Good afternoon, and welcome to WEC Energy Group’s Conference Call for Second Quarter 2018 Results. This call is being recorded for rebroadcast and all participants are in a listen-only mode at this time. Before the conference call begins, I remind you that all statements in the presentation, other than historical facts, are forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties that are subject to change at any time. Such statements are based on management’s expectation at the time that they are made. In addition to the assumptions and other factors referred to in connection with the statements, factors described in WEC Energy Group’s latest Form 10-K and subsequent reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission could cause actual results to differ materially from those contemplated. During the discussions, referenced earnings per share will be based on diluted earnings per share unless otherwise noted. After the presentation, the conference will be open to analysts for questions-and-answers. In conjunction with this call, a package of detailed information financial is posted at wecenergygroup.com. A replay will be available approximately two hours after the conclusion of this call. And it is now my pleasure to introduce Gale Klappa, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of WEC Energy Group.

Hot town, summer in the City. Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for joining us today as we review our 2018 second quarter results. But first, I know that all of you are interested in an update on Allen Leverett’s recovery from the stroke that he suffered last October. Allen remains in very good physical condition, and he continues to be engaged in intensive speech therapy. He’s really working hard. In fact, Allen has engaged in more than 700 hours of speech therapy in the past nine months and he has continued to make progress. Now many of you have asked about our succession planning in the event that Allen can’t or chooses not to return as CEO. As I mentioned to you on our last call, we conduct rigorous succession planning discussions with our Board on a regular basis and we’ve done so for many years. So I can assure you that we have a solid plan B in place if Allen does not assume his previous role. The plan would involve a number of internal promotions. We would have continuity going forward, and the Board and I are very comfortable with what I call plan B. We will continue to monitor the situation during the third quarter of this year and we’ll certainly keep you up to date on any new developments. Now, I’d like to introduce the members of our management team who are here with me today. We have Scott Lauber, our Chief Financial Officer; Jim Schubilske, our Treasurer; Bill Guc, Controller; Peggy Kelsey, Executive Vice President and General Counsel; and Beth Straka, Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications and Investor Relations. As you saw from our news release this morning, we reported second quarter earnings of $0.73 a share. This compares with $0.63 a share for…

Thank you, Gale. Our 2018 second quarter earnings of $0.73 per share were $0.10 per share higher than the second quarter of 2017. These favorable results were largely driven by higher sales volumes and continued effective cost control. Cooler than normal spring temperatures led to higher natural gas sales and electric sales were helped by a warm start to summer. We estimate that sales driven by weather and strong economy contributed approximately $0.07 to the quarter compared to our expectations, with approximately $0.04 of that related to whether. The earnings package placed on our website this morning includes comparison of second quarter and year-to-date results for 2018 and 2017. My focus will be on the quarter beginning with operating income by segment and then other income, interest expense and income taxes. Referring to page nine of the earnings packet, our consolidated operating income for the second quarter of 2018 was $330.8 million, compared to $362.2 million during the second quarter of 2017, a decrease of $31.4 million. Excluding two tax items totaling $66.5 million, operating income actually increased $35.1 million. The first tax item reflects the benefit of tax repairs, which is part of our Wisconsin rate settlement; and the second item relates to the 2017 federal tax legislation. We have a breakout of these items for your reference on Page 7 and 8 of the earnings package. Recall that as part of our Wisconsin settlement, we’ve agreed to utilize the benefits of tax repairs to offset the growth of certain regulatory asset balances. The plan is proceeding as expected. And then regarding the benefits of tax reform, we currently project that the transmission escrow balance at Wisconsin Electric will be reduced from approximately $220 million to $40 million or less by the end of 2019. Excluding the impact of…

Scott, thank you very much. We’re still standing and we’re focused on delivering value for our customers and our stockholders. Operator, we’re ready now for the question-and-answer portion of the conference call.

Now we will take your question. The question-and-answer session will be conducted electronically. [Operator Instructions] Your first question is from the line of Greg Gordon with Evercore ISI.

Hey, Greg, how are you?

I’m good, Gale. Cancel your Christmas plans, because it’s Packers Jets 1 o’clock on December 23rd in Middle Hansen [ph].

I’ll be there.

A couple of questions. Can you talk a little bit about the success you’ve had in executing these infrastructure investments outside the core utility? It strikes me that these returns look very good and that may be in part to a competitive advantage you have, because you’re one of the few utility holding companies left with tax appetite, the table to actually transact on wind farms and consume those attributes, but then you also just articulated a slight move out and when you’re a cash taxpayer, so can you just frame up why this is a good opportunity for you and you’ve scoped it as sort of 8% of your total capital over the current five-year plan. Is there a chance that, that grows? Is that about where you think you’re going to end up? That’s my first question.

Yes, good question, Greg. I appreciate, you’re asking. I mean, first of all, you may recall when we rolled out our new five-year capital plan late last fall, right before EEI Conference, we introduced this energy infrastructure category and we put about $900 million into that category out of an $11.8 billion total capital budget. So, yes, it’s roughly 8%, 9% of our total capital spending. Since then and given some of the impacts of tax reform given the fact that other companies in the industry are finding themselves in a position to sell assets, I think we do have a competitive advantage. I mean, first of all, our balance sheet is strong. We don’t have to issue equity to finance this $11.8 billion capital plan, and we do have the tax appetite. So when you look at the whole array of opportunities that we’re seeing in the marketplace, actually Greg, the opportunities that we’re seeing two of which we’ve obviously just announced in the last couple of months, the opportunities that we’re seeing to basically acquire high-quality assets that don’t change our risk profile, those opportunities are greater than we thought they would be back last fall. Again, it’s a small percentage of our total capital budget when we roll out the new five-year plan this fall, I – if I were a betting man, I would think we would increase that the amount devoted to that particular segment a bit, but again keeping all this in perspective, we’re being opportunistic with good high-quality assets here, but the driver, I mean, this is a great opportunistic situation for us, but the driver is still core investment in our regulated businesses. I hope that helps, Greg.

Yes, it definitely does. Thanks. And my second question is just with regard to the evolution of the Foxconn, the Foxconn project, you guys in your last sort of formal update said, you thought that would be a $10 billion project and create 13,000 direct jobs and about 22,000 indirect jobs throughout the state. But when I talked to analysts who focus 100% of their time on the semiconductor industry, like there’s just – there’s a debate there as to what type of facility actually gets built, whether it’s a facility that is a gen 6 fab or a gen 10 fab. And this corning going to co-locate our gas facility in the state or not, because that would be the gating factor towards the larger 10.5 facility. So can you give us a sense of whether you’re still confident that those round numbers reflect the commitment to dollars invested in jobs or whether there’s some sort of a bid/ask spread in terms of what they ultimately build in terms of what types of products they’re building, whether it’s smartphones or TVs and whether that means it’s less jobs, more jobs, et cetera?

Yes, good, great questions, Greg. Let me answer it two ways. I mean, obviously, we’ve been very involved in this project personally, and within the last two weeks in a meeting with the Foxconn senior people, they strongly reiterated their commitment to a $10 billion investment and the hiring of 13,000 jobs. They also, when President Trump came for the groundbreaking ceremony on June 28, they made a public commitment to a $10 billion investment and 13,000 jobs with the President standing right there. So what they’re saying is that, the mix of products that they’re thinking of producing here changes as their assessment of the marketplace changes. So they may build something here different than their original projections at least that’s what they’re telling us. But in terms of their ultimate commitment of a $10 billion investment and 13,000 jobs, that remains staunchly unchanged and remains firmly in place. And when you see the hundreds of millions of dollars that are already being spent and the gigantic amount of earth that’s already being moved, I think, it brings all that to reality, right?

Great. That’s very clear Thanks, Gale. Have a great day.

You too. Take care, Greg.

Your next question is from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Bank of America.

Hey, good afternoon.

Greetings, Julien. How are you today?

Good. Thank you very much. So perhaps just to turn to the more regulatory side of things, can you discuss a little bit how the legislative mechanism passed in terms of settlements kind of changes your process in terms of the next rate case? I mean that both in terms of going into the next rate case filing itself, as well as just subsequently through it, just want to understand that legislation and what it means exactly a little bit more clearly?

I appreciate the question. And I think I would answer that in two ways for you Julien. First of all, it really does not change our fundamental approach to a rate filing or to discussions about a rate settlement. What I think the legislation does do is makes it easier and clearer for the Commission to accept a non-unanimous settlement, and that’s the real key here in that legislation. There was some debate when we went through the last rate settlement, as you recall, which we’re now in a rate freeze going on four years. There was some debate about whether or not the Public Service Commission had the statutory authority to vote on and approve a settlement that was not completely unanimous among all the parties. This legislation that was passed makes it clear that they can vote on and can decide on a settlement that is not joined by every single party. So I think that’s the big difference that the legislation has enabled.

Excellent. All right. And turning back to a couple little of nuancy things. First, with what you’ve mentioned to Greg here. The wind investment, just can you elaborate a little bit more as to why they’re better? And also I suppose implicitly you continue to have appetite, given that you still have 20 onwards tax appetite?

And actually late 2019 onwards, yes. What Julien – why they’re better than what?

Well, the unlevered 8%, that sounds better than what you would get on a kind of traditional utility basis so…

Oh, yes.

Okay.

No question. We’re seeing in both these investments that we’ve announced. We’re projecting, given the contracts and the details of the contracts. We’re projecting a better IRR’s than you would see in a normal regulated investment. And also, because both of these wind projects are eligible for 100% bonus depreciation, the cash return is very significant. So I think, again, given the overall conditions in the industry with a number of companies trying to repair their balance sheets, where we can be opportunistic because of the strength of our balance sheet in our tax appetite, we’re seeing very solid projects that don’t change our risk profile. And so we intend to continue to look very carefully at projects in front of us and be opportunistic with something that we think will benefit our shareholders with a portion of our capital spending. Scott, anything to add?

No, you hit right on the head, Gale. The tax appetite really does help bring that projects getting that cash back from bonus depreciation early on.

Excellent. And to that point actually, just to clarify this, I mean, the solar RTC, the commenced construction safe harbor, I mean, is that still too early to ask you about implications, given the tax appetite you all have and obviously your interest at least on the utility side for solar?

Well, it probably, if you think about the non-utility side, it probably gives us a little longer runway to look at projects. On the utility side, what we propose and what we will propose actually fits under the prior timeframe for the tax credits. So I don’t think it would change anything on the utility side necessarily. I think, it gives us a little bit longer runway on the non-utility side if we make some solar investments on that – in that part of the business.

Excellent. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Julien.

Your next question is from the line of Michael Weinstein with Credit Suisse.

Hi, guys.

Michael, when do we get our gig on Fox Sports?

I’m ready to go. I’m ready to move out there. Let me know when you’re ready.

All right.

Can you just talk about how much of the increase in guidance is due to weather and or one-time in nature?

I think, Scott gave you a nice quick breakdown of that in his prepared remarks.

Yes.

Well, when you look at the weather for the quarter, I mean, the weather was about $0.04 and the rest is – was growth. So we raised the top end of the guidance, $0.02, really reflecting a combination of the growth that we’re seeing and along with the weather. But we didn’t raise it anymore than the $0.02, because we do have some projects – some maintenance projects that we’re looking at for the fall this year, including some forestry and maintenance that was above and beyond last year, expenses and also a little headwind on fuel coming up.

So that is why the guidance is still based on 2017, it’s not really in the long-term guidance, right? It’s not 2018 number, yes?

Yes, the long-term guidance.

And, Michael, I think, you can look forward, I mean, historically in the fall when we when we’ve unveiled the new five-year capital spending plan. We also give you some sense of what our updating and rebasing our long-term earnings growth rate. And so I think, you’ll see us do that on the next quarter’s call as well.

Great. And also the increase, the new goal of 80% by 2050, when can we expect to see that start to be reflected in forward capital plans?

Well, we already have – a very good question. We already have the capital plan in place that gets us probably by about 2023 to the 40% reduction. Remember, our first target was a 40% reduction below 2005 levels by the year 2030. The capital plan that we’re executing now actually gets us there in terms of that 40% reduction by about 2023. So then heading toward a 2050 goal of 80% reduction, I think, you can start – we can start seeing some of that capital being injected into our plan 2024 and beyond.

Okay, great. Thank you.

You’re welcome.

Your next question is from the line of Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research.

Hi, Steve, how are you?

Good, Gale. How are you doing?

Doing fine.

I was curious your thoughts one of your neighboring utilities just worked out a deal, the Alliant deal doing an RO with NextEra with the nuclear. And you obviously have maybe somewhat similar situation with different circumstances. So could you maybe give or take on whether something like might make sense for you guys at Point Beach?

Sure, we’re happy to. First of all, I think, you’re right. The circumstances are a bit different between the two utilities. If you think about our power supply coming from Point Beach and right now we have a contract in place for all of the output of the two Point Beach units for the remainder of their lives, which looks like 2030 and 2033 for the two units. So the first unit would retire in 2030, the second at the end of 2033. Those Point Beach units are producing about 22% of our total power supply for our retail customers. That’s a very significant portion of our – of the energy we’re delivering and, of course, it’s carbon-free and it’s dispatchable and basically runs, as you know, is a base load unit 24/7. So it runs and dispatches carbon-free energy regardless of whether the sun is shining or whether the wind is blowing. So it’s a very important component today of our power supply and of our ongoing efforts to reduce carbon emissions. So you never say never in terms of doing a buyout like what our – one of our other utility friends has done. But at the moment, I don’t see that in our future, in part, because it’s a little bit different situation in terms of the magnitude of the power supply we’re getting from Point Beach. I hope that respond Steve.

Yes. That’s great. And just want to go back to the prior question. So on your next quarter call, you plan to refresh the long-term capital plan and the long-term growth rate?

Yep, because I’ll be right before the meeting, where we can dive into great detail with you and yes, that’s our plan.

Okay. Okay, thank you.

All tight. Thanks, Steve.

Your next question is from the line of Praful Mehta with Citigroup.

Hi, guys.

Good afternoon. Hi, Praful, how are you?

Good. So I think you made a point on the call to talk about load growth or sales growth, especially on the gas side. So wanted to get a little bit more perspective on what’s driving that? And secondly, does that – is that a sustainable kind of growth level that would give you more headroom to kind of increase CapEx? How should we think about that?

Well, it’s a great question. And it has been one of the positive upside surprises for us. Really, over the last three years, if you look at and we try to weather normalize, but you’ve heard me say before, there are real deficiencies in how our industry weather normalizes sales. So I’m always reluctant to talk about one quarter of weather normalized data. But we now have 2.5 years of weather normalized data, which is showing real continued growth in gas deliveries and customer use of natural gas. I think, Scott, we were up like three 3.7% and then another 3.7%, so you talk about 2016 and 2017 being about 3.7% increases on a weather nornmal basis. And then as you’ve heard Scott and me say, we had a robust growth in weather normalized demand in the first-half of this year. So, it’s very hard to tell whether or not that trend will continue, but clearly the trend has exceeded our expectations. And when you look at – and Scott and I really delve into this in great detail the other day. When you look at – to try to answer the question, what is driving this demand for natural gas beyond our expectations. And it’s not just one sector, it’s like every sector we looked at was green. Every sector we looked at was showing significant increases. So that combined with customer growth, we’re serving about 15,000 natural gas customers more than what we were serving at this time a year ago. So I don’t want to be overly optimistic here. But what we’ve seen for the last basically, 10 quarters, certainly would indicate that there’s some other trend going on here, which we haven’t seen before, driving natural gas usage higher. Now what that means for capital spending? Obviously, we will take a hard look as we always do as we roll out our new five-year plan, and you may see some modest increase in capital spending on the gas side simply because of the infrastructure needs. And, for example, we’ve already applied to the Wisconsin Commission for two projects, that would strengthen the natural gas delivery network in the Racine area, where Foxconn is and many others are now beginning project work. We simply don’t have a strong enough natural gas delivery network to handle all that demand in that part of the state. So there’s another $140 million of capital already that was not in our previous forecast. I hope that’s a long answer to your question. I hope it helps.

It’s very helpful and a very interesting trend. So we’d love to learn more on future calls as well. And for a second question, I just wanted to understand a little bit more on the taxes side. As you become a cash tax payer in that 2019 to 2020 timeframe, just wanted to understand what is the impact of the FFO? Like how much is the year-over-year impacted that point that you expect? And the reason for the question is, I’m just trying to figure out the FFO to debt kind of trajectory impact of that change and how are you filling that gap? I’m assuming there’s something else that’s helping to fill that FFO gap, so just a little bit of color on that would be helpful?

That’s a good question. When you look in our assumptions are that we are partial taxpayers in 2019 and going forward, factoring all in the production tax credit. So we’re still at that 16 FFO to debt or a little bit north of that. So if we find other projects to have additional tax savings that would just increase us or put us higher in the FFO range.

That – that’s the net effect of additional projects.

Yes.

It raises basically from, say, 16, it raises a bit higher, which is a good thing.

If we can get some additional tax bonus depreciation projects?

Right.

Gotcha. And that’s very helpful. Thanks, guys.

You’re welcome.

Your next question is from the line of Shahriar Pourreza with Guggenheim Space.

Hey, Shah, somebody told me a rumor that based on one of your mentors, you were starting to take Thursdays off now. Is that true?

I will not admit this on a public line. So thanks for taking my question. Just one quick round Foxconn and sort of the, obviously, the groundbreaking. The last discussions we had was, obviously, the potential for rooftop solar in the 100 to 150 megawatt range, and I think there was some discussions around whether it would be technically feasible and whether it would pass building codes. Is there any sort of updates that you’ve had around with discussions around this potential?

Shan, what I can tell you and you’ve got a great memory. What I can tell you is, we are still in active discussions with Foxconn about the configuration of their electric service – the basic elements of their rates and whether or not if there’s any opportunity for solar. So continuing discussions, nothing new yet to report the continuing active discussions.

Got it. And that depending on how the active discussions go, that’s something that – would that be bid to an RFP process, or would that be something that would naturally come to you guys?

Well, I guess, there are two options. One would be a self billed by Foxconn, the other would be that we would basically make the investment. And again, too early to really give you a concrete answer at this point except other than everything’s on the table and we’re looking to how this best works for both parties.

Got it. That’s helpful. And then just on, is there any updates on incremental storage opportunities at the utilities?

Incremental gas storage opportunities?

That’s right, yes.

No, other than that energy infrastructure category that we’ve developed, I mean, one of the range of options we look at for that category for potential investment is gas storage. But nothing new to report on that front today.

Okay, terrific. Thanks. I want to go take the rest the day off. I appreciate. See you guys.

Your next question is from the line of Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank.

Good afternoon, guys.

Okay. Tell me Jonathan, you never take the day off.

Oh, well, no, maybe not the first day. So on the – just a couple of numbers questions that we wanted to chase down the other income line where you talked about the lower non-service overhead cost and it’s affecting both years. It didn’t seem like the 2017 number line changed this quarter whereas it did last quarter. So just trying to get a sense of how big was that driver and what else was going on in the $18 million there?

Yes, that’s a good question. There’s a lot of stuff that goes to the other income and deduction lying here. And unfortunately, some of these items are being reclass between O&M and this other line, so I guess, really confusing in. And when we manage the business, we really look at both of them together. So last quarter what also goes through here is a couple of items that swing between quarters like we have an investment in some deferred funds out there like it’s a rabbi trust for some deferred comp and that also fluctuates between quarters. But year-to-date, this is – the reclass of this non-service cost for the pension was the biggest number about $10 million on a year-to-date basis. So there’s a variety of items that go both ways, including some miscellaneous interest income and the deferral related to our forward wind farm. When we put that into the rates in Wisconsin, we were allowed to defer a few of those costs to offset and unfortunately, that goes in this line also. So there’s a mixture of stuff in there, but this was the biggest item for the quarter and for the year-to-date that really came out.

That pension drive you just said about $10 million year-to-date. Was that actually a change, or was it just the reclass?

It’s – it was a reclass out of O&M down here. The benefits last year, a couple of items of why the pension is down. The fund did well last year. The assets grew. So their earnings are better this year. The interest expense is down a little bit. And we did combine some plans into the Medicare Plan A for some other post-employment retirements plans, so there was some savings there also.

Jonathan, what you’re seeing in that category is a lot of accounting noise and we don’t probably see that – you’re going to see that every quarter. There’s just so many items that swing around. And then as Scott said, the new accounting rule required us to reclassify as well. So we try to spitball that for you as best we can. So that you can see what’s going on. But it also masks – all of these things also masks how we’re doing on, what I call, true operation and maintenance costs, and we’re still on target there. We said we would expect about a 3% to 4% decline in 2018 over 2017 true O&M and we’re right on target to achieve that.

Right, that’s helpful. Thank you. And then so just one other thing. You mentioned this, you have some ordered resolution at ATC. Was that a materialized? I mean, is it just this quarter or was this follow-on there?

It’s just a very small item for the quarter here. We just – when you back out the tax reform stuff that was negative, I mean, you don’t anticipate to be a negative. So it’s about $3 million for the quarter.

Great. Thank you for that. Sorry for the detail.

No problem.

No, not at all. Good questions, Jonathan.

Your next question is from the line of Paul Ridzon with KeyBanc.

Good afternoon.

Hello, how are you?

Can you hear me?

I’m fine, Paul. How are you?

Okay. Good. Just that last question. Is that – what period was that audit related to?

Well, it goes all the way back to 2004, I think, it was a long period of time. It was before the Internet. No I’m kidding. So it was really, I think, 2004 up through like 2015 or 2016.

And that was $2.7 million you said?

It was $3 million hit for the quarter.

Okay. And then you said when you give us a new CapEx deck, we could see more non-utility infrastructure. Do you think that higher level would be incremental to your utility plan, or are you going to pull some utility back and add the higher return non-utility?

No, I think – but very good question. But what we’re seeing in terms of the needed investment in our utility core infrastructure, I don’t see us pulling that back, because those projects are needed. So no, I wouldn’t see it diminish and if you will.

Right.

We are not going to take capital spending plan away from the core utilities to move it into this particular category. So if anything there might be a bit of an upside, because I think what we’re seeing here again in terms of our utility core investments, those are needed projects for reliability. So that would stay steady as she goes. So you might see it, but I think you might see a bit of an uptick if the conditions we’re seeing persist in the other category. And again, to keep all this in perspective, today, it’s like 8% to 9% of an $11.8 billion capital plan. But I think, it again reflects the strength of the company that we can take opportunistic advantage of these kinds of good assets.

How much more can you grow the CapEx without issuing equity?

Well, we’ll take a look at it, but – and again, our plan is not to issue equity. But as your earnings grow and as you get bonus depreciation from some of these projects, it gives you some room.

Yes.

And we track all the metrics that you talked about before FFO to debt and the holding company debt to total get around that 30%, so those are metrics that we’re looking at.

Just – I think you answered this one already, just want to make sure. Did you say you’re going to rebase the 5% to 7% growth or reconsider the 5% to 7% growth?

No, rebase. I mean, right now our 5% to 7% long-term growth rate is based off, as Scott said, the midpoint of our 2017 original guidance. So as we move forward to another year on capital spending, we’ll rebase our long-term growth rate off a newer number.

But it’s a 5% to 7% up for reconsideration?

Based on everything we’re seeing, no, I think 5% to 7% will stay intact.

Thank you for that clarification.

You’re welcome. Good questions.

Your next question is from the line of Andrew Levi with ExodusPoint.

Hey, Gale, how are you doing?

I’m good, Andy. Are you Exodus or Xodus?

Exodus. I got to this from millennium, you know.

Yes. Oh, impressive, yes.

So as I listen, I mean, and obviously as I’ve seen through last two quarters come in the raising CapEx, obviously, what you’re saying about refreshing everything at EEIs. And also most importantly, in some ways looking at the top line growth and hopefully will continue into the third quarter. It sounds like at the very least when you rebase and I assume, I don’t want to kind of preview that. But you’re kind of be towards the high-end of your growth rate going forward, 6% to 7%. Is that the hope based on, especially if you do get that top line growth?

Andy, stay tuned and we’ll be happy to discuss in detail on the next call.

Okay, I tried. Thank you.

Yes, you did a nice try, Andy.

Your next question is from the line of [indiscernible].

Jon, [ph] how are you?

Pretty good and congratulations. Great results. I wanted to know, again, is there some way that one can translate like the sales growth in the gas businesses, I would say, a tremendous? Is this some way to quantify that, say, 2% growth in sales in gas equates to this much in earnings growth? Is there some kind of rule of thumb that one can apply to convert the sales growth into earnings growth?

Yes. Generally, we can do that. But I would caution you and Scott can – I’ll let Scott give you his rule of thumb. But I would caution you that we are somewhat earnings capped, because we have sharing mechanisms in place for all three of our Wisconsin utilities, including Wisconsin Gas. Wisconsin Electric has a gas component and Wisconsin Public Service has a gas component. So, all things being equal, we can give you a rule of thumb, but anything above our allowed rates of return, we properly share with customers. So I would just throw in a word of caution in terms of just blindly using the rule of thumb, because again, we’re in a promised area that, I think, is very healthy for everyone, where earnings above our allowed return of shares. Scott?

Yes. No, that’s exactly correct, Gale. And when you look at sales – if you look at sales across all the sectors and you have about a 1% sales growth in residential, small commercial and transportation in Wisconsin, that equals to about 0.75% or $3 million pre-tax.

Okay.

So it’s about $3 million pre-tax for 1% growth in all the sectors.

Okay. And so just on the point that you mentioned, Gale, sort of I’m assuming this year, you would be based on this really strong start to the year, you would be setting mechanisms in all those territories. Is that a fair assumption?

Assuming normal weather and normal expenses that we’re projecting going forward for the remainder of the year, yes, I would expect we would be in sharing in all three of the companies.

Thank you so much.

You’re more than welcome. Great questions.

Your final question is from the line of Vedula Murti with Avon Capital.

Good afternoon, guys.

[indiscernible], Vedula How are you?

I’m well. Thank you very much.

Good.

A couple of things. One, going back to natural gas question. I mean, over a period of time and I don’t – and I think this is true in Illinois, but I wasn’t sure about Wisconsin about how trends have moved towards wanting to keep moving increasing to a larger fixed charge, less variable charge and moving increasingly to a decoupled model. And I’m wondering right now if you can remind me how decoupled or undecoupled you are in Wisconsin, which is helping, I guess, the uplift here and whether, in fact, going forward as you go through various rate cases, whether you want to – whatever exposure you currently have, you would like to maintain, or whether you want to take this opportunity, in fact, to move even further into a decoupled scenario, given at least what we’ve historically seen as long-term natural gas trends?

Vedula, let me kind of tackle that in two elements. First of all, we’ll talk about our largest gas delivery jurisdictions, Illinois and Wisconsin. In Illinois, there has been a decoupling plan in place for many, many years and it works quite well. But Illinois is basically decoupled and I expect it will stay that way for decades to come. In Wisconsin, we are not decoupled. And I really don’t sense in terms of the regulatory backdrop here, any big appetite to move toward decoupling at all. And frankly, I think, the coupling can be a mixed bag. First of all, getting the details of coupling right is a big deal. They’ve done a good job of that in Illinois. Here, I think, the growth we’re seeing and the growth we continue to expect to see, that growth really aligns the company and its business plan with economic growth. So for Wisconsin, I think, we’re going to continue to see the same type of regulatory environment and backdrop of the same type of regulatory treatment. I don’t see us moving to decoupling certainly not in the next rate case.

Okay. And to follow-up on Jonathan Arnold’s question about all those cumulative accounting noise issues and pension or OPEB, et cetera, if I looked at the release and everything correctly, I think, it was about $0.06, I think, at least, for this quarter if I’m – if that’s correct, that was a positive benefit. And I’m just wondering how we then think about that as we roll forward in terms of either normalization or sustainable, whatever it is?

Scott?

Yes. When you look at that and when we really factored all that is – all that in, we were really looking at that as part of our O&M expenses and really consolidating it altogether. So the offset, when you do the math, it looks like O&M expenses is not down as far as you think and that’s because some of these reclasses. So I really look at them together and I think together you have a good picture of where we are, we give the guidance and being down about 3% to 4%.

Yes, I think, Scott is right. We kind of have to piece through the details of these two pictures, put it all back together and we’re still on track for about the 3% to 4% decline that we had projected in O&M expenses compared to last year.

And two other last things. One, in Illinois, if I’m not mistaken, there’s a ROE adjustment mechanism based on levels of interest rates. And can you just remind me how that works? Where you guys stand? And when it gets – how that gets refreshed if we go into a higher interest rate environment in the future? And then I have one last question.

Vedula, I’ll suggest you save that question for Exelon, because in Illinois that, that rate adjustment tied to, I think, 10-year treasury rates applies only at this point in time to electric, not to natural gas.

Okay, that’s good to know. And secondarily, in terms of the utility CapEx, the current plan for $11.8 billion, I think, you indicated that through the period there is no net external equity in that drip and everything like that is basically able to be funded internally. If we roll forward at kind of what level of CapeX does that then start needing to, at least, on the margin need to have some marginal incremental equity for rolling at a $11.8 billion over the current five years? I mean kind of where is it like the line where you start thinking you may need something, this is like 13, I’m just making up a number, but I’m just – want to kind of get a sense for that?

Well, we’ll have a lot more detail for you on the next call as we refresh the capital plan. Remember though, some of the investments we’re making now push out the timeframe in which we become a tax – a cash taxpayer. And some of these investments also give us 100% bonus depreciation. So you really need to put all of the elements in there, and pretty soon it’s Ragu and it’s all in there. But I can tell you this. I think, we have some room because of the investments we’re making for some increase in the capital plan over five years with no equity issuances in our plan is no equity issuances, no drip. We don’t need it. The amount of outstanding shares we have today are going to be the outstanding shares we have tomorrow.

Thank you very much. And give my best to Allen, the next time [Multiple Speakers]

Sure. Well, thank you, Vedula. You take care.

Well, folks, that concludes our conference call for today. We really appreciate you participating. If you have any other questions, feel free to call at Beth Straka, and her direct line is 414-221-4639. Take care, everybody. Bye-bye.