WEC ENERGY GROUP, INC. annual report, FY2009

Wisconsin Energy Corporation (now identified in the request as WEC Energy Group) — FY 2009 Form 10-K

Reporting period: Year ended December 31, 2009. The filing also provides unaudited fourth-quarter comparisons. The registrant in the filing is Wisconsin Energy Corporation; this is an annual report, not a standalone Q4 filing.

Business context

The company operated regulated electric and gas utilities, principally in Wisconsin and Michigan, and a non-utility generation business. Its Power the Future program included construction of the Oak Creek coal units and investment in gas-fired and renewable generation. It served about 1.14 million electric customers and 1.06 million gas customers at year-end.

Financial performance and position

Metric20092008Change
Operating revenue$4,127.9 million$4,427.8 millionDown 6.8%
Operating income$663.7 million$659.2 millionUp 0.7%
Continuing-operations income$377.2 million$357.8 millionUp 5.4%
Net income$382.4 million$359.1 millionUp 6.5%
Diluted EPS, continuing operations$3.20$3.03Up 5.6%
Operating cash flow$628.8 million$736.4 millionDown 14.6%
Capital expenditures$817.7 million$1,136.4 millionDown 28.0%

Revenue declined largely because of lower gas costs passed through to customers and weaker electric sales amid recession and less favorable summer weather. Electric utility revenue rose 1.0%, while gas utility revenue fell 19.3%. Electric sales volumes declined 8.7%; normalized sales excluding the two largest mine customers were down 5.6%. Utility segment operating income fell to $554.3 million from $580.5 million, while non-utility segment operating income increased to $120.1 million from $89.3 million.

Operating income margin, calculated as operating income divided by revenue, was about 16.1% versus 14.9% in 2008; net margin was about 9.3% versus 8.1%. These are derived ratios, not company-reported measures. Lower fuel and purchased-power costs and lower operating expenses supported earnings despite reduced sales. The 2009 effective tax rate was 36.6%, versus 37.7%.

Fourth quarter: Revenue was $1,067.3 million, down from $1,199.8 million. Operating income was $196.6 million, compared with $195.4 million; continuing-operations income was $113.6 million versus $100.0 million; net income was $118.7 million versus $100.4 million. Diluted EPS was $1.00 versus $0.85, including discontinued-operations EPS of $0.04 in 2009.

At year-end, total assets were $12.70 billion and long-term debt, including current maturities, was $4.17 billion. Short-term debt was $825.1 million, including $820.9 million of commercial paper. Cash and cash equivalents were $20.9 million; current liabilities exceeded current assets by $420.2 million. The company reported $1.6 billion of available undrawn credit lines, excluding a bankrupt Lehman affiliate’s commitments. Debt-to-capitalization was 58.1% on the company’s stated GAAP basis (55.2% on its rating-agency-adjusted basis). Operating cash flow was reduced by $289.3 million of benefit-plan contributions, including a $270 million qualified pension contribution.

Changes, outlook and material matters

  • Construction and financing: Oak Creek Unit 1 entered service February 2, 2010. Unit 2 was targeted for commercial operation by August 2010, with a guaranteed in-service date extended to November 28, 2010. The Bechtel settlement required $72 million in payments; Wisconsin Energy bears about 85% of the amount. Cost recovery remains subject to regulatory determinations.
  • Rates: Wisconsin regulators approved 2010 rate changes effective January 1, including an $85.8 million (3.35%) electric increase for Wisconsin Electric, but reductions in several gas and steam rates. Michigan approved a $12 million provisional electric increase tied to Unit 1; the final decision on the company’s $42 million request was expected in July 2010. A $60.5 million Wisconsin fuel-cost recovery request was filed in February 2010, subject to approval and refund.
  • Capital plans: Estimated capital expenditures were $950.5 million in 2010, $1.02 billion in 2011 and $834.9 million in 2012. Major items included environmental controls, Glacier Hills wind development and Oak Creek work. The company expected to finance operations through internal cash, short-term borrowing and debt issuance; it expected no 2010 pension contribution at the time of filing.
  • Demand and growth: Management forecast five-year annual electric sales growth of 0.5%–1.0% and peak-demand growth of 1.0%–1.5%, assuming normal weather and excluding the two iron ore mines. Retail gas deliveries were forecast to remain flat through 2014. These forecasts were subject to economic and weather conditions.
  • Projects and asset sales: The company agreed to sell Edison Sault for about $61.5 million, subject to approvals, and sold its water utility for about $14.5 million in 2009. Glacier Hills received regulatory approval in January 2010; a proposed 50 MW biomass plant was targeted for completion in 2013, subject to approvals.
  • Risks and contingencies: Significant exposures included environmental regulation and remediation, potential greenhouse-gas and coal-ash rules, construction delays or costs, regulatory cost recovery, regional economic weakness, weather, fuel and purchased-power markets, pension investments, capital-market access, and utility regulation. A pension-plan lawsuit and environmental proceedings remained unresolved. The company reported more than $50 million awarded in its DOE used-nuclear-fuel case and expected an appeal.
  • Unusual items: The 2009 income statement included $230.7 million of Point Beach sale-gain amortization as customer bill credits; this is not recurring operating revenue. A favorable resolution of an uncertain tax position contributed to discontinued-operations income. Point Beach bill credits were expected to end by 2010.

Key facts for investors to verify

  • Reconcile annual and quarterly earnings, including the $5.2 million of 2009 discontinued-operations income and the effect of Point Beach customer credits.
  • Check final regulatory recovery of the Bechtel settlement and any Oak Creek costs above approved limits, and confirm Unit 2’s final cost and operating date.
  • Review the outcome of the Michigan rate case and Wisconsin fuel-cost request, including any refunds or changes to allowed returns.
  • Assess liquidity and refinancing needs after the reported negative working capital, commercial paper balance and subsequent $530 million February 2010 debt issuance.
  • Monitor actual electric demand, industrial customer conditions, environmental compliance costs, pension funding and the unresolved legal and regulatory matters.