looking at the 12-month rolling not the 3-month because lots of variations happen in every quarter. Weather-normalized demand in your service territories have been extremely challenging. And it's not just a short-term issue, it's been a couple of years now. How do you think about how you want to change the regulatory construct in both jurisdictions in order to be able to manage an environment where potentially is – where demand is at best flat, if not down?

So, Michael, I think you may recall that we basically took our load assumption, which was from 0.5% to 1% in the previous business plan down to flat, based on the trends we were seeing at the time. So our current earnings per share forecast through 2020 does include flat earnings growth on a – and as you know, sometimes weather adjustments are difficult at best. So in terms of the regulatory construct, there are tools that we could look at. And in Pennsylvania, for example, it would be a true up based on volume. As you know, in the U.K., we already have true ups based on how the weather turns out or the economies are made whole in terms of the impact to revenue. So the Pennsylvania PUC is kind of looking at a broad set of looking at the energy environment as it's pretty dynamic at the moment, what changes to their policies and practices might make sense for the utilities that they regulate. So I think there's probably more to come. I don't think in Kentucky we have a near-term concern. Vic, maybe you want to comment?

I think the best tool for us to deal with demand, which is flat, is our forward rate years. So we take that into account every time we file, you all know we've been filing every two years and so I would expect that would be the best way for us to capture any changes in the flattening low demand. Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Got it. Thank you, guys. Much appreciated.

Okay.

Okay. Operator, it looks like, there no other questions rather in the queue. So I will just thank, everyone, for joining us today, and look forward to talking on the third quarter earnings call.

The conference is now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.