Subtext

EVRG

Evergy, Inc.2024 Q1

SectorUtilities
Date2024-05-09
Overall sentiment+2.5
Total words3236
CEO words0
CFO words0
Analyst words1146
Trailing EPS$3.61
Forward EPS est.$3.87
Forward P/E13.3
Sourceglopardo

Transcript

Each turn shows the speaker, their inferred role, the section, and that turn's net sentiment (×1000).

OperatorOperator+19.6

Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Q1 2024 Evergy, Inc. Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your first speaker today, Pete Flynn, Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Peter FlynnIR+31.2

Thank you, Brianna. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Evergy's First Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call. Our webcast slides and supplemental financial information are available on our Investor Relations website at investors.evergy.com.

David CampbellOther+16.7

Thank you, Pete, and good morning, everyone. I'll begin on Slide 5. This morning, we reported first quarter adjusted earnings of $0.54 per share compared to $0.59 per share a year ago. Relative to last year, this quarter's results were driven by higher operations and maintenance expense, depreciation and amortization expense and interest expense, partially offset by new retail rates and transmission margin.

Kirkland AndrewsOther+22.2

Thanks, David, and good morning, everyone. Turning to Slide 12. I'll start with a review of our results for the quarter. For the first quarter of 2024, Evergy delivered adjusted earnings of $124.7 million or $0.54 per share compared to $136.1 million or $0.59 per share in the first quarter of 2023.

As shown on the slide from left to right, the year-over-year decrease in first quarter adjusted EPS was driven by the followingOther-23.8

First, similar to the first quarter of 2023, we saw milder-than-normal weather, particularly in the months of February and March this year. And while the year-over-year adjusted EPS impact was flat, compared to normal, weather was an estimated $0.07 unfavorable.

OperatorOperator-71.4

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Nicholas Campanella from Barclays.

Nicholas CampanellaAnalyst+14.5

Thank you for all the updates today. I just wanted to clarify, it's great to see the load growth extend into 2028. And I know you have the IRP coming in Kansas. Just how should we kind of think about you doing a 6% rate base CAGR right now? And does this extend your visibility to that CAGR? Or do you see that kind of pressuring higher in this new plan?

David CampbellOther+17.7

It's a great question. We won't get ahead of the capital expenditure update that we're doing in the third quarter, but I will describe that. You're right, our current expectation rate base growth through 2028 is 6%. So that was the capital expenditure plan we put out on our Q4 call. It is at the low end of all of our peers, significantly below the average of our peers and part of why HB 2527 was so important was because we do see a historic economic development opportunity and pipeline in our territory and investing to take advantage of that opportunity is a lot more difficult when the returns you can offer capital are not competitive.

Nicholas CampanellaAnalyst+0.0

That's really helpful. And then I guess as we're kind of toggling CapEx and thinking about what could be incremental to the plan. Can you just remind us where you stand on your current credit metrics where you're trending for '24? And then where that is relative to your minimums and just how to think about equity needs past the time frame you've guided?

Kirkland AndrewsOther+15.4

Sure Nick, it's Kirk. I'll focus on the Moody's metric, which we updated on our fourth quarter call. Due to a few items, most notably, the changes in the -- we were still waiting, obviously, to securitize the Missouri West [ Weaver ] Murray -- cost, which we successfully did subsequent to the year-end. Pro forma for that other items going into 2024, we're about 15%, which is that threshold.

OperatorOperator-100.0

Our next question comes from Shar Pourreza of Guggenheim Partners.

Shahriar PourrezaAnalyst+0.0

Obviously, you guys have mentioned economic development. It's obviously been a key part of the slide decks. Data centers have obviously been kind of front and center for a lot of calls this cycle. Do you sort of have maybe a rule of thumb at this point for the amount of maybe transmission investments you're making with these sites. We've heard some of your peers like in Pennsylvania, talk about somewhere between $50 million to $150 million. Is that kind of fair to you?

David CampbellOther-11.0

Shar, it really does vary depending on where the location is. Typically, there are incremental investments for very large loads. They're system investments, so it's always a little difficult. If you pegged the last bit of investment and it's all tied to that single customer. But when you have loads in the hundreds of megawatts given the size of our system and as you think of the share of our overall transition base, there's certainly some loads that will have investments around that level if you get to a significant size.

Shahriar PourrezaAnalyst+0.0

Then maybe just to hone in a little bit. Just maybe if you could just provide a little bit of directional color on the mechanics and the margin on the Google deal. Because if we understand it, you're supplying the actual megawatts, but some of the press releases, including coming from the governor, we're framing this as a self-supply setup 400 megawatts from Ranger and D. E. Shaw. So just trying to understand your exposure and obligations here.

David CampbellOther+0.0

So the rates are subject to [indiscernible] agreements. I don't discuss rates. Generally, when you bring in large new loads, they're typically eligible for economic development rates. But as I described in my comments in the script, we're actively working on rate design elements to ensure that large new loads we -- the incremental considered.

Shahriar PourrezaAnalyst-11.2

And then just lastly, on the EPA regs, I mean, obviously, this was a key part of your opening prepared, right? I mean there's obviously been a lot of chatter this quarter on the regs and potential impacts to IRPs and gas generation plans. Does the April IRP just put out account for this, thinking specifically, for example, on the gas additions you proposed, which may not get credit for coal-firing hydrogen under the final rules, so CCUs only. I guess how are you approaching planning around this?

David CampbellOther-13.2

Thanks, Shar. It's a great question. The IRP that we just issued in Missouri and it's an overall corporate IRP also we'll file in Kansas one here in a couple of weeks. But that IRP does not include the EPA's recently issued rules. It just came out too late to be included in the process. There's a ton of analysis that goes into it. So the new rules will be factored into our IRPs going forward.

OperatorOperator-100.0

Our next question comes from Durgesh Chopra of Evercore ISI.

Durgesh ChopraAnalyst+19.2

Can I just -- can I just ask for clarification on the upside David that you listed from 2527 the House Bill 2527. The $0.03 to $0.04, is that really like a 20 -- like first year upsides for 2025. So this year because the bill is effective July is really 1/2 of that $0.03 to $0.04. Am I thinking about that correctly?

David CampbellOther+20.4

How I describe it [indiscernible] what HB 2527 does is it just helps to reduce the gap between the authorized return and you realize return. So it helps to mitigate regulatory lag. It gives us a better opportunity to get to approximate, to get closer to earning our authorized return.

Durgesh ChopraAnalyst+0.0

And the jump from $0.04 to $0.10, I'm sorry, this is not a great question, but that's just basically capital doubling, right, like your asset base doubling between the two.

David CampbellOther-10.3

Yes, it's a lot of like how it works in Missouri. I mean slightly different provision. It's a 90% deferral versus 85%. But for example, if you look at our realized returns in Kansas Central in '21 to '22 to '23, you saw those realized returns got lower and lower, much lower than an authorized level because we were in a 5-year stay out. So the regulatory lag impacts as we continue to invest in our system got higher and higher. So that's why you see the -- further you go out from a rate case the bigger the impact.

Durgesh ChopraAnalyst+0.0

I understand it now. And then just quickly, can I ask you for your level of confidence in the retail sales. It was flat last year, '23 over '22. And then first quarter came in at 0.5% below the first quarter of '24 and obviously, you're projecting 2% to 3% end of the year? And what gives you that level of confidence? I know you mentioned a certain significant amount of load coming online, but just maybe share a little bit more color there.

David CampbellOther-15.9

Sure. I'll start and ask Kirk to wane. I think last year, if you break down the demand trends, residential and commercial were up 23.8% and 1%, respectively. I mean it was industrial that was down other industrial margins tend to be lower, as you know, and we can really trace the industrial demand being down to 2023 to a few customers that had unique circumstances.

Kirkland AndrewsOther+0.0

I agree. I mean our residential and commercial growth assumptions are roughly consistent with what we saw in the actuals in 2023. It's really just buoyed by that expectation of industrial recovery, both sort of cycling through some of those temporary events that I talked about before and then supplemented by some of those you talked about the new economic development customers coming on later this year on the industrial side. So, I agree with that.

OperatorOperator-100.0

Our next question is from Travis Miller of Morningstar, Inc.

Travis MillerAnalyst+0.0

Congrats on getting all the stuff done there in Kansas. Wondering as a follow-on to that, what are you still working on? Is there a timeline? And what might be involved in getting more done in Kansas.

David CampbellOther+44.6

Our work is never done. No, just -- we certainly are working with our stakeholders on a series of issues in both states, really just looking for I think the most important thing is how do we respond to the economic development opportunities that are before us and ensure the best frameworks are in place to take advantage of those. So the discussion in Kansas, look, we HB 2527, I can't upsize enough that it's not only important in terms of provisions reducing lag, but also important as a reflection of the broad-based consensus and support for investments to take advantage of economic development opportunities and having a constructive framework for those investments.

Travis MillerAnalyst+0.0

That work step would be in the legislative sessions or regulatory?

David CampbellOther+0.0

Regulatory -- and we expect to have that later this year, admin schedule, but we're alignment parties, and we'll work with parties to find the right time to do it. I would expect it later this year, later this summer or fall.

Travis MillerAnalyst+12.5

And then a higher level on the EPS growth. You've described obviously a lot of positive things going on. Your growth rate is at or higher than other utilities. You got the CapEx, which you've suggested might be higher. In the third quarter, what pushes you at least to a 5% to 7% number, maybe not back to the 6% to 8%, but why not get to that 5% to 7% or perhaps should we anticipate that when you come out with a new CapEx plan?

David CampbellOther-22.0

As I said earlier, we won't get ahead of the CapEx plan. We certainly won't get ahead of any earnings forecast. I think that when you look at our financial plan overall, we have the lowest rate base growth. And as a consequence of that, we have a relatively lower earnings growth trajectory. Those 2 are generally in sync, the rate base growth and the earnings growth targets, typically the earnings growth target lags some level, was a little lower than the rate base growth target because of the drag from finance.

Travis MillerAnalyst-52.6

I figured you want to answer my question by saying, yes, 5 to 7. So appreciate the details. Thanks so much.

OperatorOperator-100.0

Our next question comes from Paul Patterson of Glenrock Associates.

Paul PattersonAnalyst+0.0

Just wanted to go over just a few quick things on the quarter. First of all, the decrease in labor capitalization. Can you elaborate a little bit more on what's driving that and how that's going to impact the rest of the year?

Kirkland AndrewsOther+0.0

It's Kirk. The decrease in labor capitalization is really a function, but we had a little bit of a change in our transformer labor capitalization approaches in the first quarter. There's a little bit of a catch-up there. So now what you're seeing is just the ongoing effects of that as we move forward.

David CampbellOther+0.0

Paul, you get the product for both in-depth reading and materials.

Paul PattersonAnalyst+0.0

But what -- how much was that I guess?

Kirkland AndrewsOther+50.0

We'll have to -- I have to get back to you offline on that. Paul will be happy to do that.

Paul PattersonAnalyst-66.7

No problem. Then the sales growth numbers for the quarter, does that reflect leap year?

Kirkland AndrewsOther+0.0

Yes, it does.

Paul PattersonAnalyst+16.7

And then the PISA legislation, it sounds like you guys in Missouri, I'm talking about. It sounds like you don't see much opportunity for the House Bill. I think there's also a Senate Bill. I mean I know it's going to end soon, but is that -- is that pretty much how you feel? Does I hear you right, I guess?

David CampbellOther+18.7

I think, Paul, yes, you heard me right. We've had the PISA provisions, PISA language and changes to PISA relating to natural gas investments to 90% and extending the date past of the house. There's very good discussion around it. There's broad-based support. It's just hard -- given the tight time line in the session, overall session dynamics. It's going to be hard to get anything past. So we think this is no different. Wouldn't rule it out, we certainly think it will be beneficial, but the session dynamics is the time line on the real constraint, not support for the provisions. We think it's broad-based support.

Kirkland AndrewsOther+0.0

Sorry, Paul, that transformer labor just to come back to you is about $0.02 year-over-year.

Paul PattersonAnalyst+0.0

Then just on Missouri, if I'm correct, if you -- if it ends -- the session ends, the floor action ends tomorrow, is that right?

David CampbellOther+0.0

The 17th, I think, is when it formally ends. Paul?

Paul PattersonAnalyst+0.0

But I thought there was a floor action deadline or something. Okay. But okay, the 17th, okay. Okay.

David CampbellOther+0.0

Well, Paul, it's a great question and one that is going to take a lot of work on our part and a lot of work with our stakeholders because the affordability and reliability impacts of the rules are ones that were really all have to dig into. And there are some provisions in the rules that give some potential outs on those, relatively short term in nature. But to your point, we'll have to assess carbon capture and sequestration is required for any unit that's operating beyond 2038 but does that apply if that technology is not commercially proven today.

OperatorOperator-111.1

Our next question comes from Ryan Levine of Citi.

Ryan LevineAnalyst+37.0

On the one slide, you highlight over $10 billion worth of new development projects in Kansas and Missouri. But you provide a little bit of color around what industries are most represented in that $10 billion number in which service territories is there waiting towards? And any color around the loan opportunities that, that may enable?

David CampbellOther+12.7

Sure. So the -- it's -- you won't be surprised here. It's data centers, but also advanced in large manufacturing that can range from semiconductor, auto, food, products, food service industries are all pretty big presence in our space. So we, like others, we've got a pretty big presence in data centers already with Meta and Google, and there's a number of those are data centers, but there's also a lot of advanced manufacturing. And we're excited about all of them.

Ryan LevineAnalyst+40.0

As you're working through your resource planning and with the favorable legislation passed in Kansas, are there any nonfinancial constraints to be able to serve incremental load in your service territories, i.e., particularly on the gas generation side that we should keep in mind that may constrain your growth?

David CampbellOther+0.0

I mean, I think for all of us, all utilities and for us, when you look as far as our system, adding the 3 customers I mentioned today, we said approximately 750 megawatts of load. That's a nearly -- between a 5% or 10% increase in our overall demand peak. So you add several hundred megawatts in a location, you're going to run into where the valuation is on transmission and distribution infrastructure. So what do you have adequate transmission, you've adequate substation infrastructure in place. And with Southwest Power Pool requirements getting tighter, there's certainly capacity issues as well.

Ryan LevineAnalyst-75.0

What I was trying to get at is if you're building new gas plants, are there any pipeline constraints or anything else that [indiscernible] more onerous to overcome or permitting or any other challenges that we should keep in mind?

David CampbellOther+23.6

Yes. I think that the -- I think the EPA rules are structured. The new efficient gas turbines can meet the requirements, so there will be capacity factor rotations. Our team's evaluation of new gas sites that we've not announced where the new gas sites are certainly taking into consideration existing gas and grid infrastructure. So we think we'll be able to work through those. There's always a permitting an interconnection process. So it takes years to get these things done, and that's a reflection of why the big gas plants are appearing in the years. They appear that really reflects the lead time that we expect to be required to work through all those various issues. But we do think we'll be able to get it done.

OperatorOperator-111.1

Our final question comes from Michael Sullivan of Wolfe.

Michael SullivanAnalyst+0.0

Just wanted to ask on the mild weather to start the year and how you're thinking about levers to offset that?

David CampbellOther+9.4

So it's welcome to 2024, same as 2023 because we had a mild start to 2023 as well. Like we look across various levels of our business, but the important part of that, obviously, is cost management. We mentioned that the new legislation in Kansas in the first year following rate case provides a benefit. So obviously, we're in the first year following a rate case. So we've got a relatively large enterprise. We got a range of levers that we typically work through. It's -- it's not -- the first quarter is not our biggest quarter. So we'll be watching to see how second and third quarter go in particular.

Michael SullivanAnalyst+0.0

And then when I just think about this upcoming CapEx refresh. I think you usually do that for 5 years and the IRP is kind of more like a 10-plus year outlook. If I just -- I know you're talking about capacity upside over 10 years. But if I just look at like the next 5 plan over plan, I think we're in a similar spot, a different mix of generation, but just wanted to try to reconcile that as we think about CapEx plan refresh and what changed in this IRP.

David CampbellOther+0.0

It's a good question, Mike. You'll see that we've also got some incremental. If you look at -- I anticipate our CapEx refresh will be through '28. We probably won't introduce '29 until February, but Kirk and the planning team may decide that they -- I'll leave it to them and where we approach that. Because we've got a lot of gas that's coming in the '28 to '30 time frame, that will lead to some earlier spend. A lot of renewable spend, you can time a little more closely to when the online date is, but the gas plants will have an earlier spend trajectory.

OperatorOperator-90.9

This now concludes the question-and-answer session. I would now like to turn it back to David Campbell for closing remarks.

David CampbellOther+41.7

Thank you, Brie, and thank you, everyone, for your interest in Evergy. Be safe and have a great day. This now concludes our call.

OperatorOperator+0.0

Thank you for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect.