Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the First Quarter 2013 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] This conference is being recorded today, May 2, 2013. I would now like to turn the conference over to Paul Johnson, Vice President of Investor Relations and Business Development. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, and welcome to Xcel Energy's 2013 first quarter earnings release conference call. Joining me today are Ben Fowke, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; Teresa Madden, Senior Vice President, 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 review our first quarter results, update you on recent business and regulatory developments and reiterate our 2013 guidance. There are slides that accompany today's call which are available on our web page. We will also post a brief video of Teresa 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. I will now turn the call over to Ben Fowke.

Thanks, Paul, and good morning. Today, we reported first quarter earnings of $0.48 per share compared with $0.38 per share in 2012. First quarter results reflect colder than normal weather, increased electric and gas margins from various rate cases and lower interest expense. Teresa will discuss our quarterly results and earnings guidance in greater detail in a few moments. Our first quarter results are a good start to 2013. However, there are challenges ahead. I'll now provide you with a few updates beginning with a review of some key regulatory developments. As you know, it is important to receive timely constructive recovery of the substantial investments we make in our utility business. That said, we were disappointed with the surrebuttal testimony filed by various parties in our Minnesota electric rate case. While we understand this case has some unique circumstances, for example, around our Serco Plant, we thought we provide a good support for our cause, as well as rate making alternatives that balance the interest of various parties. Clearly, the recommended level of recovery is not commensurate with over $5 billion of investment that is planned over the next 5 years. We will work with parties to narrow issues where we can and we will ask the commission to resolve our differences in a way that allows us to continue providing high-quality service to our customers over the long run. We remain cautiously optimistic that we can achieve a constructive outcome in this case. Our earnings guidance assumes constructive outcomes in all rate case and regulatory proceedings. We do not consider the current recommendations from the interveners to be constructive. And should the commission approves a rate increase at these levels, our ability to deliver earnings within our 2013 guidance range would be much more challenging. Looking ahead, initial…

Thanks, Ben, and good morning. Today, I will discuss first quarter results, our 2013 financing plan and our 2013 earnings guidance. I'll begin with a review of first quarter results. As you might recall, last year, we experienced a very warm first quarter which reduced our earnings by about $0.05 per share. This year we experienced slightly colder than normal temperatures across most of our service territory. As a result, first quarter earnings benefited from a $0.06 per share improvement in weather. For the quarter, earnings at PSCo increased by $0.05 per share, primarily due to the multiyear electric rate increase, as well as higher electric and gas sales due to cooler winter weather. At NSP in Minnesota, earnings increased by $0.05 per share due to interim rate increases in Minnesota and North Dakota and an electric rate increase in South Dakota. Orders and results also benefited from cooler weather and lower interest charges as a result of a 2012 debt refinancing. Earnings at NSP Wisconsin increased $0.01 per share due to new electric and gas rates implemented in Colorado -- or in January and cooler weather. Earnings at SPS were flat for the quarter. Let's now take a look at the drivers that affected various lines at the income statement beginning with retail electric margin. Our first quarter electric margin increased $94 million. Primary drivers of the higher margin were: $75 million from retail rate increases in Colorado, Wisconsin and South Dakota as well as interim rate increases in Minnesota and North Dakota and $22 million from cooler weather. These positive items were partially offset by smaller negative factors including the 2012 leap day impact. Weather normalized retail electric sales decreased 0.6%. However, the comparable period a year ago included the benefit of an extra day of sales due…

[Operator Instructions] Our first question is from the line of Neil Mehta with Goldman Sachs.

Your O&M came in at 3.6%, as you said, versus the 4% to 5% guidance. Are you tracking at the lower end or even below this guidance for this year? And how should we think about O&M growth rates after 2013?

Well, I mean, we are still anticipating to be in the 4% to 5%. We just have some timing that's why we're a little bit lower. But when we look to the longer term, I would say we would look to may be more a 3% to 4%. In product test, 4% to 5% is occurring because we only increased from '11 to '12, 1.7%. So '12 is a little bit low because it's part of our management initiatives and other things so I would look in the long term, the more 3% to 4% and on track to 4% to 5%.

Got it. And then on interest you mentioned the remarkably low interest rates that you've done from debt out here in the first quarter. Given the low interest environment, could there be upside to the $30 million of interest reductions that you outlined for 2013?

That's consistent with that. We even assume the lower one.

And can you provide a little more color on the RFPs? Can you confirm that self build options are available for you for both of them? And any color in terms of the number of bidders if that information is in the public.

Neil, this is Ben. Self build options are available for both. We've seen I think some, I would say wide variety of bidders and opportunities and really just in the preliminary stages of evaluating both the wind and the fossil bids.

Okay, but we don't know the exact numbers out there yet?

No. We're not disclosing that at this point.

And our next question is from the line of Travis Miller with Morningstar.

I wonder if you could characterize, in Minnesota, I wonder if you could characterize a change in the interveners testimony especially on the ROE from 10.2% to 9.8%, what were some of the drivers there and how does that relate to potentially changing your requested ROE?

Well, Travis, let me take the first part of your question. And I think that was around ROE. I think that's just typically they do update their ROE recommendation and analysis. And they looked -- it's a formulaic approach and frankly, the whole industry has seen some pretty significant stock appreciation in the last 4 months and when you run that through some of the models that does yield a lower ROE and that's was we saw there, it's very formulaic. And did you have a second part to your question?

I was just going to say would that effect, you changing your 10.6% to a lower number.

We filed our surrebuttal testimony and I guess we're just where we are now in the group. I don't know if you want to...

That's correct. We've left it at the same level so we have not revised our request at this point -- our requested 10.6%.

Typically, Travis, typically the recommendation on ROE plays a very -- is listened to very closely by the commission.

Real quick housekeeping. You mentioned that you recognize a liability for that change, the difference when you're expected and interim -- can you just give me what that number was?

I'll let Teresa take that.

I think, I would just say, we're assuming that we're going to have a reasonable regulatory outcome and we went through and looked at all the positions as we do in terms of establishing our guidance and we recognize that amount that we thought was reasonable.

What was that amount?

We're not going to give you the specific amount but we would assume it's a reasonable outcome.

Travis, I mean, we typically -- I mean, we actually did it a little bit earlier than we normally would where we would recognize any kind of refund based upon where we are. But given where we are, it's -- what we're assuming in the accrual that, we're not going to disclose a number, but that -- we're not, it's going to be less than our interim rates but still what we would consider a constructive level so hopefully that helps you frame it a bit.

And our next question is from the line of Andy Levi with Avon Capital.

Actually, Travis asked my question. I guess, the only other question I have -- so just on the equity, so you did, was it, $227 million?

We had a net proceeds of $223 million.

$223 million, excuse me, I apologize. Okay, so you're more than halfway there I guess.

Right.

Equity. And that would take you through what year absent any new projects once you do the $400 million?

We have previously indicated that we had intended to do $400 million between '13 and '14.

Okay. And that would take you through what year once you get that $400 million done? Through '14 or through '15?

Yes, and it's for the next 5 years. We don't have any...

Next 5 years, right okay. Unless, of course, I guess if you have some of these new projects, that could change?

Yes, that's correct. We would reevaluate that.

[Operator Instructions] I'm showing no further questions. I'll turn the call back to Teresa Madden for closing remarks.

I want to thank you all for participating in our First Quarter Earnings Call this morning. I look forward to meeting with many of you at AGA and at the Deutsche Bank conference in the coming weeks. So please contact Paul Johnson and the IR team with any follow-up questions.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes our conference for today. We thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.