Seeking Alpha
We cover over 5K calls/quarter
Profile| Send Message| ()  

Executives

William Johnson - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of Executive Committee

Mark Mulhern - Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President of Finance and Director

Bryan Kimzey -

Analysts

Marc de Croisset - FBR Capital Markets & Co.

Michael Worms - BMO Capital Markets U.S.

Unknown Analyst -

Brian Chin - Citigroup Inc

Progress Energy (PGN) Q1 2011 Earnings Call May 5, 2011 10:00 AM ET

Operator

Good morning to each of you, and welcome to the Progress Energy's First Quarter 2011 Earnings Conference Call. For opening remarks and introductions, I'll now turn the conference call over to Bryan Kimzey of Progress Energy. Please go ahead.

Bryan Kimzey

Thank you, Lacey. Good morning, and welcome to everyone. Joining me this morning are Bill Johnson, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; Mark Mulhern, Chief Financial Officer; and other members of our senior management team. We are currently being webcast from our Investor Relations page at progress-energy.com. I direct your attention to our website, where we have included a set of slides which accompany our speakers' prepared remarks this morning. These slides can be found at progress-energy.com/webcast.

Today, we will be making forward-looking statements as well as reviewing historical information. There are numerous factors that may cause future or actual results to differ materially from these statements, and we outline these in our earnings release, Form 10-K, 10-Q and other SEC filings, as well as the risk factor discussion also found in our Forms 10-K and 10-Q. For your information, we plan to file our Form 10-Q early next week.

This morning, following opening comments from Bill and Mark, we will open the phone lines to address your questions. Now I'll turn the call over to Bill Johnson.

William Johnson

Thank you, Bryan. Good morning, everyone. We're glad you've joined the call this morning, and we appreciate your interest in Progress Energy. As Slide 3 indicates, I'll provide highlights of first quarter financial results, an update on filings associated with our proposed merger with Duke Energy, an update on our nuclear fleet, especially our Crystal River unit, and some information on the impact of 2 rules recently proposed by the EPA. Then I'll ask Mark to provide some more detail on the numbers behind our financial results.

So let's start with ongoing earnings on Slide 4. For the first quarter, we reported ongoing earnings of $202 million compared to $213 million for the same quarter a year ago. On a per share basis, we're down $0.06 for the first quarter in 2010, principally due to more normal weather conditions this year compared to last. As you'll recall, last year's first quarter had $0.18 of favorable weather. So we had a strong quarter this year when you consider the return of normal weather. The economy in our service areas continued to show some modest recovery, particularly in the industrial sector. As Mark will address in more detail in a moment, growth in usage by class were mixed, as has been noted in several other recent calls.

So today, we're affirming our 2011 ongoing earnings guidance range of $3 to $3.20 per share, which we announced earlier this year. Weather was a significant contributor last year, especially in Florida. We were able to offset the loss of weather-related sales this year with additional use of cost of removal amortization in Florida. And Mark will discuss the quarter earnings drivers in a few minutes.

Let me turn to a few comments on our pending merger with Duke Energy. Over the past several weeks, Duke Energy and Progress Energy have made a number of merger-related filings. As shown on the scorecard of Slide 5, we have now filed with all the state and federal agencies except the FCC. So we're making good progress in the regulatory filings.

The North Carolina Utilities Commission recently set its schedule for review. Our testimony and additional supporting materials are due to be filed May 20 with evidentiary hearings beginning September 20.

We made our initial Hart-Scott-Rodino Act filing with the Department of Justice in late March, and a 30-day review period has expired. No additional request for information were received, so our obligations under the Act have been satisfied. And we'll update this scorecard as we move through the merger approval process. It's on our website and also on Duke's.

Let me turn your attention to Slide 6 now. Given all that's going on both here and in Japan, I want to spend a few minutes on our nuclear fleet, which is shown on this slide.

As a reminder, we have 5 reactors at 4 sites across our system. The Brunswick site is a 2-unit plant located near Wilmington, North Carolina. Several weeks ago, Unit 2 returned to service after successfully completing a refueling outage that included significant equipment additions and repairs. This the only refueling outage scheduled for our nuclear fleet this year. Unit 1 is currently on a 361-day run since its last refueling outage, so almost a full year of nonstop operation.

The Harris unit near Raleigh continues its strong operating performance following its refueling outage last fall, which included replacing an electric generator and completing significant work on the cooling tower and fire protection modifications. The generator replacement, including tower work, are part of the power upgrade, a 5-year project that eventually will add 60 to 70 additional megawatts from that plant. These projects, along with others, are designed to ensure Harris will operate as a safe and reliable source of energy for decades to come.

The Robinson Nuclear unit in South Carolina had an atypical year in 2010. It had several forced outages, including one that involved a fire in the plant's electrical system, which required an extensive repair. As a result of last year's event, the NRC identified Robinson as a plant requiring additional oversight.

We have made significant changes in the Robinson plant's leadership team and are implementing a comprehensive improvement plan. This plant has performed well since last returning to service in mid-November. And prior to last year's events, this plant had an extremely good performance record over many years. We are fully committed to the safe, reliable operation of this plant and to returning it to its historic levels of performance.

Now let's turn our attention to Crystal River 3 nuclear unit in Florida, where, as you know, we discovered a second delamination in the containment building in March. Work on the containment building was suspended in mid-March after monitoring equipment identified additional delamination that occurred after the concrete repair work was completed and during the late stages of retensioning the building. The unit will remain out of service while we conduct a thorough engineering analysis and review of the new delamination and evaluate repair options. We are well along in this evaluation process and should complete it over the next several weeks, and we'll be able to provide more detail at that time.

Slide 7 presents the cost data for this outage through March 31. The potential repair options, which will be based on the engineering analysis, could range from repair of the impacted areas to replacement of a substantial portion of the concrete walls of the building. Repair options at all of the original licensing bases could require NRC approval. Once the repair options are known, there are many additional factors that will have to be considered, including, among other things, customer benefits, public regulatory and political support, adequate financial cost recovery mechanisms, the scope of insurance coverage for replacement power repair costs, and NRC renewal of the operating license.

Crystal River 3's current operating license expires in December 2016, and we applied for a 20-year renewal of that license in 2008. Our current intention is to return this nuclear unit to service because it's an important part of providing power to our customers from a diverse portfolio of baseload generation. However, we cannot estimate a return to service state or cost to repair at this time.

You can also see some details on insurance coverage of this unit on the bottom half of Slide 7. We maintain an insurance coverage against incremental cost of replacement power resulting from prolonged accidental outages through Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd. or NEIL. Following a 12-week deductible period, the NEIL program provides reimbursement for replacement power costs for 52 weeks at $4.5 million per week through April 9, 2011. An additional 71 weeks of coverage is provided at $3.6 million per week. So the NEIL program provides replacement power coverage up to $490 million per event.

We also maintain insurance coverage through NEIL's accidental property damage program, which provides coverage up to $2.25 billion with a $10 million deductible per claim. We're continuing to work with NEIL for recovery of applicable repair costs and associated replacement power costs.

In regulatory space, we will file an engineering status update with the Florida Public Service Commission by May 19. And, of course, we're also keeping in close contact with the NRC and other interested parties.

So that's where we are with Crystal River 3 and our nuclear fleet as a whole. These units are important assets for both our customers and our shareholders.

Being a nuclear owner and operator can carry significant responsibilities, and we take these very seriously. We are being rigorous about daily operations as well as continuous improvement as we learn from what happens throughout the industry, including in Japan. And we are being disciplined in working our action plans to ensure long-term success with our nuclear program.

Now with Slide 8, I want to provide some insight into potential implications of 2 draft rules the EPA recently proposed: the Air Toxic (sic) [Toxics] rule, also known as the Utility MACT rule; and the Cooling Water Intake rule. I know many of you are following these issues and their impacts on the industry.

We have not included cost estimates because these rules are not final. It will be the source of many comments during the review period. The proposed rules can change as a result of comments, as demonstrated by the recent industrial boiler MACT. And in our fleet, the cost implications of changes to the proposed rules could be substantial. We are evaluating our options, and we'll provide CapEx estimates and implementation timing after we have a clear sense of the final rules and of our compliance plans.

I do think a fair comment on these proposed rules is that for much of the industry, they will be expensive and difficult to comply with in the time frame proposed. And it could have an impact on reliability if the rules are not carefully finalized.

Slide 8 shows a breakdown of the relevant parts of our generation fleet and how many megawatts might be affected by these 2 proposed rules. The left half of the slide shows our coal- and oil-fired generation capacity, and how many megawatts might be affected by the Air Toxics rule, which the EPA proposed in March.

As you can see from the chart, 27% of this fleet today does not have scrubbers or SCRs or is not currently scheduled for retirement. And we expect that even some of the well-controlled units will be affected by this rule.

Between our 2 utilities, we've already invested more than $2 billion in environmental retrofits at our most efficient coal plants and, as a result, have achieved significant reductions in emissions. We also have announced closings of older, less efficient plants and have a fleet modernization program underway to build efficient combined cycle plants fueled by natural gas. These actions will result in even greater reductions in emissions. But this rule will still have a significant impact on our customers, whether it comes in the forms of additional controls, additional retirements and replacements or other solutions. We believe the EPA should fully utilize its discretion and authority to design flexibility into the final MACT standard.

It's important to put this rule in the context of the unprecedented wave of federal regulations the utility industry now faces. Utilities need to be able to make the most efficient compliance decision to minimize the cumulative effect on customers while protecting the environment.

The right half of Slide 8 shows a breakdown of the steam portion of our generation fleet, and how many megawatts might be affected by the Cooling Water Intake rule proposed in April. We're encouraged that the proposed rule provides some flexibility in addressing the entrainment of aquatic organisms when they pass through a plant's cooling system. There needs to be greater flexibility, however, regarding the impingement requirements when organisms are trapped against the outer part of a cooling water intake structure.

This proposed rule will require a great deal of testing and data collection and interaction with state agencies before the final impact of the rule will become clear. As you can see from the slide, not a quite 1/3 of these generation assets have closed-cycle cooling. So again, this rule has a potential to have a significant impact. For both of these proposed rules, we support continued environmental improvement and cost-effective action to safeguard the environment.

And now let me turn you to Slide 9, which is a summary of our key capital projects at the utilities. We continue to manage our new generation and Smart Grid projects in a very disciplined way to meet constant schedule targets. I'm pleased to report that our Richmonde County combined cycle gas plant is undergoing final testing and will be added to our generation fleet in the Carolinas in June. Now I'd like to ask Mark to provide a little more detail on the numbers for the quarter.

Mark Mulhern

Thank you, Bill, and good morning. Those are on the heavy lifting, so I'm just going to go over the numbers, the topics that I'll cover outlined on Slide 10.

And shifting to Slide 11, which shows our first quarter ongoing earnings. For the first quarter 2011, we reported $0.69 versus $0.75 last year. The Carolinas were down $0.05, Florida was down $0.02 and the corporate and others category was $0.01 favorable.

As Bill noted earlier, the big driver in the earnings variance was the impact of lower weather-related energy sales this quarter compared to 2010. Last year's first quarter had $0.18 of favorable weather across both utilities. On balance, this year's first quarter was normal in terms of weather compared to 2010, which was much colder.

Slide 12 is our waterfall chart, which outlines the positive and negative drivers for the first quarter. The largest positive on the page is the amortization of the cost for removal obligation at PEF, which offsets the $0.17 negative weather variance. The other noteworthy item in the quarter is in the clauses and other margin category where we accrued an additional $15 million of estimated liability to joint owners at CR3 due to the extension of the outage resulting from the second delamination.

Two items usually shown on the waterfall chart related to growth in usage in O&M. This quarter, neither item contribute to the earnings variance. We had $0.02 of positive earnings from growth in usage in the Carolinas, but that was offset by Florida. And the O&M comparison was flat as compared to last year's first quarter.

Slide 13 shows our actual retail sales and the weather-adjusted comparisons to 2010. Again, unusually strong weather in 2010 makes the analysis challenging, but overall, retail sales at both utilities are slightly below our full year forecasts. The bright spot here was the industrial class where sales were up 1.8% at Progress Energy Carolinas.

Now I'll turn you to Slide 14, which is our standard slide on customer growth and low-usage accounts. Florida continues to show a steady uptick in customer growth. Florida had a net of 8,000 customers year-over-year, and the Carolinas added 7,000 customers year-over-year. Although Florida continues to show positive upward trends for the last 4 quarters, the Carolinas are still lagging historical trends in customer growth.

Slide 15 includes some key items for you to be mindful of for earnings and cash flow for the rest of the year. We have $369 million of cost of removal obligation remaining at PEF to be utilized over the next 7 quarters. The one scheduled nuclear outage for 2011 has been completed at Brunswick. And recent storms in the Southeast will result in a charge to earnings in the $0.01 to $0.02 range in the second quarter. And finally, we are excluding merger and integration costs from ongoing earnings per share, and those were approximately $14 million in the first quarter, and those were primarily transaction costs.

So before I turn it back to Bill for Q&A, let me recap by pointing out that we delivered first quarter EPS above plan despite tough weather comparisons. The rate settlement agreement at PEF through 2012 continues to provide us flexibility, and we've affirmed the 2011 ongoing EPS guidance for the full year of $3 to $3.20 per share and we're making solid progress on the regulatory approvals and merger integration planning. So we're excited about the prospects the merger brings but remain focused on delivering results for 2011. So Bill, I'll turn it back to you for Q&A.

William Johnson

Thanks, Mark. So clearly, there are significant activity here at Progress Energy and in our industry. We're focused on meeting the needs of our customers safely, reliably and cost-effectively, and we're focused on achieving our earnings targets this year. I'm very pleased with the commitment of our management team and our workforce to make this happen. I want to say a particular thank you to our employees who did such a great job in responding to the various serious storms throughout the South this spring. And, of course, I extend that thanks to all the companies and people who helped us in our own hour of need. So thank you, and I will be glad to take your questions.

Question-and-Answer Session

Operator

[Operator Instructions] And we'll take our first question from Carrie Saint-Louis [ph] with Fidelity.

Unknown Analyst -

I had a couple of questions related to Crystal River. First, I didn't know with your insurance recovery. When you have like the second delamination, is this just a continuation of your initial insurance claim or do you think you have to -- do you go through a whole second insurance claim and maybe have to eat up another deductible?

William Johnson

Carrie [ph], we are not that far along in the process with NEIL yet.

Unknown Analyst -

Okay.

William Johnson

There's a couple of things we have to do before we get into serious discussions. One is to finish the root cost so we can explain what happened and why, because that may have a bearing on your question. And then also, you have to have your repair options and costs in line at least in some range, which we don't quite have yet. So we are not able to address your question because we haven't gotten that far along with NEIL yet.

Unknown Analyst -

Okay. And so from what you discussed, if I wrote down correctly, this engineering, so this is going to be completed in the next several weeks? And then do you go to NEIL and kind of work through those issues?

William Johnson

Yes. I think I said we have an update with the Florida Commission May 19. And that's sort of a date we're shooting for. And I think in that time frame, we'll be doing a lot of things like talking to NEIL, talking to the Commission and talking to others.

Unknown Analyst -

Okay. So that one is kind of the date for when we'll have more clarity?

William Johnson

I'm hoping we have a lot more clarity by that date.

Unknown Analyst -

Okay. And then just you ran through some of the options, and I think one of them was, like, replace substantial concrete. And I'm just trying to understand that option. Is that when you replace the most recent amount of concrete, are you saying that the next replacement would be an amount equal to greater than what you've already done? Or how could you kind of size that?

William Johnson

Again, I can't give you a specific answer. We know that you can replace the concrete because we could replace an entire bay of concrete on one of the -- on one side of the building.

Unknown Analyst -

Right.

William Johnson

So we know that as a feasibly technical repair. But we are also looking at other options that range from fixing the delamination in place to replacing a lot of the concrete. And I can't give you an estimate at this moment of which of those is a leading contender.

Unknown Analyst -

Okay. How long did it take to do the one bay for the replacement time?

William Johnson

I don't have that answer immediately, but Mr. Kimzey will be glad to call you and tell you. It'll be a little different time frame because as we were doing that one, we spent a lot of time doing analysis and modeling. But we already know a lot about the building that we didn't know as we started that repair. I'm not sure it will be an apples-to-apples kind of comparison, but we can get you that information.

Unknown Analyst -

Okay. And then at this point, it sounds like, I mean, the NRC, obviously you're working with them. But right now, there's no formal requirement to kind of go through them for your thought process. But at what point if -- I think that you mentioned that at some point, it may be required that you get their formal approval. Is that if you do the larger concrete replacement?

William Johnson

Yes, so if you undertake a repair that reflects a change in the design basis of the building, then you -- in fact, in any repair, including the one we already did, you'll have a lot of interaction with the NRC.

Unknown Analyst -

Right.

William Johnson

And certainly, if you do something that affects the design basis, we might have an increased amount of interaction with the NRC. But they will be and have been deeply involved in this.

Unknown Analyst -

Okay. And this May 19, is that -- that will be a -- that's a filing that we can go on the Florida Public Service Commission website and get that?

William Johnson

Yes.

Unknown Analyst -

Okay, great.

Operator

We'll next welcome Ted Payne [ph] with Catapult .

Unknown Analyst -

I just had a few quick questions, and I'm sorry if you touched on these in your opening remarks because I was busy with a bunch of other stuff. But just on the storms from before, can you kind of give a flavor of kind of the impact in the second quarter we may see from storms in your service territory?

William Johnson

So we're not completely done with that accounting and collection yet, but we think it's think it's a $0.01 or $0.02.

Unknown Analyst -

Okay. So from a financial standpoint, not a huge impact?

William Johnson

Right.

Unknown Analyst -

Got you. And then maybe just can you give a little more flavor on your sales forecast? It looks like this quarter came in, both in Carolina and Florida, below your expectations kind of. Where are you seeing the weakness? And do you expect that to rebound as we move through the latter half of 2011? And maybe some flavor on what you've seen so far in May?

Mark Mulhern

Yes, Ted, it's Mark. I think that weather had a lot to do with the analysis here. So having the kind of tail of that weather we had in 2010 makes the comparisons really challenging. But there's no question residential and commercial in particular are not where we had projected them to be. So we're hopeful, obviously, that -- and we'll be watching it as we through the next few quarters. But we figured, with having one quarter of data here that again is challenged by the weather comparison. It didn't make any sense to change any assumptions about that. Now we did have good industrial sales in Carolina. We're up 1.8% in industrial. But the commercial and residential has been weaker than we had hoped.

Unknown Analyst -

Okay. And what would be the sensitivity to your earnings for, like, a percent change? I guess in Florida you have the amortizations, which you can offset any weakness. But in Carolina, you might need to offset with something else. Do you guys give a sensitivity on what like a percent change in usage would be?

Mark Mulhern

Yes, Ted, it's hard to give a generalization because really, it is sensitive to customer class. I mean, it's in a couple of penny range, $0.02, $0.03, $0.04 kind of range if you had a 1% variance across all customer classes. What I think we have to look at is I expected our industrials will continue to be above where we maybe had hoped, and residential and commercial lagged here in the first quarter. And we're just kind of have to watch and see.

Unknown Analyst -

Okay. And then I guess lastly on Crystal River. I believe that from an accounting perspective, you guys already assume the extension of that useful life. Given Japan or what's going on with the delamination issues, are there any concern from your auditors about changing that accounting assumption?

Mark Mulhern

Not at this point. I mean, as Bill talked about, we're obviously evaluating what we're going to do here. But we haven't had any concern about that at this point.

Unknown Analyst -

Okay, great.

Operator

Michael Worms with BMO Capital Markets.

Michael Worms - BMO Capital Markets U.S.

I have a Crystal River question, if I may. Has there been any thought in terms of permanent shutdown of Crystal River given all the issues? And if that were to come to pass, what would be the write-down impact?

William Johnson

Well, as we said in our release, our current intention is to bring that plant back to service because it is important to the customers and fuel mix in Florida. So obviously, as we consider what we're going to do next, we are considering a full range of options, right? But our main focus is what repair is feasible and what's the most cost-effective way to do this. So I would say we have -- we certainly include that as a possibility when we go through the range of options. But that is not where our focus is.

Mark Mulhern

Yes, Mike, it's Mark. Just to give you some perspective. We thought with the investments we've made in steam generator replacement and some of the operating dollars, just over $1 billion investment on the balance sheet related to Crystal River 3, again just to give you some parameters.

Operator

We'll take our next question from Brian Chin with Citigroup.

Brian Chin - Citigroup Inc

More of a general industry question. You guys had the foresight to look into combined cycle gas turbine construction before it became fashionable among a lot of your peers. Now that you're well along in your development plans, can you comment on the outlook for a combined cycle gas turbine construction as it relates to equipment queues or engineering construction contracts? Have you seen a lot more bottlenecks potentially cropping up now that a number of your other peers have started to look at that? I'm not really so much concerned about you guys but just more of industry flavor and color.

William Johnson

We don't see that happening. Yes, you have to remember that we are 2 years after that decision, so we were in the queue early. And actually, we're in the queue when nobody else was in it.

Brian Chin - Citigroup Inc

Right.

William Johnson

So the equipment and the construction terms were favorable. I do think that changes as more people move to this. But I really don't think that move has started. You're just starting to see people say they're going to retire some of the older coal as I look at the EPA. So I don't think we see that yet, but I think that certainly is a possibility.

Brian Chin - Citigroup Inc

Great, appreciate it.

Operator

We'll next welcome Mark de Croisset with FBR Capital Markets.

Marc de Croisset - FBR Capital Markets & Co.

Just you may -- I hopped on late. I apologize if you covered this. And if you could, I'd love a little color on your thoughts behind the retirement of the Weatherspoon coal-fired unit. Could you just give us a sense of what you were thinking as you were retiring it in addition to some of the other plant retirements?

William Johnson

Well, we actually had that included in the list of plants we're going to retire. And what you saw was that we accelerated the date on that. And it really was, I'd say, a pretty simple matter of utility economics. We have some new gas coming on. We can displace that capacity. You get to the point where you're looking at the plant and you're saying, if I have to run it longer, I have to make some capital additions here that I'm not going to make for a year or 2. So really, it was a sort of a basic exercise in least-cost utility economics.

Marc de Croisset - FBR Capital Markets & Co.

As you think through your merger with Duke here, does this lead you to accelerate any additional coal retirements, Bill, or is it too early to tell again?

William Johnson

I think it's too early to tell. I think both companies are evaluating those EPA rules, and that's certainly going to be a big driver for most companies. So it will be smaller for us because we took that action a while back, but I think that will be the first driver. I do think when we get a little experience under our belt with joint dispatch in running the combined system that the merger might give us an opportunity to do more of this earlier than we had planned.

Mark Mulhern

Hey, Marc, it's Mark. I know you jumped on late, but if you look at our Slide 8 in our presentation, and you look at the slide in Duke's presentation where they go through their fleet and look at the impact of the EPA proposed rules, it's instructive and could give you some indication of where you might look and kind of decisions you might make around some things. As Bill said, it's early on, but I think we'll go through this in a deliberate fashion and look at the investments required to comply. You could see us making some more determinations about what we do about some of these -- oh, especially some of the older and smaller units.

Marc de Croisset - FBR Capital Markets & Co.

And maybe last, if I may. Any additional thoughts on new opportunities for coal procurements for your fleet? Any procurement flexibilities you created in the years to come?

William Johnson

Well, we have -- over the last couple of years, there were a lot of flexible procurement in coal. As we put our scrubbers and SCRs on, we did have that in mind with using blended coal. But we've also done some capital additions in our coal plants to allow us to burn more the Illinois coal. And so I think we have actually got a pretty good start on things like coal blending, better sourcing or at least more diverse sourcing. And I think you will see an increase in that in both companies after the merger happens.

Marc de Croisset - FBR Capital Markets & Co.

Wonderful.

Operator

Ladies and gentlemen, with no further questions or comments in queue, for final comments and closing remarks, I'll turn the conference over back now to Bill Johnson.

William Johnson

Thanks, Lacey, and thanks to everyone for being on the call. Thanks for your interest in Progress Energy and have a great day.

Operator

Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude today's Progress Energy's First Quarter 2011 Earnings Conference Call. We thank you for your participation.

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 www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS.

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

Source: Progress Energy's CEO Discusses Q1 2011 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
This Transcript
All Transcripts