NextEra Energy's CEO Presents at 2013 Wolfe Research Power and Gas Leaders Conference (Transcript)

| About: NextEra Energy, (NEE)

NextEra Energy, Inc. (NYSE:NEE)

2013 Wolfe Research Power and Gas Leaders Conference Call

September 24, 2013, 11:30 AM ET


James Robo - President and Chief Executive Officer


Steve Fleishman - Wolfe Research

Steve Fleishman - Wolfe Research

We're going to get started with our next panel. So our next panel we've titled, The Bull Case for Renewables. And I think we've already heard there's been a pretty bull case already from even the utilities that are buying them. First, we'll have our NextEra speaking. We've got Jim Robo, who is the President and CEO of NextEra. So let me turn over to Jim to get us going.

James Robo

Thank you, Steve, and good morning, everyone. I will bring your attention to -- try to bring your attention to -- there we go. I'll bring your attention to our cautionary statements and risk factors. Maybe I'm pushing a wrong button here, here we go. So what I want to share with you this morning is a little bit of an update on progress we've made since we spoke at our March Investor Conference about our prospects over the next four years through 2016.

In March, we laid out the fact that we feel like we are very well-positioned for the future, with above average and very visible growth through 2016, four years of regulatory certainty at FPL. A terrific pipeline at energy resources and a terrific backlog as well. Strong and increasing cash flow from operations. Just to give you a sense, our cash flow from operations in 2013 is going to be 50% higher than it was in 2012. And from 2013 through '16 it's going to grow with the compound annual growth rate after that of 10%, so very strong, very healthy and increasing cash flow from operations.

A moderate risk portfolio with 84% of our adjusted EBITDA coming from either regulated assets or long-term contracted assets, underpinned by a very strong balance sheet and one that -- and our strong balance sheet that remains very important to us going forward and maintaining strong credit metrics as well as is a very important part of our strategy going forward. And we have -- and I will speak to this some more, one of the leading dividend share growth in the industry.

So walk through a great start in first half of this year, very happy with our progress so far this year. We remain committed to earn in the top half of the guidance range that we laid out earlier this year, which was a $4.70 to $5 a share. We remain committed to earn in the top half of that range for 2013.

Let me now give a little bit of an update on the status and the progress that we've made against the incremental growth opportunities that we laid out in our March investor conference. If you remember back to March, we laid out a $15 billion of capital between '13 and '16, that was either in backlog or already approved by our commission, effectively what I call the backlog case that underpinned the low-end of the EPS guidance range that we gave of 5% to 7% in March.

I also said in March that we had a growth plan that included roughly $9 billion -- $8 billion to $9 billion of incremental growth opportunities that we had the team very focused on executing against. We gave some clarity about those in March and obviously over the last five months we've made some pretty strong progress against that $9 billion of incremental growth opportunities in terms of lining those up.

We have -- we made terrific progress against roughly $5 billion over the $9 billion that we laid out in March. And at FPL obviously, it's $400 million of incremental storm hardening that we should get, that we'll have a decision on from our commission here in October. We've already embarked on $700 million of reliability investment. That is ongoing. And we are working on getting approval for peaker upgrades that are driven by environmental compliance needs that we have at two of our sites.

You all know that we announced at the end of July a pipeline opportunity that will be outside of FPL and in a FERC-regulated affiliate of FPL. We will be investing $1.6 billion of the roughly $3.5 billion needed to bring a third natural gas pipeline to the state of Florida. We will be getting more regulatory clarity on that in October as well with a staff recommendation coming out on October 11, and a commission vote on October 24.

Turning to Energy Resources. We've had a great year so far in signing up new wins. We'll talk some more about that, I'm sure on this panel today. But right now we've signed up closed to 1,000 megawatts of new wins with several months left here in this PTC cycle. And on Friday we receive some good -- I think some very positive news from the IRS.

If you remember, when we got our PTC extension this year in January, it was an extension that included start of construction language, such that you needed to be not in service by the end of 2013, but have started construction by the end of 2013. Now, started construction in the tax world is a very specific fact and the IRS over the last several months has been coming out with guidance to give developers and understanding exactly what do you mean by start of construction.

And so what they said on Friday is effectively that if you have purchased 5% of your equipment for your projects, and you have a project and you've identified it, and you have a real project that you've identified in 2013 and that project comes online no later than the end of 2015, you are in what they call a Safe Harbor for that project being able to earn PTCs.

And so what effectively that means is, as we've talked about this being a two year PTC cycle '13 and '14, for folks who have the financial wherewithal to be able to purchase equipment by the end of this year. And for folks who have a terrific development pipeline, and I would lay our development pipeline in the wind business up against anyone's. As long as we get those projects in by 2015, doesn't mean we have to have a signed PPA by the end of this year. That means that those projects will qualify for PTC. So that is very good news from the wind standpoints and the market has been very strong and I continue to see good growth in wind going forward.

On the solar front, we continue to see lots of activity there. We've made good progress so far. I expect and hope that we will be able to have one or two more large investments that we'll be able to talk to you about going forward. Not ready to talk about them now, but we're working on them hard and I feel good about the progress we're making. So overall I feel terrific about the progress, the team has made against these growth opportunities.

And I would say, we've gotten a lot of questions on the FPL side about how within the rate settlement period will we fund a lot of this incremental capital. And more we laid out couple of weeks ago in another conference that we have $7 billion of CapEx, it's effectively underpinned over the next four years by our ability to limit cost growth at FPL.

And we have been working very hard on the O&M front at FPL. We had about $1.5 billion of O&M at FPL last year. Our goal for 2016 is to be in nominal dollars, roughly flat or even hopefully a little better than that. And so that is one of the ways that we're going to be able to fund during this period some terrific new investments for our customers in Florida, that they're going to have a very strong customer benefits for the long-term for our customers.

So when we laid out at our March conference, as I said the backlog case was supported by things that were already signed and that underpnderpin the 5% growth through 2016 and that the growth case was something that was being driven -- that would drive us to that higher end of that ra


ge.Where we stand today, given the progress we've made on our growth initiatives, I would be very disappo if we were not able to earn, if the high end of that range by 2016. My goal for the team is to earn $6 in 2016. I've been very clear with them. And I think we've made terrific progress on both the cost front and the growth front to be able to do that.

A word on dividends. We, in February of last year, announced that our board had approved raising our payout ratio over the next several years to 55% by 2014. That means of 2011 base that through 2014, we will grow our dividend at 10% a year roughly. Post 2014, we intend on growing the dividend at least as quickly as we continue to grow our earnings.

And I'd like to tell folks that because we have -- we are one of the few growth utilities in the coun


ry, we have as a result one of the lowest payout ratios of anyone in our industry. We have embedded in our stock an option to continue to grow that payout ratio overtime, should growth not materialize or should we decide that that made sense strategically going forward. So it's a nice embedded option that I think is somewhat undepreciated by folks who own our stock.

So just in closing, before I turn it over to Kirk. We recently announced last week, a $500 million convertible equity units. I know a lot of you have had questions over the last several days and I thought I would take this opportunity to update you on exactly how we thought about what we did there.

First, let me say that that issuance is completely consistent with our overall financing strategy. And it's going to have no impact on our financial expectations through 2016. We indicated in March, at our investor conference that if we were successful with some of our incremental investment opportunities that I just talked about, that we would need up to $1.5 billion of additional equity to support the balance sheet. And that we were committed to hitting certain targeted credit metrics in 2014.

None of that has changed. There was also clearly an opportunistic element to what we did last week in terms of the timing of the issuance. Our market conditions were very favorable. And we felt like it made sense to take advantage of what we thought was a favorable window.

Obviously, we operate in an industry sector where valuations are really driven by macro trends including interest rates and we took advantage of that last week. However, it wasn't solely opportunistic. There were really three other things that underpinned I think as we thought about it.

First of all, we have an opportunity in the coming months to refinance higher cost elements of our capital structure. This additional equity gives us that flexibility. We also have an opportunity and I just talked about one of them with the ability to Safe Harbor turbines this year to take advantage of essentially an extension of the production tax credit through 2015. We have the opportunity to accelerate CapEx in a way that's MPB positive. In 2013, we have a couple of other opportunities that we're evaluating as well there. This gives us that flexibility as well.

And then lastly and perhaps more importantly, some further balance sheet strength will allow us to continue to grow post-2016. I have spent a lot of time over the last several weeks pushing the team very hard and thinking about our growth initiatives, pes, post-2016 and in the balance of the dec


de.We are not ready to talk about any specifics yet. I think many of you have been asking us about our transmission pipeline in the competitive transmission arena, which is one that is becoming more public overlast several weeks, and is something that we have a team that's quite focused on and is, like as transmission is, it's a very backend focused in this decade, wrong development cycle period.

But I'm very optimistic about our future post-2016. We're not really ready to talk about a lot of specifics about our growth plans post-2016. But again, this also helps position us as we think about that as well.

And then lastly, let me just reiterate again, there is no impact of doing this to our financial expectations that we laid out for you in March. And I fully expect and we'd be very disappointed if we don't earn at the top-end of the 5% to 7% range. And as I said, I have the team, laser-focused on earning $6 a share in 2016.

So with that I will turn it over. Thank you.

Question-and-Answer Session

Steve Fleishman - Wolfe Research

First, just on the renewables business overall, and just the economics, I told Jim last night, I'd say I am surprised at the extent of growth opportunity that's continued in the business, particularly wind, given there was a lot last year. It does seem that the cost curves, et cetera keep getting better.

Maybe both of you could give us some sense of just how much more economic have these projects gotten? How are you able to offer decently low prices? Wind, solar maybe higher, but obviously it's a different type of product, a little more attractive. Some sense on the economics and how it's working for everybody?

James Robo

On the wind side, we've seen economics improved by more than 50% since 2009 on levelized cost of energy and with the PTC now typical PPA prices in the good winds regimes are anywhere from $2.5 to $3.5, so it's very competitively priced relative to the many of our customers variable cost of energy.

On the solar side, we have seen the economics improved by close to 80% over the last four years. Give you a sense, in California, a muni just announced they've signed some contracts at $68 flat for 20 years on solar. And so that's down by a factor of -- it's down by more than 50% just in the last three or four years.

So we see that trend continuing. I think one of the great things about world gas -- people say world gas prices are killing renewable business. I actually have a totally different view on that. My view it's been terrific for the renewable business because it has forced developers and equipment suppliers and technology providers to try to learn how to live to compete in a world gas price environment and I think it spurred innovation from a technological standpoint.

So we continue to see that going forward and continue to think that there is going to be a lot of demand for both wind and solar going forward. The folks last year who you were dealing one, Steve, who was very skeptical about the wind business going forward, and I think we see many years of a good wind business and a good solar business.

Steve Fleishman - Wolfe Research

Actually I think [ph] Lou was skeptical. But, Kirk any thoughts.

Unidentified Company Representative

Specifically, I mean Jim covered that pretty comprehensively, but on the solar side I would say that the decline you've seen obviously similar to what Jim characterized in terms of the overall cost decline, I'd point out that a tremendous component of that cost decline has largely been on the panel side of the equation, where we have seen some efficiencies on the balance of system.

I think there was more to be done in terms of driving efficiencies on the balance of the system side of things. But obviously those efficiencies can be more effectively derived out of the utility scale type projects and we're seeing opportunities around that, as Jim mentioned that $68, $70 points out in California looking at opportunities that's about where we're seeing those prices as well.

We've been very focused on driving down that balance of system cost because we see that as the more tangible and instant driving competitive advantage. And beyond that it's about the competitiveness. It's about ensuring the ultimate cost to capital in order to be successful, where that's concerned as well.

Steve Fleishman - Wolfe Research

Maybe a question on the yieldco issue. First for Kirk and NRG Yield, you gave a pretty good description of the rationale why you did it. When you look going forward as new projects, opportunities come up. Can you give us a sense of kind of how you'll be using that to fund new growth and are you using NRG Yield cost to capital there, some kind of combination. How you're thinking about structure of new projects through it?

Unidentified Company Representative

The way I describe that in terms of working with new opportunities, they really fall into two categories, the first of which is acquisitions from third parties. I think I mentioned we have a pretty substantial portfolio of assets at the NRG level currently, which we've identified through a right of first offer relationship between NRG and NRG Yield, where NRG Yield has the right of first offer to offer to purchase those assets from NRG. Two of those assets, of which there are six, are assets that we acquired at COD. In other words they were fully operating when NRG acquired them.

Moving forward asset acquisition opportunities of that type, which we continue to see and evaluate on an ongoing basis, we see a direct acquisition, more likely than not by NRG Yield because of the nature of their profile, they concord exactly with the investment pieces. They would be direct purchase of the NRG Yield.

The other component of that story would be development and construction assets. I had mentioned several times the potential to respond to some of the RFPs for some of our advantage sites away from renewables, but even on our renewable portfolio, we have a number of assets in development. Those assets through the development and construction period we see as being more appropriate to NRG level. And then once they reach the COD, they are dropped out.

The way that I think about that is you've got to have a high grid if you're well in terms of your profit capital approach. You got to be appropriately compensated for taking the development construction risk, which is the NRG level. And then obviously you can -- because you can anticipate the opportunity for dropdown that's had lower cost to capital, it is really on that component of the capital cost that I think the NRG Yield advantage of lower cost to capital comes into play. But it is even on those dropdowns, a hybrid of the two.

Steve Fleishman - Wolfe Research

And then, Jim, maybe you can just give us a sense of pros and cons in your initial view so far. And just you have talked about other ways that you might like take to advantage of the yield type investors that are out there. Maybe if you could just give a little sense of what some of those other options might be?

James Robo

So as we've been talking about this, I think few things underpinned our thinking on potential for yieldco. One is, do we think there will be sustainable advantage created for not just the yieldco, but also the sponsor. I think there is -- that's still yet to be proven in my view. We have several. One that was going to come to market this week, there has been another that's come to market since NRG did their transaction.

So we're watching that closely. And I think one of the core issues is, is this going to be vehicle like MLPs where you know the MLP vehicle in pipeline spaces, what you need to be competitive in the pipeline space. On the other hand, we want to make sure it's not like the renewable IPO craze of 2006 and 2007, where folks did small renewable IPOs of 20% of their renewable companies and then they did poorly and they bought them back in a few years later.

So that will underpin all our thinking on how we think about it. I think as we think about pros and cons I think, we think about yieldco as a financing vehicle and we have always been very creative I think about how we look at our financing needs on the energy resources side whether it's tax equity, whether it's project finance, whether it's minority assets sales or whether its full asset sales. We've tried to take advantage where we think pools of capital price risk differently than perhaps our investor's price risk and take advantage of that. I think the yieldco is an interesting opportunity to do that.

I think on the reality side, we need to understand that PTC assets while they are -- or tax equity assets while they are in the PTC period are not great assets to be dropped down into yieldco until the PTCs run-off. And so I think we have a very large portfolio of renewable assets and contracted assets. Not all of them are appropriate for yieldco as we talked about. I think in terms of the things that we're looking at, obviously, we're looking at -- we are evaluating a public market vehicle.

We're also evaluating some private market, some private investor vehicles as well. I think we are somewhat troubled by the governance of a public market vehicle. It's a little bit out there from the governance standpoint vis-à-vis where we typically would be comfortable.

And one of the things that we're looking at is seeing if there is a pool of money that where there clearly are folks out there who will put a premium on stable contracted renewable cash flows. And is there an opportunity to sell a minority stake and assets to investors such as that on a private basis. And mimic some of the benefits of the public yieldco in a private setting.

So I guess the last thing I would say is we're in the rush. We are low to take options off the table. We don't have to do many things right away. We are in the very strong position as we are. We have great growth prospects and we continue to love our growth prospects.

We've been able to finance them very efficiently over the period, over the last decade. So we are in no hurry to make any decision on this. And in the end, we're going to be guided by if there is opportunity to create sustainable value creation for our shareholders in a sustainable competitive advantage for us going forward.

Steve Fleishman - Wolfe Research

One other question for both of you and I will open it up for the audience. You both have relatively large positions in the Texas ERCOT market and there is obviously been a lot of developments or maybe some lack of developments, but could you just give us a perspective on kind of both market structure, but also just your fundamental viewpoint on that market and relative to also kind of your broader viewpoint of the merchant business, so maybe Kirk first and then to Jim.

Unidentified Company Representative

First of all, I would say that the recent developments in ERCOT around the [ph] Hogan B-plus plan, it's basically been adopted at this point. We would view as being constructive and specifically constructive and what we see is an important first step, but not a sufficient step I think in ensuring the reliability in that market, that being the price formation from an energy-only standpoint.

As we've often and consistently articulated, because we do not see and the forward market is defined by the sparks spread specifically in the peaking periods, a robust enough level, forward-markets sparks spread to incent new build. In the ERCOT market, which is a growing issue in terms of the supply and demand fundamentals given that is one of the market that's growing in a more robust pace, we see the recent development has been constructive directionally.

I think we've probably seen the sparks spreads move up probably $3 to $4 since that announcement. So we're closing in a little closer on newbuild economics to incent new generation in the market, but it still not sufficient enough. So I think it's an important first step. I think the next step, which we'd anticipated at least being addressed not making a prediction whether it would take place or not, it is to put in place a mandated reserve margin in that particular market.

I think that one will identify, at least put on the table a target to shoot at and then from there -- and the reasonable minds can disagree about capacity or energy, ultimately you've got a target to shoot at and then a healthy debate can be had about them as means to achieve that target in ERCOT, because what's best for us as a market participant importantly not only in the generation side, but on the retail side is an efficient and orderly market and one that obviously has ongoing and sufficient reliability for it's users.

James Robo

So I guess the only think I would add is I think it's important that Texas has a capacity market. I think it is one of the few markets in the country with the electric growth, as Kirk said. And I think it is the market that's going to end up getting into trouble without a capacity market, because not a sufficient generation will be build in order to support it.

I think relative to that what you asked, how do I feel about it relative to the rest of the merchant markets in the country, and I would say it's probably the only really constructive merchant market there is in the country, and frankly the one that I think has the best fundamentals going forward.

And as I've said before I am pretty bearish, many of the rest of the competitive markets around the country and I think it's important that Texas gets it right that they get our capacity market in place that is immune from political gaming like we see in the capacity markets in the rest of the country.

And so I think that debate it's going to continue. I would also, I guess say I wouldn't expect a resolution anytime soon. For those of you hoping to get and I have no special insight into this other than I think it's going to take a while for the commission to continue to study if there is new commissioner who is going to want to kind of speed on the issues. And I would expect this to take longer, certainly to the end of this year to come to conclusion over this.

Steve Fleishman - Wolfe Research

Open up to question in the audience. I'm going to ask one more.

Unidentified Analyst


James Robo

So the question is, if I can paraphrase how is the start-off construction Safe Harbor going to work? How would you get comfortable not having a PPA on a project or getting that PPA after the end of 2013 and still being comfortable that you will qualify for Safe Harbor?

So some of the guidance from the IRS in this issue around start-off construction is that first of all you need to have a project identified, and so what's that mean, reasonable minds can disagree but in my view you need to, if you have an interconnection, you have a site, you have some winning control to talking to the customers, okay.

You don't necessarily have to have a contract to have a project. We have plenty of evidence in the marketplace, we have plenty of folks who are selling projects right now, without -- that have good interconnection queues, but may not having necessarily a power purchase agreement. So that's one.

You have to have a project identified by the end of the year. Two, you have to have purchased 5% of the value of that project by the end of the year. The cash has to be out the door and the equipment has to be delivered by tax day next year, April '15. And so that's second part of the Safe Harbor.

And then the third part of the Safe Harbor that was just put out by the IRS last Friday, is that if you have a project and you have a Safe Harbor sufficient equipment to equal 5% of the value of that project, that they have said, you needed to have continuous efforts on that project in order to qualify for the Safe Harbor earlier in April.

What they said on Friday is that they will define continuous efforts as any project that comes in by the end of 2015 that will be a Safe Harbor around the whole issue, did you have continuous efforts. And so as one as you have a project get a PPA and get it have the equipment purchased, it's 5% of the value and then get that project in place by the end of 2015, that from our reading of it, we'd qualify for the Safe Harbor.

Unidentified Analyst


Steve Fleishman - Wolfe Research

I think the question -- I got it. So the question was, basically, let's say you have a project that without the PPA yet, someone else has a project in the same area that could serve that same potential PPA, is that a risk?

Unidentified Company Representative

Sure, and today you have risk from every developer who's out there, whether they have the wherewithal to have a broad pipeline, whether they have a wherewithal to have that -- had purchased that Safe Harbor equipment by the end of the year. There will be a lot of developers who won't be able to do, what we will be able to do around that. And so I think from a competitive standpoint this is very -- it's a very helpful for us competitively.

I actually we'll be well positioned going forward through, at least through the end of 2015. That by the way, the IRS did not let a rule a continuous efforts on projects that would come into service post 2015 either. You're just going to have to approve that you had continuous efforts developing and working on that project through the period of time, and you know obviously there is a certain amount of -- you're taking a certain amount of risk, when you do that.

Steve Fleishman - Wolfe Research

Just before that question to that guy, I just had one clarification, before I forget is that in your announcement or clarification today, Jim, on the equity issuance plan, is the $1.5 billion number over the program still the total number you expect or is that number now in flux?

James Robo

That what we said is that if -- what I said is, we said in March that we were going to issue up to $1.5 billion, if we had $9 billion of good projects, that we issue up to $1.5 billion and that this was -- and I said that this issuance was in the context of that. None of that has changed.

That said, this gives us some additional flexibility as I said. I'm hoping we do better than $9 billion of projects going forward. And as long as we have good accretive profitable projects that makes sense for us to do either a FPL or in our other businesses, that we view is very positive and we view balance sheets strength is something that's very important for us.

Steve Fleishman - Wolfe Research

In the back, Tom?

Unidentified Analyst

How are you guys thinking about distributed generation, both in terms of protecting existing assets and also potentially participating in future growth?

James Robo

Well, in terms of protecting existing assets, I think we look at it given the fact that we are in competitive markets. And that being subject to regulation on the utility side, ultimately even in the low gas price environment given some of the dynamics we talked about before in terms of the cost curve continuing to decline, where that's concern. We've already got some markets in the U.S. where I think solar is increasingly competitive.

On the distributed side, I think that differentiating factor there is the best example of which is the residential, which is the ultimate at distributive generation. Because you're competing with the retail cost of energy and not the wholesale cost of energies, the potential for grid parity or those opportunities being online with levelized cost of energies is far greater.

As we see it that is likely to be where the market is going and it's a question of are you going to fight against that to your detriment or are you going to evolve with it. And I think what we've chosen to do is the latter of those two. To date most of our distributed generation has been more on the CNI side.

But I think we've taken a constructive approach to examining the opportunities even on the residential side, because given the large number of customers we currently have, that obviously ultimately when it makes sense economically, that's an important long-term product offering for us. So I think we've taken evolving approach to it rather than a defensive approach.

Unidentified Company Representative

So we have a little bit different of view. Let me start first with our view on economics. Anywhere we've looked, utility scale solar is cheaper than distributed CNI solar and it's 20% cheaper than CNI distributed solar. And it's 100% cheaper than rooftop solar or residential solar.

So from an energy policy and economic standpoint, we think it makes -- utility scale solar it makes much more sense than distributed solar. That said, we have a distributed solar pipeline that we are pursuing. It is in the CNI space. That business works a lot like the utility scale solar business. Just a little bit smaller. It's got good credit worthy counterparties.

On the resi side, we haven't seen anyone really make any money, like make money or earn money in that business. And we are also troubled by the fact that it is a business that is driven by a artifact of tariffs and that artifact of tariffs is in fact that rooftop solar has paid a residential retail rate for a wholesale product. And that effectively non-distributed generation residential customers are paying a subsidy to folks who have solar on the rooftop. People are using the grid as a free battery and getting basically free backup from the grid.

That's the terrible tariff design. 90% your grid cost is a fixed cost and yet most of the industry is almost the 100% variable from a tariff standpoint. So that needs to be fixed. We're going to be looking to fix it in Florida. But that said, it's also -- we are very much pro solar. We are the -- I ended up our megawatts, by the way, and we 1,000 megawatts under construction or being developed right now. And so we love our solid portfolio. We're the biggest solar -- one of the biggest solar folks in the country between ourselves, MIDAM and NRG.

And so we are very much pro solar and we're going to work very hard to give our customers a solar option in Florida. That is appropriately priced, but also recognizes the fact that, when we pull this issue around the country people loves solar. And people think rooftop solar is terrific, and so that's something you have to keep in mind when you think about trying to fix the tariff and also something you need to keep in mind as you think about what kind of product offerings you need to give customers.

Unidentified Analyst

Cape Wind is a proposed offshore, renewable project for Massachusetts where not all the project has been spoken by natural grid and the northeast utilities. And the companies have recently announced that they are buying power cheaper than the contract that they signed with Cape Wind for the future. Do you think Cape Wind is going to get built?

Unidentified Company Representative

I don't have a high degree of familiarity with that particular project to give you an accurate handicap on it, I'm afraid.

James Robo

I think it's probably not appropriate for me to comment on other developer's projects.

Steve Fleishman - Wolfe Research

Good job, guys. Good, well I think we will stop there. Jim and Kirk, thank you so much. It was a great panel. Appreciate it.

James Robo

Thank you.

Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to All other use is prohibited.


If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: Thank you!