Good morning ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Xcel Energy fourth quarter 2011 earnings conference call. During today’s presentation all parties will be in a listen-only mode and following the presentation the conference will be opened for questions. (Operator Instructions). I would now like to turn the conference over to Paul Johnson, Vice President of Investor Relations and Financial Management. Please go ahead.

Thank you and welcome to Xcel Energy’s year-end 2011 earnings release conference call. I’m Paul Johnson. With me today are Ben Fowke, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; Teresa Madden, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Dave Sparby, Senior Vice President and Group President; Scott Wilensky, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, and George Tyson, Vice President and Treasurer. Today, we’ll discuss our 2011 results, provide you with the recent business and regulatory developments and review our 2012 earnings guidance. Please note that there are slides that accompany the conference call and are available on our web page. Before we begin, let me remind you that some of our comments may contain forward-looking information. Significant factors that could cause results to differ from those anticipated are described in our earnings release and our filings with the SEC. I’ll now turn the call over to Ben Fowke.

Thanks Paul and good morning. I’m pleased to announce that Xcel Energy enjoyed another successful year. I’ll review some of the highlights from 2011 and also comment on some of the challenges we face in 2012. Teresa will then discuss our 2011 results in greater detail. As you probably read in this morning’s press release, we reported 2011 earnings of $1.72 per share, compared with $1.62 per share in 2010, representing a 6% increase. We feel good about delivering earnings results in the upper half of our 2011 earnings guidance range of $1.65 to $1.75 per share. This marks the seventh consecutive year that we have met or exceeded our annual earnings objective. We were also successful in meeting our other financial objectives. We raised an annual dividend of $0.03 per share or 3% to $1.04 per share and we maintained our strong credit ratings. Continuing to meet our financial objectives is certainly important; however, I’m equally proud that we delivered a high level of system reliability in a year that clearly presented us with some weather related challenges. In addition to our hot summer throughout our service territory, we experienced some rather noteworthy storms in 2011, including a tornado in a densely populated Minneapolis neighborhood and early season snowstorms in the Denver area. All of these storms resulted in significant damage and widespread power outages. I commend our employees for how rapidly and thoroughly they responded to these challenging events, restoring service in all situations in record time. Delivering value to our customers has led to a record customer satisfaction rating of 93% in 2011, slightly above the 92% rating we received in 2009 and 2010. We had some significant operational successes in 2011 that should position us to continue to provide a high level of service to our…

Thanks Ben and good morning. Today I will discuss our year-end results, pending rate cases and 2012 earnings guidance. Let’s begin with a review of 2011 results at each of our operating companies. PSCo earnings decreased $0.04 per share for the year. The decrease is due to the implementation of seasonal rates in June 2010, higher O&M expenses, depreciation expense and property taxes, partially offset by the impact of warmer weather last summer. At NSP-Minnesota, earnings increased $0.13 per share, largely due to interim electric rates in Minnesota and North Dakota and conservation incentives, partially offset by higher O&M expenses, depreciation and property taxes. Earnings at SPS increased $0.01 per share, largely due to an electric rate increase in Texas and higher sales driven again by record-breaking hot summer weather. These positive items were also partially offset by higher O&M, property taxes and depreciation expense. Finally, 2011 NSP Wisconsin earnings increased $0.01 per share. The positive impact of new electric rates was partially offset by higher O&M and depreciation expense. I will now discuss some of the primary drivers on the income statement beginning with retail electric margin. In 2011, retail electric margin increased by $334 million. Significant drivers include a $102 million increase from interim and finance rates in multiple states, $124 million increase in revenue requirements reflecting the acquisition of two natural gas power plants in Colorado in late 2010. This margin impact is partially offset by higher O&M, depreciation, property taxes and financing costs associated with these facilities. Finally, we met or exceeded our conservation in DSM targets, which resulted in a $45 million increase from higher conservation and DSM revenue and incentives. For the year, natural gas margin increased by a modest $28 million, driven primarily by conservation and DSM revenue, as well as weather. Partially…

Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. (Operator Instructions). Our first question is from the line of Travis Miller with Morningstar. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Good morning.

Hey Travis.

On all the regulatory activity that you guys have in process and you expect over the next year, year and a half, how concerned are you about ROE cuts that could come under 10% rather, given where interest rates are and some other rate case decisions we’ve seen across the U.S.?

Well, I think it’s a concern Travis and we’ve talked about it before, that the trend is to see lower authorized ROEs. I’d certainly hope we don’t go below 10%, but as you also have heard as I talked about before, I think we have upside even in a falling authorized ROE environment if we can close that regulatory lag that we talk about through things like multi year and the riders that Teresa talked about, so that we actually can make up more ground than we might lose on the authorized basis.

Okay. What did you earn in 2011 rather across your service territories?

Correct me if I’m wrong Teresa, but on a consolidated basis, I think we earned about 10%. But remember, that reflects a little bit of debt at the holding company, so I would say our average ROE earned at the OPCo’s was probably in low 9%.

They ranged 9% to 10% or just that, except for SPS was slightly lower.

Yes, so our aggregates probably about low 9% I would think.

Okay. Thanks a lot.

And our next question comes from the line of Ali Agha with SunTrust. Please go ahead.

Thank you and good morning.

Hi Ali.

Ben, to be clear on the Colorado situation, as I recall, after they denied your interim request, you went back with another interim request at a lower amount. Where do we stand on that and is that still possible that they could grant that?

They denied that too at the same time that they suggested that we look at the accounting order approach, which as you know we took them up on that suggestion and they did approve that just recently here. That has, as I mentioned on my prepared remarks about a $0.02 positive impact and helps to mitigate the denial of the interim rates.

Okay, okay. And as you mentioned low 9% ROEs at the OPCo level in ‘11, what’s embedded in the ‘12 guidance assuming as you mentioned you end up in that lower end of the range. What should be the corresponding OPCo ROE roughly there?

Well, I think some of the things we’ve talked about, like multi year plans, etcetera certainly are going to help. I think that impact would be more evident in 2013 than 2012. I mean we had the setback on the interim rates as we entered this year. So I suspect that we will probably have about the same kind of ROE at the consolidated level in ‘12 that we have in ‘11.

Consolidated, and also at the OPCo as well, the same thing?

Yes, I mean it will be variance. Go ahead Teresa.

Yes, it will range in the 9% up to 10% amongst the OPCos. Generally the range, whoever has a rate case in that period, like we will earn a little higher, so if we look at ‘11, Minnesota is slightly higher than Colorado and then it will flip around. So this is somewhat driven, but they are all within that range. It has new rates.

And Teresa if I heard you correctly earlier, is it fair to say that when you look at lag across the system, is SPS, does that have the largest lag between authorized and earned right now or how would you categorize your biggest lag utilities at this point?

Yes, I would say it’s the largest. Their rates are set on a historical test year. So we do see the largest lag and we have less riders in Texas as well.

Ali, keep in mind though that SPS has made some pretty significant improvements as we all know from where we were just a few years ago. So, we continue to, I think improve the regulatory compact there and look to do that in future years as well.

Yes, and also one other clarification. Teresa, I think you mentioned the property tax deferral in Minnesota, you asked for that and you’ve assumed you’ll get it. Can you remind us how big of an amount that is?

Yes, it’s $28 million and it’s both electric and gas. So even though it came out of the electric case, it’s for both businesses.

Okay, last question, given your assumptions and guidance, fair to assume you’re not looking at any scenario that would cause you to issue equity in ‘12 or could that change depending on stock price, performance, etcetera?

Well, I think as we’ve indicated before, we are not planning to issue any equity in ‘12, but we’ll be opportunistic and if we see conditions that would warrant that, we would consider entering into a forward transaction. So we are still in the same position and consistent with we’ve previously indicated.

Thank you very much.

Your welcome.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Angie Storozynski with Macquarie. Please go ahead.

Thank you. I have two questions. The first one is about the retail sales and the weather analyzed load growth. You mentioned that it was disappointing in the fourth quarter and I’m just wondering, is this just purely the economic slowdown or is this sustainable conservation?

We were disappointed I think in the last quarter of 2011, which drove the overall year to just a little over a half or six-tenths of a percent. It’s a little bit perplexing, because while haven’t been immune to the recession, generally our states have done very well. Lower unemployment; we’re seeing jobs growth and we didn’t lose as many jobs and where we are seeing a lot of the fall off is in the residential and small C&I. I wish I had a better explanation for you, but outside of our DSM programs, which probably account for about seven-tenths of a percent of the fall-off and as you know Angie, we are compensated for that; it’s a little harder to explain.

There’s clearly a trend that we are seeing across the country and pretty much every single utility now says that it has nothing to do with conservation, it’s nor the economy, but yet at DSM macroeconomic indicators seems to be at least mix and maybe slightly even positive and so it’s just hard to believe that pretty much every single region has seen the flattish weather normalized power sales.

Well, I mean typically you can add 70 basis points back to whatever our sales are because of our DSM programs. So I would definitely say our DSM programs are having the intended effect, but then once you get past that, whether it’s efficiencies we don’t know about or change in consumer behaviors or there’s a lot of different theories, household consolidation, etcetera, we are not quite sure, but we are certainly seeing it and we are going to have to continue to monitor it.

Okay. My second question is about CSAPR. I recall that you guys mentioned that if CSAPR was in fact implemented on January 1, you would have ran your gas plants more, which in turn would increase your O&M expenses. Now that CSAPR has stayed, that you don’t have to tick up in expenses, shouldn’t that be helping your 2012 guidance?

Well Angie, the biggest impact of having to basically turn our dispatch order upside down was the increase in fuel expense, so not the O&M expense, so not too much of a delta on the O&M there.

Okay, okay, that’s fine. Thank you very much.

Thanks.

And our next question comes from the line of Paul Fremont with Jefferies & Company. Please go ahead.

Thanks. I guess when the interim rate relief was originally denied and you guys talked about earning at the low end of the guidance range, the impact of that seems to be on the order of magnitude about a nickel and it looks like you’ve got $0.025 back obviously, based on your ability to defer the Black Hills contract. So I’m just wondering, since you’re still sort of projecting the low end of your guidance range, did something happen between then and now that’s making you more concerned about other parts of your operation, be it slower load growth or more difficulty potentially in cutting O&M?

No. I mean I think the original request would have had about – I think we had it more, I guess $0.06 if we had everything we asked for, which we typically don’t and then we have the account in order to your point which knocks off $0.02 of that, so it’s a setback. It’s certainly helpful. I think we have a much better opportunity to work our way up towards the middle of the range now as a result, but we continue to have some of the other headwinds that I talked about. We just talked about sales. This has been, I think the fourth warmest winter on record in Minnesota and I don’t have the results for Colorado, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they are not similar and that’s impacting us $0.02, and frankly February is starting out pretty warm too. So those are the things along with property taxes that we’ll have to concentrate on. We do have plans to mitigate that to some O&M reductions and that will help too. So the order I think was a definite improvement and again, if we get a few breaks we’ll push it back towards the middle.

Based on what you just said, the weather impact so far, you would calculate at about $0.02 negative for the first quarter?

Through January, it was $0.02 negative, roughly.

Thank you.

Your welcome.

Our next question comes from the line of Dan Jenkins with State of Wisconsin Investment Board. Just go ahead.

Hi, good morning.

Hey Dan.

Morning.

First think I was wanting to ask about was, you laid out your CapEx on Page 11 of the release and you put a note in there related to the CSAPR. I just wondered if you could give us a little more color on if the stay were removed, with CapEx should have laid out there for CSAPR stay the same or would that have to be moved in some way?

Well, you’re kind of hitting on it Dan. There’s three outcomes, right. They could be reinstated. I don’t think that’s very high likelihood, but it’s certainly possible. It could be repealed completely, which I do think is a possibility or the courts could remand it back to the EPA and ask if they’d modify it in some way. So we currently have 474 I think or 470 in there for CapEx. If it was reinstated now, we’ll spend about that amount. If it’s repealed, we might not have to spend anything at least in the near term. I think some other rules eventually might catch us, but it certainly will be very favorable, and then somewhere in between if it’s remanded. So I mean obviously that’s about $0.5 billion swing, but that’s where we are right now.

Okay, and if the current rules were enforced, would that impact any of your plants as far as being retired?

No, you’re saying if the core came back and just basically restated everything?

Right.

We would be back to the plan that we entered the year with and we would, we’d be looking at different dispatches, hopefully find some allowances in the market. We haven’t had a lot of success as you know and we talked about that and we would plan to put the CapEx in. So hopefully that doesn’t happen, at least not with an extension of the compliance base.

Okay. The another thing I had was on your pending rate cases, your ongoing rate cases, where you don’t have the settlements and basically in Colorado Electric and South Dakota Electric. I was wondering what the last authorized ROE is versus what you requested? I think you would lay out what the requested ROE is, but I was curious how those compare with what the last authorized ROEs were.

The last authorized ROE in Colorado was 10.5%.

How about in South Dakota?

10% for South Dakota.

Okay, thank you. That’s all I have.

(Operator Instructions) Our next question is from the line of Neil Kalton with Wells Fargo. Go ahead.

Good morning everyone. Just a quick question on the interim rates and the setback there, and this maybe speculative in nature, but do you think that that has any implications for the appetite of multi year plans in the state? I mean is there any read through there at all?

No. I mean, there is two ways to get a multi year, through settlement or through the Commission deciding and I don’t think it really probably impacted very much Neil. As I said in my remarks, I mean we were obviously disappointed by not getting the interim rates and our interpretation of the Clean Air-Clean Jobs legislation certainly would indicate that we were very much eligible for it, but the Commission looked more to a historical precedent, which is a much tougher bar to meet. So, it’s disappointing, but I think it’s more of an anomaly given the accounting order. I mean, I still think we have a Commission there that wants to be constructive and understands that what we are trying to accomplish in Colorado is good for the state and good for our customers.

Neil, just as a point of reference to you. During the hearings, the Commission at the end of it also indicated that they’d like to see us work towards the multi year settlement if the parties were interested. So I mean, they clearly gave us the signal that they were open and thought it was a positive thing.

Okay thanks. Thank you.

And there are no further questions in queue. I’d like to turn the call back over to Teresa Madden.

Thank you for participating in our year-end earnings conference call. If you have any follow-up questions, please contact Paul Johnson and the IR team. Thanks a lot.