Good day, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the TransCanada Corporation 2015 Second Quarter Results Conference Call. I would now like to turn the meeting over to Mr. David Moneta, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, Mr. Moneta.

Thanks very much and good morning, everyone. I'd like to welcome you to TransCanada's 2015 second quarter conference call. With me today are, Russ Girling, President and Chief Executive Officer; Don Marchand, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Alex Pourbaix, Executive Vice President and President of Development; Karl Johannson, President of our Natural Gas Pipelines business; Paul Miller, President, Liquids Pipelines; Bill Taylor, President of Energy; and Glenn Menuz, Vice President and Controller. Russ and Don will begin today with some opening comments on our financial results and certain other company developments. Please note that a slide presentation will accompany their remarks. A copy of the presentation is available on our website at transcanada.com, and it can be found in the Investors section under the heading, Events & Presentations. Following their prepared remarks, we will turn the call over to the conference coordinator for your questions. During the question-and-answer period, we'll take questions from the investment community first, followed by the media. In order to provide everyone with an equal opportunity to participate, we ask that you limit yourself to two questions. If you have additional questions, please re-enter the queue. Also, we ask that you focus your questions on our industry, our corporate strategy, recent developments, and key elements of our financial performance. If you have detailed questions relating to some of our smaller operations or your detailed financial models, Lee and I would be pleased to discuss some with you following the call. Before Russ begins, I'd like to remind you that our remarks today will include forward-looking statements that are subject to important risks and uncertainties. For more information on these risks and uncertainties, please see the reports filed by TransCanada with Canadian securities regulators and with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Finally, I'd also…

Thanks, Don. Just a reminder, before I turn it over to the conference coordinator. We'll take questions from the financial community first. And once we've completed that, we'll then turn it over to the media.

Thank you. And the first question is from Paul Lechem from CIBC. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning. Question on commentary in your written materials on your intra-Alberta oil pipeline is experiencing a slowing pace of growth. I'm just wondering if you can elaborate on that, what that means in terms of in-service dates on Grand Rapids, I'm assuming Grand Rapids, Heartland and Northern Courier? Paul Miller - Executive Vice President & President, Liquids Pipelines: Sure, Paul. It's Paul Miller here. I'll start with Northern Courier, we are proceeding with the construction of Northern Courier and it's proceeding well, targeting a 2017 in-service date. On our Heartland pipeline, we continue to enjoy solid commercial support and we've elected to proceed with the project at a time when the committed volumes require transportation. We continue to contract up Heartland, but we're aligning the in-service date with Heartland when we need to move those volumes to the marketplace. On Grand Rapids, we are proceeding with the in-service for Grand Rapids for initial volumes in 2016 and we will follow-up with the full system deliveries in 2017. We do anticipate, however, a slowing growth of throughput and the build out of the Grand Rapids system to align with the slowing pace of growth of oil production that we've seen in Alberta.

Okay. So if I'm hearing you right that Heartland now has no fixed in-service dates is what you're saying. Paul Miller - Executive Vice President & President, Liquids Pipelines: That's correct. A lot of the commercial underpinning for Heartland is tied to Energy East and Keystone XL. And as we get better visibility to the in-service date of those two X Alberta pipelines, we'll look at the in-service date for Heartland or as we contract independent volumes on Heartland.

Okay. Thanks. And if I could just ask a couple of questions on PRGT. You haven't yet given us an updated cost for that, but the pipeline from when it was initially announced has increased by about 25% in additional kilometers – 20% I guess, some of that's under water. So should we be thinking about like on an order of magnitude here, the costs have gone up at least 20% and potentially significantly more? Is that how we should be thinking about it? Alexander J. Pourbaix - Executive Vice President & President, Development: Paul, it's Alex. As Russ mentioned, we are seeing cost pressures on that largely for some of the reasons that you've identified, which is increased scope and some more complexity in the project. And we are – our plan when this project is finally sanctioned, we will give an update. Our customer is fully apprised of where we are and we don't think it's going to be very much longer before we can give a bit of an update. But I don't think we're going to speculate at this point.

Okay. Thanks. Russell K. Girling - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Thanks, Paul.

Thank you. The next question is from Robert Catellier from GMP Securities. Please go ahead.

So just some additional clarity here on the internal Alberta slowing. So this is a question of just moving out the in-service dates and there is no deferral or make up for the impact to TransCanada? Paul Miller - Executive Vice President & President, Liquids Pipelines: Robert, it's Paul Miller here. And just, if I understand your question, well, maybe just backup a bit. So on Grand Rapids, we're proceeding with the construction of Grand Rapids with the dual pipeline system. We have in place an anchor shipper who requires the dual system and we're targeting the 2017 in-service. Beyond the anchor shipper, we would anticipate building out the system through laterals, et cetera, to attach to incremental production. That build-out and the bringing on of additional volumes beyond the anchor shipper will continue, but we believe at a slower pace than initially anticipated.

Okay. And then, can I get an update on Bruce Power to see if there has been any advancements in bringing that to a final investment decision? William C. Taylor - Executive Vice President & President, Energy Division: Sure, Robert. It's Bill Taylor here. The status of discussions with – between Bruce Power management and the IESO on the potential transaction associated with the refurbishments of Units 3 through 8 are continuing. I can report that they're progressing well. We haven't reached any definitive agreement at this point, but we are quite encouraged with the progress.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. The next question is from Andrew Kuske from Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning. I guess the question just relates to a bit of the capital flexibility that you've got, and how are you thinking about just your balance sheet right now, and just a bit of the interest rate dynamics across the board where you've got an environment in the U.S. with rising rates in Canada, more compression? And then obviously, what also falls into the mix is a little bit of what we've seen in the MLP market in the U.S. where that's really come back in pretty dramatically where you've seen about a 20% decline and a lot of the names? Donald R. Marchand - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: In terms of the balance sheet strength, it really doesn't vary at any point of the cycle here. It's a solid A grade credit and allows us to act on whatever might arise. In terms of interest rate exposure here, we're predominantly fixed rate finance. So in terms of horizon, U.S. rate environment shouldn't have any significant impact on us. In general, we have about – average turnover of about 16 years and we're over 90% fixed rate funded, and a rising interest rate environment as well. We have a significant cost pass-through ability on several of our projects and assets. So, the things we can control in the interest rate front we think we're in pretty good shape there. We'll see what the FX dynamic here as you can do see rate diversions between Canada and the United States. Just from an FX perspective, for every $0.10 move in the currency – yeah, every $0.10 move in the currency, it's about $0.10 impact on earnings. We do hedge on a rolling one-year forward basis here. So, not seeing much impact from this fairly sizable shift in the currency over the past 12 months coming through yet, but we should start seeing that come through in future quarters and years here. In terms of the overall environment looking at assets and the like, we're being who we are. We see pretty much everything that transacts in North America. So we're as always interested observers. If anything comes loose that they might be of interest and fits our criteria, but really no change at this point of the cycle from any other point of cycle other than we will see what if anything does arise.

That's helpful. And then maybe just a follow-up. You know moving away from just the interest rate movements themselves, maybe just on spreads. Are you seeing less movement with the A credits like yourself versus the BBB and BB kind of credits that are in the marketplace right now? Donald R. Marchand - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Yeah. It's pretty broad spectrum of credits out there, but generally it's when you do see stressed market conditions where the A diverges from the lower rate of credits more dramatically, that's the environment we appear to be headed into. So the benefits of the A are probably more pronounced in these choppy market conditions than when things are robust across the complex.

Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you. Russell K. Girling - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Thanks, Andrew.

Thank you. The next question is from Robert Kwan from RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Good morning. If I can just start with Keystone, just wondering if you're part of the better results as well? Are you seeing a trend to any shippers bypassing Steele City and sending more crude into the Gulf Coast? Paul Miller - Executive Vice President & President, Liquids Pipelines: Rob, it's Paul Miller here. The Gulf Coast market has seen increased activity on Keystone or Keystone seeing increased activity on to the Gulf Coast, largely sourced at Cushing. The Cushing market from Hardisty based barrels continues to be the market of choice, it seems. We saw the spreads pretty strong here between Hardisty and Cushing. In the first quarter, they collapsed into the first part of the second quarter, but they seem to have rebounded a bit here. So we're seeing good flows into the Cushing market and then from the Cushing market down to the Gulf Coast.

Okay. And so, there is though a financial benefit to you just with the way you're picking up volumes on the southern part of the system? Paul Miller - Executive Vice President & President, Liquids Pipelines: There is. We're flowing about, little, about 450,000 barrels per day on the southern part of the system. That's up from about 400,000 barrels a day late last year and into the first quarter. On Keystone, we've seen our flows increase into about the 550,000 barrel per day range and that's been fairly sustained over the course of 2015.

Okay. If I can just look at around more capital allocation in the dividend, and you got two upside options here one around the value of all the projects you've got and then also around doing something on the dividend. I recognize you don't want to do anything to jeopardize the value of the projects by painting yourself into a corner on funding. I guess though when you look at the delays in Alberta and look at how NRG's has been pushed back and Keystone XL has been pushed back, it kind of feels like if that's to come together regardless, it's just going to be a size that you can't finance at your cash flows. So, is there an ability to move the payout ratio up a little bit just to get that dividend growth that you have at 8% to 10% to something north of 10% to be a little more competitive with your North American peers? Donald R. Marchand - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Yeah, it's Don here. The capital program is still in that $6 billion range for the next couple of years here as well. So, it's not entirely hinged on the large projects. There is quite a sizable portfolio of the small to midsize stuff that we continue to finance. So, we expect to add to that portfolio here over time. So, it's a balancing act in terms of prudency and we recognize fully the value that our shareholders place on the dividend and the growth in that dividend. We think earnings do matter. So, that is a metric that factors into it. But yeah, this 8% to 10% range is our comfort level right now based on what we have in front of us and with the A grade credit…

Okay. So, any step up in dividend growth really is tied to larger projects. Is there anything else that you might be considering that could develop that would cause you to want to move the payout ratio up? Russell K. Girling - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Well, I think as we said, I mean is that the long-term projects are one with greater visibility of growth in our base business. As we've said, there is several organic projects on our horizon, greater visibility of build-out to the NGTL System, the ANR System bringing Marcellus gas moving south and the expansions of those kinds of systems. As we see our base business continue to grow as well, that gives us greater confidence. I think as Don said, earnings do matter to us, but it's sort of visibility of the growth in that and that the payout ratio in the short run isn't major sort of factor. It's where we think things are going over the long term. So there's obviously those shorter-term organic projects, greater efficiencies that we can gain in our base businesses. Along with those greater visibility, future opportunities will be the things that drive our dividend decisions over the coming quarters and years.

That's great. Thank you very much. Russell K. Girling - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Thanks, Robert.

Thank you. The next question is from Linda Ezergailis from TD Securities. Please go ahead.

Thank you. I'm wondering on your NGTL project, what is the scale of possibility in terms of further requests? And I'm assuming it somewhat constrained by your ability to develop in that region. So can you talk about if this is more of an backend loaded this decade or if there's some potential in some ways to accelerate some of your expansions there? Karl Johannson - President-Natural Gas Pipelines & Executive VP: For the NGTL – so it's Karl, Linda. Right now, as you know, we're undergoing about a $2.7 billion of expansion of that system. We have regulatory applications in for about $2 billion of that, and we're working on the rest right now. We're seeing a very little slowdown in that expansion. Our customers are asking that we proceed on it. And we – although, we may see some of it extend into 2018, we're expecting the vast majority of it to be completed in 2017. Aside from that, we have close the queue recently. On NGTL, we have more receipt service requests from transportation on NGTL right now in front of us. We're just going through the system design for that request and we will hopefully in the next couple of months be able to determine what type of expansion that will be. Probably, it won't be as big as a $2.7 billion expansion that we're undertaking right now, but there is a reasonable amount of receipt service requests in front of us right now for – that people are asking for us. So, we will have some expansion coming over 2018 and beyond.

Thank you. And just a follow-up, Karl, your – some of the pressure restrictions you're seeing right now, do you see that being on schedule to get resolved with the NEB? Karl Johannson - President-Natural Gas Pipelines & Executive VP: Yeah, we're expecting the NEB issues – the derisks from the NEB we expect, so we're still kind of expecting kind of September, maybe late September to have them all lifted. The pressure restrictions you're seeing right now is clearly on the Western side of our system. Kind of Western Alberta and Northeast B.C. are both from our integrity work, both are normal to the integrity work. And the integrity work we requested from the NEB and our regular maintenance process right now, as this part of our system is extremely firm. And we have been setting interruptible transportation quite significantly over the last few months. And hopefully by the end of Q3, we will have most of the maintenance integrity done, and we'll have some more interruptible transportation for our customers. But really the most of the tests that we have done have been the interruptible transmission. We have seen some firm service cuts, but they have generally been isolated in short duration. But we do hope by the end of the Q3 that we'll have reestablished that interruptible capacity for our customers back again.

Great. Thank you. And just as a follow-up on your Alberta power hedging philosophies and approach, I realize there is some competitive dynamics and sensitivity. But can you comment on how much you've been dispatching your PPA contracts? And to the extent that that has maybe come down in expectations as well for the next year or two, is there, I guess, a bias towards less to no contracting to ensure you're not long power during these lower price times, or can you comment on how you're approaching the Alberta fleet? Donald R. Marchand - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Yeah. You're correct, Linda, that we don't typically like to discuss the approach we're taking to the Alberta market in any detail for competitive reasons. But I can tell you that we approach it cautiously as it relates to – you saw some of the activity in late May and into June that impacted the quarter as it related to some outages in the Alberta market. So we approach our program pretty carefully, as it relates to ensuring that we're well positioned to not only capitalize on those kinds of opportunities, but also to ensure that we don't find ourselves on the wrong side of events like that. So, I mean, in terms of going forward, I think that the market, as Don mentioned in his opening remarks is, at present pretty well supplied. We're seeing some reductions in overall demands with the general economic climate in Alberta at the moment. And so we're cautiously optimistic that there may still be some opportunities in the latter half of the year. Our prices have obviously been quite well other than the adjustments that occurred in June due to some outages. So, I mean, that's about all I guess I cans say on that.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Russell K. Girling - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Thanks, Linda.

The next question is from Rob Hope from Macquarie. Please go ahead.

Thank you and good morning, everyone. Russell K. Girling - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Good morning, Rob.

Most of my questions have been answered, but maybe just a few clarifications. On the Grand Rapids, can you maybe comment on how much anchor volumes you have on the system and what's an expected ramp in returns would be on that? Paul Miller - Executive Vice President & President, Liquids Pipelines: Hi, Rob, it's Paul Miller here. We haven't released the anchor volume commitments. The Grand Rapids has the capability of moving 900,000 barrels per day of blend Southbound and then dealing with Northbound. The anchor ship in itself provides us with threshold volumes to proceed and with a suitable return. We'll probably start the capacity of Grand Rapids out of the gate at a lower amount in that 500,000 to 600,000 barrel range and then add power as we go. But we haven't disclosed the shippers commitment and it's inappropriate for us to do so, but is enough to proceed with the project and then attract additional barrels as the production grows.

All right. Thanks for that. And then maybe just shifting East. I just noticed that the Eastern Mainline in-service date shifted to 2019 from 2017 in your disclosure versus Q1. Is that just to run it up in terms with the energy oil project or rather... Russell K. Girling - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Yes. Karl Johannson - President-Natural Gas Pipelines & Executive VP: Yeah. Rob, it's Karl. That's just where we're just lying it up with the Energy East project.

All right. Good to hear. Thank you.

Thank you. The next question is from Matthew Akman from Scotiabank. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Good morning. Russell K. Girling - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Good morning, Matt.

Couple of questions just around the triggers for construction on Pac NorthWest LNG, and obviously the permitting is going very well at the potential level. And on the other hand, some of the First Nations' stuff is little more choppy. So I'm just wondering, let's say, we get an FID, would TransCanada begin construction on the pipeline even if there – even if some of the First Nations legal challenges persist? Alexander J. Pourbaix - Executive Vice President & President, Development: Hey, Matthew, it's Alex. I think we've always said with this project, I mean, we seek to reach agreements with all of the affected First Nations. And I think if you've seen our disclosure over the last couple of months, you've seen that we've been making a significant amount of progress in signing project agreements with a number of the bans on both of the projects. From our perspective, we believe that – we will, by the time this project is ultimately sanctioned, reach agreement with a vast majority of affected First Nations. And it has never been a criteria for us that we reach – that we get a 100% of those. That's obviously what we strive for. But we think we're well on the way of getting a significant pace of support for this project to proceed.

Yes. Can you just please confirm, Alex, that any risk related to any legal challenges or tolling issues on North Montney on the project are the risk of PETRONAS and not TransCanada? Alexander J. Pourbaix - Executive Vice President & President, Development: Sorry. On the North Montney...

First, on the Pac NorthWest LNG, if there is any risk related to legal challenges following construction commencement, whose responsibility is that, TransCanada or PETRONAS? Karl Johannson - President-Natural Gas Pipelines & Executive VP: Well, it's Karl, I can talk about the North Montney and that's an NGTL project. So we would be – that would be the risk of building that infrastructure would be part of the NGTL infrastructure. So, I guess, if we had any delay or whatnot, that would be between NGTL and our customers there. Russell K. Girling - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: With respect to PRGT, I mean, the way that it's constructed, Matthew, is that we're building this on behalf of our customer. And for the most part, all of the risks pass through to that customer. It's a hypothetical question that you're asking that's got a myriad of potential outcomes, which I wouldn't want to speculate at this point in time. As Alex said, our intent is to get as many First Nations agreements as we can and we believe that our agreements will protect our shareholders, but, I mean I don't think I can share with you much more than that at this point in time.

Okay. Thanks, guys. Those are my questions. Russell K. Girling - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Thanks, Matthew.

Thank you. The next question is from Steven Paget from FirstEnergy Capital. Please go ahead.

Well, thank you and good morning. Karl, could you please update us on progress at Clearwater and what we can expect in the remainder of the third quarter at that station? Karl Johannson - President-Natural Gas Pipelines & Executive VP: For the – you mean the outage that we have there?

Units 1 and 5, yes. Karl Johannson - President-Natural Gas Pipelines & Executive VP: Yeah. So we're making good progress. We are expecting it to be a reestablishment from service here before the end of the third quarter. So that's what all I can say right now. It's quite a recent issue that we've had, but we are working on getting it back up.

Thank you. Second question. The Magellan announcement looks like it gives some optionality to the Houston delivery and the Keystone XL. Is there an opportunity to add similar connectivity to the Port Arthur or is that pretty much got all the connectivity it needs? Paul Miller - Executive Vice President & President, Liquids Pipelines: Hi, Steven, it's Paul Miller here. So you're accurate on the Magellan opportunity. We're excited about being able to team up with Magellan and allow us to essentially access the 2 million barrels per day plus refining capacity in the Houston, Texas City marketplace, and that's a business model we like where we can team up with folks downstream of us to encourage flows on the Keystone System. So we'll continue to look for similar opportunities in all the markets we serve, including the Port Arthur marketplace and I do think there is opportunities in Port Arthur.

Opportunities there. Thank you. Final question, if I may. Are we looking at any further dropdowns to TC PipeLines, LP in the remainder of the year? Donald R. Marchand - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: It's Don here. Yeah, I can't give you a specific timing, but we're still on a path to bend the rest of our U.S. gas pipes into that vehicle on a systematic basis. So there has been no change to our thinking.

Well, thank you. Those are my questions. Russell K. Girling - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Thanks, Steven.

Thank you. We'll now take questions from the media. And the first question is from Ashok Dutta from Platts. Please go ahead. Mr. Dutta, your line is open.

Hi. Good morning. Two very quick questions, if I may, please. When or at what stage will you take a call on the single export terminal at Energy East? Alexander J. Pourbaix - Executive Vice President & President, Development: Hi, Ashok. It's Alex Pourbaix. As Russ said in his prepared remarks, we are well advanced in the process of determining the ultimate configuration for Energy East. We stated that our plan is to file an amendment with the National Energy Board prior to the end of the year. I think we're still on that path and we are relatively close to making that decision.

Okay. And the second question, in that case, in case there is only one terminal, how would refineries in Québec be served? Alexander J. Pourbaix - Executive Vice President & President, Development: Even in the event that we were to proceed without our marine terminal in Québec, all options that we are considering would continue to have the pipeline direct connected to the Québec refineries. So under any scenario, Energy East will be able to serve the overwhelming need of those refineries in Québec.

Okay, lovely. Thanks. Alexander J. Pourbaix - Executive Vice President & President, Development: You're welcome.

Thank you. The next question is from Julien Arsenault from The Press Canadian. Please go ahead.

Hi, and thanks for taking my questions. Regarding the possibility of another terminal in Québec, how's been the evaluation process right now? Has it been more difficult that you thought and have you had discussions with some towns regarding this possibility? Alexander J. Pourbaix - Executive Vice President & President, Development: Thanks for the question, Julien. Once again, Alex Pourbaix here. We have undergone a really comprehensive review of all of our options, and those go from looking at alternative sites along the St. Lawrence within Québec to, as we mentioned, potentially just going with one marine terminal into Brunswick. In all of those cases, we have engaged with stakeholders and we'll make an informed decision based on all of those discussions and the information we gathered from that.

Okay. And second question, I wanted to get your thoughts, TransCanada. For the last month-and-a-half, the tone of the Prime Minister of Québec seems to have changed regarding Energy East. He now says that the financial impact are not sufficient enough in Québec for the government to give us approval to the project. What do you make of that change of tone from the last month-and-a-half? Alexander J. Pourbaix - Executive Vice President & President, Development: I'm not sure there's been a significant change in tone. I think from the very early days, both the Québec government and the Ontario government, have indicated that their conditions for support include looking at the economic benefits of the project to their respective provinces. I think something that is often lost in this discussion is whether or not you talk about a marine terminal, there is already an extraordinary economic benefit for those provinces. I think my recollection is that just through the construction period and operation period in Québec alone, we and our consultants are estimating GDP impact in excess of $6 billion. We're going to employ 4,000 people alone full-time equivalent through the development and construction stage. But on top of that, we really do take seriously that these projects have to provide long-term benefits in the provinces in which they're situated. You might have seen several months ago, we announced in Peterborough with GE, that as a result of Energy's proceeding, GE has been able to make a commitment to move their large industrial motor production, global center of excellence to Peterborough. That's totally based on the Energy East project proceeding. And I would just suggest that everybody should stay tuned, because over the next several months as we give more clarity on Energy East on the scope and the alignment of the project, we also intend to roll out a lot more positive information about the benefits of this project to the provinces. We're not at all concerned at the end of the day that this project will pass that criteria of providing economic benefit for the provinces.

Okay. Thanks. Was that Mr. Pourbaix or who answered my question, not sure of the voice. Alexander J. Pourbaix - Executive Vice President & President, Development: Yeah, it was Alex Pourbaix.

Okay. Thanks. Alexander J. Pourbaix - Executive Vice President & President, Development: Thank you.

Thank you. The next question is from Lauren Krugel from The Canadian Press. Please go ahead.

Good morning. I'm just looking at the capital program chart and the figures for the cost estimates and how much has been spent. And I see about $700 million on for Energy East. I'm just wondering at this stage in the process what that figure would have been spent on given that it is so early on? Alexander J. Pourbaix - Executive Vice President & President, Development: Well, I think the first thing you have to look at is first of all, this is a 4,500 kilometer project. It has 75 pump stations. This project has very, very significant scale and scope. And where the regulatory process has gone in order to make a regulatory filing, a very significant amount of field work, environmental studies, technical studies, engineering reports needs to be prepared along with preliminary engineering. All of this is required just to inform the application. On top of that, there is a real significant obligation, and something that TransCanada would do in any event, but to work with stakeholders in the regions. And to give you an idea, we have held in excess – I think it's somewhere in the range of 120 open houses. We've worked with the better part of 8,000 or 9,000 individuals in terms of our stakeholder outreach. The last I saw, we have already held 1,600 meetings with affected First Nations along the route. And as you can imagine, all of that work has costs associated with that. The one thing I would say is that at where we are right now in terms of costs for the project, there is very little incremental costs required to get us to the regulatory hearing stage. So, a lot of that number that you saw is, we don't expect that number to get significantly larger prior to the hearing. The other issue that I should also mention is, in order to make the application, we also have to satisfy our regulator that the pipe, the existing gas pipe that we are proposing will be converted to oil usage. We have to do a significant amount of integrity work on those pipes and that work has been done once again to inform our application and give comfort to the regulator.

Okay. Thanks for the clarity on that. And that sounded like Alex answering the question. Alexander J. Pourbaix - Executive Vice President & President, Development: Yes. Sorry, Alex again.

Okay. Great. Thanks so much. Alexander J. Pourbaix - Executive Vice President & President, Development: Okay.

Thank you. The next question is from Rebecca Penty from Bloomberg News. Please go ahead.

Thanks for taking my question. It's about Keystone XL. As you guys are well aware, there has been lots out recently regarding the potential for Obama to reject Keystone XL in August when the Senate leaves. I'm just wondering in terms of the possibility of a NAFTA challenge and an investor state dispute settlement, as it's called, I'm wondering, how TransCanada is looking at the potential of that and any kind of remedy that the company would have in the event that Obama doesn't relent? Russell K. Girling - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: I think as we've said before, Rebecca, I mean TransCanada will employ whatever means necessary to protect its shareholders, and its shareholder value, but that's not our focus at the current time. As I said, our focus is on the regulatory proceedings as you know in South Dakota, and working through those issues, working through the outstanding Supreme Court issues in Nebraska and getting ourselves in a position so that we can construct this facility upon a positive decision by the Department of State. With respect to rumors and things like that, we've been at this for seven years now and there have been lots of rumors about lots of different things. And we continue to just sort of focus on the things that we're good at, which is trying to get a safe and reliable pipeline built. I don't want to speculate on what happened sort of post or any kind of scenarios or outcomes. At this point in time, it's not our focus.

Would you comment at all on how you see that, like whether it could be successful, any kind of NAFTA challenge? Russell K. Girling - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: As I said, it's not at this point in time, that's not a focus that we have. No decisions have been made, so it'd be premature to speculate on anything like that.

Thank you.

Thank you. The next question is from Claudia Cattaneo from the National Post. Please go ahead.

Hi. Thanks for taking my question. Actually, I'd just like to follow up on the last one. I know that your focus is not on what other options you might have on Keystone XL. But if it does get rejected, would you just re-file a new application under a new administration? And would a re-filing basically involve, like can you use some of the work that you've already done or it would have to be a complete re-filing of an application for Keystone XL? Russell K. Girling - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Claudia, as I said, no decision has been made, so difficult to speculate on that. I guess what I can tell you is that the demand for the project is greater than it was when we made the application. I think as you've heard me say before, production is up in Canada. We're moving more barrels by rail, production is up in the U.S. coming out of the Bakken. They're moving that production by rail. Demand is up in the U.S. So the need for the pipeline remains. All of our shippers remain 100% supportive even through the decline in commodity price here that we've seen. We've gone back to all of our shippers. As I said, we continually work with them on all of our projects to understand what changes in commodity prices will have on their future needs. They've reiterated their need for Keystone Pipeline and their commitment to their contracts. So, it'd be our intent to continue to press to build that pipeline because the demand doesn't change. So, obviously that would be our intent under any scenario is to continue to press for the approval of building this pipeline. What that would require in the event that you outlined, we can't speculate on what that is, because we don't what that looks like at the current time. But, certainly, we don't see there is any rationale at the current time for a negative decision. As I said in my prepared remarks, the greenhouse gas emissions question has been answered several times by the Department of State in its environmental review. The question of safety has been answered and at the current time, we see no rationale for anything but a positive decision. So that's when we continue to press and provide information to the Department of State that help them augment the current record and drive towards making a positive decision.

If I may, just a follow-up. You highlighted in a recent letter to the State Department the fact that Alberta has implemented more stringent climate change regulations. Have you heard any response at all about that? Russell K. Girling - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: No, we haven't. We filed that information as we do on a continuous basis with the Department of State any material updates. And given the greenhouse gas emissions question has gathered so much attention, we wanted to ensure that the record was as full as possible and have indicated; a) that the decision or the conclusion had already been come to that the pipeline won't have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The ETA had indicated on several occasions that Canada could be doing more, so we updated the Department of State with, as you pointed out, the most recent changes in Alberta emission regulations, which increased the stringency on a per barrel basis in terms of reduction emission targets and increased the penalties if you will. If emissions are above those levels, that's a significant incentive for the industry to continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they continue that. At the same time, we updated the Department of State on Canada's commitment to greenhouse gas reductions. They had made certain statements with respect to their position, going into Paris, the 30% reduction by 2030, their 2050 reduction targets and the 2100 reduction targets as well. So, in terms of the greenhouse gas emissions questions, what our intent there was, was to ensure that the record was up-to-date as much as possible. And I guess, again to indicate that the Canadian production continues to be a leader and Canadian jurisdictions continue to be a leader in greenhouse gas emissions reduction standards relative to either producing countries or around the world.

Thank you.

Thank you. There are no further questions registered at this time. I'd like to turn the meeting back over to Mr. Moneta.

Thanks very much, and thanks to all of you for participating this morning. We very much appreciate your interest in TransCanada, and we look forward to talking to you again soon. Bye for now.

Thank you. The conference has now ended. Please disconnect your lines at this time, and thank you for your participation.