This conference call transcript was computer generated and almost certianly contains errors. This transcript is provided for information purposes only.EarningsCall, LLC makes no representation about the accuracy of the aforementioned transcript, and you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the information provided by the transcript.
spk10: 2022 were more constructive with respect to the key economic terms. The main challenges in the rate cases related to legacy issues that have now been resolved and put behind us, most notably relating to the 2018 Sibley plan retirement. Higher interest rates are also dragging the forward plan. Most significantly, they impact the refinancing that will occur in 2024 for $800 million of holding company debt. In addition, our plan includes some additional holding company debt by 2025, for which we are expecting to refinance our $500 million term loan. The revised long-term growth rate target of 4% to 6% extends through 2026 and reflects our trajectory after the wave step function cost savings that we have delivered since the 2018 merger. Over the long term, our growth rate will reflect our rate-based growth and the related financing plans. Our current rate-based growth level is expected to be 6% annually. In addition to the projects currently included in our capital plan, we see a significant backlog of additional projects that will benefit customers across the T&D system and in the ongoing transition of our generation fleet. However, in Kansas in particular, we will shape our capital plan to reflect the policy objectives of our key decision makers and stakeholders. We will be actively pursuing mechanisms that we think align with those objectives and that will enhance our ability to partner in support of state priorities and earn a competitive return with timely recovery. While our long-term target has changed, our culture will not. We remain laser-focused on operational and financial execution for the items within our control and achieving constructive regulatory outcomes in a more regular cadence of rate cases after the long stay-outs that were agreed to as part of the 2018 merger. In both of our states, we expect to file rate cases roughly every two years, similar to the cadence of our peer utilities. We know the importance of consistent execution and we recognize that today's update falls short of that. However, we are confident in our ability to execute our strategic plan going forward at the revised target. In addition, we see opportunities to work with our stakeholders to advance constructive regulation in both states. As part of today's update, we also announced a 5% increase in our quarterly dividend to 64.25 cents per share, or $2.57 per share on an annualized basis. This increase is consistent with our updated growth outlook, as well as our 60 to 70% payout ratio target. Combination of our annual growth outlook and our dividend yield positions to deliver a competitive total annual return of 9 to 11%. Moving to slide six, as I mentioned, we reach a unanimous settlement in the pending Kansas rate cases. If approved, the resulting rate increases are far below those of regional peers in inflation. The settlement calls for a net revenue increase of $41.1 million across our Kansas jurisdictions, reflecting a $74 million increase at Kansas Central and a $32.9 million decrease at Kansas Metro. The settlement includes the addition of the Persimmon Creek Wind Farm, and our 8% interest in Jeffery Energy Center into Kansas Central's rate base. These additions provide low-cost generation solutions to meet our customers' growing demand and energy needs. The settlement also provides final resolution to the rate discounts that were provided to customers through the Coley Program, which was first put in place nearly 40 years ago when the Wolf Creek Nuclear Plant came online. The settlement sets a $96.5 million rate credit to be amortized over three years, after which the program is removed entirely from the regulatory construct. With this settlement, our COLE program has provided tremendous savings for customers, $750 million in total since the mid-1980s. While the settlement is silent on return on equity and capital structure, it specifies a 9.4% return on equity to be utilized for purposes of the transmission delivery charge filings required by legislation passed last year. We've included more details on this in the appendix. If the settlement is approved, we expect the Kansas Corporation Commission will issue an order implementing new rates by December 21st. As shown on slide seven, when factoring in the rate case settlements, Evergy has been able to limit cumulative rate increases in Kansas to 1% since 2017. In contrast, rates increased in our regional peer states by 12.7% over the same time period. Many of our peer utilities have rate cases pending or planned, which will further widen the gap. Our rate increase is even further below the rate of inflation since the merger. Advancing and improving regional rate competitiveness has been top of mind for many of our stakeholders in Kansas and were primary drivers for the 2018 merger. And that's exactly what we've delivered. On slide eight, we highlight the outlook for economic development in Kansas, which is as promising as it has been in decades. As the largest utility in Kansas, Evergy plays a vital role in enabling growth. Over the past five years, the state's economic development pipeline has grown to previously unseen levels. In 2022, the best year for economic development in Kansas in Evergy's history, we helped to land 13 major projects representing more than $5.2 billion in capital investment, 6,000 new jobs, with the Panasonic electric vehicle battery plant a leading example. The future looks even brighter, with more than $10 billion of active economic development projects evaluating our Kansas service territories, representing 650 megawatts of potential additional demand. The state's recent track record and large economic development pipeline in part reflect the success of our focus on ensuring affordability and regional rate competitiveness. Through a highly successful cost savings program following the merger, we have delivered over $360 million in operating efficiencies and customer bill credits in Kansas. I would like to thank the dedication and focus of the entire Evergy team in making this happen. It has taken a tremendous amount of sustained effort. At the same time, the team achieved record safety results last year, along with strong generation commercial fleet availability and ongoing reliability improvements in 2023. The results the team has achieved have directly supported and advanced state priorities. For this success to continue, the grid will require significant capital investment to ensure sufficient capacity, competitive levels of reliability and resiliency, and a modern grid that delivers the flexibility and benefits that customers increasingly demand. This cannot be done without a regulatory environment that enables the flow of competitively priced capital in Kansas. Cost of capital parameters, regulatory capital structure, and timely recovery investment are of crucial importance when utility investors make capital allocation decisions. Investors have a choice where they direct capital, and for Evergy in Kansas to compete for that capital, investors require debt and equity returns commensurate with current market conditions and competitive with peers, a clear and stable framework around regulatory capital structure to guide how we capitalize our utilities, an opportunity to earn the returns we are authorized, and timely recovery of invested capital, both now and in the future. Without these elements, our investment proposition loses attractiveness relative to our peer utilities, who benefit from more robust capital programs, more attractive authorized and realized returns, as well as more predictable and balanced regulatory mechanisms. An imbalanced investment proposition challenges our ability to put the infrastructure in place to effectively partner and compete for economic development and by extension challenges the shared goal of Kansas stakeholders to attract new businesses and their jobs and investment. We see a bright future for Kansas, and we are honored by the privilege to play a key role in that future. To capitalize on the state's economic development potential, we believe that the focus must include constructive regulatory mechanisms for the investment necessary to enable that growth. This is a priority for Evergy, and going forward, we will work with regulators and policymakers to ensure that Kansas is competitive with peer states and seizes on the unprecedented opportunities that are before us. Moving to slide nine, I'll provide an update on regulatory and legislative priorities in both Kansas and Missouri. As I mentioned, we expect a final order on the settlement agreement filed in our Kansas rate cases by December 21st. On September 1st, the Commission conditionally approved a settlement in our Energy Efficiency Docu, otherwise known as KIA. Kia was established to support the state's goal of promoting the implementation of cost-effective demand-side programs, such as home energy assessments and rebates for energy-saving appliances. We expect the first Kia programs will begin in 2024. On the policy front, our efforts will focus on cost of capital and capital structure, as well as recovery mechanisms supporting our grid and generation investments. One area of focus will be provisions applying to new dispatchable generations. Fitting to Missouri, the commission order approving our request to securitize extraordinary costs from Winter Storm URI was affirmed in the Missouri Court of Appeals in late September. The Missouri Office of Public Counsel, OPC, filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied on October 24th. It is possible that OPC will further appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court. Consistent with the appellate court's decision, we believe the Missouri Commission's decision in support of securitization is well supported by the record and we anticipate resolution by the end of the year. As a reminder, we will complete the securitization financing after the appeal plays out, but incremental carrying costs incurred prior to approval will ultimately be recovered when we issue the debt. Similar efforts in Kansas will to engage with our Missouri stakeholders regarding constructive regulatory mechanisms to support timely recovery and new dispatchable generation investments, as these have been identified as important new resources in our integrated resource plan. Last, we've begun the planning process for Missouri West Raid Case, which we expect to file in February 2024. I'll conclude my remarks with slide 10, which highlights the core tenets of our strategy, affordability, reliability, and sustainability. Keeping rates affordable for our customers has been and will continue to be at the forefront of our thinking. Enabled by the merger, Evergy has now saved more than $1 billion in operating costs over the past five years. These savings allow the company to offset steep inflationary pressures while also helping to attract and bolster economic development in our region. We're pleased by our progress in improving regional rate competitiveness and keeping our rate trajectory well below the rate of inflation. Affordability is and will always be an area of focus. Ensuring reliability is also a core element of our strategy, along with safety, grid resiliency, and public safety. This includes a focus on metrics relating to customer service, the commercial availability of our fleet, safety, and all elements of our operations, including infrastructure investment. With respect to sustainability, we continue to advance the responsible transition of our generation fleet with investments such as the Persimmon Creek Wind Farm. We expect to add over 3 gigawatts of renewable resources through 2032 and 1.5 gigawatts of new hydrogen-capable gas generation, advancing our decarbonization goals while ensuring day-to-day grid demands and customer needs are met. Our mission is to empower a better future, and our vision is to lead the responsible energy transition in our region, always with an eye on affordability and reliability, as well as sustainability. I will now turn the call over to Kirk.
spk04: Thanks, David, and good morning, everyone. Turning to slide 12, I'll start with a review of our results for the quarter. For the third quarter of 2023, Average Heat delivered adjusted earnings of $432.3 million, or $1.88 per share, compared to $460.8 million, or $2 per share, in the third quarter of 2022. As shown on the slide from left to right, the year-over-year decrease in third quarter earnings was driven by the following. First, a 5% decrease in cooling degree days, as compared to last year, drove a 7-cent decrease in EPS. Compared to normal, weather for the third quarter was favorable by approximately $0.08 per share. Weather normalized demand declined by 0.8%, driven by lower industrial demand, contributing to a $0.01 per share negative variance. An $11 million increase in adjusted O&M, or decrease rather, excuse me, in adjusted O&M, reflecting continued execution on driving cost efficiencies, drove a positive $0.02 variance year over year. The net impact of higher depreciation and amortization was $0.07 for the quarter, which includes the offsetting impact of new retail rates. The combination of higher interest expense and lower AFUDC drove a $0.14 decrease, with higher interest expense representing $0.12 of the variance. Higher COLE proceeds drove a positive $0.07 variance year over year. And finally, other items, both positive and negative, drove a net increase of $0.08, primarily driven by tax items. I'll turn next to year-to-date results, which you'll find on slide 13. Through the nine months ended September 30, adjusted earnings were $754.5 million, or $3.27 per share, compared to $785.2 million, or $3.41 per share, for the same period last year. Again, moving from left to right, our year-over-year year-to-date EPS drivers versus 2022 include the following. When combined with mild weather in the first half of this year, our year-to-date results reflect an approximate 7% decrease in cooling degree days and a 13% decrease in heating degree days, driving a 23-cent decrease in EPS versus 2022. When compared to normal, weather was approximately $0.04 favorable through the third quarter. Weather normalized demand growth of 0.7% driven by the residential and commercial sectors contributed $0.08 per share. Higher transmission margin resulting from our ongoing investments to enhance our transmission infrastructure drove a $0.04 increase. Decreased O&M drove a positive $0.31 variance year-over-year driven by continued execution on achieving cost efficiencies, which we have further accelerated in 2023. A $0.19 decrease from higher depreciation expense due to increased infrastructure investment, which is net of the offsetting impact of new retail rates. $0.11 of year-to-date proceeds from company-owned life insurance, or COLI. Higher interest expense and lower AFEDC equity drove a 39-cent decrease, with interest expense representing 34 cents of that variance. The increase in interest expense was driven by a number of factors, including rising rates, the shift in Persimmon Creek to Kansas, a delay in securitization proceeds, and higher capital investment. We have accelerated our cost management initiatives, as reflected in the year-to-date uplift in O&M savings. combined with other actions to help offset the higher interest costs and associated lower AFUDC equity earnings. I'll discuss all of these items in further detail shortly. Finally, other items with positive and negative driven that increase of 13 cents and was primarily driven by other income and income tax items. Turning to slide 14, I'll provide some further detail on the headwinds and tailwinds driving our year to date and expected full year 2023 results. On the left side of the slide, as I mentioned previously, higher interest costs combined with lower AFUDC equity earnings is a primary driver of our year-to-date variance to plan. Through the third quarter, we've seen a 39-cent impact from higher interest costs and lower AFUDC equity earnings versus 2022, and that's compared to a 21-cent increase in these costs for the full year reflected in our original guidance. This higher than expected variance is driven by a number of items. First, rising rates impacted the cost of our short-term borrowings, as well as our long-term debt issuances to date. Short-term borrowings were only partially offset by AFUDC due to the regulatory timing lag in short-term interest cost recovery, which was exacerbated by the sharp increase in realized short-term rates. Second, due to the delay in the securitization of 2021 storm cost at Missouri West, we continue to carry $300 million in additional short-term debt through all of 2023. Third, the decision to shift the Persimmon Creek Wind Farm from Missouri to Kansas required us to forego the offsetting benefits of PISA interest deferral available in Missouri and reflected in our original plan for 2023. This also resulted in lower than forecasted AFUDC rates applied to our other Kansas Central investments as we funded Persimmon Creek with short-term debt while it was pending review during the Kansas rate case. Finally, we expect to exceed our original capital investment plan for 2023 by approximately $200 million, leading to higher borrowing costs prior to recovery in our Missouri rate case planned for 2024. All of these factors also led to bouncy changes versus plan, which drove lower AFUDC equity earnings. Our plan beyond 2023 has consistently anticipated this shift to lower AFUDC equity earnings and higher AFUDC debt recovery, which manifested earlier than expected into 2023. To offset this impact this year, as shown on the right side of the slide, we've successfully accelerated our cost management efforts across the business, leading to a $0.31 EPS benefit year-to-date as compared to our original expectation of $0.20 full-year improvement in the original plan. In addition, we've supplemented the impact of these O&M savings by capturing higher-than-expected margins on our 8% stake in the Jeffrey Energy Center coal plant, driven by a proactive hedging program put in place to optimize financial performance prior to transitioning this 8% stake in Jeffrey to rate-based, beginning in 2024 as a result of the unanimous settlement in Kansas. Finally, we've realized approximately 2 cents of higher coal proceeds year-to-date versus our full plan for 2023. Overall, while we expect to offset higher interest costs with higher O&M savings, improved performance at Jeffery, and higher COLE proceeds, the one-time item which remains, and this is a net driver of the 5-cent reduction in our midpoint 2023 guidance, is the Persimmon Creek Wind Project. Our original plan reflected the benefits of PISA in Missouri, and shifting this asset to Kansas drove a 5-cent reduction in earnings versus planned this year. However, as a result of the unanimous settlement, Persimmon Creek will be part of the Kansas Central rates beginning in 2024, and the $0.05 impact to plan is limited to 2023. Turning to slide 15, I'll provide a brief update on our recent sales trends. Weather normalized demand increased 0.7% year to date as compared to last year, driven by strong residential and commercial growth. For the third quarter, we experienced a decline of 0.8%, primarily due to lower industrial demand driven by two refining customers. Demand growth continues to be supported by a strong local labor market with Kansas and Kansas City metro area unemployment rates of 2.8%, which continue to remain below the national average of 3.8%. And we expect to see industrial demand recovery as we move into 2024. Finally, on slide 16, I'll wrap up with an overview of our long-term financial expectations. For 2023, we're narrowing our adjusted EPS guidance range to 355 to 365, as although we are delivering additional O&M savings beyond our initial guidance, we do not expect to fully offset the headwinds of higher interest and the impact of Persimmon Creek's shift from Missouri to Kansas. As David mentioned earlier, we've revised our new long-term adjusted EPS growth target of 4% to 6% through 2026, using a baseline of the original 2023 adjusted EPS guidance midpoint of $3.65, reflecting the impacts of higher interest rate environment regulatory outcomes and our expected rate-based growth of 6%. We'll provide a 2024 adjusted EPS guidance on our fourth quarter call. Today, we've also announced a 5% increase in our dividend, consistent with the midpoint of our revised growth update and in line with our target 60% to 70% dividend payout ratio. We also expect to provide an updated capital plan for 2024 through to 2028 on our fourth quarter earnings call, which will continue to be driven by new infrastructure investment, improved customer service, and enhanced reliability and resiliency as we transition our generation fleet while continuing to advance regional rate competitiveness and meet the evolving needs of our customers and our communities. And with that, we'll open the call up for questions.
spk01: Thank you. As a reminder to ask a question at this time, please press star 1-1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star 1-1 again. Please stand by while we compile our Q&A roster. And our first question is going to come from the line of Shar Pouriza with Guggenheim Partners. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
spk03: Hey guys. Good morning. Morning, Shar. Morning, morning. Um, can we just maybe unpack the components of the growth rate guide? Obviously, you know, interest expense is a component of that. What are you now assuming there as we think about the 2326 CAGR and that 5% midpoint? And overall, I guess, what are you assuming for lag or any of the remaining levers like O&M? Just trying to get a sense on how much contingencies you've built in there at this point. Thanks.
spk10: Thanks for the question. So as we set the revised growth rate target, we did factor in our view of where the current macro conditions are. So certainly the interest rate environment reflects the current forward curve. It reflects the current regulatory mechanisms that are in place in our states. It reflects our current rate-based outlook, and it reflects the O&M reduction plan that we previously described to investors. I'm very pleased with the work of all of our employees in accelerating some of those cost savings to offset some of the headwinds in 2023. But you'll recall that we've announced an ongoing O&M savings trajectory through 2025. I would characterize our actions this year as really an acceleration. And where we're tracking is not all the way to where we expect to be. We've gotten a long way towards it. So we're basically holding to the prior O&M targets that we outlined separately. You'll see in our – going back to our investor day, I think we teed up $960 million of run rate O&M in 2025. Last year, it was more like $1.7 billion. Obviously, we reduced that significantly already year-to-date. So I would describe our go-forward plan as reflecting the disappointing results of the the macro environment that we see and the headwinds on interest rates, but then the ongoing execution of our plan. So we're obviously disappointed in not having execution paths that matched, excuse me, our prior targets, but we feel good about the new plan that we've outlined. And obviously, as we emphasize, we do see opportunities to work with our regulators for ongoing changes to regulatory mechanisms that we think will be in support of the objectives of our policymakers and stakeholders in our states.
spk03: Got it. And still no equity through 26, correct?
spk10: Yeah, I would describe it, Charles, that at our current capital plan, we don't anticipate need for equity through 2026. As Kirk described, we'll update our capital plan on the year-end call while we see significant additional opportunities for beneficial investments, investments that will benefit our customers and our grid. We'll shape the capital plan based on the – to reflect the – objectives of our policymakers. And if we stick with the current capital plan, we don't anticipate that we'd see equity through 2026. If we change it, then obviously we'll update the financing plan at the same time.
spk03: Got it. And then just lastly, but I know you mentioned you're prepared in the slides that you are, you know, quote unquote, working with Kansas regulators and policymakers on mechanisms. Can you just unpack that a little more? What does that mean as it relates to capital flows, for instance, between the two jurisdictions and spend? Thanks, guys.
spk10: Sure. So I described it at two levels, Char. First on what it means in terms of what we're pursuing. So I do think that there are several items coming out of the rate case that we've identified as priorities, and we think align with the opportunities that are in front of us in both Kansas and Missouri to support economic development. On that list include a clear and stable framework for capital structure, It is common for our peer utilities, for utility holding companies to have responsible levels of hold code debt. We think that the dialogue through testimony in the cancer rate case will give us the opportunity to advance that discussion going forward. So capital structure is an important piece. A second piece is the opportunity to earn returns that are competitive with and commensurate with market conditions and competitive with peers. And the third is around the timely recovery of capital. So those will be areas that we'll be focused on. Specific things we'll likely look at include we have plans to build natural gas generation for reliable hydrogen-capable dispatchable generation in both states. So mechanisms to support that build-out will be an area of focus. And then on your question about allocation of capital, obviously we will shape our capital plan always to meet the requirements of our jurisdictions for reliability. and to meet our customer needs. But the incremental opportunities to invest, I think, will benefit customers and will position us to capitalize on economic development opportunities. You know, it will shape that capital plan based on the mechanisms and policies that we see in the respective states.
spk03: Okay, perfect. Thank you, guys. See you in a couple days. Appreciate it. Thank you, Char.
spk01: Thank you. And one moment as we move on to our next question. And our next question is going to come from the line of Nicholas Campanella with Barclays. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
spk09: Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. I guess just to follow up on some of Shar's questions, like I think as you kind of look at the glide path through 2026, it implies something linear, but just how should we think about 2024? Can you kind of grow? within this 4% to 6% range into 2024 as we kind of handicap what your earnings would be there? And is this CAGR linear or is it more lumpy? Thank you.
spk10: So, obviously, we'll give our 2024 guidance on the year-end call, so we're not giving anyone guidance at this time. But with the, what we've described previously and with the mechanisms we have now, we don't, you know, we'll have the impact of the Kansas rate case, of course, impact in 2024. We mentioned that we're planning to file a rate case next year in Missouri West. That will be the rate case we will pursue that will impact rates in 2025. So you can expect, in the cadence that I described, roughly every two years, more active regulatory calendar in calendar year 2025 than it impacts 2026. So if the lumpier outcomes are often related to rate case outcomes, we only have one of our jurisdictions going through a rate case next year. So we obviously know the importance of stable execution within the growth rate range, and we'll give more details in the 2024 guide in the year-end call.
spk09: Okay, great. And then, you know, I acknowledge that you're kind of taking down the growth rate today, and you have had some headwinds in Kansas. You know, the mechanisms obviously aren't as constructive to deploy capital, but on this new plan, can you still do 6% rate-based growth? Like like like prior plans or is that subject to change as well? I'm just you know acknowledging the comments I think Kirk said there's been a little bit of an acceleration even in 23 and You continue to highlight a lot of economic development.
spk10: Thank you And it's a good question I do think that we in our target growth rate ranges we described for rate base we expect it will be in the 6% annual range that is reflected in the capital plan and that we published last year, and we always update that on the year-end call. It's part of a process we actually established in our jurisdictions following the merger, so we'll stick to that timeline. We see significant incremental potential investment opportunities that we'll evaluate, but we will evaluate those in the context of what makes the most sense in terms of the policies and mechanisms that are in place in our states, and we'll allocate capital accordingly. So we anticipate and we've shaped our plan to reflect that estimated rate-based growth range. But whether we see, I know a lot of our peer utilities have been announcing incremental investment in capital. While we see similar opportunities set, we're going to shape our capital plan based on the returns that we see. As of now, the mechanisms are a little more constructive in Missouri in terms of reducing regulatory lag, so helping you earn your realized return. But we're going to be working hard in Kansas to see if there are policies that reflect the objectives of our stakeholders as well as ours that we can move forward on that I think can help to inform the capital plan. So, net, you know, we'll evaluate the capital plan by year end. We feel good about that 6% annual rate-based growth. With incremental opportunities, possible, but we'll be looking pretty hard at capital allocation in light of what we have heard and what we've seen in our jurisdictions around what they want to have and what they'd like for us to deliver for them. one one more follow-up for me just to triple check this outlook basically assumes the settlement um and just if anything gets tweaked on december 20th how should we think about that well we'll have to update you in the year and call was a unanimous settlement um so you can never predict we certainly it's dependent on approval by the commission but we're confident in the process given the hearing around the settlement was involved in constructive dialogue but with the united settlement this this plan does reflect an anticipation that it will be approved. If it changes, then we'll obviously have to adjust accordingly if it does. But we think that the fact it was unanimous settlement and it's really delivering on the improvements of regional rate competitiveness that has been such a focus in Kansas, we think that it's, you know, on a good trajectory for approval.
spk07: Thank you. Thank you.
spk01: Thank you. And one moment as we move on to our next question. And our next question is going to come from the line of Julian Dumoulin-Smith with Bank of America. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
spk08: Hey, guys. Good morning. This is Darius on for Julian. Thank you for taking the question. Maybe just starting with the updated EPS growth target, can you comment a little bit about when you roll forward your capital plan in February, that'll be out through 28, and then The EPS target is through 26, so there seems there's a little bit of a mismatch there. Can you comment on maybe do you have somewhat limited visibility into what it looks like beyond 2026 or perhaps why that two-year gap there?
spk10: You know, Darius, it's been our historical practice as well. We typically have a three-year forward outlook. I don't know if there's any magic to it. I think you can, you know, based on where we are today, our long-term growth rate target is 4% to 6%, but we've extended it through 26%. But we certainly, that's really just a matter of practice. We typically have that three-year outlook.
spk06: Okay. Appreciate that.
spk08: Next one is you made comments about advancing the discussion on some of the mechanisms in Kansas, including capital structure. Just curious if you could maybe speak about that in a little bit more detail. What might be the venue, perhaps, for advancing that discussion prospectively? Would that be in a future rate case filing or perhaps another forum?
spk10: Yeah, there's several different paths that we can go down on that. So it'll be, and especially once the rate case is approved, you'll get more visibility into it. But you can work that directly with regulators. You can work that with other stakeholders, what I really emphasize is that I think the rate case and the testimony that was included on the capital structure topic, and there was voluminous testimony on it, sets the stage for a good discussion, particularly if you look at staff direct testimony and our rebuttal testimony. We've communicated the importance of competitive equity returns. We've communicated good evidence to show how it was common and almost universal for utility holding companies to have responsible levels of holdco leverage. And it's also common at the same time to have utility-only capital structures used in regulated rate making. So that's the dialogue that we're going to advance and a couple different mechanisms that we'll evaluate as we advance that discussion. As I mentioned, we've got a rate case in Missouri West next year. We have a little time before our next planned Kansas rate case. You know, that would be a little bit dynamic in the final decisions around that, but that will give us some time to advance it out.
spk06: Okay, great. Thank you. And if I could sneak in one more just quickly.
spk08: Your prior Missouri rate cycle, you filed both at Metro and Missouri West. Seems like it's just Missouri West this time around. Any reason for changing that this time?
spk10: It was timely for Missouri West to file a rate case, so we're planning to do it for next year. We'll certainly, for all of our jurisdictions, we'll look at the right cadence to do it. We had the long stay-outs coming out of the merger. I don't think you're going to see those in the four- to five-year stay-outs, but it's timely for a Missouri West rate case, so we're filing one next year and not currently, not planned for Missouri Metro at this time for next year.
spk06: Okay. Thank you very much. I'm looking forward to catching up at EEI.
spk07: EEI. Thanks, Darius.
spk01: Thank you, and one moment as we move on to our next question. And our next question will come from the line of Steve Fleshman with Wolf Research. Your line is open, please go ahead.
spk02: Yeah, good morning, thanks. So just on the, I guess first on the kind of interest rate impacts, So you're basically in the new plan assuming kind of the current forward curves as they are?
spk04: Yes, Steve, that is correct.
spk02: Is that fair?
spk04: That is correct. We have marked our expectations for ongoing interest expense to where the curves are today. That's right.
spk02: Okay. And you mentioned the Kansas rate case being kind of a 15-cent difference versus the prior plan. Is most of the other difference just the interest rate move?
spk04: In terms of the impact to the adjusted outlook on EPS informed by that growth rate, that's right, yes.
spk02: Okay. Could you just talk to kind of how your credit metrics look in the new plan with the Kansas settlement FFO to debt metrics range?
spk04: Sure, absolutely. I mean, I think we came out at 2022, you know, about 80 basis points above the threshold of Moody's, which is 15%. FFO to debt, and we are managing that plan going forward to make sure that we are at or above those thresholds throughout the plan, and that means through 2026. And that objective obviously informed our comfort with extending our expectation as of now based on the current capital plan of no new equity through at least 2026. So we're focused on adhering to those thresholds and those targets.
spk02: Okay, and your threshold again is, what is it again? Is it 14 or 15? 15. 15 percent okay and just just one more i guess sorry on the capital plan so you know i think you're going to update the capital plan on the year-end call and you seem to be talking about you know maybe making updates by them but like that's it i mean that's pretty soon some of these processes in the state you're talking about you wouldn't necessarily think would be kind of really started or done by the year-end call? Are these things that might get added later on?
spk10: Yeah, Steve, that's a good question. I think it is. We announced the updated long-term growth rate outlook, and that's informed by our current rate-based growth trajectory. Obviously, we'll add 2028. We don't yet have that in the capital plan, so that'll be new either way. But our anticipation is that we will, in conjunction with the Finance Committee, look at allocation of capital across jurisdictions. will reflect the – we had a revised integrated resource plan since we put out that capital plan at year end. But the overall parameters and overall growth rate levels, I suspect you're right, that will be in line with what we're seeing here, but with some tweaks and with the evaluation of capital allocation across different areas. When I was speaking to the additional incremental opportunities, you're on track. I think those opportunities – will particularly be informed as we look at mechanisms and ability to, you know, are we aligned with key policymakers and regulators on positioning the state to take advantage of some of the economic development opportunities, which will take some incremental investment and I think some real opportunities there. Now, again, things differ a little bit. On Missouri's side, the regulation is more constructive in terms of mitigating lag, and we're aligned with other utilities in that state. So a lot of this comes down to working on mechas in Kansas, and that will inform how we shape our capital plan, particularly over time.
spk02: Okay. And then, yeah, maybe just one last thing on just that last point of Kansas, because obviously this would have been a relevant thing to be aware of kind of in the current rate case, too, in terms of perceived ability for future projects. you know, kind of growth and all this stuff. Just like, is there any olive branches or things that have been shared that should give us any hope that the other folks are going to engage in along the lines of what you want as opposed to kind of what happened in this Ray case?
spk10: Yeah, I think We'll have to demonstrate those results on the Kansas side, so it's not the show-me side of our two jurisdictions, but I know it'll be an element of seeing that happen. What I think is the groundwork that creates a positive context for that discussion is the sheer amount of economic development potential that we see in Kansas. We know that it's important for many stakeholders in the state to be positioned to take advantage of that because they see those opportunities and they know that for us to be in a position to meet For example, I've mentioned over 600 megawatts of potential incremental capacity needs. If we're in a wait, if we always are waiting until it's already there to build things, then it's harder to be in a position to attract it and meet it in the timeliness that's required. So I think that backdrop of economic development potential is a positive one to help advance the discussions. But there's no question we've got work to do on the capital structure front. and on the ensuring that we have the opportunity for competitive returns. So work in front of us. We do think that backdrop of a lot of economic potential and potential opportunity in Kansas is the right way to do it. We also think it's the right frame to pursue that discussion outside the context of the biggest, such a big rate case, the first one in five years since we formed the company with a unique level of attention. So we think the time is now to work on and address that issue.
spk02: Okay. Okay. But you're saying you think it is. Are you getting a sense that other people kind of get that too?
spk10: I think we've got the opportunity for some constructive discussions. We've obviously got work to do to get it done.
spk02: Okay. Great. Thanks. Thank you, Steve.
spk01: Thank you. And one moment as we move on to our next question. And our next question is going to come from the line of Paul Patterson with Glen Rock Associates. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
spk05: Hey, good morning. Morning, Paul. I just want to – I apologize for not completely following the capital structure issue that's been asked a couple of times. What a – I guess if I'm understanding it and tell me where I'm wrong, you guys are planning on having discussions with them about getting to the ability to sort of have a – basically that the utility capital structure would be looked at and the holding company in the context of how it's treated in other jurisdictions like FERC and what have you. Is that the way to sort of think about it?
spk10: Yes. Well, I think you've got it right.
spk05: And then I did notice, as I did I think on the first quarter, that there was a benefit from capitalized interest. How should we think about that going forward? I think it was a benefit this quarter. How should we think about the potential benefit or what have you going into 2024? I apologize.
spk04: Paul, I think you're thinking about capitalized interest. You may be referring to the fact that we're, you know, we're able to defer, you know, some of the interest costs.
spk05: I apologize. I apologize.
spk04: Oh, capitalized O&M.
spk05: I apologize.
spk04: All right. All I would tell you is that our, you know, that our. Our capitalization of certain portions of O&M is informed by the activities that either directly or indirectly support our capital investment program and is consistent and well-researched from a benchmarking standpoint, time studies and the like. So it's basically in line with industry policy and certainly reflects the initiatives that are underway in terms of improving our infrastructure and investing in things like new generation. So it's really informed by that, and I expect it to be pretty consistent going forward.
spk05: Okay, so it's just a general, there wasn't anything, because it looked like it was a benefit this quarter. There isn't any particular project or anything that's causing that. That's just sort of, there isn't expected to be much of a deviation in that, I guess, is the way to think about it going forward.
spk04: Is that correct? No, nothing of significant change going forward.
spk10: And the benefit in the quarter and year-to-date was an overall reduction in O&M costs, which obviously represents is a much broader reflection of our overall O&M cost trajectory.
spk05: Right. Okay. Thanks so much. Most of my questions were answered. Thank you so much. Thank you.
spk01: Thank you. And I would now like to hand the conference back over to David Campbell for any closing remarks.
spk10: Thank you, everyone, for your participation in the call today. We look forward to seeing you at EEI. That wraps it up.
spk01: This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.
Disclaimer