Welcome to the Enbridge Incorporated, Enbridge Income Fund Holdings, Enbridge Energy Partners, and Spectra Energy Partners First Quarter 2018 Financial Results Conference Call. My name is Sabrina, and I will be your operator for today's call. Please note this conference is being recorded. I will now turn the call over to Jonathan Gould, Director of Investor Relations. Jonathan, you may begin.

All right. Thank you, Sabrina. Good morning and welcome to Enbridge, Inc. and sponsored vehicle joint first quarter 2018 earnings call. With me this morning are Al Monaco, President and CEO of Enbridge; John Whelen, EVP and Chief Financial Officer; Guy Jarvis; EVP and President of Liquids Pipelines; Bill Yardley, EVP and President of Gas Transmission and Midstream; and Vern Yu, EVP and Chief Development Officer. Our joint call will again include discussions for all of the Enbridge entities. This allows us to provide a consistent enterprise-wide strategic and financial perspective, while at the same time weaving in specific commentary on the strategy and performance of each of the sponsored vehicles. Note that we've developed supplemental information for each vehicle to ensure that we continue to provide full and transparent disclosure. Some of this information is appended to the presentation here today and has been posted to the various company websites. Now as per usual, the call is webcast, and I encourage those listening on the phone line to follow along with the supporting slides. A replay and podcast of the call will be available later today, and transcript will be posted to the website shortly thereafter. In terms of Q&A, given the broad agenda and limited time available, we will prioritize calls from the investment community only. If you're a member of the media, please direct your inquiries to our communications team, who will be happy to respond immediately. We're again going to target to keeping the call to roughly an hour, and may not be able to get to everybody. So, please limit your questions to one and a follow-up as necessary. But as always, our Investor Relations team will be available for your more detailed and modeling specific follow-up questions afterwards. Before we begin, I'll point out that we will refer to forward-looking information on today's call. By its nature, this information contains forecast, assumptions and expectations about future outcomes. So we remind you that it's subject to the risks and uncertainties affecting every business, including ours. Slide 2 includes a summary of these that could affect Enbridge and its affiliates and are discussed more fully in our public disclosure filings available on both the SEDAR and EDGAR systems. So that out of the way, I'll now turn the call over to Al Monaco.

Okay, good morning, everyone. Three general topics today, I'm going to begin with an overview of the great progress we've made on executing the key priorities that we rolled out as part of our three-year plan in December. I'll then provide some high level comments on the first quarter results followed by our business update. John will take you through the financial results including our sponsored vehicles and the recent FERC policy announcement. Before I do that, I'd like to provide a one-year post-closing assessment of the Spectra transaction. In short, we're realizing the benefits of the deal and we're very pleased. The strategy behind it was to broaden the asset mix, geographic footprint and the growth opportunities from what is a very strong liquids pipelines franchise to a diversified North American energy infrastructure business. Natural gas and transmission and utilities now make up the majority of the assets and we've done that without changing the value proposition. And they're delivering strong and highly predictable cash flows as we thought. First quarter numbers confirm the deal is delivering shareholder benefit. When we announced the deal, we expected it to be accretive in the first full year and that's what's happening now. Quarterly DCF per share and EPS are up 33% and 44% year-over-year. Granted Q1 last year was noisy but even adjusting for that, the results are very strong. Right out of the gate, we went after synergies hard and were ahead of the 60% we targeted for year one. We now think there's upside to that target and we fully expect to exceed it. Also driving accretion is the CAD 12 billion of assets we put into service last year, about half of that from our new gas and utility businesses. I've heard the comment that somehow the Spectra…

Well, thanks, Al, and good morning, everyone. I'll pick up here on the slide 15 with a review of consolidated performance for the quarter, drilling down into the key drivers of EBITDA growth for each of our operating segments. And as you can see and as Al has already mentioned, we're off to a very good start. Consolidated adjusted EBITDA was up about CAD 1.2 billion for the quarter. As expected, a large part of the increase was driven by contributions from the new natural gas, liquids pipelines, utilities assets we acquired in the Spectra transaction which closed at the end of February last year. Our first quarter results reflect the full three months of earnings and cash flow from the legacy Spectra assets, whereas the comparable quarter last year only included one month of Spectra results. With that said, the big year-over-year uplift also reflected the very strong performance from our base business including the impact of the CAD 12 billion of new organic growth projects that we brought into service over the balance of 2017. So starting with Liquids Pipelines where adjusted EBITDA was up a little over CAD 300 million over Q1 of last year. Here, the growth was primarily driven by a few factors. Firstly, strong performance on the Mainline system, which is driven by higher volumes, higher tolls and a higher average rate on foreign exchange hedges used to convert U.S. dollar toll revenue on the Canadian Mainline as we rolled into new hedges at rates closer to levels in the spot market. Secondly, the impact of contributions of Regional Oil Sands projects that were placed into service in the latter part of 2017 and the impact of a full quarter of contributions from the Express-Platte System we acquired through the Spectra transaction. And finally,…

Okay. Thanks, John. Thank you. We showed these five strategic priorities at Enbridge Day in December when we rolled out the three-year plan. So this is a bit of a revisit and recap here. We strongly believe that this is the right plan that will set us up for continued success going forward. As we've talked about today, we've gotten off to a great start in Q1 with the financings, asset sales, project execution, new business development and importantly delivering strong DCF per share growth. And in the big picture, 2018 should be a very strong year year-over-year. Overall, we're very pleased with the quarter. We've made good progress and execution will continue to be our focus in 2018. And with that, I'll hand it back over to the operator to get to the Q&A session. Thank you.

Thank you. Jeremy Tonet from JPMorgan is on the line with a question.

Hi, good morning.

Hello.

I just had a question on Line 3 replacement and I apologize if this is a simple question or if I'm missing the obvious here, but with regards to the process, this being state-regulated, is there anything precluding you from going to kind of a federal process under the ICA? Apologize if I'm missing something obvious here.

Well I think currently, the focus is seeking Minnesota approvals. I don't think at this time – at this time we continue to be confident in the process in Minnesota. It's been very thorough. The evidence that's on the record and related testimony as it relates to the statutes at the PUC will be evaluating our project under, we think give us a high degree of confidence. Of course, we're all aware of the Interstate Commerce Act's existence, but it's not something that we're actively evaluating in the context of where we're at with Line 3.

Yeah. I think, Jeremy, it's Al here. That was Guy. You know pretty clearly here this is state authorities. So I think in any different scenario is in the category of, I guess, assessing in the long-term but really that's the way we're looking at it. It's a state project.

Got you. Thanks for that. And news reports indicate that you guys have some pretty significant interest out there for additional asset sales and some sizable price tags have been put out there in the media. I guess, could you expand a bit more there as far as what you're seeing in the marketplace and is the interest really robust and the valuations strong and that's something that really appeals to you right now? And if so, if you're able to execute on that, does that mean less hybrid issuances or would you go for kind of lower leverage or any other thoughts that you can share there?

Well, there's a couple things in there. So let me go to your last part first. I think the whole premise of this, if the opportunities arise to do more asset sales is to give us flexibility. And as I mentioned in my comments, that could be to turn off the DRIP sooner, John mentions that as well. So I think it's really there to give us financial flexibility. And obviously, those assets are in that category for a reason. We are moving to a pure pipeline utility model. So from that perspective, if we can get through that in quicker fashion, while getting good valuations then, that's what we would do. To be honest, I'm not sure where these reports come from sometimes, but I would say the essence of them is correct and that we are seeing very, very strong interest. You saw that with the couple of asset sales we had moved on those quickly, got good valuations and we're seeing carry-on interest, let's just call it that, on the other assets we have in that category. So we're optimistic actually that we could see some pretty good values there and if we do see them, then we'll move on it.

That's all very helpful. Thank you for taking my questions. I'll get back in the queue.

Okay. Thanks, Jeremy.

Thank you. And the next question will come from the line of Robert Kwan with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is now open.

Great. Good morning.

Hi.

Al, I think you had kind of touched on at least in the asset sale perspective but taking a step back when you look at additional funding and asset sales as well as your corporate structure, obviously, it was a balance, but given some of these are competing interests, can you rank order your priorities as it relates to items such as distributable cash accretion/dilution, the ability to maintain the 10% dividend growth, ability to exceed your leverage targets. And then as it relates to funding, achieving a self-funding model for at least the equity portion of projects or at least being able to turn off the DRIP as you alluded to earlier.

Okay, well, I guess you know to put it directly, Robert, clearly we want to move towards a self-funding position and having this asset sale inventory with very good interest would help us get us there. And obviously, at the current share price, that's got to be our objective. On the dividend payout side, I think we're comfortable with the range of payout we have right now. We feel very good about growing the dividend through 2020, as you know, based on the projections that we have. So really I think in broad terms, we're moving towards more of self-funding capability simply because of where the prices and the fact that we want to minimize the equity we put out there and these asset sales give us a lot of opportunity to do that. Beyond the planning horizon, that's probably a different story. We'll have to assess where we are when we get through the three-year plan, but those are the broad priorities through this next couple three years.

I guess maybe put differently, have any of those factors become either more important or less important to you, say, since six months ago when you were kind of re-cutting the plan?

When you say these, those factors what are you getting at?

Just around sticking to the 10% dividend growth or exceeding your leverage targets, trying to drive more towards that self-funding model.

Right. Well, the leverage targets that we had in the plan, as you might recall, showed us getting to five times and then below five times in the plan based on our projections. So that's, I guess, ultimately where the numbers we're projecting are. So conservative, more conservative than the five times target, I guess, is the point. And again, if we can move quickly to the self-funding through more assets sales that's the priority.

That's great. If I can just finish on the Mainline and, Guy, this is probably for you. Can you just talk about continued optimization efforts and what you think that may or may not be able to deliver? And then any status of discussions with shippers to accelerate – excuse me, felt like some of the smaller capacity enhancement initiatives that you have previously discussed?

Sure, Robert. I think in terms of the optimization efforts, so you know throughout last year we created a number of those. Some of them we utilized all the time just given the nature of them to create more capacity. Probably the biggest one that's out there that has kind of given us the most flexibility is this ability to move additional volumes of medium blend on our system. That tool is really what we use when we start to see some weakness on the light volumes come into our system. We have begun to experience some of that, I guess, towards the end of the first quarter and continuing on here in the spring. So we've been actively employing those optimization efforts since sometime in March and we continue seeing to do that through the summer, which is good news for our customers. And that we could move more crude and it's good news for us that we keep throughputs up. In terms of the other smaller capacity addition items that are on, I think when we've talked about these in the past our message has been we continue to work on them. There's really nothing material or key decisions to be made until actually sometime next year related to any of those. So there's really not an engagement required with our customers at this time.

Okay. That's great. Thanks very much.

Thank you. And the next question will come from the line of Rob Hope with Scotiabank. You line is now open.

Good morning, everyone. Just want to touch on the MLPs. Have FERC's actions as well as evaluation compression that SEP and EEP altered review of the strategic value of those assets, as well as how they fit into the Enbridge story longer term or is there too much uncertainty with FERC's actions right now?

Well, I'd say there's a great deal. It's John speaking, Rob. There's a great deal of uncertainty with respect to the FERC action that's going on that everybody I think is out there evaluating. But there's no doubt when you look at the valuations of MLPs, generally, our MLPs, today that their effectiveness as funding vehicles with the Enbridge group has been diminished. So as we've talked about a lot over the last number of quarters, yeah, that's something that we'll continue to evaluate and it's probably got a little more complicated in light of the FERC decision.

All right. That's helpful. And then turning attention to Line 3, if Minnesota is delayed, would you still press on with the Canadian construction and then look to recover a return on that capital through tolls or would you potentially slow construction there?

It's Guy. Our plan all along with the Canadian side has been to try and dovetail the completion of the Canadian construction with the timing that we think we'll be able to complete Minnesota. We'll continue to evaluate that. Our plan for 2018 construction, as Al mentioned, is later in the summer. So by then, we should have clarity coming out of the PUC process to understand just how aggressively we're going to press forward with that.

All right. That's helpful. Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you. And the next question will come from the line of Linda Ezergailis with TD Securities. Your line is now open.

Thank you. I'm trying to understand kind of your appetite for joint ventures prospectively and specifically with respect to CPP, are there some sort of plans or roofers in place for either or both partners if in case someone exits. Do you see additional Enbridge assets potentially being added to that JV? And then when you look at additional asset sales, for example, in Canadian midstream, are you also contemplating similar JV structures for that?

Linda, it's Al here. I think we're going to have Vern address that question.

Hi, Linda. I think with CPP, we have an arrangement to work with them on development opportunities for offshore wind in Europe and that's exclusively what we're doing right now. I think to answer your second question, we'll always entertain JVs where we think we get the best economic value. But as we look at the Canadian midstream right now, we are looking that on – looking at that for an on block sale.

Okay. Thank you. Maybe as a follow-up we can go to some of your new project opportunities. Can you comment on the Gray Oak Pipeline what you would need to see before you would exercise your option by year-end? Would it be the outcome of the second open season and how might you think of funding that and maybe you can give us a sense of the size of the investment in some way?

Linda, it's Guy. So in terms of the elements that we'll be continuing to evaluate through this period that the option exists, obviously, volumes are important, it's a very competitive basin there right now. So the underpinning of the primary term contracts is important as is as well an analysis of your re-contracting risk down the road. We also want to get more comfort with capital costs. This whole project came together very quickly and there's still some more work to do there. I think the third element and quite important to us is how do we make this project fit in with some of the other strategic elements that we're working on and some of those are underway and some of them are still in the idea stage, but we see an opportunity here potentially for that line to really dovetail well with some other strategic initiatives we're doing on the Liquids Pipelines side. I think the investment opportunity is rough – in the US$500 million range and I can't remember if there is a third question.

Funding.

Oh, the funding, I'll turn over to John to speak to.

Yeah, Linda. I think at the end of the day, the ultimate equity funding required for that project is really quite modest. So I don't think it would – if we had if you like a little bit of a placeholder in our plan already for smaller equity investments at the end of the day. And so I don't think it really dramatically changes our overall funding plan if in fact we were to pull the trigger on an investment in (50:30).

Just my thought on this, Linda. It's a pretty strong project, I think, P 66 along with us in reviewing it has done a pretty good job in getting volumes together and very strong contracts. And as you saw, the project is going ahead. I think what we're talking about is further refinement in our own thinking as to how we fit it in. Really that's the only last piece, I guess, if you will, but the project on a standalone basis is very strong even without additional commitments and now with the first set of commitments and good chance that we'll get more.

Thank you.

Thank you. And the next question will come from the line of Ben Pham with BMO. Your line is now open.

All right, thanks. Good morning. I wanted to go back to funding asset sales specifically now that you've got CAD 3 billion announced and CAD 7 billion is more flexible than anything. And you've mentioned a good valuation achieved on a CAD 3 billion. Would you say that going forward then the valuations you'd be looking for on additional sales you'd be wanting to get higher valuations than what you've got in the CAD 3 billion or is it more just a valuation comparison to existing share price?

I think it's more of the former. I mean, yes, immediate accretion is a factor in our thinking but really it comes down to what's the IRRs we're getting from the asset sales and how does that compare to the whole value that we have for the asset. So it really is situation dependent. I think the good valuations that we saw here is a pretty good indication. Obviously, running through auction processes, we're going to be very focused on maximizing the value. As was referred to earlier, we're seeing some very strong indications from the work we've done so far on the Canadian G&P assets. So we're going to be working hard to make sure that we're getting full value.

Okay. And I know this isn't just a mathematical equation, there's some non-financial factors to consider. But I wanted to clarify, so when you look at value, it's an IRR longer-term DCF, right? I'm just looking at first year EEP EBITDA.

Oh, yeah, absolutely. That's clearly what we look at as a priority. And then, of course, as you're referring to, the whole purpose behind the asset sales at least one part of it anyway was to ensure that we're moving to the pipeline utility model. We think there's a better overall valuation once we get through the asset sale. So we're motivated and that motivation has certainly helped along by the fact that we're seeing very good interest in these assets.

All right, great. Thanks, Al. Thanks, everybody.

Okay.

Thank you. The next question will come from the line of Ted Durbin with Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open. Theodore Durbin - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC: Thanks. So just going back to Line 3, I guess I'd love to hear the different options you're thinking about if the PUC does decide to go with the ALJ recommendation of an in-trench replacement option. What are the next potential steps? I mean in my mind you could outright cancel the project which seems like a low probability. You can move forward with that recommendation. You could fight it in court. I'm just trying to think about the different scenarios of how this will play out, please.

Yeah. Ted, it's Guy. We're really not spending any time looking at those options right now. When people talk about other options versus our preferred route and project, we evaluated all of those five years ago and we determined that our project and our route was the most optimal solution for Minnesota and the other jurisdictions in which we're conducting the project. So we believe, as I said earlier, that the evidence and the testimony that's in front of the PUC should lead them to approve what we've got. We're not speculating about other actions that they might take and when we know what the PUC decision is in June, we'll be looking at whatever we need to at that time. Theodore Durbin - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC: Okay. And then if I could just turn to the asset sales. Could you give us the EBITDA from the assets that were sold on a trailing 12-month basis and for the first quarter between Midcoast and renewables?

Hi, Ted. It's Vern. I think what we've been telling people is on the renewables, the sale equates to about a low double digit EBITDA multiple. And then on Midcoast, it equates to a high single digit EBITDA multiple. I think that's based on our outlook for the next full-year run rate. I don't think the trailing multiples are generally indicative of the value of the asset. Theodore Durbin - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC: Okay, great. And then, if I could sneak one more in. Just coming back to SEP and the mitigation impacts that you might be able to make from the CAD 110 million to CAD 125 million that you mentioned, I guess talk to us about the TetCo and the potential for a rate case there. How much under-earning are you going to be showing is kind of I guess what you're implying in that comment when you file some of these, the 501-G Form and whatnot.

Yeah. Hey, Ted. It's Bill Yardley. Probably don't want to get into any specifics on mitigation. Think about Texas Eastern. We're 28 years removed from our last rate case. So, we've got an awful lot of things changed over the course of that period of time and it probably just wouldn't be a good idea for me to go into too much detail on what the moving parts might be, especially in advance of having these discussions with the customers. But suffice it to say, there are plenty of things that have changed over the course of time, not the least of which is the rate base increases that we've seen with new integrity rules, emissions requirements, et cetera. So I'd kind of like to leave that there. Theodore Durbin - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC: Understood. Thanks for the time.

Thank you. And the next question comes from the line of Robert Catellier with CIBC Capital Markets. Your line is now open.

Hi, good morning. Both of my questions here are going to be follow-ups to subjects you've already touched on. But on Line 3 specifically, I'm just wondering if you're compelled under the consent decree to move forward with the project in some shape or form irrespective of whether you agree with the routing decision or are there other options that under which you might not pursue an in-trench replacement?

Well again, as we said earlier, our plan right now is the pursuit and approval of our preferred project. The consent decree does have us – of course, the consent decree can't compel us to do something we can't get approval to do. So we've got a project in there that we're seeking approval for. We'll see if that project gets approved or not. We think it will. In the event that we are in a position where the timeframe at which we have it takes us to get it replaced, we have an obligation to continue to demonstrate under the consent decree that we can safely manage and operate the existing Line 3. And that's exactly what we'll do.

I hate to keep going back to this and maybe we sound like broken records, but the one thing about the ALJ recommendation is, it was pretty clear that the line, that they agreed the line needed to be replaced from the perspective of modernizing infrastructure, from the perspective of making sure that we're the safest possible. That was pretty clear. And the second part, as we've highlighted in the information, and again I encourage you to read what we filed on this, it's also very clear in our minds that this is the right route from the perspective of the environment, from the perspective of tribal nations, from the perspective of minimizing safety concerns and finally economics. So we keep coming back to it. But that is really the base case here and we'll assess if we see something different from the PUC.

Okay. Just in terms of simplification, obviously this was a priority before the FERC actions, but it obviously, that's muddied the waters a little bit. So I'm wondering what level of clarity you think you'd need before you reevaluate the simplification processes or next steps? In other words, do you need full clarity on the deferred income tax issue in addition to just the tax allowance issue and the various regulatory strategies you have or do you need that full level of clarity before you can consider it, any transactions?

Rob, it's John. More clarity would be great, but there's a whole bunch of different factors effectively that we're looking at as we evaluate this including the reaction of the market generally and where these things are being valued. So yes, look to seek clarity, but it doesn't mean we're going to get it absolutely. There's lots of things that will factor into our decision and the timing of anything that we do.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you. And the next question comes from the line of Matthew Taylor with Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Company. Your line is now open. Matthew Taylor - Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. Securities Canada ULC: Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my quick question here. Just looking at potential maintenance or replacement on other parts of the crude system, can you just give us a quick update on the evaluation of a potential replacement or work on Line 10 and then maybe also an update on Line 5?

Sure, Guy, go ahead.

Yeah. So, it's Guy. In terms of Line 10, the segment replacement work was completed within the last month or two and has been placed into service, so that's done. In terms of Line 5, our work with the State of Michigan on various elements of that agreement we entered into in the second half of last year is all on track. There have been no conclusions reached yet, but the obligation we have under that is to start finalizing some of that work as early as the middle of June and we're on track to meet those targets. Matthew Taylor - Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. Securities Canada ULC: Okay, that's great. And then one last one. Just on Alliance, is there any ability to bring cost or the corresponding toll down? Is there any flex on there or as we just look at the CAD 2 billion and just kind of wait for the results of the binding open season?

You answered your own question. I think we've got a few weeks to wait for the open season to close and then we'll be doing a fair amount of work on scope and we'll have new cost estimates after we see that. Matthew Taylor - Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. Securities Canada ULC: Okay. Thanks, guys.

Thank you.

Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Elvira Scotto with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is now open.

Hey. Good morning. This is actually Edson on for Elvira. Thanks for squeezing me in here. Could you comment on the motivation behind growing the distribution at SEP, especially in the context of increased uncertainty given the FERC announcement in March?

Yeah. I can – it's John again commenting here. We had made a projection of growing distribution by the CAD 0.0125 per quarter through 2018, as Bill has already alluded to. I think we have a number of different mitigating impacts that we could ultimately pursue at the end of the day. Those are – and there are uncertainties with respect to the FERC implementation and so on, but those are down the road a little bit further. And so I think for 2018 we're pretty comfortable with that. We think it has plenty of flexibility and the increment of those increase is very, very modest. So the balance sheet effect of that in any event is not large. So I think at this stage we're comfortable with that. We reassess as we look forward going into the future, however.

Yeah. I think just I'll make a comment here too. What you say is spot on. 2018, we're very confident and when you look beyond 2018, that's really going to depend on the effectiveness of mitigation which we're going to have to wait for a bit to see how that unfolds.

Thank you, and very helpful. And just shifting gears real quick, do you have any thoughts you could share on the potential conversion to C-corp. at SEP?

It's John again. I see that's getting a little bit too down into the weeds at this particular stage. That's an options that I'm sure many MLPs are evaluating and how they might do that and where they might do that. But I'd say at this stage, it's sort of all part of the mix at this stage, very situational specific to between different entities even within our group.

Excellent. That's all I had. Thanks and good luck.

Okay. It looks like we've got a couple or more, then we'll try and bring it in.

Thank you. And the next question comes from the line of Dennis Coleman with Bank of America. Your line is now open.

Great. Thanks very much for squeezing me in here. Just a couple quick ones, can you remind us please on the budget for Line 3 replacement? How much is just the Minnesota portion. Do you – have you broken that out?

I don't believe I have the Minnesota portion right at the tip of my fingers. I think the number that does ring in my bell is that the U.S. portion, which is – the bulk of which is Minnesota, I think, is US$2.9 billion.

Yeah. I think that's right because if you think about it, it really just cuts through North Dakota minimally and in Wisconsin you've got something like 13 miles or 14 miles, so that's probably the bulk of it there.

Okay. Thanks for that. And then totally switching gears here, but the Gas Distribution business had a very strong quarter certainly compared to last year particularly the EGD piece where it looks like a lot of that is weather related. I wonder you might just give a little bit of color there in terms of how we should think about. Is it weather related? I know you're still a little bit warmer than forecast or the average heating degree days, but how should we think about this quarter as it go forward?

Yeah, a couple of things there. Dennis, it's actually a combination of things, as I said on the call. There is some weather, because weather was a lot warmer than normal, which would be embedded in rates last year where it was only slightly warmer than normal for the first quarter of this year. But there was a bunch of other factors as well including the impact of just rate base growth, the inherent growth built into each (66:44) and the projects that Union was doing as well. So those are factors. I'd say if the total amount related to weather if you're looking actual-over-actual, quarter-over-quarter that was in the range of CAD 25 million of the total amount that you saw there.

Okay.

The – and looking forward, I think we were just slightly behind related to weather like maybe CAD 5 million at the end of March, but frankly we had a very cold April, then on in. So actually weather, if anything, is a bit of a tailwind on there – on the Gas Distribution business heading into the back half of the year.

Oh, great, great. That's helpful. Given the time, I'll leave it there. Thanks for the answers.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Patrick Kenny with National Bank Financial. Your line is now open.

Yeah, good morning. Just to clean up the what-if scenarios on Line 3 and probably question for Guy, but when looking at your post-2020 unsecured (67:42) opportunities within liquids. Just wondering if you could walk us through how much of the CAD 5 billion to CAD 10 billion bucket that was shown back at Enbridge Day, what type of projects, how much potential capital would not be contingent on Line 3 being replaced?

Yeah. I think, probably the bigger issue in relation to the magnitude of capital that would be available on the Mainline and for adding additional volumes is going to be the situation with competing pipelines. Line 3 does help bolster some of those options, others do not require Line 3. So I think I want to say that of that five kind of 1.5% to 2% was potential that we could see across the Mainline. And as I said earlier, some of that will not be impacted by Line 3, some would.

Okay. And then for John as it relates to achieving that 10% dividend growth guidance through 2020, again, I know Line 3 is in your base plan to support the level of growth, but I guess if that capital is delayed and your leverage is already below five times, would you say that that gives you flexibility to let the payout ratio move up a little bit in order to sustain 10% dividend growth or would you look to decelerate dividend growth just to keep a ceiling on the near-term payout ratio?

I think we'd be paying close attention to that payout ratio, Patrick, at the end of the day. So I think the answer is probably no. We've got some flexibility generally on the balance sheet, Al already talked about as we're driving well below our target metrics as you get out into 2020 under the plan we have right now. So – but I would say, no, we'd probably be careful not to let that dividend payout creep up.

All right, that's great. Thanks, guys.

Thank you. We have reached our time limit and we're not able to take any further questions at this time. I will now turn the call over to Jonathan Gould for final remarks.

Thank you, Sabrina. That was again a lot of ground to cover in an hour. Again, we've gone a little bit over time but, as always, our IR team will be available right away to take any additional follow-ups that people may have. So, as a reminder, contacts are myself for Enbridge, Inc. related matters, Nafeesa Kassam for Enbridge Income Fund; and Roni Cappadonna for all Spectra Energy Partners and Enbridge Energy Partners related follow-ups. So thanks, everyone, for your time and interest in Enbridge and have a great day.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.