Good morning. My name is Amy, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Vistra Energy 2018 Results Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers' remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Thank you. Molly Sorg, Vice President of Investor Relations at Vistra Energy, you may begin your conference.

Thank you and good morning, everyone. Welcome to Vistra Energy's investor webcast discussing 2018 results, which is being broadcast live from the Investor Relations section of our website at www.vistraenergy.com. Also available on our website are a copy of today's investor presentation, our 10-Q and the related earnings release. Joining me for today's call are Curt Morgan, President and Chief Executive Officer and Bill Holden, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. We also have additional senior executives in the room to address questions in the second part of today's call as necessary. Before we begin our presentation, I encourage all listeners to review the Safe Harbor statements included on slides two and three in the investor presentation on our website, which explain the risks of forward-looking statements, the limitations of certain industry and market data, included in the presentation and the use of non-GAAP financial measures. Today's discussion will contain forward-looking statements, which are based on assumptions we believe to be reasonable only as of today's date. Such forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected or implied. Further, our earnings release, slide presentation and discussions on this call will include certain non-GAAP financial measures. For such measures, reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP measures are in the earnings release and in the appendix to the investor presentation. I will now turn the call over to Curt Morgan to kick off our discussion.

Thank you, Molly and good morning, to everyone on the call. As always, we appreciate your interest in Vistra Energy. Turning to slide six, I am happy to announce today that Vistra concluded the year reporting adjusted EBITDA from its ongoing operations of $2.809 billion. Our results that are both above consensus as well as slightly above our 2018 guidance midpoint of $2.8 billion. When compared against our original 2018 guidance, which utilized October 2017 curves, we finished the year more than $180 million above the comparable midpoint. Vistra achieved these results through strong cost management across all markets which help to offset a relatively mild August in ERCOT. In fact, as you can see on the next slide, Vistra finished 2018, $25 million ahead of plan on achieving its Dynegy merger EBITDA value lever targets, $20 million of which we realized in the year. This relentless focus on cost management flow through to various capital projects we have forecasted for 2018. The Vistra operating team has exhibited meaningful CapEx spending discipline throughout the year enabling Vistra to achieve ongoing operations adjusted free cash flow before growth of $1.611 billion results that were $61 million above the high-end of our guidance range, reflecting an EBITDA to free cash flow conversion ratio of nearly 60% for the year. Since the close of Dynegy merger in April of 2018, we have developed an understanding of the operations and maintenance expenses and capital expenditures necessary to maintain the fleet of generation assets that we project will allow us to uphold this spending discipline into the future. Including the cumulative impact of the partial buybacks of the Odessa power plant earn-out, Vistra's adjusted EBITDA from ongoing operations would have been $2.791 billion and its adjusted free cash flow before growth from ongoing operations would…

Thank you, Curt. Turning to slide 11, as you can see from the high-level bullets on the slide. We're very excited about the strategic fit of the Crius portfolio with Vistra's existing retail and generation platform. Importantly, as Curt mentioned at the beginning of the call, we believe the economics of this transaction are very attractive, exceeding our internal investment threshold and valued at approximately at four times enterprise value to EBITDA multiple, pro forma for the full run rate forecasted synergies. In fact, as a National Integrated Power Company, the generation of retail assets in multiple states, Vistra is uniquely positioned to create value with the Crius platform. We project we'll be able to achieve approximately $15 million in annual EBITDA synergies and approximately $12 million in additional annual free cash flow synergies following the closing of the transaction. The acquisition will also accelerate Vistra's previously announced organic growth strategy enabling us to forego approximately $29 million of expenditures through 2023 from this effort. Financial benefits aside, we're particularly excited about this transaction as a result of the quality of the portfolio we will be acquiring. The Crius portfolio has recognized established brands, market leading attrition rates and a demonstrated track record of successful customer acquisition through multiple sales channels. The portfolio compliments Vistra's was long generation position in the Midwest and Northeast markets and it's just mentioned will accelerate organic growth strategy in these regions. In addition, the composition of the portfolio is largely residential and small business should command a higher multiple due to the inherently higher margins in these segments. Let's dive a bit deeper into some of these points on the next slide. Crius with its approximately 1 million residential customer equivalents has demonstrated success with its high growth, high margin retail strategy focusing on…

Thank you, Jim. Turning now to slide 16. As Curt mentioned, Vistra concluded 2018 delivering 2.809 billion of adjusted EBITDA from our ongoing operations. These results reflect a full year of operations from legacy Vistra and results from legacy Dynegy operations for the period from April 9, 2018 through December 31, 2018. Including the negative $18 million net impact of the partial buybacks of the Odessa power plant earn-out that we executed in February and May, Vistra's adjusted EBITDA from its ongoing operations would have been 2.791 billion for the year. Vistra's strong results coming in above consensus and just above the midpoint of management guidance were directly attributable to robust cost management across all markets, offsetting a relatively mild August in ERCOT. Retail also exceeded management's expectations for the year, driven by residential customer count growth and margin and cost management. For the full year, CAISO exceeded expectations due to favorable prices, higher generation volumes and lower SG&A expenses. While PJM was also favorable as a result of the NETCO [ph] plan retirement and subsequent move to the asset closure segment. Vistra's 2018 adjusted free cash flow before growth from its ongoing operations was 1.611 billion, which as Curt mentioned is $61 million above the high end of the management prior guidance range. The favorable results are primarily attributable to CapEx spend discipline during the year. Including the negative $22 million net impact of the partial buybacks of the Odessa power plant earn-out, Vistra's 2018 adjusted free cash flow before growth from its ongoing operations would have been 1.589 billion. For the fourth quarter of 2018, Vistra's adjusted EBITDA from its ongoing operations was $719 million or $721 million including the positive $2 million net impact of the partial buybacks of the Odessa power plant earn-out. Both segment results…

[Operator instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Greg Gordon with Evercore ISI. Greg, your line is open.

Thanks. Good morning. Sorry, I did hop on the call just a tad late. So, if I'm asking you the question you already answered, my apologies. When you talk about the upside that you think you see in ERCOT from the change in the ORDC rules, how much of that do you think is already priced into the curves and how much of that do you think is needs to be sort of validated by volatility that we might see this summer that would cause the curves to move to where you think intrinsic value is?

Yeah, so this may be more than you're marketing for. I think it's worth just talking about how the curves have move, Greg because back after the summer we came out, there was a lot of chatter about needing to improve the ORDC or some other reform as you may recall, and then there was chatter out there that may be a one standard deviation move, no discussion about whether it be a single curve or the 24 curve but we were pretty certain at that point in time some amount of that was factored into the curve. I think people felt like they were a high probability that something would get done. We took some advantage of that in particular a little bit in 2020, but a little bit also we had some 19 still low, but we took advantage of it. And then if you remember, there was two or three times the PUCT sort of put it up on the schedule and then delayed it. I think curve is kind of drifted off a little bit because there was some uncertainty around it. And of course we finally got it through. And then there was a response pretty positive response after that and the reason I tell you all that is that I think it is ebbed and flowed and then recently - and this is not - this is pretty typical it's kind of - the curves are kind of drifted off a little bit and it happens sort of this time of the year. I fully expect that as we get close to the summer, we see our first hot day and people start to see how the market is going to react that we'll probably see another move up in power prices for 2019.…

Great. And Bill could you reiterate where you said you are in terms of how much you've hedged for 2020 in ERCOT and I presume you used those are mid in run up sales opportunities but also can you I think you guys do when you talked about hedging that's net of a significant amount of megawatts that you hold back and take the spot during the summer to sort of self-hedge. So, can you just talk about that as well so we can understand how much exposure you have as the curves do move in your favor?

Yeah so, the hedging that we've done through or 2020 since the end of the year, it would take us up to 48% hedge against ERCOT heat rates.

And that's in what we're building.

And that's for 2020.

Yeah 2020.

Okay, so - but that's so you're 52% open but aren't you do I need to sort of take into account back that you're holding back that like 1200 megawatts or does that taken into account in that hedge percentage?

I can answer that. This is Stephen Muscato here.

So, go ahead.

Yeah, this is Steve Muscato. The way to think about it is, yeah, we do hold back some generation for basically potential outages or weather changes that make our load move up pretty rapidly with temperature. The way to think about it is, it gives us the opportunity to capture any deviations between the day ahead in the real time, because if the day ahead clears at a particular level, we could typically cover our load changes in the day ahead which then gives us a lot of that open generation for changes in the real time market.

Can we just - Greg just asked a simple question. In our hedge percentage, does it include the 1250 in it, so that open position or not. I think it does.

It does.

So, Greg just asking is that against that, because you've got this whole back. And it does include it.

Right. Okay.

Okay. That's clear guys.

And Greg ...

Thank you for - yes.

One other thing just to tell you, we've sort of purposely held some open here in 2020, because I think, you've got in front pick that up from what I was saying is that. We think there is room to move, pretty significant room to move in 2020, we don't see, it's hard to see that much new build coming on and between now and 2020 and we also don't think that the market has fully absorbed the ORDC effect, but we do think there is some movement and so that we have - we're kind of sitting a little bit on 2020. If the curves move, you should expect us and they move up, you should expect us probably to take some more off. If they don't, then we're going to be patient.

Great. One more quick question for you, it might be a curve ball, because I don't know, you probably didn't see it, but NRG in their release this morning talked about how they are reducing their net debt to EBITDA target of between 2.5 and 2.75. So, they're coming down to sort of where you guys already are in terms of your net debt to EBITDA aspirations and they're explicitly targeting eventually getting to an investment grade credit rating. So, can you just reiterate, because it seems like in terms - people had been pushing you in the past to sort of - why don't you go towards NRG and go to three times and buy back more stock. But now it seems like NRG has figured out that they need to come in your direction. So, can you just reiterate, what your aspirations are in terms of capital allocation, credit metrics, and do you aspire also to ultimately get to IG?

Yes. So, look, the first thing I'd say is limitation is the sincerest form of flattery. So, but more importantly, and to the point. We've been pretty steadfast, and we did move, and you know this, we did move being to 2.5 times out a year because we felt like just where our stock was trading, that it made sense to reallocate capital in 2019. And, so we did do that. But we are absolutely committed to get 2.5 times and we believe, I think it's going to take time and I think the first step is actually to get an upgrade from where we are today. I think we - that squarely in our sides. I think we executed that will happen and that will then lead us to the position where we can get investment grade. We do want to get to investment grade. The credit spread at least today probably don't say that that's something that's a big deal. But it's not about that, I think it would be good for the equity. And it also would open up opportunities on our commercial, industrial retail business where at times we have to sleep, or we may not even get to see the business. So, there is a business proposition in here. And I think the reason and one of the reasons I believe we have such a high free cash flow yield is the risk premium in our business. I think that has been driven in the past overtime, because we carry too much leverage and there was the risk of financial distress in these stocks. And I think we want to put that completely in our rearview mirror. And I think 2.5 times is a right place to get to have that discussion with the agencies and then we'll see what we do from there. But we feel like given the metrics at that at 2.5 times and just the absolute level of debt it feels to us like that's the right place to be in order to have a serious discussion about investment grade.

Right. And then that drives a lower free cash flow yield on a higher share price. So that's sort of the magic potion of...

Yes, exactly right.

Okay. I've taken way too much time, guys. I'll hop off. Thank you.

All right, thanks Greg.

Your next question comes from the line of Abe Azar with Deutsche Bank. Abe, your line is open.

Good morning. Congratulations on a successful year.

Thanks, Abe.

Any thoughts on timing of refinancing the rest of the high cost's legacy Dynegy debt or any key dates to focus on or some of that that becomes callable?

Yes. So I think in terms of just refinancing the two new bond issues that we did have covered most of the amounts that we would need to refinance with new money at lower costs, so the remaining amount of the debt reduction or the lion share of it will be done with redemptions from cash, I think you can look at when the redemption premium steps down, I think a large number of some of those are in November each year. We would do the math when we're planning getting close to redemption days about whether it makes sense to do it earlier or wait till this to step down in the redemption premium. But I think, we we've laid out in the cash payable at the end of the presentation that we planning to do about $800 million this year and then the balance of to get to the 2.5 times we would do in 2020.

Got it and then can you provide an update on the status of the Moss Landing battery. One was spending supposed to ramp up and is there something you're waiting for before putting capital to work there?

Yeah, so good question. As you know that's a bit of a fluid situation, and with the NextEra sort of throwing the seams in our and bankruptcies in our sector, there's an obligatory federal versus state fight that always seems to go on. FERC versus the state. That's kind of blow some things down and it's created what I'd say just, a little more hair on how PG&E wants to proceed. But what I can say Abe, because we're in constant contact with these guys, is one the state one of this project number two, the CPC approved it, number three, it doesn't suffer from what others have, which is it's not wildly out of the matter in fact, it was it was by far the lowest, cost deal because of the Moss Landing site. So, there's no mark to market gain by rejecting the contract. And so, what we're hearing from PG&E is, full steam ahead. What the real question is when they are going to assume these types of contracts. And there is a little concern, I believe in how they're going to handle that given this jurisdictional issue with FERC, and the battle that's going on there. So, we're moving forward, and we've talked to them, they want to move forward in the contract. We still have a valid contract, it's not been rejected. The question is, when will it be assumed, and we're hopeful that sooner rather than later. I think what we have to remember is that we do have a contractual commitment here. And then we have to weigh the odds of whether it whatever be rejected. And at this point in time, we feel like it's an extremely low probability that it would be rejected, given the discussions that we've had directly with PG&E

Got it. Thanks guys.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from a line of Praful Mehta with Citigroup. Praful, your line is open.

Thanks so much. Hi guys.

Hey Praful.

Hi, Curt. I got so just following up on Moss Landing, it doesn't sound like the decision to reject or a zoom is going to be taken anytime soon. Because they probably have to figure out what the exit looks like. It could take time. Let's just put it that way. So, if it does take time, is the assumption that you would continue on the current course assuming that it will at some point get resumed? Or do you have to hold and wait for the decision which could slow down the entire process?

Yeah, so I because we're an active discussion with PG&E I don't feel like, it would be fair for me to have that discussion, but I think your observations are correct. That's what I was trying to convey. And I'll be just very direct about it. The assumption of contracts could be pushed out. And we have a contract right now. The only thing that would change that as if it was rejected. I think the likelihood of that is very, very low. And so, we'll work with our board and we'll work with PG&E when we get to the point, which is going to be in the April to May, late April, sort of May timeframe where we would have to actually sign, the big contract for the equipment. And we'll make our decision then what we have to do. There is a number of different things we could do either in front of the bankruptcy court or working with PG&E in order to make sure that we move forward. We're committed to the project, I just, I can't tell you right now what that ultimate decision will be if we have to make a decision come may to sign an EPC contract or equipment contract. And we'll have to - we'll have to see what that is. And I'm going to do it when consultation with our - we have bankruptcy attorneys on board because we have to understand, the process. And so, we'll have to consult with them. And then ultimately, I'll have to go to the board. But most importantly, I think it's the active dialogue that we have with PG&E and working with them on certain things that will give us the comfort that, we're going to continue on with this project and have no issues or no risk of rejection. All that is still playing out, but we intend, and we're moving forward with the intent of completing that project.

Understood. Thanks. And then maybe on Slide 28, you have these realized estimated - prices, and it seems to be now - a $6 forecasted premium that you've kind of estimated for 2020. I know this number is moved around quite a bit. Could you just give us some perspective on what that $6 now reflects? And there's obviously something for the ISO New England as well so some color on the confidence around that number would be helpful.

Yeah. So, I just want to make sure, because this - it's even confusing for me, by the way. We always struggle with what's the best way to show you guys this kind of information. So, part of this part of that number is, what I call sort of realized actual realized premium relative to, where the market came in. And as it relates now, most of it in 2020 obviously, all of it is, is really projected. There is a significant amount of option value or intrinsic value that is, in the market and we model what that value is, relative and you lose that value. That value decays overtime. And then ultimately, as you go from real time, I mean from day ahead to real time, you don't have that anymore you don't have that flexibility. Part of it is the value of being able to back down unit in times and optimize by buying from the market. There's a number of different options that you can go after that we have historically proven that we're able to do it. It's also our ability to hedge at the periods of time, where there's just higher pricing that where our spot prices come in. And that's why it's so important as a company that we have a point of view and that we had when prices are at or above that point of view and have a very good modeling capability so that we feel comfortable that we are hedging at prices above spot. And we've also had a very good track record of being able to do that. So, it's a combination of things, Steve Muscato is here with me. Steve, is there anything you would add to that?

Yeah, it's basically I think you captured it. It's the ability to an essence capture different points along the forward curve that we call extrinsic value selling into strength or anytime the price moves up. And also, as we take the portfolio into the day ahead and real time market, being able to optimize around whatever price signals were given. And so, it's a combination of existing hedges we have on and the combination of hedges we hope to put on in the future.

And you know, - probably you're it's a good observation - So that value does, it does move around. I think we've been able to demonstrate I hope I believe we have is that, we've been able to capture a lot of that along the way as we hedge. And so, in 19, we've locked a lot of that that that volatility. The reality of situation is in an increasing price environment, that premium will shrink as you would expect. Because we're managing risk as much as we are absolute price. We're trying to create a state stable setting earnings and steady earnings stream. And we're not looking for the highs of the highs. So, you may see that premium will shrink, but once the market patois out and it hits the sort of highs of the market, then it's much easier than to create that that premium. And then in the years past when prices were actually declining, then that we were able to hedge ahead of some of the declines because again our fundamental view showed that the market was actually on a decline. And we went out as fast as we could and tried to hedge as much as we could in the forward market. And then that actually proved out to work out for us in a big way. So that's kind of how we think about it approaching it

And I think you asked about New England as an example. We've all seen a material drop off and gas volatility in New England. And so that's really the component that's impacting the New England pricing going into the winter there was a lot of discussion on what's going to happen and all Conklin. And obviously our Conklin volatility wasn't necessarily didn't materialize, and that's reflected also in the forward market at this point in time.

Got you. That's super helpful. And clearly your track record helps confirm or at least get comfort around those numbers. I guess just one final thing around the shareholder base, it was very helpful to hear the change in shareholder base. Given you have dry powder right now to buyback more shares. Is there any expectation of any kind of block deal or any broader deal with some of these shareholders and looking to exit? Are they still looking to exit any color or perspective on that?

So, look, I think we - I think the big thing is, you guys probably saw this. I mean, when the 13 after they came out, we've seen a dramatic change in our shareholder base, obviously, since we came our bankruptcy, but even recently. We've got to that are - to the largest shareholders we had number 2 and number 3 shareholders that are now down to 6%. And I think one of them is probably below that at this point in time. And then we've got Vanguard and Fidelity, who have now come up to number 2 and number 3. And then when we look at our shareholder base and we couldn't say this coming out bankruptcy. I think it was about what 16, I think out of the 20 now or 15, sorry, 15 out of the 20 or what we would consider long-term investors, people who are coming in because they desire to own the stock and a long run, they believe in the strategy and they liked the price point they're able to get in on. And the other thing I like about is as many of those folks came in at lower levels and have actually increased in a significant way their holdings. Now we're not done, and this is why we're going to be in Boston and New York next week, we're going to Europe. We wouldn't even have been able to go to Europe had we not had a dividend. So that opened up doors in Europe, we're going to go there and hopefully you'll get people interested long investors, you guys know this, and we went up to Canada. Canada or more long-term oriented investors. And we're hitting about is every long-oriented investor that we can hit. And I'm doing it personally, because I think, it's important to hear the story directly from us. It's the only way in my mind that you get this rotation and you get it without having your stock price suffer is you got to create demand for the stock. We can do buybacks. We can do all those things. But in the end of the day, we've got to create demand and the only way, we create demand is get out and tell the story. And I think we've had really good success on that and I'm willing to do whatever it takes, and I know Bill is as well and Molly will get out on the road if we have to and we'll talk to anybody that is interested in our stock. I think it's the only way we know how to do it.

Super helpful, guys. Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Angie Storozynski from Macquarie. Angie, your line is open.

Thank you. Good morning. So, two questions. The 813 million less for buyback, is there any timeline attached to it? Is it still the end of 2019?

Well, this will depend right on just where our stock price is. But, it's probably - it could - it could leak into the first quarter of 2020 just and this is all dependent Angie and I'm not trying to avoid the questions it just depends on where our price is, because as you probably know we have different volumes of buyback at different price points. And so, as you might expect, our stocks moved up some and so we're buying less at that point in time. But I think our projection is it could leak over a little bit into the first quarter of 2020.

Yes, that's right and Angie that's consistent with what we said last quarter we said we thought the program be completed either Q4 of this year likely Q1 of next year and somewhere in that time frame depending on where the stocks trading.

Okay. Number two is back in December when we met you guys talked about 2020 EBITDA being above 2019. I know that there's upside - potential upside to ERCOT power curves. But as they look right now, do you still think that 2020 would be above midpoint of your current 2019 guidance?

Yes, so good question. I want to be clear about this. So, we're - I'm going to talk about this not including Crius. But we see sort of flattish over now - over 2019 and 2020. And you know this I think Angie, but you know, for us that's a big deal, because, Dynegy had a huge cliff because of PJM capacity clear and we've been able to bridge that gap and create a more stable earnings profile. As driven by our value levers from the Dynegy merger to some extent as driven by curves and our ability to hedge some of that. So, we - and that's where we are today. I would say that depending on where the curves come, and you heard that long winded - answer I gave to Greg. But I do think there could be some upside in the curve. I think that is more of a 20 upside. And so, we could see some of that in 20. At this point in time though, where we are as we think that you were sort of flattish, because part of that when we mark that - when we didn't give you that comment and we have marked that particular plan, it was including some of the uplift that had already occurred from the ORDC. So, part of what's getting us to that flattish nature is the higher curves. And part of that, I believe, is some of the expectation of the ORDC, but there could be some upside. We're going to wait obviously through 2019, when we see the 20 curves move more significantly to leave that out. And of course, we'll wait all the way to October, November timeframe, before we give guidance on 2020.

Okay. And my last question just a quick one, I know we talk - you talk about the battery project the PG&E. But how do you think about the fact that the project returns most likely you were planning to add some project level dead. I would assume that the cost of that, that is not going to go up and the offtakes credits have plunged. So, I mean, do you still think, it's an attractive return taking that into account?

Yes. So, first of all, we're not going to do project level debt. We made the decision not to project level finances. I mean, I've been in this industry too long and I remember when everybody was doing project level debts and it got confusing and we don't want to capital structure is confusing and we like to return. I think we said this, when we came out, these are on a non-levered basis, these are returns that are in the mid-teens that's very attractive to us. And so, it'll be on balance, we still believe in those returns. I think it's important to know that the absolute - so we do benefit from the price or, excuse me, from revenues from power. So, we get it we get a resource adequacy payment as part. And then we also can optimize using the battery in the energy market the key on that is, it doesn't - it's not about absolute power price. It's about the volatility and power price and our ability, when prices in the day or low because there's all this solar generation and other generation. And then the solar generation comes off because the sun's going down and goes down and then prices go up if that arbitrage that occurs in there that we get. So, prices theoretically could be zero during the day, and then, $10 or $20 during the night. And that's where we capture that, that value. So, we feel very comfortable about the value in the returns on this. And so, nothing's changed in our mind in terms of the value of this. And in fact, we know that California needs more of this type of investment, which actually is an opportunity for us as well. But that just gives you a sense of just what the demand is. And if there's a higher demand for battery, that means that pricing when you go from the heavy solar period to where the sun goes down, that means that pricing is going to be high until they get all that new capacity on it.

Thank you.

Your final question comes from a line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Bank of America. Julien, your line is open.

Hi, good morning. Can you hear me?

Yes. Hey Julien, how you doing?

Hi, good. Thank you. So, a couple quick ones. I'll make it snappy here. So firstly, just go back to the hedges, just want to understand the change New England, the price it just on the '19 just wanted to understand a little bit more detail on that. And then also the expected Jen moved around a good bit. I get that power curves moving that shift things around. And even to mention, given that it was around it was across all the regions but ERCOT especially the Northeast?

Yes. So, on the - I think on New England, a lot of what you saw there was really the when Steve was describing earlier that the extrinsic value was come down because of lower volatilities. And so that's just had the effect of reducing the realized price without having a corresponding benefit from hedges because the extrinsic values not fully hedge. Now look at the Steve on the and whether if there is anything of loads in the volumes.

What we're seeing in volumes is as we do, as we continue to go through our operational improvements; we are seeing some changes in how the fleet runs at night. Whether they are start based or run based or hours-based machines and so that's causing some volume changes that you'll see. It's not having material gross margin impact at this point, because it's really just whether they run through night or cycle on and off. And one thing I'll add in New England it's really associates with, if you look at Conklin pricing, it was pretty contained this winter compared what you've seen historically during cold snaps, like if you look at 2014 as an example and that decline in volatility is participating through market. And the big reason for it there was some L&G tankers brought in at the gateway terminal upside of Boston. So, it's something that we have to monitor from year-to-year how L&G impacts that market and perception on how it's going to impact the market.

And the only thing I just add onto what Steve said is, some of those price increases for - hours which is the sect of the dispatch and to the extend we dispatch more on the off peak and its lower the average realized price because we're earning margin but we're running more at lower price hour.

Got it, alright excellent. And then lastly just really quickly on the - situation, obviously somewhat dynamic in - here, given the MPS and the process of legislation and your own process on, examining the portfolio. Can you give us a little bit of a more of a sense on timeline and then what the potential common combinations here are? Legislation is just, is probably at some point during the session this year MPS is, at the some point this year question mark, but just help us understand that your decision if you will.

So, big question, I think you guys know that there is a new administration in Illinois, Governor Pritchard [ph] he has a fairly aggressive green agenda for the state. They signed onto the Paris Accord. He made a big announcement on that. And the governor has asked us, at least that's our understanding through the Illinois EPA that have further discussions with the EPA about the multi-pollutant standard that the Illinois pollution control board had set forward for hearing. We agreed to that. I think whenever a governor asks you to do something for state you typically do it and that has not slowed anything down yet. And we've said that, we gave them 45 days that's March 15th coming up. I think the discussions have been very good and so, we are working toward what we hope is, and I feel, I'd say cautiously optimistic a compromised with everybody involved including environmental groups and the AGs office on something that allows us to move forward. So, I would tell you that we are still on the timeline that we would be making decisions around our portfolio in sort of the mid-year timeframe. And I think things will become in some ways, could even become clear to people what we're doing even sooner than that. But I think action would probably be taken more in the middle of the year. I have been very open about the fact that we've got an older, an aging fleet there and the capacity market design is horrid. And it's just not a very good market and we've got to challenge the assets. So, we're trying to build something where we can have a sustainable business. And I think part of that is making some hard decisions like we did in Texas to retire plants. We'll see about that but that's on the horizon for 2019 and I've been very clear with everybody involved at Illinois that this company is going to take action one way or another, because we're not going to continue to bleed cash and bleed EBITDA. We're going to clean up this portfolio and we're going to move with our business. It takes a tremendous amount of time relative to the EBITDA that improvised to the company. And that can't, that's not sustainable and it won't be. So, and that's about of what I can say at this point in time on that drilling.

Got it. All right. Thank you all very much.

Thank you.

This conclude our question-and-answer session. I would like to turn it back over to Curt Morgan for closing remarks.

Hello once again, thank you for your time this morning and we appreciate you being on our call and we look forward to the next time we have the opportunity talk about our company. So, thank you.

This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.