Good day, everyone, and welcome to the NextEra Energy and NextEra Energy Partners Earnings Conference Call. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time, for opening remarks, I would like to turn the call over to Amanda Finnis, please go ahead.

Thank you, Zach. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining our fourth quarter and full year 2015 combined earnings conference call for NextEra Energy and NextEra Energy Partners. With me this morning are Jim Robo, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of NextEra Energy; Moray Dewhurst, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of NextEra Energy; Armando Pimentel, President and Chief Executive Officer of NextEra Energy Resources; and Mark Hickson, Senior Vice President of NextEra Energy, all of whom are also officers of NextEra Energy Partners; as well as Eric Silagy, President and Chief Executive Officer of Florida Power & Light Company; and John Ketchum, Senior Vice President of NextEra Energy. John will provide an overview of our results and our executive team will then be available to answer your questions. We will be making forward-looking statements during this call based on current expectations and assumptions, which are subject to risks and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially from our forward-looking statements if any of our key assumptions are incorrect or because of other factors discussed in today's earnings news release, in the comments made during this conference call, in the risk factor section of the accompanying presentation, or in our latest reports and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, each of which can be found on our websites, www.nexteraenergy.com and www.nexteraenergypartners.com. We do not undertake any duty to update any forward-looking statements. Today's presentation also includes references to non-GAAP financial measures. You should refer to the information contained in the slides accompanying today's presentation for definitional information and reconciliations of certain non-GAAP measures to the closest GAAP financial measure. With that, I will turn the call over to John.

Thank you, Amanda and good morning everyone. Both NextEra Energy and NextEra Energy Partners enjoyed strong fourth quarters and ended 2015 with excellent results. NextEra Energy achieved full year adjusted earnings per share of $5.71 which was a penny higher than the upper end of the range we discussed going into the year and up 8% from 2014. We also experienced double digit growth in operating cash flow and continue to maintain our strong financial position and credit profile. NextEra Energy Partners successfully executed the acceleration of its growth plan despite the challenges of difficult capital market conditions in the second half of the year and grew its fourth quarter distribution per unit by 58% versus the comparable prior year quarter with a distribution of $0.3075 or a $1.23 on an annualized basis. Before taking you through the detailed result let me begin by summarizing some additional highlights. At Florida Power and Light we continue to invest in the business in 2015 with a focus on delivering value to customers. And all of our major capital initiatives remain on track. Since the last call we received Florida PSE approval of the 2019 need for a planned Okeechobee Clean Energy Center. We expect this project to further advance our focus on providing clean, reliable and cost effective energy for our customers consistent with our long term strategy. We continue to work hard at FPL to further enhance what we consider to be an already outstanding customer value proposition. Our customers enjoy electric service that is cleaner and more reliable than ever before while our typical residential customer bill is the lowest among reporting utilities in the state of Florida and is approximately 14% lower than it was a decade ago. Despite a challenging summer lightning season FPL delivered its best ever…

[Operator Instructions] And we'll take our first question from Steven Bird with Morgan Stanley, please go ahead.

Wanted to just check in on the solar valid initiative, it looks like consumers for smart solar which you had supported has gotten the votes necessary. Could you just speak to the process for getting this on the ballot and just what we should be looking at going forward there?

Sure, hi Steven good morning its Eric Silagy, so the necessary votes were secured signatures, those have been verified and it’s just two tests, there is a number of votes or signature I should say and then also a number of congressional districts that seek at least half of the congressional districts, those two tests have been met. So the next step right now is at this language, consumer referred solar amendment language has to be verified by the Supreme Court as being valid to be on the constitutional ballot, that has to take place by April 1, briefs have been filed by number of groups in front of the Court. Oral arguments have not been scheduled, they’re not required actually. So the Court could possibly rule without the oral arguments, where they’ll set oral arguments being heard and then by April 1, at the latest the Court will. If the Court approves the language, it will onto the ballot for November elections.

Okay. That's very clear. Thank you and then shifting over to resources. We're obviously very happy about the expansion of the ITC and PTC. Wanted to get your sense of the state of the tax equity market given continued growth in renewable, we had heard some reports that the market is -- some of the players maybe exiting and overtime there could be a bit of a squeeze in terms of who is actually able to secure tax equity. Would you mind talking at a high level, in terms of your take on the health currently of the tax equity market and where you see that and whether or not that might be an advantage for you all given your position versus say smaller competitors?

Sure Steven. Actually we see the opposite, we see the tax equity market actually strengthening. One of the benefits of having a global banking network that as we have, gives us the ability to access different tax equity providers and one of the things that we do at the beginning of each fiscal year and we just completed this process, is work on our tax equity allocations going forward. So we feel very good and to the extent that others that maybe having poor financial performance and don't have the same prospects for future growth may not have the same access to tax equity going forward that we do given the strength of our renewable pipeline and our track record which speaks for itself.

Very helpful. Thank you very much.

And we'll go next to Dan Eggers with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.

Just John, going back to the bonus depreciation comment, in fact that is not early affecting any of your funding or growth expectations, can you walk us through where you guys expected to be from a tax cash payout respective and then how far into the future does that take you with the bonus depreciation to the extent [indiscernible]?

Yes, we don't expect bonus depreciation really to have much of an impact as to when we become a cash tax payer and the reason for that is that at Energy Resources we use tax equity financing because we used tax equity financing it really doesn't result in that much of a deferral of our deferred tax asset balance.

And it doesn’t affect the FPL, why?

Well, if you walk through the impacts on the business, at FPL what you would expect to see is, a lower amount of equity required to be put in the business because you have a lower tax liability, Energy Resources, we used the tax equity financing but on a consolidated basis at NextEra Energy the lower tax liability we have at NextEra Energy result in higher FFO to debt which gives us additional flexibility in terms of having to issue less equity and so having to issue less equity really offsets any impacts that we have at FPL and that's the reason why on a consolidated basis net-net bonus depreciation really is not expected to impact our financial expectations going forward.

Okay and I guess then we’re early on the idea of what's going to happen to the pipeline for a renewable development that in your past conversations suggest there is a lot of focus trying to jam in projects in '16 to catch the solar ITC. Are you guys having discussions right now about your shifting the timing and magnitude of the shape of when the [indiscernible] get done and given the fact that the customers have more flexibility in than?

No, not the way our contractual structure.

Okay, great, thank you.

And we'll go next to Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS. Please go ahead.

So, first just on the capital markets and balance sheet needs, just to be very clear about just in terms of equity expectations for this current year, I think, I heard you say, you don't really expect any at the corporate level, can you just explain upon the assumptions baked there in and specifically discuss capital recycling, I presume that equity does not presume further capital recycling and how you think about more specifically what that recycling might look like? Obviously in light of the Texas decision, is there more merchant divestment coming is what I’ve asked just kind of the follow up.

In terms of our equities needs for 2016, our base case is that we're recycling opportunities available in our merchant generation portfolio that we'll continue to explore somewhere to what we do with the Lamar-Forney transaction back in 2015. We also have some renewable assets that may be rolling off of contracts that could be good opportunities as well and then we have some renewable assets on the balance sheet that we have not previously put debt financing up against that could provide additional sources of capital for 2016 offsetting what would otherwise be a modest equity needs in 2016 for NextEra Energy.

Got it, but just to be clear on equity here are you assuming further asset sales beyond the Lamar and Forney to make sure -- to hit that in your equity?

Julian this is Jim, you know I think the way you should think about it is, everything we have is always for sale and if there is an opportunity to sell something that's accretive to the creeds or earnings going forward and makes sense from a strategic standpoint we're going to sell it. But we're also not betting that we're going to have to sell in order not to have to issue equity this year. You know, how much equity content we need in any given year is always driven by how much capital we're going to deploy, what the opportunities are, how we're doing against all of our financing activities and we have a whole host of things that we, a whole host of levers at our disposal that we go to, and obviously issuing equity is very -- and the team knows this is a very low on my list of the kind of things that we want to do, to do finance the plan. Now obviously the flip side of that is we need a strong balance sheet and we're committed to strong ratios to maintain a strong balance sheet, so you know what we said is I think very clear in the script. We said we don't believe we're going to have an equity need this year and if there is one, it's going to be very modest.

Great, very clear and then just lastly on natural gas and obviously the dip we see here, does that impact at all your rate based gas effort in Florida or your solar efforts in Florida?

Well on the one hand you could say it should create more opportunities given the distress nature of that space and potential assets coming up for sale. On the other hand it does provide somewhat of a limitation in that you have to able to identify producer operators that are willing to sell, in today's lower natural gas price environment at a price that makes sense for Florida customers, but we're working hard to identify those opportunities through the FPL origination efforts.

Julian, this is Eric, I'll just add that on the three solar projects it has no impact, those are underway and remember those were advantage sites that we had because we had the property, the transmission was there and so we're moving forward with those that provide customer benefits right up front.

Great, thank you very much guys.

And we'll go next to Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research, please go ahead.

Hi, good morning, so first just on the current renewable backlog opportunity, I know you mentioned we'll have more specifics on the Q1 call, but just could you, just give a little bit and I might have missed it in the commentary, just a little bit of a high level color on how you're looking at the extensions to the CPP kind of moving the needle on these things. I think you said like maybe more like after a big push, after '19 was that, just want to make sure I understand what you -- the high level color you gave.

So Steve, I think the first thing we looked at is, if you go back over the last several years you probably had a renewable market in the US of 8 gigawatts to 9 gigawatts, it's lumpy though as you know. When we look at '17 through '20 we see a market that's probably much closer to 13 gigawatts to 15 gigawatts and there are some out there that would say that towards the latter part of the decade that that market could get up to 18 gigawatts to 20 gigawatts. So when we look at it we say well, you know gee whiz we've gotten our fair share in the past and so our expectation is to continue to get our fair share in the future. If you look at wind, on its own and by the way it’s often very difficult to separate how much of that is going to be wind and how much of it's going to be solar, although I will tell you that solar is more and more competitive the longer you go out. But if you look at the near term if you look at '17 and '18 on the wind side certainly the expectations are that there's going to be an awful lot of wind built, right, especially if the IRS comes through with what we think they're going to come through, the same interpretation of in construction as they've had before you're going to likely get a 100% PTCs for CODs on wind all the way through the end of 2018. 2017 remains to be seen whether that will be a banner year for wind or not but I think combined '17 and '18 we'll be pretty good on the wind side. Then you look at wind a little further out…

Yes, that's helpful and just the reason you’re going to do the updated into Q1 versus now, versus later as you just have better visibility on the backlog, again to Q1?

It will have -- I know that a lot of people read the CPP, we've read at 100 times, it's complicated. We want to make sure that we understand what we think it's going to happen in the market but in addition, we're talking to all of our customers and make sure that we understand what their plans are for the next couple of years.

Okay. One other question on the gas pipeline business, Jim, I guess, how are you thinking about -- are the projects on time, are you seeing any counterparty risk and maybe more importantly given the rest on the business just, do you see that as acquisition opportunities or stay away, to be careful, just how are you looking at what's going on in that space?

We're making good progress, in terms of timing on the projects and so I feel good about on the pipeline projects, I feel good about that. There is always pressure on timing and certainly FERC has been little slower in terms of pipeline permitting and it's been historically, but we're feeling good about that. In terms of counterparty risk, obviously we feel good with our portfolio projects that vast majority of the counterparties that we have on all the pipelines across both the Florida pipelines, Mountain Valley pipeline and the Texas pipelines, they all are very strong credit worthy entities and so we don't have that counterparty risk that some of the other folks in the pipeline business do and our average contract length is quite long, it's probably close to 20 years. So, given where the market’s at, obviously there is a lot of distress in this market, we'd have interest only in pipeline with strong credit counterparties and long-term contracts. And so, if there are those that become available and there maybe some of those become available given some of the things going on the industry, we'll be interested in that, obviously we'll be disciplined as we always are vis-à-vis acquisition but it would be something that we'll look at. But I have no interest in adding anything with commodity exposure and short contracts

And we'll go next to Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Congrats on a good quarter. Two questions, one FPL related, one near, at FPL, how much of the rate increase request is related to the total change in depreciation meaning, you mentioned the D&A study and then the incremental 200 million, but we've also got the roll off of the RAG [ph] amortization, is that part of that 200 million, is that incremental to it. And then Armando if you won't mind, can you just talk about what the PTC roll off is not just in '16, but -- does that accelerate in '17m does it decelerate or stay at a constant level over the next couple of years?

Okay, Michael. This is John, I will take the first one then turn it over to Armando for the second one. On the depreciation question about 200 million and the surplus amortization balance, I think the 263 that I've mentioned earlier for '16 rolls off by the end of the year as part of our settlement agreement that expires.

And Michael, we again have to get back to everybody, obviously, it's 37 in the next year which John mentioned in the call, I don't recall what it is in the following year.

Okay and just on the FP&L question the 200 million from the D&A study, that drives part of the rate increase request, but then you had multiple years of accumulated regulatory amortization, should we assume that all of that flows back in and not just the amount for 2015 but the multiple years into depreciation at -- in 2017 and beyond at FP&L?

I think the way you should think about the impacts of -- was there amortization, first of all when you do depreciation study, everything gets washed out in the study, so you're looking at things fresh, looking at the current, what we currently depreciate in terms of our ongoing depreciation expense and we do a new study and we come up with a new revenue requirement from that study. And there are a lot of puts and takes in it and you know the fact that we had some surplus amortization over the last several years has led to our rate base being a little bit higher than it otherwise would have been had we not had the surplus amortization, but actually doesn't have a giant impact on the ongoing depreciation expense in the study.

Got it, last one Jim, just curious, any thoughts on the bipartisan energy bill that's kind of weaving its way to the U.S. Senate right now? You mentioned, there were was some commentary earlier in the call about some of the investments in storage and I think there is some terms in that legislation, if it were to make its way through that would have a pretty big impact on storage on the grid.

So Michael, I give the sponsors a lot of credit for working to try to get something done in this environment, that in this environment of Washington, that said I think it’s highly-highly unlikely that anything gets done this year.

Got it, thank you, much appreciated guys.