Hawaiian Electric Industries - Earnings Call - Q1 2019
May 7, 2019
Transcript
Speaker 0
Good morning, and welcome to the Hawaiian Electric Industries Incorporated First Quarter twenty nineteen Earnings Conference Call. All participants will be in listen only mode. Please note this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Julie Smolinski, Director of Investor Relations and Strategic Planning. Please go ahead.
Speaker 1
Thank you, and welcome to Hawaiian Electric Industries' first quarter twenty nineteen earnings conference call. Joining me today are Connie Lau, HEI President and Chief Executive Officer Greg Hazleton, HEI Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Alan Oshima, Hawaiian Electric Company President and Chief Executive Officer and Rich Wacker, American Savings Bank President and Chief Executive Officer as well as other members of senior management. Connie will provide an overview, followed by Greg, who will update you on Hawaii's economy, our results for the first quarter and our outlook for the remainder of the year. Then we'll conclude with questions and answers. During today's call, we'll be using non GAAP financial measures to describe our operating performance.
Our press release and webcast presentation are posted on HEI's Investor Relations website and contain reconciliations of these measures to the equivalent GAAP measures. Forward looking statements will also be made on today's call. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from expectations
Speaker 2
can be
Speaker 1
found in our webcast slides, our filings with the SEC and on the HEI website. I'll now ask our CEO, Connie Lau, to begin with
Speaker 3
an overview. Thanks, Julie, and aloha to everyone. In the first quarter, we continued to make significant progress on our strategies across the enterprise and delivered solid results in line with our expectations for the year. Consolidated net income for the quarter was $45,700,000 and $0.42 of EPS. At our utilities, continued cooperation among energy stakeholders, the Public Utilities Commission, customers and our companies is helping us move forward together to achieve Hawaii's 100% renewable energy and carbon neutrality goal.
The commission's approval this March in record time of contracts for the largest amount of solar plus storage procured in Hawaii to date was a big step toward our collective goals. A recent statewide opinion poll found that residents give high marks to the state's renewable energy transition, and we're excited to play a key role in that effort. American continued to perform well, expanding interest margin while remaining focused on disciplined growth, improving operational efficiency and deepening customer relationships. The bank is almost fully moved into its new campus, which opens new possibilities for it to deliver value for customers and strengthen efficiency. Following a solid first quarter, we are reaffirming our earnings guidance range for the year, and Greg will go over that in more detail later.
In Hawaii, we are all working to achieve our 100% renewable energy and carbon neutral economy goals. As we do so, the utility and the commission are thinking carefully about the best way to do so affordably and reliably. This is reflected in recent commission decisions. As I touched on a moment ago, in March, the commission approved six solar plus storage power purchase agreements that will bring two forty seven megawatts of solar and nearly one gigawatt hour of storage to our grids on Maui, Oahu and Hawaii Island. The power purchase agreements were approved within just three months of filing.
The hard work of the commission and its staff to expeditiously review these contracts will help these projects come online and start delivering renewable energy as soon as possible. When placed in operation and together with the other renewables projects in the pipeline, these new PPAs will help us reach a 50% renewable portfolio standard in advance of the mandated target and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% compared to a 2010 baseline roughly by 2022. The six new projects will provide renewable energy at prices well below the cost of fossil fuel generated energy. And in the first quarter, we recognized the first half of performance incentive rewards related to customer savings from these contracts. Two more PPAs that are part of the same RFP process are pending commission decision.
In addition, the commission approved a groundbreaking pilot program through which will offer special time of use rates for up to 20 bus fleet customers to charge during the day when solar energy is most abundant. Last week, after considering the cost implications, the commission declined to approve our proposed addition of a battery storage system to the Westlaw PV system. The PV system was approved in 2017, and construction is to be completed this year, so adding the storage after the fact proved less economics than other options. The commission has encouraged us to expand or accelerate other resources to help us reach 100% clean energy here in Hawaii. In the first quarter, the commission approved Phase one of our grid modernization implementation, allowing investment of $86,000,000 to deploy technology to collect, communicate and manage energy and information across our system and enable us to provide more information and options for our customers.
The commission encouraged us to deploy more advanced meters faster and more broadly than proposed, so we are working to expand our planned development. This year, we are launching RFPs for both Phase two of the renewable energy resource procurement and grid services. We and the commission are working to move these RFP processes forward together so options can be considered and compared across types of resources, weather generation or grid services, such as demand response aggregation. This aligns well with our integrated grid planning approach, which takes a holistic view of the resources that will be needed to achieve our goals rather than segregating certain types of resources into siloed processes. The commission has also encouraged us to consider increasing the size of the Phase two of our renewable procurement and our grid services procurement.
So we are in discussion with the commission to meaningfully upsize those compared to what was originally planned, accelerating renewables and grid services amounts originally targeted for 2025. As a result, we anticipate that the RFPs we will issue will seek to procure another significant amount of renewables in Phase two as well as a significant amount of demand response services. These efforts will allow us to add more renewable dispatch dispatchable generation onto our grid sooner, accelerate our RPS achievement and reduce our fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions more quickly. Reducing our use of fossil fuels will also stabilize bills for our customers. We look forward to continued efforts with the commission and other stakeholders to work toward achieving 100% clean energy on the safest, most efficient cost possible.
Turning to Slide five, our collective effort to create the best path forward achieving Pahawaii's policy goals is also reflected in the performance based regulation process. This docket continues to progress and is expected to conclude by early next year. The PUC staff issued its proposal in early February, and the utility and other stakeholders filed statements permission and replies over the last couple of months. We are now awaiting a commission decision in order on this first phase of the process. Phase two will then focus on implementation.
The PUC staff made clear in its proposal that the financial integrity of the utility is essential and must be maintained in order for us to continue to provide affordable, reliable electricity for our customers and achieve our state's important and ambitious goals. We agree, and we are pleased that we, the PUC staff and many key stakeholders in the process are aligned on this key issue. Our company's proposals in the PBR docket emphasize how important it is that any PBR framework help progress state renewable energy and carbon neutrality efforts, especially given the progress we have made to date. Turning to the bank, American achieved continued solid financial performance for the quarter with strong year over year net income growth supporting an increased dividend to the holding company. The bank continued expanding net interest margin, benefiting from increased yields on assets and low funding costs.
We look forward to the opportunities the bank's consolidation of its team into its new campus offers for the bank to work better together for customers and realize greater operational effectiveness and cost efficiencies. American continues to maintain its low risk profile, prudently manage credit and grow assets in a disciplined manner. The bank also continues to maintain a strong balance sheet and a lower cost funding base than peers. Greg will discuss the bank's performance in more detail shortly. At Pacific Current, we now have a dedicated team in place, and they are focusing on completing Pacific Current's ongoing solar plus storage project for the University of Hawaii and optimizing operations on the Hamakua Energy Plant as well as developing local partnerships and identifying opportunities to invest in Hawaii's sustainable future.
Pacific Current's existing portfolio provides a solid foundation for our new team, and we look forward to continued growth of the platform. I'll now ask Greg to cover Hawaii's economy, our first quarter financial results and 2019 outlook. Greg?
Speaker 4
Thanks, Connie. Despite some indications of cooling, Hawaii's economy remains healthy. At 2.8% in March, Hawaii's unemployment rate remains among lowest and is below the national rate of 3.8%. Tourism arrivals continue to grow, although expenditures have slowed somewhat. March year to date arrivals were up 2.6% compared to the same period last year, while visitor expenditures were down 2.4%.
In total, annual spend is expected to grow. Hawaii real estate fundamentals remain sound, while sales volume declined from the prior family homes and 10.5% for condos. Medium prices were mixed with single family home prices up 2% and condos down 3.2%. Overall, the state's economic outlook remains positive with Hawaii GDP expected to rise 1% in 2019. Turning to our results, Q1 earnings increased to $0.42 per share compared to $0.37 per share in the prior year with solid performance across the enterprise.
Year over year earnings grew at both the utility and bank, while the holding company and other segments loss grew slightly. Net income rose 13.7% and consolidated EPS grew 13.5 versus last year. Pacific Current's operating portfolio continues to contribute positively to earnings, helping offset the cost of building out the platform. On the right side of the slide, HEI's consolidated GAAP ROE for the last twelve months was 9.7%. Utility ROE for the last twelve months improved 40 basis points with new rates in place at all three utilities and full recovery on of the Schofield Generating Station.
Bank ROE for the quarter was 50 basis points higher than the prior year, driven by continued low cost funding and strong net interest margin. On Slide 10, utility earnings were $32,100,000 compared to $27,500,000 in the 2018. The most significant net income drivers were as follows: $9,000,000 from rate increases from the Hawaii Electric 2017 and now final Maui Electric 2018 test year rate cases $4,000,000 from items that were one time in nature. This includes $2,000,000 of expenses incurred last year that did not recur this year, such as the write off of smart grid costs and the one time rent expense adjustment for existing substation land. In addition, in Q1 twenty nineteen, the utility reduced O and M by $2,000,000 due to the commission granting recovery for previously incurred expenses to modify existing generating units on Maui to enable the integration of more renewable generation.
Drivers included $3,000,000 in major project interim recovery revenues for the Schofield project, 1,000,000 from the first half of performance incentive rewards related to the six commission approved Solar Plus storage contracts and $1,000,000 from incremental pole attachment fees resulting from the pole ownership agreement announced in 2018. These items were partially offset by the following after tax items, dollars 11,000,000 higher O and M expenses, primarily due to the reset of pension costs, which are included in rates as part of the rate case decisions, higher costs for continued cleanup of our asset management data after the go live of our enterprise resource management system and higher personnel expenses and $3,000,000 higher depreciation expense due to increasing investments to integrate more renewable energy and improve customer reliability and system efficiency. On Slide 11, turning to the bank. As Connie mentioned, American achieved another quarter of healthy financial performance. Net income of $20,800,000 was down about $1,000,000 from the linked quarter, but up $2,000,000 compared to the same quarter last year.
The variance compared to the linked quarter was primarily driven by favorable credit events that reduced the provision for loan losses in late twenty eighteen and prudent credit quality management leading to additional reserves for two loans in the commercial and commercial real estate portfolios in the 2019. Compared to the 2018, American's $2,000,000 higher net income was primarily driven by higher yields on earning assets combined with funding costs that have remained relatively low and stable. American's consistent profitability continued in the first quarter with the return on assets of 118 basis points for the quarter, below the 125 basis points in the linked quarter, but above the 112 basis points in the same quarter last year. American's return on average equity continues to compare well versus peers at 13.1% in the first quarter. On Slide 13, net interest margin continued to strengthen in the first quarter reaching 3.99% with interest earning asset yields rising seven basis points over the linked quarter due to higher interest rates, while our cost of funds remained low at 31 basis points, just three basis points above the linked quarter and well below peers.
As a reminder, 100% of ASB's loan portfolio is funded with low cost or deposits. On Slide 14, net interest income of $63,700,000 was up slightly from the linked quarter and up 8.8% compared to the same quarter last year, largely due to the higher asset yields and continued low cost low funding costs I just mentioned. Non interest income of $14,600,000 was approximately $1,000,000 above each of the linked in prior quarters prior year quarters, with the increase primarily due to higher amounts of bank owned life insurance proceeds recorded during the quarter. As of March 31, total loans were up 1.2% annualized from the December 31 amount, largely due to growth in residential and home equity loan portfolios, partially offset by declines in commercial and commercial real estate portfolios. We still expect to meet our target of low to mid single digit earning asset growth for the year.
Total deposits increased by over 3% annualized from December 3138 with low cost core deposits growing 7.1%. On Slide 15, credit quality remains sound due to prudent risk management and a healthy economic environment. The credit quality of our residential portfolio remains very strong and our commercial and commercial real estate portfolios are stable despite the higher provision this quarter. First quarter provision of $6,900,000 compared to $2,400,000 in the linked quarter and $3,500,000 in the 2018. Most of the increase over the linked quarter was due to additional reserves for two loans in our commercial real estate portfolios along with lower than expected fourth quarter twenty eighteen provision due to positive credit events, notably the payoff of a sizable criticized loan.
Non accrual loans as a percentage of total loans receivable held for investment increased 2.83%, reflecting the same factors that led to the higher provision. Our net charge off ratio was relatively flat compared to the linked quarter. American's continued focus on strengthening efficiency is reflected in its first quarter efficiency ratio of 57.8%. This represents an improvement of one one hundred and seventy basis points from the linked quarter and over three twenty basis points from the prior year quarter. The bank continues to target a 100 basis point improvement per year through 2021.
Regarding utility capital expenditures, in the first quarter, we executed on approximately $100,000,000 of investments in line with plan. Looking forward to the remainder of the year, we are maintaining the 2019 utility CapEx and rate base growth forecast we communicated on our fourth quarter twenty eighteen earnings call, while excluding the Westlock battery storage project. As mentioned earlier, the $86,000,000 of CapEx for Phase one of our grid modernization implementation included in our forecast has now been approved by the commission with potential to increase the size of the program. Turning to slide 17, as Connie previously mentioned, we are reaffirming HEI's 2019 consolidated earnings guidance of $1.85 to $2.05 per share. Connie will now make her closing remarks.
Speaker 3
Thanks, Greg. In summary, we continue to focus on our mission of being a catalyst for a better Hawaii, which is integral to our strategies across our enterprise. Our utilities continue to focus on achieving 100% clean energy and helping move Hawaii towards a carbon neutral economy. As we work with stakeholders and the commission to develop the best path to do so, we're evolving and in some cases accelerating our plans. We're also working to build resilience of our systems and our communities and ensure that all customers have access to affordable, reliable, renewable energy.
Our bank's healthy financial performance continues as it remains focused on making banking easy, deepening relationships with customers and strengthening efficiency, which the bank will be even better positioned to do now that it has moved into its new campus. With its team now in place, Pacific Current is well positioned to invest in opportunities to further Hawaii's sustainable future. Our business model continues to provide the financial resources to invest in the strategic growth of our companies and our state's sustainable future, while supporting our dividend, which our Board maintained at $0.32 per share this quarter, continuing our history of uninterrupted dividends since 1901. And now we look forward to hearing your questions.
Speaker 0
We will now begin the question and answer session. The first question comes from Julien Dumoulin Smith with Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Please go ahead.
Speaker 5
Hi, good morning or good afternoon. Can you hear me?
Speaker 3
Hi, Julien, we can.
Speaker 5
Yes, Excellent. Thank you very much. So I wanted
Speaker 6
to first dig in a little
Speaker 5
bit on the battery storage side of the equation and CapEx. I know you guys have ranges for a reason. Would be curious to get a sense here on the Westlock impact. I suppose there's been some developments on that specific project. What does it mean to your CapEx plan given the rejection?
And more importantly, I suppose what does it mean from a policy perspective looking forward, right, whether it relates to the CIP project and others? Is there an ability to rate base these kinds of assets, going forward?
Speaker 3
Yes. So Julien, let me start with that and then I'll ask Alan if he wants to add anything. I don't think it means anything really from the standpoint well, let me start over. As we said, what the commission is trying to do is look at the system holistically now, which is also something that we're trying to do. And to balance all the resources across the system, whether they are generation resources, whether they are battery resources, which sometimes are generation and sometimes are grid support and grid services.
And because of that, it's important to take a holistic look when you look at individual projects. And so specifically in the case of the Westlaw PV project, as I mentioned in the prepared remarks, that had originally been approved as the lowest cost solar on our grid. And then when we went out for the renewable RFP Phase one, what we actually got in response to our new renewable dispatchable PPA was solar plus storage. And as you know, that was the trend. It was all renewable.
And then people started pairing storage with the renewables in a very economic way. And so, the commission had asked if we would add a storage element, but it's not as easy to do that with a project that has already been, begun as renewable only. So I don't think there's any other message in that in there than that. And it's just going to be the same thing with the CIP BEST, that it will be looked at holistically both by us and by the commission as to what is the best way to get to Hawaii to the renewable future, but very importantly in Hawaii affordably for our customers and reliably for our customers. And I don't know, Alan, if you want to add.
Speaker 7
Well, only thing I would add is it shows you the dramatic shift in pricing and how fast things are changing in the marketplace. So I don't think you can read any kinds of policy issues here. It's really a matter of timing. And as Connie had pointed out, we're readying our Phase two of our RFP, and we expect even better pricing.
Speaker 3
Yes. That's a good thing, Julien, that's happening in Hawaii is that we are now able to move forward to the renewable future, but take advantage of all of the market changes that are occurring. And I think that's a really, really good thing. And for your question about, how does that impact our capital, it's not changing our capital forecast because as we have said, we have provided to you guidelines as to what we think the CapEx should be for the year. And there are some projects that, we have held in advance that we would put into the mix to still hit the targets that we've set forth.
Speaker 5
Just to make sure you accelerate forward, you're talking into 2019 to hit the 400,000,000 despite some of the shifts in Westlock?
Speaker 1
Correct. Yes.
Speaker 5
Got it. Excellent. And then just to be extra clear about this, it was related to Westlock being an adjacent project with solar plus storage. That's one of the core reasons here rather than being battery storage?
Speaker 3
Wait, ask your question again?
Speaker 5
The reason for the reduction at its essence. It was tied to the recognition of ITCs. And is that a fair way to characterize it as being co located with solar?
Speaker 3
No. Was that the we originally proposed Westlaw just as a PV project. And so that was actually at the time the market was primarily doing just renewables. And then the market has now moved to renewable plus storage. And so then the Westlock storage project was looked at to combine that with the PV.
But the economics when you try to do it that way versus doing it as solar plus storage from the beginning is different.
Speaker 7
It's a bolt on. Right.
Speaker 5
Yes. Okay. Understood. That was a nuance about that specific procurement. Understood.
All right. Excellent. Sorry, if I can move on to PBRs real quickly, obviously that continues to garner a good amount of attention here. Can you discuss the balance between sort of incentives and penalties, PIMS today, the pluses and minuses? Any developments of late?
Obviously, there have been some, shall we say, commentary out there in the marketplace from various stakeholders. Any evolution of late as best you see it?
Speaker 6
This is Joe Viola from Hawaiian Electric for regulatory. No, nothing really to report lately. We finished up our briefing on Phase one. And pretty I think I mentioned that on our last call, pretty balanced constructive report from the commission staff. Now what we're waiting to see is, how the commission will rule and ask and define what we'll work on in Phase two.
So no real significant development since last time. Other than in, the renewable procurement docket, the commission again encouraged us to and we have suggested some performance incentive mechanisms relating to those procurements.
Speaker 5
Last quick question. The LEA report I think is due out next week at this point. Any commentary or thoughts in anticipation of that that we should just be ready for?
Speaker 3
No, nothing that we're aware of.
Speaker 5
Okay, fair enough. Thank you all very much.
Speaker 4
Thanks, Julien.
Speaker 0
The next question comes from Greg Gordon with Evercore. Please go ahead.
Speaker 4
Morning, Greg.
Speaker 8
Congratulations on the progress with the commission staff. I don't know if you've noticed, but I just ran some numbers and your stock is like the second best performing utility stock since the staff document actually came out saying that they actually think you deserve to earn reasonable returns. So the markets noticed. So it begs the question, if you think that everything gets as you go through this next rate cycle and everything gets adjusted along the lines of the way the constructs are evolving, what the structural regulatory lag that you think is sort of is permanent? And how much do you think you can offset?
So for instance, by 2022, your authorized ROEs are averaging around 9.5%. How much below that would you earn because of structural things that are not fixable, even with the very constructive perspective that the staff is now taking towards rate making?
Speaker 3
Hi, Greg. This is Tien Tsaikimura. Let me respond to your question. So if we look at 2019, and then I'll go into the future. For 2019, we'll still have some of that structural lag with us.
And that's because we have the non recoverable items. Those are items that are not typically included in our rates. So that's about that together with the RAM accrual lag that we have as well as some of the other things we've talked about previously with the short term interest debt rate on the RBA and also the return we're getting on our ERP project, as well as, the MPIR. Okay. So having said that, for 2019, it looks roughly to be about 90 basis points in structural lag.
You may recall, we also have, 40 basis points related to our customer benefit adjustment, and we've scheduled that out in previous slides. And then also this year, with our Hawaii Electric Light rate case currently in progress, that's a case we filed late last year. We're making progress through the rate case process, and we expect a decision sometime in the fourth quarter. And so we'll see some drag there. So that would be sort of an overall for 2019.
But moving forward, as we think about PBR and taking a look at the construct, for example, like a RAM accrual, looking at what the PC staff paper talked about, an escalator. And then also, that would help address the RAM lag that we have. So there are opportunities to address some of that some of the RAM lag. The RAM lag is roughly 30 basis points. So it is a meaningful part of the structural lag that we have today.
Speaker 8
Great. So as I look in your slides, on Slide 22 in the appendix, I think you've done a pretty good job showing the different many different things that impacted that it sounds to me like in a world where you're being treated sort of more like the Mainland utilities are treated on an ongoing basis that you could eliminate most of this lag except for maybe the first three or four things get the ROE lag down to somewhere between fifty and seventy five basis points. Is that a fair summary or am I making an implication that that's too far and you want to go?
Speaker 4
Well, to that level, take some adjustments to the regulatory process including the RAM element. We have provided by the way schedules around the customer benefit adjustment in that roll off, which as we proceed over the next couple of years, you should see improvement there.
Speaker 3
Yes. And in addition to that, the expectation is we need to continue our cost efficiency efforts as well. That's all part of the PBR and when we take a look at the escalators and increases in between rate cases. Cost efficiency is a really important part of that.
Speaker 4
I would note, this quarter recorded incremental revenues associated with our performance on the renewable procurement program, which are independent of these of the rate case settled revenue requirements. So that those type of elements that we are likely to see more of including in our Phase two potentially should also help offset some of the structural lag that we're talking about, Greg.
Speaker 8
Great. Quick question on ASB. Regarding the additional provisioning year over year, were there commonalities between the two commercial and CRE loans that you took reserves against?
Speaker 9
No. This is Rich. No, they just happened the only commonality is the outlooks deteriorated in the same quarter, but very different exposures in customers.
Speaker 8
Okay. Thank you. Congratulations, Bye.
Speaker 1
Thanks, Greg. Thanks, Greg.
Speaker 0
The next question comes from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Please go ahead.
Speaker 10
Hey, good morning.
Speaker 3
Hi, Paul.
Speaker 10
Good morning, Paul. So to follow-up on Greg's and Julian's PBR questions. What's the outlook for a settlement in this case?
Speaker 6
Yes. Hi, this is Joe Viola again. I'm not sure there's we don't expect a kind of formal settlement per se. What we're looking and what we've been achieving, I think, some extent, is trying to build consensus that the commission, can base its ruling upon. So I don't know if we're looking for a formal settlement.
Again, trying to have the process be a collaborative one where we can rally around positions.
Speaker 3
And I'd just add a very transparent process as well. I mean you've seen everyone's positions come forward. So, so far, it's been a very collaborative process, it shows us. I think, Alan, you had a comment.
Speaker 7
Paul, I think what you have to go back to is the commission's first enunciation that this will be a gradual process. There's not going to be
Speaker 10
a cliff. So I think
Speaker 7
the commission is holding true to that in its process, in the procedures. So there's no settlement per se. But as it's proceeding, you're very transparent. You're seeing everyone's positions until you include the staffs. So we're hopeful for a gradual process that will lead to something that preserves our ability to earn and provide customer value.
Speaker 10
Okay. I have been looking at some of these position statements and what have you in rebuttals. And it seems that there is some sort of sticking point here on the inception of the MRP and I guess on the Ram cap as well. And I'm just sort of wondering when you're in your discussions with them, I mean when you talk about like building a consensus, it seems like those are sticking points. Am I wrong about that?
Are we coming to some sort of are you in your discussions with the other parties? Are you feeling that you're coming to some sort of closure in those issues?
Speaker 6
Again, is Joe Vallo. We'll see. I mean, I think conceptually, we have a fair amount of consensus. Now that we've always said the details matter a great deal. We'll see.
And you want to see what the commission says on this. But I think we are agreeable generally to having changes to our multiyear rate plan. We propose the conditions that we think would be helpful to us and achieve what the commission has identified as one of the guidepost in maintaining our financial integrity. So the details will matter. We have some differences certainly on how we would execute on some of these conceptual, call them conceptual consensus.
So we'll have to see on those. Yes, we'll never have perfect agreement, but I think we're making progress.
Speaker 10
Is there a definition that's been defined as to what the financial integrity is? Have they quantified what that actually means?
Speaker 6
There is a definition in the commission staff reports on what how they define financial integrity and financial health.
Speaker 10
Can you remind us what the ROE was or what that metric is?
Speaker 6
I don't think they defined a metric for ROE. It's a traditional ROE,
Speaker 11
but Yes.
Speaker 4
Go through the ROE, the appropriate ROE for the return through our rate case process.
Speaker 10
Right. But I guess when we look at PBR mechanisms in other places and what have you, often it seems that there's sort of a carrot and stick approach. In other words, there's more variation that can happen. And I guess what I'm sort of concerned about is when we're talking about financial integrity, it's one thing to say that, right? But I mean the question is of course, what are they willing to see you guys potentially endure default?
Mean just to step back a second, it seems like there's some issue concerning rates and affordability as I'm sure you guys are very much aware and very focused on. And it seems that there's some sort of effort to sort of have you guys have more skin in the game kind of thing. And I guess what I'm trying to sense here is, is there a floor on what we can reasonably expect that the commission might be willing at a point where they don't want to see you guys earn something too low. Do you follow what I'm saying? Do you have any idea what that might be?
Speaker 6
We would be speculating on that. We just go with what the commission has been saying that they're concerned about. They're obviously well aware of what our current ROE is and what the industry ROEs are. But anything beyond that, we'd be speculating.
Speaker 3
Paul, let me, help you understand because they did have a little bit of discussion in the PUC staff paper of what they meant by utility financial integrity. And basically, couple of things that they noted is that we would, have to be as an essential credit worthy off taker for contracts for non utility power purchases.
Speaker 10
And
Speaker 3
now as you can see with the amount of, PPAs that are before the commission and recently approved, they did recognize the importance of a credit worthy off taker. The other point they made is, in their framework, they talk about helping to reduce regulatory lag and really preserving the utility's opportunity to earn a fair return on its investments. And so they recognize the need for the company to be able to go out and attract capital competitively at a low cost in the capital market. So they did talk about those fundamentals in their staff paper.
Speaker 10
Okay. So just moving along, just one last sort of question. As we're seeing a combination renewable and storage decrease in cost rapidly as you were just mentioning, do you see a competitive threat on the parts of institutions or commercial players in Hawaii potentially going off the grid or simply reducing their use of Hawaiian Electric's power or your system? Do you follow what I'm saying? Do you see any threat of distributed generation with storage?
What are your thoughts on that? I know you guys are focused on the future here. And when you look at these trends and when we look at your cost structure, it does come to mind.
Speaker 7
Yes, Paul, that's this is Alan. That's always a threat. Wouldn't be is it
Speaker 8
more able a threat,
Speaker 10
I guess, Alan? I mean, I guess what I'm sort of saying is, if you look at the trends now, I mean, I know it's always a threat, but when you were talking about just the dramatic changes that we're seeing here, is there any change in the outlook on that?
Speaker 7
I don't know that there's an outlook,
Speaker 10
but let me tell
Speaker 7
you what how we're addressing it. It's really we're different in Hawaii because we're an isolated system with no access to other grids. So each island is standalone. And I think one of our efforts is to emphasize everyone's role in reaching 100%. What we're after in the state is for the whole state to be totally off carbon producing energy.
So everybody has to play a role. As people go off the grid, it raises the costs and really impedes our effort to get more renewables at an affordable price for everyone. And so part of our effort is to continue that education process, bring all the policies together, and really help our customers see the value to retain grid connectivity. And there are things that we're doing in our transformation to add value to that connectivity, other types of ancillary services we can provide to large customers, for example, that they would miss if they just go off on their own. There are many things going on.
So it would be unfair for me to say that that's not a concern. It's a big concern, but we try to address it in a positive way.
Speaker 10
Okay, great. I really appreciate guys. Thank you.
Speaker 0
The next question comes from Jackie Bohlen with KBW. Please go ahead.
Speaker 2
Hi, good morning everyone.
Speaker 1
Hi Hi Jackie. I wanted
Speaker 2
to ask for an update Rich just I know I asked this every quarter, but how the move is going? It sounds like it's nearing completion. If there were any direct moving costs that you incurred in the quarter? And then where you stand in terms of the depreciation run rate on the new facility?
Speaker 9
Yes, great. So we did the move basically during April and we moved about 600 teammates into the building from four other locations. We've emptied out three of them and we're working on the last one by the end of the third quarter, which has some data center operations in it. So that's going to lag a little bit. So it's been great.
We are already seeing the benefits that we hope to see in terms of the speed of decision making collaboration and the like. So it's been successful so far and we're excited about what it represents. So yes, we did have in the first quarter we had about $1,000,000 of costs that would be attributed to the move, moving costs, shredding costs, getting rid of paper and stuff at the other places and the cost of carrying the other properties that we exited that we are exiting. So that's in the first quarter's reported result. We would expect that the run rate of depreciation on the campus is, hold on, it's about $1,000,000 a quarter for the campus and the F and E in the campus.
And that's an increase of about $400,000 to $500,000 over the straight depreciation of the other properties. We've got savings on the other lines on things like courier and telecommunications and parking and other things that cuts that about in half that net increase. So the cost the hard cost at that level before other efficiencies we find is about $1,000,000 overall for the year.
Speaker 2
Okay. That so the sorry, I just want to make sure I understand the difference between the net savings and the $1,000,000 So the $1,000,000 will be reduced by lower courier all the other savings you've got from being in one building. Okay.
Speaker 4
Right.
Speaker 2
That makes sense. And was any of that in the first quarter's number? Or does that start in 2Q given the April move?
Speaker 9
Yes. Those things start to kick in from April. We are exiting the exit of the lease costs come during this quarter from the two leased properties. We've got two properties that are for sale and we'll have some carrying costs on those until they sell. So if you remember the original guidance, we had $03 to $05 net benefit that we estimated for the year of the what we expect to be gains on the sale of those two properties net of the costs of carrying and the move and all that stuff.
So in total for the year, we expect the move to be a positive to the reported financials because of the gains on those properties that we'd expect to sell.
Speaker 2
Okay. And then the BOLI income moved up quite a bit in the quarter. Was there any one time insurance proceeds included in that?
Speaker 9
Yes. There's about $1,000,000 that's benefiting there.
Speaker 1
Okay.
Speaker 2
And then overall just in terms of growth, I know you reiterated guidance for earning assets. It sounds like steady as it goes, no surprises, just continued level of lending and deposit gathering?
Speaker 9
Correct. Yes. And we're working hard to continue that core deposit growth. The relationship expansion with the customers is the big focus and we've been able to keep control on the cost of funds because we're doing a good job on that. The team is really working hard on those core deposits and the customer relationships to control the cost of funds.
Speaker 2
Well, it shows given how low your funding costs have remained. And then in that light, if I look at the margin for the quarter and then I look at the 3.85% to 3.95% guidance, what would it take to move you back into that range? What would be the driver of that?
Speaker 9
FAS $91 We continue to end up with lower costs on amortization of fees than we are forecasting and we do expect it to bounce up. First quarter was a little bit lower than fourth quarter, but we expect that that'll normalize again during the remaining quarters. And we would have it's probably a couple three or four basis points for the quarter that we were that we benefited from lower FAS 91 costs.
Speaker 2
Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. I appreciate all the color.
Speaker 10
Yes.
Speaker 0
The next question comes from Charles Fishman with Morningstar Research. Please go ahead.
Speaker 12
If I could circle back to Slide 23, that's the waterfall chart that gets you from allowed ROE to core.
Speaker 0
Yes. In
Speaker 12
hearing the answer to a previous question, I'm concerned that I have a misconception about the very last item, the other net. In this case, for the trailing twelve months, it was $0.15 positive. I thought that was for things like joint poll revenues and the benefit from many PPAs that you're allowed. It sounded like from the way you answered a previous question, that's not the case. What is that other than?
Speaker 3
Yes. Charles, this is Tane. So what can be in the other categories are just miscellaneous items like things that are included in rate base, like for example, you've got your inventory set at a certain level in your rate case and they fluctuate every quarter. So we have things like that that just vary. But in terms of, joint pull, that's not included in that other category.
Speaker 12
So that like the benefit from the PPAs, that's not in your core ROE. That's I mean, it's going to be concluded in your consolidated ROE, but that doesn't make this chart, correct?
Speaker 4
No, it does. This is a reconciliation to our actual. So I think we've included most of the all of those actual in here. So I think maybe on the confusion though is that we were talking about structural elements that create lag. You always have things to the right hand side, the far right hand side of the chart during the current period that create one time events pluses and minuses relative to your allowed which are not structural and embedded as part of the regulatory rate making process and other types of elements.
And that's when we talk about those those are on the left hand side. And that's those are either have to be addressed through further rate making activity and dialogue with the commission and so forth and that's what we're trying to identify is how to eliminate or I would say how to overcome some of that structural lag where the performance incentive mechanisms, incremental revenues. But as in our quarterly reporting, we often do a reconciliation to provide transparency that includes both the structural as well as the current onetime elements and dynamics. Does that help?
Speaker 12
Yes. Okay. That does. And then just a real quick second question. It's my understanding with the PBR.
Phase two does not have to go back for any additional legislation. I mean, it's in the commission's wheelhouse here. It's up for them it's up to them to decide, correct?
Speaker 6
That's correct.
Speaker 12
Okay. That's all I had. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4
Thanks, Charles.
Speaker 0
The next question comes from Vedula Murti with Avon. Please go ahead.
Speaker 11
Hello.
Speaker 3
Hi, Vedula. Hi, Vedula.
Speaker 11
Let's see, a few things. One, probably fairly straightforward. I want to make sure when do you expect the actual order on PBR from the commission that then would set the terms and then you move the next phase for how to implement everything like that?
Speaker 6
There's no state this is Joe Viola. There's no stated deadline for the commission to come out with that order. We do know when they opened up the docket about a year ago, the schedule they had laid out would call for the Phase two to be concluded early in 2020. So we would expect they're going to get an order out in Phase one fairly soon. We know it's a high priority docket for the commission.
Speaker 11
Okay. Let's see. You mentioned I think on the Big Island there's a rate case currently going on that's going be resolved at the end of the year. Do you have interim rates in place there like I think you did in Maui?
Speaker 3
No.
Speaker 6
Is actually the target for the interim rate adjustment for that case.
Speaker 11
Okay. So, but the filings already been made?
Speaker 6
Correct. Filed at the end
Speaker 4
of In the December 2018.
Speaker 3
Vedula, that's the one that is also still on a lag as we are catching up to the regular cycle.
Speaker 11
Okay. If I take a look at Slide 10, when you go through the pluses and minuses here, the O and M excluding net income neutral items, one of the factors you mentioned was a pension reset and I would have figured that a pension reset would likely be a net income neutral type of item. So one, I want to make sure I understand that. But two, if it was $11,000,000 after tax in 1Q, what should then be what should we then be expecting for that kind of an item over the course of 2019?
Speaker 4
Well, first of all, Vedula, those costs are embedded in forecast and guidance. Two, these when you say net income neutral, what I would say that's different terminology for different types of elements that we collect and remit as opposed to parts that are part of our overall core operating costs and expenses such as employee benefits reflected here. But the reset of the pension costs were included in the revenue requirement that we collected. So in some sense you're seeing with this as a reconciliation by line item. We have increased revenues and we also have increased costs, but they were all embedded in part of the calculation of our revenue requirement that is part of
Speaker 11
no, that's what I was kind of getting at. So that would be a net income neutral item.
Speaker 4
Well, then you could talk about generating costs. You could talk about headquarters costs and everything. You could consolidate the whole financial statement. Just talk
Speaker 11
about it. No, I'm only referring to the fact that the slide simply says O and M excluding net income neutral items. That's all.
Speaker 5
Yes.
Speaker 4
I think it's more about the definition of net income neutral items from that perspective, again not which we don't tend to wrap into that or operating expenses, employee expenses as part of that definite it's just a definitional difference.
Speaker 3
How we this is Kate. How we define net income neutral items is one, items that are coming from a surcharge or from a third party reimbursement. And so for pension, like Greg mentioned, the higher pension costs reset in the rate case were included in the revenues. So I think that's how we define it.
Speaker 11
Okay. So if I was to then take a look over the course of 2019, if this was a minus 11% in 1Q, kind of what should we be basically expecting as a range in aggregate for that over the course of 2019, although I recognize it's already been reflected in your forecast?
Speaker 1
Yes. So in our guidance,
Speaker 3
we did call out on our guidance slide. We have there on our O and M and we are anticipating 1% year over year, excluding onetime items from last year.
Speaker 11
Okay. I'm wondering also Pacific Current, can you I just want to have a sense like what type of income you're expecting from that and kind of like what the asset base is? Just some basic data as to kind of how what kind of size it is now and kind of if you can help us think qualitatively where it's going?
Speaker 4
Yes. We haven't broken out Pacific Current because it's still early stage. The operating asset, Homakua is performing well and providing positive earnings and cash flow, which is helping fund Pacific Current's development efforts. As you know, so that Hamakua was acquired in November 2017 And then we did a second acquisition or investment in early February timeframe of 2018. Collectively, I think that's I'm not sure that we've reported that, but it's about $130 or so million of total investment.
And they're continuing to look at other potential investment opportunities. The second project, which is not yet operating and therefore not in position to contribute to earnings growth and so forth, because it's under construction or the PV and battery storage projects across five University of Hawaii Community College campuses. Those are in construction, going well. The Pacific Current team is focused on completing those in partnership with JCI and the University of Hawaii, as well as expanding and developing their building out their core strategies and business plan. So it will be a while before we actually start providing specific guidance information relative to Pacific Current as it continues to scale up.
Speaker 11
Okay. And I guess one last thing relating following up on Paul Patterson's question about kind of distributed generation and large power users. And we've seen this like in Nevada in terms of the casinos choosing to leave the system with an exit fee and things of that nature. Is there a mechanism already set up for that? Are there appropriate exit fees in place like a major hotel complex choose to do something similar to what like a major casino in Las Vegas has done?
Or have you had any experiences so far in either dealing with that or being able to address the parties' concerns such that the initial interest basically was ameliorated by your own efforts?
Speaker 7
There are no exit fees to date. We continue to work with our customers very closely and the associations as well as the commission and consumer advocate. Unlike Nevada, our at least on Oahu, our hotels are in a very concentrated area in Waikiki and installing their own generation and emitting gas emissions and going off on fossil fuel is not in alliance with our state's policy. And I think we can provide alternatives to that, that align with state policy, the green visitor, that people come to Hawaii expecting. And so there's customer by customer outreach, and we go to extraordinary lengths with our large customers to make sure that they are satisfied and see the value of staying connected to the grid.
But it's not something that we're not unaware of, and we're working on other kinds of solutions for our large customers.
Speaker 11
Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0
This concludes our question and answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Julie Smolinski for any closing remarks.
Speaker 1
Thank you all for your questions and for joining us today. Have an excellent week.
Speaker 0
The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.