Welcome to the Northeast Utilities Earnings Call. My name is Vivian and I will be your operator for today’s call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Please note that this conference is being recorded. I will now turn the call over to Mr. Jeffrey Kotkin. Mr. Kotkin, you may begin.

Thank you, Vivian. Good morning and thank you for joining us. I’m Jeff Kotkin, NU’s Vice President for Investor Relations. Speaking today will be Jim Judge, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Lee Olivier, our Executive Vice President for Enterprise Energy Strategy and Business Development. Also joining us today are Phil Lembo, our Treasurer; Jay Buth, our Controller; and John Moreira, our Director of Corporate Financial Forecasting and Investor Relations. Before I turn over the call to Jim, I’d like to remind you that some of the statements made during this investor call may be forward-looking as defined within the meaning of the Safe Harbor provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are based on management’s current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainty, which may cause the actual results to differ materially from forecasts and projections. Some of these factors are set forth in the news release issued yesterday. If you have not yet seen that news release, it is posted on our website at www.nu.com and has been filed as an exhibit to our Form 8-K. Additional information about the various factors that may cause actual results to differ can be found in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, and on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2014. Additionally, our explanation of how and why we use certain non-GAAP measures is contained within our news release and in our most recent 10-K. Now, I’ll turn over the call to Jim.

Thanks Jeff and thank you to everyone for joining us this morning. Today, I’ll cover our third quarter financial results, our excellent operating performance again this year, progress with our 2014 transmission capital plan, and I’ll conclude with an update on regulatory developments at both the State and the Federal level, since our last earnings call. First, our third quarter financial results. Earnings excluding integration costs were $237.6 million, or up $0.75 per share, in the third quarter of 2014, compared with earnings of $216.5 million, or $0.69 per share, in the third quarter of 2013. I should note that the quarter’s results are in line with Wall-Street’s expectations, despite the mild of the weather this year. Our transmission segment provided all of the $0.06 per share improvement and then some. The $0.10 per share increase in transmission earnings this quarter resulted from a few factors. Last year, we recorded a $0.05 charge related to the New England return on equity proceeding before FERC. There was no such charge in the third quarter this year adding a nickel per share compared with last year. The recognition of certain tax benefits and the impact of a larger transmission rate base provided the remaining $0.05 per share. Another positive driver in the quarter was a decline in non-track O&M costs which added $0.07 to our third quarter results. The significant decline in O&M for the quarter resulted primarily from lower employee related costs including lower pension and other benefits, as well as well over time and storm expense. A modest increase in gas fields added $0.01 to the results compared with the third quarter of last year. This was due primarily to our continued customer growth, we’ve added over 7,800 new gas heating customers in the first nine months of the year.…

Thank you, Jim. I will provide you with an update on our major capital initiatives, and then turn the call back over to Jeff for Q&As. I will start with the exciting new initiatives that we in Spectra Energy announced in September, Access Northeast. This project is $3 million enhancement of Spectra’s existing natural gas transmission systems in New England deliver at least an additional 1 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas into New England. Like the other natural gas transmission projects that have been announced in recent years in New England. This project is geared to serve both the LDC and the natural gas generation needs of the region. Spectra Energy’s pipelines in New England, the Algonquin and Maritimes and Northeast lines are uniquely situated to deliver increase quantities of natural gas to the regions newest and cleanest process of generators since they connect to more than 60% of the regions gas fired units. As we’ve said previously, the New England faces a very difficult supply situation during the winter period. Electric generators using natural gas did not having a firm gas capacity and there is no left over gas from the gas LDCs on very cold days. As a result, the temperatures drop well below freezing as they did frequently last winter up to 75% of the regions 11,000 megawatts of natural gas generation can sit idle. When that happened last winter, the regions switched on fully and (indiscernible) year-old combustion turbines which have much higher emissions in operating cost than newer more efficient gas generation. Last winter, higher cost would not passed on to most retail customers, because they were able to lock in lower fixed prices before the runoff in natural gas prices. This winter however, those costs are being passed through to customers.…

Thank you, Lee. And I’ll turn the call to Vivian and just to remind you how to enter questions.

Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. (Operator Instructions)

Thank you, Vivian. First question this morning is from Michael Weinstein from UBS. Good morning, Mike. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS: Hi, good morning. It’s Julien here.

Hey, Julien how you doing? Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS: Good. Thank you. I’d first wanted to go back to some of your commentary around reflecting the delaying Northern Pass. Just broadly speaking, how you feeling about EPS growth rate targets in light of the delay and specifically what kind of latitude do you have today to shift around CapEx to address the delay in backfield in some respects. I know you’ve mentioned this earlier at the Analyst Day, just wondering to get an update there?

Yes, this is Jim, Julien. We continue to sort of be comfortable with our long-term guidance of 6% to 8%. We refresh that as I mentioned on our year-end earning call. So the reshipping that was on transmission budget, you may have noticed from my comments, I suggested that we actually think we made comment a little bit ahead of our plan in terms of additional spending this year alone. So in the long run it was certainly comfortable with the guidance, obviously the cash flows given the new date for Northern Pass though shipped around a little bit, but fundamentally the real story is the same. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS: And specifically within that I’d be curious in light of the delay in sale and repowering. Is there any additional Boston CapEx, I know you’ve mentioned that before and what’s the timing potential if that happens?

Julien, this is Lee. We’re evaluating the any additional capital expenditures in and around the Boston, Greater Boston projects now. We’re doing kind of the final reviews of the projects, the engineering and little bit too early to tell that there will be any additional investments there at this point in time. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS: Got you. And just the second question if you don’t mind. On your partnership with Spectra here, does that pipeline necessitate NESCOE or a comparable procurement – state procurement effort, or what is the thought process to moving forward without something like that here? Who are the potential counterparties that you could rely upon a side generator I suppose?

Yes, I mean there are two elements of the project. One element is the LDC supply side and of course to the extent that we sign out anchor shippers, LDCs and so forth, that would go through the standing process where you file up the PUC, the PUC approves that then you go up and file it for presiding. On the generation side that will require a NESCOE or a NESCOE like process whereby we would determine the cost of that aspects of the project and that would be covered through essentially the electric distribution companies of EDCs because it’s really an EDC issue and that is likely to be put together and filed, the project announced and filed at the respective states that want to support the project to bring down overall electric prices in the region and ensure that there is a sufficient supply to ensure reliability in the region. And as you probably know there has been a number of states that had been – had abdicated to this process in the region, in fact the majority of the states have abdicated for this. Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS: Great, thank you.

All right, thanks Julien. Next question is from Travis Miller from Morningstar. Good morning Travis. Travis Miller – Morningstar: Good morning. Thank you. I was just kind of following-up on Julien’s question there, do these pipe projects – throw those into the mix in the next two three years. Does that have upside potential to your medium-term, long-term earnings growth forecast?

Certainly, the 6% to 8% guidance that we provided this time of this year did not anticipate or include the partnership with Spectra. Again, the projects construction, the spend would be largely at the end of our kind of five year horizon and even beyond. But it certainly would be upside to what we announced at the side of this year. Travis Miller – Morningstar: And is this process far enough along or are there other gating factors that you would start including this in your CapEx forecasts, starting perhaps even after the fourth quarter call in your guidance.

Yes, we’ll make that decision over the next couple of months is the projects prospects become more than sure, again the refresh long-term CapEx forecast will be provided at the time of our year-end call in early February. Travis Miller – Morningstar: Okay, great. Thanks a lot.

Thanks, Travis. Next question is from Dan Eggers from Credit Suisse. Good morning, Dan. Dan Eggers – Credit Suisse: Hey, good morning, guys. Just on the partnership interest with Spectra, how have you guys discussed prospectively reducing your stakes if you ride another partners because of the kind of the LDC anchor tenants aspect of it or just to broaden out the money exposure for each one of you guys.

Dan, this is Lee Olivier. Its really going to – there is a number of factors that we are looking in – one of them is what is the counterparty bring to this investment in another words what is the LDC low that they bring whether is even quite frankly low to generators, what is the asset mix that they bring because for instance one of things that. This project is a combination of pipeline and LNG. So we are going to be looking at the regional LNG assets and once we better understand on the LDC side where the load is, kind of know where the load is on the generation side, we have to optimize the LNG projects and we’ll be looking that other projects that bring in LNG assets to this investment as well. So those are kind of the factors that we are looking on that will determine which partners, we would have as part of this investment with Spectra. Dan Eggers – Credit Suisse: Have you guys discussed who would give up share or is it ideally you give up share equally on a project.

Dan, we would have an equal dilution of the ownership of the project. Dan Eggers – Credit Suisse: Okay. And then on the gas LDC advertise for more pipe capacity. You given the fact they are all supplied at least for this winter. What is the rate of incremental growth in gas demand from the LDC that they need to cover over the next say three to five years?

Yes. I don’t have the specific numbers on that. But if you look out the AIM project for instance that’s about 432,000 deco therms that project has been approved by all of the PUC that sitting in front of FERC right now. And that project goes to service around November of 2016 will say, and then if you look beyond 2016 you are looking for somewhere in the region on the LDC side approximately 400,000 additional deco therms or 40% of the Bcf by the 18 and 19 timeframe. So, common growth rates where there is about between the AIM projects and another Kinder project there is about 400,000 deco therms, and even if you looking by 2019 time frame that’s going to increase by another approximate 400,000 deco therms on the LDC side. Dan Eggers – Credit Suisse: So the AIM project will cover that growth to 2019, and this pipe kind of fills in next layer of growth. Is that the idea?

Yes, the AIM project going to come on in 2016 basically there will be a little bit slight capacity in the pipelines in 2017 and 2018, and then you start using up that slight capacity. So 2019, starting in the 2018, 2019, 2020 time frame for the LDCs you need another approximately 400,000 deco therms. Dan Eggers – Credit Suisse: Okay, got it. And I guess this has been a while, but with the change in your leadership and the Governor mansion in Massachusetts after the election this week. Is there anything we should watch with kind of rate cases upcoming both the gas and electric over the next couple of years?

Yes, we do anticipate filing a gas rate case. We made that decision early in the year, that’s we were going in December, it’s not really impacted by the election, because we continue to have that as our base plan. And we feel confident that the story is going to be similar to one that we have in Connecticut Light and Power that we’ve been doing a great job, controlling costs while services dramatically improved and the driver for the need for price increase is really the investments that we’re making in our infrastructure to provide that improved service. So we’re optimistic that we’ll have a favorable outcome in that rate case. Dan Eggers – Credit Suisse: But there is no policy changes or anything stated particularly out of the new governor that would be a point of concern for you guys?

Governor elect for three days and has not necessarily come out with an new energy policy shifts, but we know Charlie Baker would known he has been in various roles with the administration in the state and we’re confident and comfortable that his leadership will be a good leadership for the state including around energy issues. Dan Eggers – Credit Suisse: Okay, thank you guys.

Thanks, Dan. Next question is from Andrew Weisel from Macquarie. Good morning, Andrew. Andrew Weisel – Macquarie: Good morning, thank you. A couple of questions similar that last one is about the change in the elections and potential changes. So starting I guess with New Hampshire with the elections that just happens some people in the legislature, how is that all, would that affect the SEC either the site evaluation committee that is. Would there be any potential changes, any potential shift in priorities or anything like that or do you see it as a non-event in terms of approval once you file with them next year?

Yes, I think as you know Andrew, may be Hassan was reelected so we’ve expect that the business as usual regarding the commissions in New England. Andrew Weisel – Macquarie: Okay, then in Massachusetts that, you said that you expect the RFPs from NESCOE in the coming months, have you – what gives you the increase confidents, I mean, clearly they were waiting for a new Governor, is your expectation that Massachusetts was just regardless of who wins, they are planning to move forward, or do you have some reason to be more confident given the outcome of the elections?

I think, the election tend to put a pause on the number of initiatives, because of the political ramifications are taking a strong position. We think that the administration in Massachusetts is support of under Deval Patrick even though they decided to reassess their positions, I think that based on what I know about Charlie Baker is very bright, we understand. So to the issues and pressures on the economy of the state and I think he expect that he would fully support NESCOE. And NESCOE like process to move forward sooner rather than later. Andrew Weisel – Macquarie: Okay, then on the Spectra pipeline, sorry if I miss that, I think you said there were sort of two elements of the LDC would go to the regular process and the generation would be more of a unique then, can you give just a ball park of how those two pieces make up the mix of the total project?

If you look at approximately $3 billion, the pipelines in LNG for the generation part of the business and we’ve talked about 1 Bcf, so about 900,000 dekatherms really is geared towards providing firm gas for 5,000 megawatts. So the majority of it approximately 70%, so would be centered in around the serving electrical generators to ensure that there is firm gas for this 5,000 megawatts. Andrew Weisel – Macquarie: Let me ask differently, if the NESCOE for one reason or another didn’t happen or this project didn’t win the RFP, would it make sense to go forward. It just to serve the LDC customers or is that and all or none?

The LDC customers, as you know it’s going to determine on what low you can get signed up and if you look on for instance the 400,000 that I talked about, not all of that 400,000 would be able to be touched by the Spectra project. So, there would still be enough in our estimation for the LDC, we believe, based upon where the load is and where our pipeline would run, that there would be enough to make that portion of the project going forward. Andrew Weisel – Macquarie: Okay, great. Then lastly, I’m kind of half teasing with this one. But it’s been 2.5 years since the NSTAR deal closed. Why do you still breakout after tax integration charges when you report the earnings at what point to that has become part of the business.

Well, I think the merger integration process as we filed with the regulators is a three to four-year ramp up. We are just now experiencing the benefits of systems integration. This quarter we completed our new financial system integration and I’m proud to say we’re extremely successful, but this more integration to come, facilities consolidation is ongoing. So merger savings don’t happen overnight, and I think we’ve been deliberate and successful in achieving them, but it’s essentially a three-year period. And the merger closed in the middle of 2012. So we are 2.5 years into it right now. Andrew Weisel – Macquarie: Sounds good. Thank you.

?: Caroline Bone – Deutsche Bank Securities: Hey guys, good morning.

Good morning. Caroline Bone – Deutsche Bank Securities: Just I guess some follow-ups on Northern Pass. Is a settlement agreement in New Hampshire is still possible regarding the project and if so what would be likely timeframe.

Caroline, this is Lee. Its reaching an agreement with government is that possible absolutely. That you are little talking in the first half of 2015, obviously with the elections that have just past that there will be some changes at least from the house side and we have obviously had a lot of communications over the course of the last four months with for growth leaders as well as other important stakeholders in the business community and so forth. And so we think in the first half of 2015 should be at a point where we believe what we would be able to conclude a consensus agreement, consensus from the standpoint that we could get the government another key stakeholders behind the project will have the draft EIS. We expect in the middle of March. And once we have that information we will be able to then proceeding include we think a consensus deal. Caroline Bone – Deutsche Bank Securities: So, hopefully something before again the SEC filing.

It could be around there that would be early hope the SEC filing. Yes, absolutely, absolutely. Caroline Bone – Deutsche Bank Securities: Okay.

Absolutely we hope that by the SEC filing. Caroline Bone – Deutsche Bank Securities: Okay, great.

Yes. Caroline Bone – Deutsche Bank Securities: And then I apologize, I am not sure if you already address this, but with regards to 2015, how are you expecting – and this is for Jim, how are you expecting updated mortality tables and lower discount rates to impact pension expense and contributions next year?

First, I guess let me remind you that we have specific cost recovery mechanisms in several jurisdictions and about 30% of pension costs have an earnings impact. With that said mostly the downward movement in current interest rates and the impact of the mortality tables is likely to have an increased pension expense a bit, but we don’t think it’s going to be significant. Caroline Bone – Deutsche Bank Securities: Okay, that’s great. And then on contributions?

Are you talking about pension contributions, Caroline? Caroline Bone – Deutsche Bank Securities: Yes, yes.

Actually, we’re viewing it right now and we will give that guidance probably when we give the guidance for 2015 Caroline. Caroline Bone – Deutsche Bank Securities: Okay, great. Thanks a lot.

All right, thanks Caroline. Next question is from Paul Patterson from Glenrock. Good morning, Paul. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC: Good morning. Just to circle back on the NESCOE RFP process and the generation component. How will these guys allocate the recovery of the generation revenue requirement component of the pipeline?

This Paul was – this is an Access Northeast question. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC: Yes.

Yes, it was a NESCOE process as originally designed. All six states would pay for their share of the pipeline on a peak load prorate share basis. If it’s obviously fewer states than six then they would again pay for their load share piece of the project. So that’s how we envision it in the NESCOE. The NESCOE folks that are the team that have not necessarily proved that process, but they’ve looked out at it and they think that process is a workable process. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC: Okay. And then you said in the coming months, you expect sort of an RFP process to develop. Is there a key milestone we should be thinking about in the near-term that that we should be looking out for here or is it just too early to say given the reasonable elections and stuff?

I think it’s safe to say that with the recent elections is too early to say. Obviously, the Connecticut, which has been a big driver of this, Governor Malloy was reelected and his administration has been completely intact. In Massachusetts, it’s a new Governor as Jimmy said that we think will be affirmative around a NESCOE or NESCOE like process and then of course you had Maine Governor LePage was reelected and he’s probably been the most vocal supporter of getting more gas into the region and there has been legislation authorized where they could go out and buy essentially 200,000 dekatherms of gas for electric generation. So we think the supporters there – all of the governance that we talk to in the region had been supportive of getting more gas and in a process that would pay for infrastructure that would bring down winter cost of electricity. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC: Okay.

The only thing I would add Paul is that I think the policymakers throughout the region realized that this is not a one-year problem that to come up with a solution, given the construction lead time. The more you delay, the more likelihood is that you’re going to have these types of prices for yet another winter out in the future. So I do think there is a sense of urgency and we would hope that the momentum in NESCOE would pick up shortly after the first of the year. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC: Okay, great. And then the 0.9% decrease in sales growth I think weather adjusted year-to-date. You guys indicated that you believe that was pretty entirely because of your efforts in energy conversation. What do you estimate would have been the sales growth without your efforts?

Now, sales – weather adjusted were down 0.9%. We think that the spend that we have – dampened sales growth, the energy efficiency spend by approximately 2%. We spend nearly $0.05 billion a year system-wide now in energy efficiency and it does have a real impact. As you know, Connecticut and Massachusetts which are the two major states that we serve in terms of load and sales, now has decoupling as the lower the land. So that insulates us from the financial consequences, but we estimate that on an energy efficiency programs affect the sales numbers by about 2% a year. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates LLC: Okay, great. Thanks so much.

Thank you, Paul. Next question is from David Paz from Wolfe. Good morning David. David Paz – Wolfe Research: Good morning. How are you?

All right. David Paz – Wolfe Research: Great. Just going back to Northeast, what agencies – which ones exactly will need to approve the addition on the electric tariff?

David, could you get a little closer and speak up a bit. David Paz – Wolfe Research: Sure, hold on. What agencies will need to approve addition on the electric tariff with respect to Access Northeast?

That would be essentially the public utility commissions of each of the states that participate in the Access Northeast project. And we would – we would file a FERC for citing of the project for the pipelines and LNG. And then, we’d be subsequently FERC would approve, whatever wholesale contracts that would come out of them. But it’s essentially the significant approval rest with the stakes in their PUCs and citing through FERC. David Paz – Wolfe Research: Great. Okay, thank you. And then just going to Northern Pass, what is the new profile of the CapEx over 2016, 2017, and 2018 and as the total amount still expected to be about $1.4 billion?

Total amount is still estimated to be that, but the cash flow is actually will be part of the guidance that we give in our February call. David Paz – Wolfe Research: Okay, great. And then just on the gas – the new gas opportunities. Lee that you’re discussing, how much does that add to the plan to gas CapEx you gave out earlier this year at the Analyst Day.

It would be an incremental $5 million per year – each year and as I’ve set that works it’s way up to about $62 million by 2019, and at which point, we’re going to be replacing about 50 miles supply at that point. And then multiply that time is 20 years, and if you added it all up over the whole 25 years, it’s about $1.4 billion. David Paz – Wolfe Research: Great, great. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right.

Thanks, David. We have no more questions. So we want to thank you for joining us today. Look forward to seeing many of you at EEI. And if you have any more questions today please give John or me a call. Take care.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. This concludes today’s conference. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.