Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Xcel Energy Third Quarter 2012 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following the presentation, we will conduct a question-and-answer session, and instructions will be provided at that time. (Operator Instructions) I would like to remind everyone that this conference call is being recorded today Thursday October 25, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. Central Time. I will now turn the conference over to Mr. Paul Johnson, Vice President, Investor Relations and Financial Management. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you. And welcome to Xcel Energy’s 2012 third quarter earnings release conference call. Joining 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 Revenue Group President; Scott Wilensky, Senior Vice President and General Counsel; George Tyson, Vice President and Treasurer; and Jeff Savage, Vice President and Controller. This morning we will provide with you an update on third quarter results and recent business developments, update you on our 2012 guidance and introduce our new five-year capital forecast, financing plan and 2013 earnings guidance. There are slides that accompany today’s conference call available on our webpage. In addition, we will post a brief video of Teresa Madden summarizing our financial results on the website. As a reminder, some of the comments during this morning’s conference call 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. Today’s press release refers to both ongoing and GAAP earnings. 2012 third quarter GAAP earnings of $0.81 per share reflect a $0.03 per share positive impact of a restoration of a tax benefit previously expensed in 2012 associated with federal subsidies for prescription drug plans. This benefit is not included in ongoing earnings, which is consistent with our treatment in 2010. Management believes ongoing earnings which remove the impact of non-recurring items provide a more meaningful comparison. As a result, comments this morning will focus on going earnings. With that, I will now turn the call over the Ben Fowke.

Well, thanks Paul, and good morning. I’m very pleased to report that 2012 third quarter ongoing earnings increased 13% to $0.78 per share, compared to $0.69 per share in 2011. As you know, we made -- make it a priority to invest in our system with projects that provide long-term value to our customers. We achieve constructive and timely recovery of such investments in several jurisdictions, which contributed to this quarter’s performance. In addition, O&M expenses decreased slightly for the quarter reflecting our continued cost control measures. Finally, warmer than normal weather increased third quarter earnings by just over $0.07 per share, since we also experienced a hot summer last year this summer’s weather didn’t create a variance when making the quarterly comparison. Our third quarter earnings are in contrast with the rather slow start we had to the year, marked by warm winter weather, lower sales and a couple of disappointing regulatory decisions. Recall that we responded immediately by implementing cost control measures to partially offset these negative factors, an indicative we expected to deliver earnings within the lower half of our guidance range. With continued careful cost management and the improvement in weather during the summer, we now expect to deliver 2012 ongoing earnings within our earnings guidance range of $1.75 to $1.85 per share. Our 2012 GAAP earnings are expected to be in the upper half of the guidance range as a result of the $0.03 per share tax benefit that, Paul, just discussed. Teresa will discuss our quarterly earnings in greater detail in a few moments. I’ll now comment on a few recent developments starting with the introduction of our updated five-year capital forecast, which you will find in our earnings release. We anticipate spending approximately $13.2 billion over the next -- over the five-year timeframe…

Thanks, Ben, and good morning. Today I will discuss third quarter results, provide an update on our regulatory proceedings, review our 2012 financing plan and update you on our 2012 and 2013 earnings guidance. Let’s begin by reviewing our third quarter results at each of our four operating companies. Third quarter earnings at PSCo increased $0.07 per share, primarily due to an electric rate increase implemented in May associated with the approved multi-year plan. Quarterly results also benefited from lower O&M expenses and warmer summer weather. For 2012 we are on track to earn close to our authorized ROE of 10% in Colorado. Earnings at NSP-Minnesota declined $0.01 per share for the quarter. In addition, NSP-Minnesota earnings were down on a year-to-date basis driven by sluggish sales, increased property taxes, higher O&M expense and unfavorable weather. In 2012, we expect to earn well below our authorized ROE. Clearly, this highlights the need to file our 2013 electric rate case in Minnesota. SPS earnings increased $0.02 per share for the quarter. New rate increases in New Mexico and Texas implemented in January were partially offset by the impact of milder weather, higher depreciation experience and property taxes. We currently project SPS to earn in the mid 9% range in 2012. Finally, third quarter earnings at NSP-Wisconsin were flat. In 2012, we expect NSP-Wisconsin to earn in the upper 9% ROE range. On a consolidated basis, we continue to project our 2012 ROE will be greater than 10%. I will now discuss some of the key drivers that affected the income statement beginning with retail electric margin. Third quarter electric margin increased $57 million. Primary drivers of the higher margin were $46 million from new rate increases in several states including Colorado, $13 million from increased conservation and DSM expenses, and $11…

Thank you. (Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from Travis Miller from Morningstar Securities Research. Please go ahead.

Good morning, thanks.

Good morning, Travis.

Good Morning.

You guys mentioned in the release, the cost savings initiatives that helped keep that O&M flat. And as you’ve suggested a pretty modest 2% for the full year, can you detail what some of those have been this year and how sustainable, I guess those are?

Well, we started the year in terms of an overall looking across the board in terms of where we could eliminate what we would called discretionary items, and so that could be some consulting costs. We eliminated our wage increase, which we have reinstated. But generally they were just across the board, where we looked for opportunities to lower our overall costs.

Okay. And you expect those to be, other than the wage increase, obviously, you expect some of those to be sustainable?

Yeah. We do.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

Your next question comes from Kit Konolige from BGC. Please go ahead.

Good morning.

Good morning, Kit.

Good morning.

So just to follow a little on your discussion of the five-year CapEx outlook and your equity plans, I think you mentioned, Teresa, the driver of the lowered equity needs was partly less CapEx, partly higher cash from operations, if you can go into a little detail on those points?

Well, Kit, the CapEx, if we look at the five-year period, even though it’s slightly different, in terms of 12 to 16 or 13 to 17 it’s still just over a $13 billion. But two important things, in terms of removing CSAPR, we had a higher front end. We’ve added some infrastructure costs in PSCo, in terms of the gas replacement program. The removing of the CSAPR project had some regulatory lag with it and whereas, if we are assuming relative to the gas infrastructure, we do have a rider in place, or through this rate based recovery that will help us work towards having a lower equity requirement.

And is that, that’s the primary driver of the delta in your expected equity needs?

It really is, yeah, because over the period, the spend is pretty much the same in terms of just over $13 billion.

Great. Can you discuss the timing of the equity issuance at all?

Well, we don’t need equity in 2012. We believe in 2013 or 2014, we could have the need for equity, but it’s going to depend on a lot of things that we consider. Overall market decisions, the ultimate timing of spend, credit metrics, we’ll take that all into consideration.

I think the good news, Kit, is we’re going need a lot less equity and that gives us a lot more flexibility going forward.

I agree, that sounds like good news and can you maybe touch on the dividend a little bit in that context as well. I think in the past, the discussion has been along the lines that dividend growth would be less than EPS growth for a number of years, while the large CapEx budget was in place as that declines. Maybe that relationship between dividend and EPS growth changes some. Should we be thinking any differently about that at this point?

No. I think what we said before and how we reward investors between the dividend and EPS growth still holds true, Kit. I mean, we still have a lot of rate based growth obviously in the next couple of years. And just like our equity needs, we’ve got a lot of flexibility and what we can do with the dividend. I mean, we’ve got, I think, a pretty modest payout ratio compared to our peers. So it’s an arrow in the proverbial quiver, if you will.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from Ali Agha from SunTrust. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning.

Hey, Ali.

Hey, Ben. Ben or Teresa, the $13.2 billion of CapEx spend budget for ‘13 through ‘17, could you then remind us what kind of annual rate-based growth does that support say ‘12 over ‘13 and ‘17 over that five-year period?

I think we’re still growing in that 6% to 7% clip, Ali.

At least through 2014, Ali. Post that it will start to come down as CapEx comes down.

Okay. Okay. But and I don’t have a chance to look at the numbers themselves. So I mean, if I do it over a five-year period, 5% to 6% that would be reasonable?

Yeah. I think that’s probably right.

Okay. And then on the equity issue question, so the share count increase that you guys are assuming for ‘13 in your guidance right now. Obviously that the range there, so right now is that assuming drip, or I’m assuming, I guess, the higher end of that would include equity issuance as well. Can you give us a little better handle on that check on range for ‘13 and how you’re thinking about equity in there?

Well, we’re still assuming that we would have our drip and benefit programs in place at the same level, which has been around $80 million a year. And then we put the range in to provide for some flexibility as I was just indicating. But it could be 2013, it could be 2014. And as we move forward, we’ll just consider all the circumstances and it could be either of the years. And that’s why we indicated a range this year.

I see. And final question, you laid out also your load forecast obviously for full year this year and for next year. Can you remind us the earnings sensitivities? We should think about 1% move in load, what that means for EPS for you guys?

Generally, 1% load can range from margins at $20 million to $30 million. It just depends on which jurisdiction it’s in because we earn differently. And so that’s what causes the range between $20 million to $30 million.

And also with customer class.

Yeah. That’s true.

Is that electric, gas or is that a culmination of the two?

That’s electric.

Gas is much lower.

Correct.

All right. All right. Thank you.

Your next question comes from David Paz from Bank of America, Merrill Lynch. Please go ahead.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Most of my questions have been answered. But I just wanted to go back to one point you made on the regulatory lag and how it corresponds with the CapEx. I think said higher -- you expect higher cash flow from operations in this five-year plan versus the prior plan, due to like more spend on the gas side which has a rider and less spend on electric side which in the region, in the jurisdiction that still has some regulatory lag. Is that the increase roughly, does that explain the increase of, I don’t know, I think it was like 400 million in your cash flow from operations plan versus the prior plan?

Well, I think it’s a function of the reduction in overall CapEx spend. That’s about $200 million. And then improvement in the cash flows that Teresa mentioned is the other half of that basically. And that’s just, that’s a function of when we put the spend in and for CSAPR and remember, that was front end loaded. That’s another factor that helps us reduce the equity needs that we have a smoother spend. When we put that in, we did not have the regulatory recovery mechanism established. Now, we were obviously going seek that and we’ll continue to seek that going forward, if we do have to make environmental spend. But at this point, we didn’t have it. We had regulatory lag, contrast that with our infrastructure spend in Colorado, where we do have a rider and which eliminates lag. So, that’s the delta that Teresa and we’re referring to.

Got it. Okay. Great. That helps a lot. My other question, just in your transmission line item other major projects notice both slight bump in 2017. I’m just curious is there a major transmission project down in the pipe that maybe we’ve missed here?

I don’t think, so we’re obviously have our CapX2020 programs, which are lined out that in program and then the other major CapX programs would be at SPS and some in Colorado. But these are all projects that we’ve been discussing.

Great. And on interest costs, I just want to make sure I understand the decline for 2013, embedded in your 2013 guidance versus 2012. Is it really just a function of the lower interest cost -- lower interest rate or there are some maybe terms out before their maturity dates?

And it’s primarily the interest rate.

Okay. And last question, just in terms of your weather benefit year-to-date, I know you have for Q1, but better rest of the year, just what the net weather benefit year-to-date?

The net…

Versus normal.

Is $0.05.

Great. Thank you so much.

Your next question comes from Eli Kraicer from Millennium Partners. Please go ahead.

Good morning. It’s actually Steven Gambuzza.

Hi, Steve.

Good morning.

Good morning. The rate case that you’re going to file in Minnesota, what will be the test year for that rate case?

2013.

Okay. And so you’ll use a forecasted capital structure for -- the balance sheet, there is no update so just being entirely forecasted capital set of financials?

That’s correct.

Okay. And just on the CapEx forecast, I know you spent some time in your opening remarks talking about the op rates. Have you left, I guess is the op rates spend really into the Minnesota project, which you discussed is that still in the CapEx forecast or is that been removed?

It’s the $200 million spend is still in there.

Okay.

It’s in the ‘16 and ‘17 timeframe.

Okay. So, if your request to the regulator is granted then you will not spend that money?

Correct.

Okay. And then just back to you some of David’s questions on the rider. It sounds like I was looking at the nature of the capital changes. It looks like distribution CapEx for electric went up by about, both electric and gas distribution spend went up by 20 to 30% versus the prior forecast and is most of that spend now rider eligible like I know you have it in Colorado, do you -- this increase in CapEx that you have for both electric and gas distribution is the majority of that going to fall under riders?

Well, I think the gas spend as we talked about should be under a rider. The electric spend, which assumed in a multiyear plan. And -- but most of it is going to be picked up in general rate cases. And obviously, we’re trying to go to multiyear and some other things to cover that. But it’s really a reflection by the way of just aging infrastructure. And we’ve done a really good job with reliability for our customers. And we want to continue to keep that high standard in existence and it takes investment. And I think our commissions will see that.

Okay. And then my final question is just on the transmission CapEx. I’m looking at that updated table and I see the CapX2020 spend in the 2013 to ‘15 timeframe. And then there is other major transmission project, $320 million in ‘16 and $415 million in ‘17. Can you just remind us what projects those are they -- I’m sure I know you talked about it a bunch of the sites CapX2020 just wanted to get a feel for -- is this a handful of projects or a bunch of projects?

Probably in between a handful and a bunch.

Okay.

We’ve got both. And we have TUCO, Moreland project, the Hitchland-Woodward project in Texas. We’ve got the step projects in Texas. And PSCo some of the SP 100 are relatively small to the end of the five-year timeframe. A number of smaller projects, we have some things going on in Wisconsin as well, so…

Nothing, no large -- no one or two large projects that are driving it?

No. But they’re not -- I mean a lot of those projects are covered through. The major projects that we refer to in the table the majority of those are covered by riders.

Great. Thanks very much for your time.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from Mark Ryder from PartnerRe Asset Management. Please go ahead.

Yeah. Hi. With the five year CapEx spending so front-end loaded. I’m just wondering roughly how much debt you plan to issue in 2013. And then how that affects the credit metrics, if you don’t issue equity?

We’re planning to issue as right around $1.2 billion, $1.4 billion.

And the credit metrics?

They’ll stay the same as they are which we are assuming that we have in the release.

I mean we shared this, our plan with rating agencies. And so everybody -- we’re very transparent about what the metrics look like with both investors and the credit agencies.

Okay. And then just one quick question on how much more secured debt you can issue at SPS before you trip the negative pledge in the existing bonds?

It’s about $160 million.

And will you hit that limit next year?

Not necessarily.

All right. Thank you.

(Operator Instructions) Your next question comes from Cleo Zagrean from Macquarie Capital. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning. Could you please remind us of your expectations both ‘13 in terms of trend growth rate for EPS given the slower load growth. And did you CapEx now we understand most likely it’s going to be $13 billion. And any update on the mix between -- mix growth and dividend yield for total return? Thank you.

Your first and second question kind of have the same answer for both. I think we continue to see some pretty robust rate based growth over the next couple years. You get into that ‘14 time frame and beyond, perhaps it modulates a bit. There is a number of factors that will affect how much it modulates. But overall, we’re very confident that the total shareholder return of 10% can be met, whether it’s a little less on EPS growth and a little more on dividend that mix ultimately remains to be seen, based upon a number of variables. But we’ve got a lot of levers I think to use to continue to reward our shareholders.

Thank you. And as a follow-up with regards to load growth challenges, can you give us a brief overview of the types of regulatory recovery you’re looking for besides accounting for a lower growth rate in your request. And the signals you’ve received so far from regulators in terms of progress on formula rates. We -- my impression was that you were hoping maybe to move faster in Minnesota? Thank you.

The formula rates, you mean the multiyear plan?

Yes.

It’s not really a formula rate. But -- that the progress on a multiyear plan has gone a bit slower in Minnesota than we originally thought. There’s a docket that’s been opened and it will be very much addressed in ‘13. But we need to file a rate case now. So we filed a rate case. We’ll continue to work with parties to develop a plan that might make sense. And part of that will be economic development, frankly and address things like how we help be part of the solution to get sales back on track in the state. I think that’s an important thing we can do and we have done. We already have examples of that, by the way that have played very well with our stakeholders. So having regulatory certainty, having our plans understood by our stakeholders, those ultimate lead to multiyear plans, but in the meantime we’ll file a rate case. Last time we did it, we did the same way. We got a step increase for the off years. So there’s a lot of different ways that we can ensure that we have appropriate regulatory recovery. And I’m actually pretty excited about the ways we can help improve sales growth and encourage growth in the state. You’ll see that in rate design, I’m sorry you’ll see that in rate designs some other things that will offer.

Thank you.

You’re welcome.

Your next question comes from Timothy Yee from Keybanc Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Yeah. Just one quick question. For your plan rate filings in the other jurisdiction other than Minnesota, which I think would be New Mexico and North Dakota or Texas and Colorado gas, when would you expect those new rates to be in place by?

It varies by the jurisdictions. In North Dakota, we would expect interim rates early. Texas would be in the latter part of next year. New Mexico would be potentially about the same. Colorado gas that’s right…

‘14.

New Mexico would be 2014. And then Colorado gas would be by the winter season next year.

Okay. Thank you.

There are no further questions at this time. I would now like to turn it over to Ms. Teresa Madden. Please go ahead.

Thank you all for participating in our third quarter earnings call this morning. We look forward to meeting with you at EEI Financial Conference in a few weeks. Until then Paul Johnson and the IR team are available to take your call.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the conference call for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect your lines.