DTE
#Well, I think a couple of things.
One, it had been a very long time since our prior rate case.
So there was a lot that we were addressing in the rate case directly preceding.
And then if you simply look at the pace of capital expenditure last year, and projected this year in the forward test year, it's a significant spend that we have underway.
And we need a rate case to deal with that.
So I think historically, we've tried to spread our rate cases out and have been pretty successful in doing that.
Our prior case had been four years since the preceding case.
That won't be the case in the future, given where things stand.
We are investing in both distribution and generation at a healthy enough pace that we are going to need to be in every year or year-and-a-half.
I think just even to add on that, to give you a perspective, in the case we just filed, there is a $1 billion rate based increase from the final order we just received.
To just give you the sense that there is a pace of capital spend that we have over and above depreciation.
Yes, I think it is.
In every ---+ probably in every calendar year, at some point in that year, we'll be filing.
We did.
I generally said that, given the share issuance effect, the combination of the two makes it a very modest impact for us.
So it's not a significant player in our plan.
It pulls our share issuance down fundamentally; does have some impact in utility earnings, but the two heavily offset each other.
Yes.
Well we did revise down our electric segment a bit.
Just to reiterate what <UNK> said, there is minimal impact.
I would say it's relatively small in terms of the earnings growth.
But there is a bit of the utility growth that's taken off just because of the bonus depreciation being used versus equity.
But there is an offset corporately on the earnings-per-share.
It's pretty minimal.
There is bonus depreciation.
And for the electric segment, there was a fine tuning of the ROE that came up .
10.3%.
Which gas segment to you talking.
The ---+.
Yes.
The combination of that is, we knew going into the fourth quarter, the ---+ some of the weather impacts, so we did go in a bit of a lean mode in that fourth quarter.
So that helped the earnings out.
And there was also some timing of taxes that played out in between the years.
That is correct.
And the other is, as I was mentioning in my speaking notes, 2014, we had a really strong weather year, so we had a reinvestment plan.
A lot of it took place in the fourth quarter of 2014.
So you are seeing investment that occurred in 2014.
And then a lean that offset and went the other way in 2015.
So, put differently, we started talking about El Nino in like July, and we knew it was a distinct possibility.
So we had plans lined up for our gas utility that, if it reared its head, we would implement lean late in the fourth quarter.
And we did.
And it turned out we are glad we did, because it turned out to be an incredibly warm December.
We had the opposite, the flip a year before, coming off that really cold winter, we invested ahead.
But we invested ahead in 2014 to enable something like we ran into in 2015.
And that's kind of the way we do things, that we invest in stronger years to give you the flexibility to do the opposite in years when you need to.
And you can do that without affecting the quality of your assets as long as you keep that even-handed.
Well, I think if you look at the whole sector, there's quite a few that share prices have come down fundamentally and are sub-investment grade.
So, we are watching those.
But I ---+ as I said earlier, we don't ---+ so, they are sub-investment grade but we aren't picking up, in our counterparties, kind of the scramble to rework timing or rework commitments.
In fact, on one of our pipe positions, we had credit requirements that caused them to post collateral, and they went ahead and did it.
Because the position is important to them, and so they want to move ---+ they want to continue on.
So we'd be silly not to be watching our counterparties carefully, but we haven't seen any yet that have tilted into the mode where we think there's something near-term.
We've been working that payout ratio, so we have a stated payout ratio.
And what we've generally done is push it up into the middle of the payout range, and it falls back to the front-end, and we push it back up to the middle.
So, that pattern is probably what you can expect in the future.
You are right.
We've grown earnings a bit faster than we have dividends.
So, we'll keep an eye on what you suggested.
Thank you.
Right.
We don't see any evidence of that.
And we have the chance to deal with counterparties across a lot of fronts, including our utilities.
So, you generally know when somebody is in that position, they start to dance on commitments.
And we're just not seeing that.
Well, I think there was ---+ there were ---+ predictably, there are some parties on the retail open access side who would prefer that things simply stay the way they are.
So there was some noise about that.
I think the key to that will be putting together ---+ I mentioned a coalition, and Senator Nofs working on a coalition.
I think the key is to get a business coalition that comes together and says actually these are the right things to do.
It's the right future direction for the state and it's fair.
And I think we'll be able to put that business coalition together.
So, you can probably imagine who it was saying that retail open access is fine just the way it is.
It was some alternative providers and a few people that they were backing.
But I do think we'll be able to deal with that issue.
Beyond that, there are ---+ I'd say there's some back-and-forth on exactly what the IRP process should look like, but I don't think that will be a holdup.
Okay.
Thank you.
Well, we don't really have any additional information for you.
I'd just say that we appreciate you being with us this morning, and your support, and look forward to any follow-up questions that you have.
Thanks very much for joining us.
We look forward to a good 2016.
