Justin Brown
Analyst · KeyBanc. Your line is now open
Thanks, Roy. Slide 17 highlights four areas that will be the focus of my comments today starting with an update on our Arizona rate case, then progress on our infrastructure replacement program specifically our Arizona COYL program and our Nevada GIR mechanisms as well as an update on our LNG project, and an overview of a new Paiute expansion project as John mentioned previously. Lastly, I will briefly touch on the status of our holding company reorganization. Turning to Slide 18, as we’ve discussed previously our Arizona rate case application was filed on May 2nd, you may recall this filing mark the end of our 5-year rate case moratorium that was agreed to as part of our last general rate case settlement. Our rate application consists of several key components, first to request update rates to reflect our current level revenues and operating expenses, and capture the various capital investments that have been made since our last generation rate case. This request results in a proposed increase and annual revenues of $32 million. The $32 million increase is based upon a proposed rate base of 1.3 billion, which is a 25% increase over our currently authorized rate base of 1.07 billion. We are also proposing to increase our authorized cost of common equity capital from the currently authorized 9.5% to 10.25% relative to a capital structure consisting of approximately 52% equity. The increase in revenues is net of the corresponding proposed decrease in depreciation expenses of $42 million. When you combine the proposed increase in revenues with the proposed decrease in depreciation expense, the rate filings seeks total requested increase in operating income of $74 million. In addition to requesting to update rates to reflect our current cost of service, we’re also proposing several key regulatory initiatives. First, we’re proposing to continue our decoupled rate design with the continuation of our margin per customer decoupling mechanism, refer to as the EEP or Energy Efficiency Enabling Provision. Second, we are proposing to rebrand our infrastructure recovery mechanism as the gas infrastructure modernization mechanism or GIM mechanism, the idea to rebrand our cost recovery mechanism was driven in large part by or proposals to both continue and expand our existing customer-owned yard line program to accelerate the replacement of the approximately 80,000 COYLs in our system, but also to implement a new replacement program that will target the nearly 6000 miles of pre-1970s vintage steel pipes we have in our Arizona service territory. Third, we are proposing implemented property tax tracker whereby we would track any changes to our property tax expense back to the amount that was embedded in base rate following this proceeding and to implement a new rate that will adjust annually to reflect any changes in this expense. The anticipated bill impact to our average residential customer will be approximately $1.14 per month or 2.8% resulting in an average monthly bill of 42.47. Turning to Slide 19. Slide 19 shows the procedural schedule that was issued by the assigned administrative law judge in this case. We remain on track to receive staff and intervener testimony at the end of this month for all issues except the rate design, which will receive on December 14. Following receipt of their testimony, we’re scheduled to meet with all parties to determine whether settlement is an option in this case. If we’re unable to reach settlement, we’ll continue down the litigation path by completing testimony through the month of January, and then prepare for hearing that will begin February 6, 2017. We believe the procedural schedule lines up nicely to facilitate and anticipate a great effective date of May 2017. As we agreed to us as part of our last settlement agreement, new rates from this filing will not go into effect prior to May of 2016. Turning to Slide 20, we continue to focus on one of key regulatory initiative by establishing infrastructure recovery mechanisms in each of our jurisdiction in order to timely recover capital expenditures associated with commission approved projects and enhanced safety service and the reliability for our customers. In Arizona we received approval from the Arizona Corporation Commission to increase our surcharge revenue associated with the customer-owned yard line or COYL program from $2.5 million to $3.7 million. The surcharge because effective June 1st. The program was originally approved as part of our last Arizona rate case decision and began in 2012. In 2014, the commission granted us authority to expand the program to include a Phase II for the replacement of certain non-linking customer lines. The recently approved $3.7 million currently collected in rates based upon cumulative capital expenditures of $23.1 million of which approximately $7.1 million was incurred during 2015 for both Phase I and Phase II. Turning to Slide 21. In Nevada, we continue to make progress on working collaboratively with our Nevada regulators to identify replacement projects to be replaced on an accelerated basis. We originally proposed to develop an infrastructure recovery mechanism as part of our 2012 general rate case and ensuring the commission opened a rulemaking to develop regulations for gas infrastructure replacement recovery. These regulations were finalized in January 2014. And as you can see on the left hand side of the Slide 21, since 2014, we’ve received approval to replace over a $115 million of qualifying replacement projects. $14.4 million was approved in 2014 for replacement of early vintage plastic pipe during calendar year 2015. And in October 2015, we received approval to replace up to $43.5 million of replacement work during calendar year 2016, this work consisting of replacement of both early vintage plastic pipe as well as a vintage steel pipe replacement program. Most recently, we received approval to replace $57.3 million of qualifying projects during 2017. These qualifying projects consist of continuation of early vintage plastic pipe replacement activity, pre-1970's vintage steel pipe replacement, and a COYL program in Northern Nevada, which was largely modeled after our Arizona COYL program. And Nevada, GIR regulation also permit us to make a separate filing to implement a surcharge to recover the deferred revenue requirement associated with previously approved projects. As illustrated on the right-hand side of Slide 21, each year we reset the surcharge by taking the cumulative deferral less any recoveries from the existing surcharges to establish an updated surcharge amount. As noted on Slide 21, we have made filings in both 2014 and 2015, and we are currently collecting $3.8 million as a result of the rate application that was approved late last year. We recently made our 2016 rate application last month where we requested to update the surcharge to collect $4.5 million of additional deferred revenue requirement associated with the previously approved and completed work. If approved, the updated surcharge will become effective January 1, 2017. Turning our focus to expansion and reliability projects, we continue to make progress on the construction of our previously approved liquefied natural gas storage facility. You may recall the Arizona Corporation Commission authorized preapproval to construct the proposed LNG facility and deferred cost of the 50 million through November 2017. The original cost estimates was developed during the fall of 2013. We filed for preapproval in January of 2014 and received commission approval to proceed with facility in December of 2014. Since that time, we’ve invested approximately $4 million of capital expenditures primarily associated with the land that was chosen to site the facility. During the end of 2015 and the first part of this year, we completed the frontend engineering design work and finalized the construction requirements bid package for potential contractors. We solicited engineering procurement and construction business this summer, and we see those bids into September. After analyzing the various bids, we decided to make a bond with the ACC requesting to modify the preapproval decision to reflect a new not to exceed amount of $80 million, which reflects the current market pricing to construct the 233,000 dekatherm LNG facility. We expected decision from the ACC before the end of the year. We anticipate construction taking approximately two to three years to complete following a noticing to proceed to the contractor. Paiute recently announced a new expansion project on its system, as John mentioned previously. In response to shipper interest from additional transport -- for additional transportation service capacity in the Carson City and Salt Lake Tahoe areas, Paiute conducted a non-binding open season and a subsequent binding open season to allow present future shippers an opportunity to request additional transportation capacity. Following this open season, Paiute entered in precedent agreement with Southwest Gas during the third quarter of 2016 for incremental transportation capacity and to shift delivery point locations along the system. In total, the project will consist of 8.4 miles of additional transmission pipeline infrastructure at an approximately cost of $70 million. In October 2016, just this last month, Paiute initiated and received approval to proceed with the pre-filing review process with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the expansion project. A formal certificate application is expected to be filed by the summer of 2017, at which time an environmental assessment walk will be facilitated. If the process progresses as planned, the additional facilities could be in place by the end of 2018 with new rates in place coincident with the in-service date. Lastly, Slide 23 highlights the progress we’ve made on our regulatory application seeking approval to reorganize into a holding company. We made filings in October 2015 with each of three state regulatory commissions, requesting approval of plan to reorganize into a holding company structure. The proposed reorganization is designed to provide further legal and financial preparation between the regulated and unregulated businesses, and we have received approval from all three of our state regulatory commissions. We are currently working internally on making sure that we’ve identified and considered each of the appropriate business process changes that need to be considered as part of this type of reorganization, as well as working through the necessary third party consents, and then receiving final board approval. We anticipate the reorganization become effective January 2017. And with that, I’ll turn it back to John.