Good day, everyone, and welcome to the NextEra Energy and NextEra Energy Partners Conference Call. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time for opening remarks, I'd like to turn the call over to Mr. Matthew Roskot. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Lori. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining our third quarter 2017 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; John Ketchum, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of NextEra Energy; Armando Pimentel, President and Chief Executive Officer of NextEra Energy Resources; and Mark Hickson, Executive 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. 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 factors section of the accompanying presentation, on our latest reports and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, each of which can be found on our websites, nexteraenergy.com and 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 historical non-GAAP measures to the closest GAAP financial measure. With that, I will turn the call over to John.

Thank you, Matt, and good morning, everyone. Before I begin my remarks on the third quarter results, I would like to say a few words about the 2017 hurricanes. As you know, residents of the Caribbean and Southern U.S. were recently impacted by the dangerous and deadly effects of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria and Nate. Our deepest sympathies are with those who have been affected by any of these storms' widespread destruction. Hurricane Irma was the largest hurricane event Florida Power & Light has ever faced. The powerful storm impacted all 35 counties and 27,000 square miles of FPL service territory, causing more than 4.4 million customers to lose power. In preparation for the hurricane, FPL assembled and pre-positioned the largest restoration workforce in U.S. history, which grew to approximately 28,000 at its peak. This preparation and coordinated response, combined with the hardening and automation investments that FPL has made since 2006 to build a stronger, smarter and more storm-resilient energy grid, enabled the company to restore service to over 2 million customers in one day and to complete the restoration of all 4.4 million customers in 10 days. The efforts of our team resulted in the fastest restoration of the largest amount of people by any one utility in U.S. history. Mutual aid in times of disaster is one of the hallmarks of our industry, and this storm was no exception. We are deeply grateful for the assistance provided by our industry partners. I would also like to personally thank each member of the restoration team, as well as the contractors, vendors and first responders that supported our efforts for their dedicated assistance during this critical time for our customers. To put Hurricane Irma in context it's useful to compare it to Hurricane Wilma from 2005, which prior to…

Thank you. We'll go to Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley. Stephen Calder Byrd - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Hi. Good morning.

Good morning, Stephen. Stephen Calder Byrd - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: I wanted to check in on your excess balance sheet capacity and just generally your balance sheet strength. You've been putting up additional wins in the renewables business, and it looks like there's also upside at the utility. When we think about using that excess balance sheet capacity, do you see significant organic opportunities at the different business units? Or do you think you're likely to still have excess balance sheet capacity through the end of the decade?

Okay. So first of all, the excess balance sheet capacity is about $3 billion to $5 billion through 2020. And when you look at the financial plan that we have laid out through 2020 at the Investor conference, the CapEx that we already have planned for the FPL business and the Energy Resources business does not take into account that $3 billion to $5 billion of excess balance sheet capacity. So what do we do with it? We have a few options. I think our preferred option would be to find incremental capital investment opportunities that drive long-term value for shareholders and that also help to create growth post-2020, which we view as being strong given all the potential growth platform opportunities that we have in the next decade, given where we see renewables and also given all the opportunities that FPL has on Eric's side of the business. Stephen Calder Byrd - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Understood. Thank you. Just shifting gears to storage, you made some interesting remarks about storage, and I guess we are hearing that storage solicitations are now a regular part of a lot of renewable procurements. I was just curious to your opinion as to whether we're currently in the right zip code that you think many customers will opt for storage linked with renewables, or do you think that's a few years down the road? What's your sense of the likely customer appetite over the next couple of years for storage linked with renewables and PPA?

Yeah. Storage is very real now. And I think, as evidenced by the project we announced today with the 30 megawatts tied to an existing solar project, making it the largest combined solar plus storage project in the U.S. But when you look at where storage economics are, storage costs continue to come down significantly, efficiency continues to improve at a rate where we can now combine storage with solar and really, you know, beat the pricing, the existing variable cost just operate a nuclear or coal plant and be pretty darned competitive even with combined cycle gas facilities. And what's the result of that? Because of that, on almost every solar procurement that we are betting on today counterparties are asking us not only for a solar bid, but also for a combined solar plus storage bid. They clearly understand the benefits that are created by the firm, dispatchability of the combined product. So the short answer is we're already here and things should only continue to improve as we go forward and as tax incentives phase down in the next decade and you can combine storage, which will be even lower cost, even more efficient with an even lower cost and more efficient solar panel and balance of system cost. We see that as a very viable product going forward and we also are continuing to look for opportunities to combine solar with wind or storage with wind. And with that, I don't know if Armando has anything that he would like to add?

Hey Stephen, real quick. Recall that at the Investor Conference, what we laid out was roughly $700 million of CapEx opportunities in the storage market through 2020. We continue to think that's a good number. That doesn't mean that customers aren't significantly interested in what's going on and proactively asking for bids. And even as the cost estimate comes down, we continue to believe that this is going to be a significant opportunity early part of the next decade. Stephen Calder Byrd - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: That's super helpful. Thank you. I'll get back in the queue.

We'll go next to Steve Fleishman, Wolfe Research.

Yeah. Hi. Good morning. Just one question on the NEP financing for the new drops. Could you just repeat kind of the financing plan that you laid out for the new drops yesterday?

Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely, Steve. So for the new drops remember right around the time of the investor conference, we completed the $550 million convertible preferred offering at a 4.5% coupon, lowest coupon ever for a convertible offering. That will comprise the lion's share of the $812 million equity price for that acquisition. The balance will come from cash on hand, that cash on hand is really coming from the convertible debt offering that we closed on in September at a 1.5% coupon, was up 25% and then the capped call on top of that given us economic consideration up to – up 50%.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

Thanks, Steve.

We go next to Greg Gordon, Evercore Partners.

The first is, you've reclassified a significant chunk of your wind assets from merchant to contract and then there's a footnote that describes why, but could you go into some more detail as to what the underlying assumptions are that with regard to the profitability of those assets and why they've shifted?

Yeah. It's really pretty simple. So those are repowering assets that were formally ERCOT merchant assets. And the way the economics works is that roughly 90% of the gross margin comes from the production tax credit, so 90% of the gross margin comes from the Production Tax Credit, so you can think of the PTC as essentially being a contractual head. So every megawatt hour that we're generating, we're getting paid $24 on that megawatt hour for 90% of the gross margin. And so given that and also the fact that some of those projects will carry financial hedges going forward, the more appropriate classification over the next 10 years during the PTC period is as a contracted asset.

Well, that makes a pretty underlying strong statement about the incremental IRR we're getting on the repowerings of the vast majority of your return at the hurdle rate is coming just from getting the PTCs without worrying about a substantial energy margin, is that the right way to think about it?

Well, yeah, I mean, remember too, I mean it's about half the CapEx and because it's half the CapEx you're getting the driver from the PTCs, and then energy is the upside. That's why we've said the unlevered IRRs are a few ticks up from what we would get on a newbuild wind project.

Fantastic. My second question is, if you would humor us, can you delineate what the basic assumptions you're assuming are in your baseline tax case?

Yeah. I mean it's really what came out on September 27, so you can think of it as a 20% corporate tax rate, 100% immediate expensing and then we've made an assumption on what the interest limitation is that I'm probably not going to share on this call.

Fair enough, but the industry EI has been lobbying on behalf of the industry to try and achieve an off-ramp or an exemption on interest deductibility and bonus depreciation, correct?

Well, I'll let Jim take it.

So, Greg, listen. I just think on tax reform, it's very fluid right now. Obviously the industry has been weighing in. I've been spending a lot of time on it. And we don't even have a bill out of House Ways and Means yet. So I think it's too early really to say anything about where any of this, where any of this stands other than you can rest assured I'm highly engaged on this.

Thank you, guys. I appreciate it. Have a good day.

Thanks, Greg.

We'll go to Michael Lapides, Goldman Sachs. Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC: Yeah. Hey, guys. Couple of questions. One probably for Armando, which is, can you talk about, when you think about your renewable pipeline, how much of that is the counterparty, a traditional regulated utility versus how much of it is a corporate entity, whether a big tech company or someone else?

So, Michael, right now for us I'd say 90% of what we're doing is probably the more traditional customers and those could be the rate-regulated utilities or the munis and co-ops. And I'd say 5% to 10% are the latter, which you asked about or the corporate entities, what we call C&I companies. We continue to see more C&I companies out there and actually we are engaging in that business more proactively today than we have in the past. I would expect for us that 5% to 10% to go up. Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC: Got it. And then, guys, how are you thinking about the Section 201 case and some of the recent developments and what that could do if any to solar-related demands, really for 2018 solar demands, but even for the next few years?

So Michael, this is Jim. Obviously, it's something that we're watching very closely. I think, I spoke on this issue in September. We're fine in 2017 and 2018, because we pre-bought our panels when we saw this going on. 2019 is probably the year we're most concerned about. That's probably where there is a potentially a pinch point depending on where the ITC comes out and where the administration comes out on this. Post-2019, I think there's going to be, the market's going to – the market will have time to react to whatever happens and I think we'll get back to normal business in 2020 and beyond. But 2019 is our focus and we're working quite hard on a number of fronts and it's something that we're watching closely and we're highly engaged on it and the whole team is highly engaged on it across the board. Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC: Got it. Thank you, guys. Much appreciated.

Thanks, Michael.

We'll go next to Julien Dumoulin-Smith, Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Hey. Actually let me start real quickly on the 201 issue there, if I can. What are you expecting when you talk about 2019 and really beyond that in terms of market reaction? I mean, what's your kind of playbook as far as you see this playing out right now? And then secondly, what is your expectation in terms of the positioning of parties and thinking about how this could actually play out over the next few months? Is a settlement possible, et cetera, to make this a little bit more palatable?

So Julian, it's Jim again. I just think it's too early to tell what's going to happen here and I think – you know, honestly, there's a pretty broad range of potential outcomes on this and I wouldn't care to speculate on what's going to happen. I think we'll see where – and what we're doing is frankly scenario planning across a variety of different outcomes and making sure that we're going to be prepared in case of any potential outcome.

Excellent. Well, and looking beyond the current 2020 period, you guys have done a fantastic job in the repowering side thus far. I'm curious, how are you thinking about repowering opportunities under kind of a sub-100% PTC, call it 80%, 60%? I mean, you've been pretty forward-looking before across the industry and this seems like an opportunity to pivot. Are you engaging with parties on that front? I mean, do you have an expectation for an ability to use those PTCs that are expire – say, 2012, 2013 and 2014 vintage projects as they come off in the early part of the next decade and repower those?

Hey, Julian. This is Armando. (54:18)

I'm just thinking in the longer term. Yeah.

Yeah. Look, most of what – not most, just about everything of what we're doing today is to make sure that we can grab the – as many of these repowering opportunities through 2020 having safe harbored a good part of that equipment in order to get the 100% production tax credits. There's already been, excuse me, one entity out there, which I'm sure you've seen that has announced a project where they would be getting 80% production tax credits and the economics work for them under that scenario. Our expectation is that when the production tax credit goes down to 80%, that there are actually going to be some repowering opportunities that are going to work, maybe not necessarily for the reasons that some might believe. When we're looking at repowering opportunities, one of the things that we're looking at it is how close is the old asset, if you will, to the end of its PTC life, right? And if it's nine or ten years into its life, taking the asset down and repowering it and putting it up and getting 100% PTCs for ten years might work. But if it's at the end of 2020, if it's only gone through seven years, let's say, you wouldn't necessarily want to repower the asset at that point and lose three years of the old PTCs. But if you wait another year, now you're at eight years or nine years, it may actually make sense to give up one year of the old PTCs and get ten years of the 80% PTCs. So that scenario planning is something that we are spending a little bit of time right now. We certainly have a lot of assets that would be subject to that. But I do believe that there are going to be repowering opportunities that work with 80% PTCs.

Excellent. Well, thank you all very much.

Thank you.

We'll go next to Paul Ridzon, KeyBanc.

Good morning. John, I think on the second quarter call, you said look for most of the second half growth to hit the fourth quarter, I'm just kind of trying to calibrate, we saw a 6.5% growth in the third quarter here. Did some of that growth shift quarters, and then just how do I think about the subpar wind resource you had in the quarter? How does that figure into the (56:46) numbers?

Yeah. So, by the time of the second quarter call, we were pretty well into July, which was not a terrific wind resource month. We were concerned about the trend for the rest of the quarter for August and September, August ended up kind of following suit with July and we were a little bit surprised because September rebounded a little bit more than we had expected, I think September ended up being about 95% of normal, now we've seen October has truly rebounded so far this month. That was part of it. We had a little bit better performance out of other miscellaneous parts of the business, none worth pointing out individually that when added up put us in a little bit better position than what we were expecting for the quarter including some origination activity that we had on the business.

And so we think about that incremental positive as essentially being offset in the fourth quarter by the refinancings you talked about?

Yeah. And so, the fourth quarter, that's why I think I made the comment that growth would be down a little bit in the fourth quarter. We have really been focused on liability management. When you look at our portfolio – one of things that I've made a comment on at the investor conference is, if you look at our financing portfolio, we have one of the longest average tenors combined with one of the lowest average interest rates of any of our peers. And that's because we constantly look at the portfolio for refinancing activity opportunities. And those are the opportunities we're looking to execute on in the fourth quarter. The remarks were that the MPV could be as high as $150 million, obviously those come with some prepayment penalties that do have some book impacts associated with them, but we're just trying to continue our trend of being very mindful that we're in an attractive low interest rate environment and looking at the balance sheet as we always do, to be opportunistic, and that's what you can expect to be reflected in the fourth quarter results.

And you don't treat those kind of one-timey make wholes or anything as unusual items?

No. We've flown through.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Yep. Thanks, Paul.

We'll go next to Shar Pourreza, Guggenheim Partners.

Hi, everyone. Just a quick follow-up on the battery storage comments, John. The Dania filings that you filed for showed that the asset was materially more economical than battery storage and solar, even in the 2022 timeframe. So I'm curious on sort of how that fits in with your viewpoint that batteries, plus solar could be economical with the CCGT? And then just a follow-up on Dania is looking at FPL's gas assets, there are other plants that fit to similar economics as sort of the plant that you're converting. So I'm kind of curious if the Dania plant is a one-off and do you see other opportunities thus far?

Yeah. I think we'll just tackle the Dania piece first. The Dania piece first is, one, you got to consider its location, I mean, it's in South Florida, it has a transmission advantage given its location. If you look at the economics on the reduced O&M, on improving the fuel efficiency of that facility, given its location, that's why that one works. We continue to look for other opportunities, we have the 50-megawatt battery storage pilot program in Florida where we will look to do a lot of the same things we've done on the Energy Resources side including the project we announced today where we can actually combine our storage capability with newbuild solar in Florida. And those opportunities will come about not only through the eight facilities we're currently building, but then the 6,300 post-2018. Where exactly they will end up will depend on where they are located in the overall economics of those facilities. But it's a terrific opportunity for Florida to take advantage of the same opportunities that our regulated customer base outside of Florida are looking for. Jim?

Shar, this is Jim. Just one other thing on storage and renewable competitiveness is, we see storage and renewables really competing very well against inefficient old operating nuclear and coal plants where you look at the economics of those sites, they're anywhere from $0.04 to $0.05 on a cash cost per kilowatt hour basis to operate. These new CCGGs, particularly in a constrained place like Dania Beach are very, very cost effective and super fuel efficient and typically you wouldn't see renewables and storage competing with that just yet.

Got it. That's helpful. Thanks so much.

We'll go next to Chris Turnure, JPMorgan.

Good morning. Given you guys probably have maybe six or so months to go to kind of finish out the 2017 to 2018 bucket of renewable backlog, could you just give us an update on how you might fall out within that 4 gigawatt range, you're coming up on the bottom now. Will any of it kind of spill into 2019 in terms of your maybe original expectations? Has anything changed in the last three to six months?

Yeah. So first, we're already there on solar, not only there on solar for 2017 and 2018, we're pretty darn close to our range for 2019 and 2020. And we look to continue to add to that obviously going forward. And then on the wind side, given the 760 megawatt total portfolio today, the wind additions that were part of that, we're within striking distance on wind and I'll let Armando fill in the details or kind of his viewpoint.

So for wind, and this is – this has been the case for a long time, right. When folks are looking for wind, they're looking out much shorter – at a much shorter time period. One of the things that I'm honestly most happy about so far in this cycle is we have almost 900 megawatts of wind signed up already for 2019 and 2020. But when you're focused on 2017 and 2018 and particularly on wind, there's the current – there's just the recent history that we announced today of signing 560 megawatts of 2018 wind. And I can tell you that we are working on a pretty decent backlog for additional 2018 wind right now, whether that happens or not, it depends. Customers understand that if they wait a little longer that the prices could be a little cheaper, and so you're always fighting that. But I was very pleasantly surprised with the 566 megawatts we signed for 2018 this past quarter, and my expectation is that that number in 2018 will continue to go up, just as it has in the past, just because wind has a shorter timeframe.

Is it fair to say that's kind of the higher half or the upper half of the range is still achievable for 2017 to 2018?

You know, it's – I think though, I think honestly all of the numbers in that range are achievable. And if all I wanted to do was to meet the higher end of the range on wind for 2017 and 2018, we could probably do that, but that's not necessarily always the right thing to do, right? I mean, you may be talking customers into building something in 2019 and 2020, because it's better economics for us honestly, than it could be for 2018. So every situation is different. Again, I'm happy at this point that we've signed almost 900 megawatts for 2019 and 2020, and that we still have a pretty decent backlog of 2018 opportunities that we have been shortlisted on.

Okay. That's helpful color. And then maybe, John or Jim, given the stock performance has been as strong as it has year-to-date, just kind of maybe going back to an earlier question on cash return versus dividend or incremental investment opportunities versus buybacks. Does the stock performance kind of lower the hurdle to deploy capital into other investments or to return cash to shareholders through a bigger dividend increase maybe than previously expected?

So Chris, this is Jim. Listen, we remain very disciplined in how we evaluate all our incremental opportunities. We're looking hard at a lot of different things to continue to deploy that excess balance sheet capacity very profitably for us going forward. And that's going to be our focus, but as always, we're not going to do dumb stuff either, we're going to be very disciplined about it. And we'll be – on the dividends, we will be – we just had a discussion with the board about the dividend in October, we'll have another one in December and will be coming out with our post-2018 dividend policy in February once the board finalizes where they're going to come out on that. So, more to come on the dividend.

Sounds great. Fair enough. Thanks, guys.

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen that will conclude today's question-and-answer session. Thank you for your participation. You may disconnect at this time.