Q3 2024 WEC Energy Group Inc Earnings Call

Xia Liu

Thank you, Scott.
Turning now to earnings. Our third-quarter 2024 adjusted earnings were $0.82 per share. This excludes the $0.06 per share charge related to the disallowance of certain 2016 capital expenditures under the QIP rider in Illinois.
While this was a decrease of $0.18 per share quarter over quarter, we did exceed our Q3 guidance range driven by more favorable September weather, financing, and timing of tax items compared to the guidance. As Scott indicated, we remain on track to meet our 2024 adjusted earnings guidance.
Now let’s look at our quarter-over-quarter variances. Our earnings package includes a comparison of adjusted third-quarter results on page 16. I’ll walk through the significant drivers. Starting with our utility operations, adjusted earnings in the third quarter of 2024 were $0.18 lower when compared to 2023. This decrease was driven by the Illinois rate design change, higher O&M, depreciation and amortization, and interest expense. These items more than offset favorable weather, timing of fuel expense, taxes, and other items.
Specifically on weather, compared to normal conditions, we estimate that weather had a $0.02 positive impact in the third quarter of 2024 compared to a $0.01 positive impact in 2023. Also, as I reminded you on the last few calls, with the rate design changes at Peoples Gas, base revenues are now more concentrated in the first and fourth quarters when natural gas usage is the highest. This shift resulted in lower third-quarter earnings when compared to the prior year.
Before I turn to earnings at the other segments, let me briefly discuss our weather normal electric sales for the quarter. Retail electric deliveries in Wisconsin, excluding the iron ore mine were up [four-tenth of 1%] quarter over quarter. Sales from residential and small C&I segments both slightly increased compared to Q3 last year. Overall year to date retail electric volumes are in line with our forecast.
Looking at ATC, continued capital investment contributed an incremental [penny] to Q3 earnings compared to 2023. Remember, we have been recognizing earnings at 10.38% ROE. I’ll discuss in a few minutes that we have some tailwind in Q4 related to FERC’s recent decision of 10.48% ROE.
And in our energy infrastructure segment, earnings improved $0.06 in the third quarter of ’24 compared to the third quarter of 2023. This was primarily driven by production tax credits resulting from higher PTC rates approved by the IRS in the third quarter as well as a quarter-over-quarter increase in production from our renewable generation facilities.
Finally, you’ll see that earnings at our corporate and other segments decreased $0.07 as a result of the impact of tax timing and higher interest expense. As Scott noted, we are reaffirming our 2024 annual guidance on an adjusted basis. That range is $4.80 to 4 $4.90 per share. This includes October weather and assumes normal weather for the remainder of the year. Year to date compared to last year, we’re $0.07 behind largely due to weather. However, looking ahead, we have some tailwinds in Q4 this year. This will help us to achieve our adjusted earnings guidance.
For example, as I mentioned just now, we have been recognizing earnings at ATC, assuming a 10.38% ROE. With FERC’s decision on the 10.48%, we will be able to unwind a reserve at ATC in Q4 to reflect this change. This item is about $0.05 per share that we have included in our guidance. And recall, weather was $0.07 unfavorable in Q4 last year. Assuming normal weather for the remainder of this year, it also should be a tailwind. Overall, we remain on track to meet our 2024 adjusted earnings guidance.
Now, turning to our financing plan. For 2024, we continue to utilize dividend reinvestment and employee benefit plans to issue common equity. Also, we have now formally put in place an ATM program which we plan to tap into during this quarter. Overall, we still project that our common equity issuance will be up to $200 million for 2024.
Beyond 2024, Scott has outlined our new five-year capital plan. I’ll spend a few minutes discussing our anticipated financing plan. You can find this information on page 22 of the earnings package. As you can see on the chart, over the next five years, we expect cash from operations to fund $18.5 billion to $19.5 billion or about 60% of our cash needs. About $9.5 billion to $10 billion or 31% of the funding is expected to come from incremental debt. This could include some junior subordinated notes or other instruments with equity content. And the remaining 9% of cash is expected to be funded by common equity. This range is between $2.7 billion to $3.2 billion.
As I said previously, the cadence of common equity is a function of capital. Given the strong capital plan in 2025, we expect common equity to be between $700 million to $800 million. All in all compared to the prior five-year plan, we expect about 50% of the $4.3 billion additional capital to be financed with increased equity content.
Finally, as shown on page 21 of the earnings package, through our capital allocation, we expect the percent of asset base in our regulated electric businesses to grow faster over the next five years. This is driven by the strong economic development and demand growth in Wisconsin and our continued energy transition plans.
At the same time, the percent of asset base in gas distribution and contracted renewable is expected to decline. Particularly, you can see that we expect our asset base in Illinois to decline from 16% in 2023 to 10% in 2029 with only 9% at Peoples Gas.
In closing, we’re excited about our company’s future and the investment opportunities ahead of us. With that, I’ll turn it back to Scott.

Scott Lauber

Thank you, Xia.
Finally, a quick reminder about the dividend. I expect we’ll provide our 2025 dividend plan and earnings guidance in December. We continue to target a payout ratio of 65% to 70% of earnings. We’re positioned well within the range, so I expect our dividend growth will continue to be in line with the growth of the earnings per share. Overall, we’re on track and focused on providing value for our customers and our stockholders.
Operator, we’re now ready for the question-and-answer of the call.

Operator

(Operator Instructions)
Shahriar Pourreza, Guggenheim Partners.

Shahriar Pourreza

Scott, let me just — I know this is a repeated question for me, but I have to ask just given the size in your resource mix. I wanted to just touch on Point Beach for a sec. I mean, obviously many of the infrastructure segment PPAs will walk around the time at the Point Beach PPA. Are those viable alternatives? If you can’t get there with NextEra, would you look to backstop them with dispatchable capacity? So some incremental spend there. Just directionally, how is that bid as progressing?

Scott Lauber

Sure. And it’s just a reminder for everyone. Our PPA with Point Beach ends — I think the one contract ends in December of 2030, the other is March of 2033. And like we talked about; we have been a very constructive discussions on the Point Beach with NextEra. We’re making good progress on both sides. We’ve been really busy up here with Wisconsin rate case. I think they’ve been busy down there with some hurricane activity. So we’re making good progress more to come. I expect you’ll see more in the next six months. But lining up really well, we think, for everybody.

Shahriar Pourreza

Okay. That’s helpful.
And then obviously, Scott, very healthy CapEx update. I’m not getting a strong sense on why we saw that CapEx reduction on the infrastructure side. I think it’s been some time, there’s been some deemphasis of that segment. I just want to get a better sense of what’s driving. Is it a capital allocation return issue. Is the demand for contract of renewables slowed? I guess what exactly is going on in that segment. Should we start tempering our expectations there?

Scott Lauber

No, I mean, what we looked at it last year when we went through the plan, we had actually reduced that segment also just because the amount of economic development. And then as what happened in Illinois and we reduced our capital plan there, we said we were going to spend about $800 million incremental. And the last contract we announced here hits all our investment profiles and it fills that amount of the $800 million we said we’re going to do. We just have a lot of capital within the regulated utility with the economic development going on in Wisconsin. And we just want to concentrate on that. The economics have been good on the other — in the infrastructure segment. It’s just, we’ve got a lot to deploy here in Wisconsin, so we’re going to concentrate on that.

Shahriar Pourreza

Okay. That is perfect. Thanks guys. We’ll see you in a week in Florida and congrats on getting Warner. Appreciate it.

Operator

Julien Dumoulin-Smith, Jefferies.

Julien Dumoulin-Smith

Just talking about Illinois a little bit more here on PGL here, few different options that have been put on the table here and there’s a staff rack out there. And how do you think about that option three? I was about $7 billion-ish to [2040]. How does that compare with what you guys are updating here today? And is there any upside vis-à-vis what you guys are embedding against that proposed outcome here?
I’ll let you guys comment (multiple speakers)–

Scott Lauber

Sure. That’s a good question, and option three just to get everyone on the same page. Option three has the spending and it’s the option below a spending option, it’s the preferred option by PGL. And then staff also came out, ICC staff came out and recommended option three also that has about $7.2 billion of spending over the period.
When you look at what we put together in the five-year plan. And Xian and I don’t like to have much any white space if any in our five-year plan, so we took the capital down just to the emergency work and the work needed for facility relocates. So that’s about $90 million a year in our plan for the next five years. So if this plan would get picked up, I think that could be an upside of maybe $100 million to $150 million, maybe $200 million a year. But remember if they would pick that, we ramp down those projects very quickly of what we’re doing. So it take a while to ramp back up. But we took basically just the bare minimum and put in our current five-year plan, so there would be upside if one of these options is selected.
Did that answer your question?

Operator

Michael Sullivan, Wolfe research.

Michael Sullivan

Scott, maybe I just wanted to ask for a little more color on the Wisconsin case that you have pending and maybe why you weren’t able to settle there, what some of the sticking points might be and how you’re feeling about the final order coming up.

Scott Lauber

Sure. So we are extremely far in the Wisconsin case. When you think about the Wisconsin case, we’ve gone through all the hearings. In fact, the final decision matrix just came out the other day. So we’re about as far along in the Wisconsin case we’ve ever been this time of the year. So right now, the next step is the commission making a decision which they usually do. Historically, it’s been the first week in December — the first or second week in December, but they’re far along and they’ve got everything ready for a decision.
Now, the idea of a settlement — and we talked a little bit about settlement. We’re very happy where the staff position came out. I think everyone still related to two years ago on the settlement that we had in Wisconsin, I think everyone wants to just see the commission go through a case. I’m very comfortable with the commission going through a case and deciding going through the decision matrix.
So we just weren’t able to come up to a settlement, but I’m not concerned about that. I think overall, our commission is filled with really balanced individuals that understand the importance of reliability and the economic development in the region. So we’re ready for a decision. We just couldn’t get there in the settlement, but that’s not all bad either. I think everyone wants to see what’s going on here.
Did that answer your question.

Michael Sullivan

Yeah, it does. Yeah, very helpful, Scott.
And then I just had two questions just on the earning side. On this ATC ROE that you’re going to book in Q4, I guess how should we think about why you are not raising guidance for that or what would have happened if you didn’t — weren’t able to book that?

Scott Lauber

No, that’s a good question and things move around in their forecast. And it came through there. We just got a little bit of timing and some other expenses that we anticipate maybe would come through a little bit better, but timing, we got to make sure we execute on it. So factoring it all in and we went through and factored everything through here and comfortable with keeping the guidance where it’s at.

Michael Sullivan

Okay. And then the last one (multiple speakers)–

Xia Liu

Michael, this is Xia.
Just remember, we had a really mild first quarter. Year to date, we’re $0.06 behind our weather. So like Scott said, there are lots of things that have developed throughout the year and this $0.05 will help us offset some of the weather deficit.

Michael Sullivan

Okay, appreciate that color.
And then the last one for me just to level set ahead of December here. So can you just remind what the base is for your long-term EPS CAGR? And will that shift with the December update? And how do we think about the potential to get back in that 6.5% to 7% range after being short of that this year based on your guide?

Scott Lauber

Sure. And our 6.5% to 7% and we are still using the 2023 base. I think it was $4.60 as our starting point for our guidance because last year because of the Illinois decision and some adjustments we had to do there and timing of when we could do our capital investments, so we’re keeping that 2023 base this year. As we look at our long-term guidance, we will — we got to get through the rate case here and we’ll come out with our plan next — in December after we get through that.

Operator

Neil Kalton, Wells Fargo Securities.

Neil Kalton

So quick question, Scott, you opened up talking about the Microsoft that they acquired more land. I think you said 1,900 acres. Is that correct in total?

Scott Lauber

Correct. So at the beginning of the year, they started about 1,300, and now they’re up to 1,900 acres.

Neil Kalton

Okay, perfect.
And then in terms of the CapEx refresh, I know you’re waiting on Microsoft to lay out additional plans what they intend to do? Was there anything in this CapEx revision that incorporated potential spend for what they might do like to some extent or is that still all to be determined all on the [come]?

Scott Lauber

So what this has been and what we talked about is 1,800 megawatts of capacity for the region over this five-year period, which includes Microsoft, which includes getting some demand in from some electric vehicles, and all the other economic development in the region. So that’s 1,800 megawatts. Just to put that in perspective, our system is about 7,500 megawatts. So it’s a little over 20% growth in capacity or demand needs in the region.
So all of that is factored into our five-year plan. But just like many other companies, we are getting inquiries from a variety of other data centers. We just don’t come out with a number until we really feel comfortable that it’s actually going to happen. But if there would be any upside from any future stuff, that would probably be in those outer half of the plan. But based on the conversations, there’s just a lot of good discussion on continued economic development in the region.

Neil Kalton

Okay. Got it.
And then, I mean, so just — and maybe there’s only [limited to what as to] what you can say. But like if Microsoft were to formally announce a phase two, would that be something that would necessitate more capacity?

Scott Lauber

That would have to see what they’re — I mean, Microsoft is — we’ll let Microsoft make their announcements. Working with them on the demand, I’m not sure if that actually includes some other phases or not. They just — we work with them on the demand over the period, and keep it inside baseball here, unfortunately, but that’s the way they want to do it, which is fine.

Operator

Andrew Weisel, Scotia Bank.

Andrew Weisel

Want to clarify a little on the CapEx update. Obviously, some very big numbers here and I appreciate the granular detail on the moving pieces. One, I wanted to clarify was electric generation. You’d showed that the total on page 18 went up by $3.7 billion but the commentary on page 17 really only calls out $3 billion. You show the regulated renewables and the natural gas generation. We’re missing about $700 million. So what else is in that bucket?
And then it looks like (multiple speakers) about a $100 million increase for natural gas distribution. Would I be correct is that just higher day-to-day spending and cost inflation? Or have you made some assumptions around regulation and policy changes in Illinois compared to the assumptions you made when you gave the last update in February?

Scott Lauber

Yeah, good questions. Really quick analysis of the numbers.
So when you look at the gas distribution and you go behind the numbers, it’s actually a decrease in Illinois and an increase in the other parts of the service territory Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota as it relates to adding capital for good customer growth and just other area expansion.
I think as you look at the FIMSA rules, there could be some requirements that more capital is needed until we see the final FIMSA rules. It’s hard to really handicap the final number. So that’s really a plus in the other areas a little declined in Illinois.
And in the generation, you’re exactly right. There’s probably about another $700 million, that’s in a variety of projects across the enterprise from looking at upgrading a wind farm to get some additional power — production tax credits, to adding some more resilience and a few of our generating plants to looking at other different types of backup storage just to make sure we have that additional resilience. So it’s a variety of items all in that generation area just so we can make sure we continue to hit that demand.

Andrew Weisel

Okay, great. That’s very helpful.
Then on the transmission side, you increased it by $200 million. Is that all related to near-term economic development? Would I be correct in assuming that the MISO tranche 2 stuff is more outside of the forecast period?

Scott Lauber

Yeah, you’re exactly right.
More of the MISO tranche 2 is going to be after this — most likely after this five-year plan. Maybe a little bit at the very end, but most of it’s going to be after the five-year plan, but we’ll know more of that in the final numbers come December.

Andrew Weisel

Very good.
And one last one here on the load growth, I think you said you’re now expecting 1,800 megawatts of incremental load that’s up from 1,400 megawatts. I don’t think you commented on what that means in terms of percentage load growth forecast. Is that something that you can share now or is that something you plan to share at EEI.

Scott Lauber

Sure, we can talk about it now.
So when it looks at a megawatt-hour basis and I think these are probably on the low side, but we extended that 4.5% to 5% electric sales growth through 2029, so we continue to see the volumes on a megawatt-hour basis and on a megawatt basis, we are at — up 1,800 on a base of about 7,500. So that’s a little over a 20% increase in the demand on our sales. It’s a very, very significant demand increase. And I really look at the demand as being a key component because that’s really where we have to build the dispatchable resources too to make sure we have enough demand and capacity hit on those peak days.
Did that makes sense?

Andrew Weisel

Yeah. Thank you so much.

Operator

Sophie Karp, KeyBanc Capital Markets.

Sophie Karp

So it’s a great update all around, right? Your load growth is going higher. Very, very healthy capital update as well. Wisconsin rate case is in its going to last innings already. Is there any reason why I guess you wouldn’t raise the EPS growth rate when you do refresh your guidance in December? Like are there any like offsetting factors we are missing here that would prevent that from happening?

Scott Lauber

That’s a good question.
And when we looked at it we did — we added capital in Wisconsin, we also reduced it in the WEC infrastructure, but also looked at Illinois and reducing it. So as we look at it and add in the equity needs and the debt needs, we’re very comfortable with that 6.5% to 7%. We do have to get through the Wisconsin rate case and really hear what goes on in our safety modernization program in Illinois, which we’ll hear in the first quarter of next year. But it’s really just being realistic on the financing plans associated with our capital spending and taking down capital in some of the other areas.

Operator

Durgesh Chopra, Evercore ISI.

Durgesh Chopra

I got some Haribo Gummy Bears sitting outside my front door. That’s my trick or treat.

Scott Lauber

Excellent. Thank you for supporting the community.

Durgesh Chopra

There you go. And they are from — sourced from Milwaukee. Okay. (laughter) So fantastic.
So couple of questions. Xia, just — I know you talked about 50% of the capital funded through equity but when I compare plan, the prior plan over the current plan, the CapEx has gone up $4.3 billion, but the equity has only gone up roughly $1 billion. It’s gone up from like $2 billion and change to $3 billion at the midpoint of the current guidance range. So maybe just why is it — I would have thought that the equity is a lot higher. Maybe just help us bridge the two plan equity issuances between the two plans, please.

Xia Liu

Yeah, I’d be happy to.
So the last plan, remember, the range was $1.95 billion to $2.35 billion. This plan, the range is $2.7 billion to $3.2 billion. So to your point is roughly about $800-million increase in common equity. We also are adding some holding company that particularly are using maybe some hybrid that would give us 50% of the equity content. So if you include that, plus the $800 million of common equity, that’s the around $2-billion increase in equity content. So our capital has gone up $4.3 billion. We’re adding a little over $2 billion of equity content, including the $800 million of common equity.

Durgesh Chopra

Got it. As always, that is crystal clear. Thank you, Xia.
And then maybe just quickly wanted to follow up on Delilah Solar. Is the plan that’s still that it — it completed construction and goes into service by the end of the year. Is that still on track?

Scott Lauber

Yes, that is correct. Delilah, Maple Flats are both on track by the end of the year.

Operator

Jeremy Tonet, JP Morgan.

Jeremy Tonet

Just wanted to go into the addition of gas generation and how that contributes to LNG operations overall. If you have any thoughts, you could share there.

Scott Lauber

Sure. And we’re adding more gas generation and as you can imagine, we want to make sure that we have that — it’s a bit dispatchable gas — our own gas within the state of Wisconsin to make sure we can run the generation and keep the houses warm on the gas side. So we added another 2 Bcf in our plan. Literally, the one that we’re looking at and we filed that the commission is sitting where a coal pile used to sit. So having that stored energy or stored fuel in the state of Wisconsin near the power plants are very helpful to make sure on those coldest days of the year that we have enough energy in the state to be able to run those plants.
A couple years ago, we had a — one of our pipelines, not our pipeline, but one of our vendors suppliers’ pipeline had a compressor issue that really made the state of Wisconsin really thin on natural gas. So having those LNG tanks are going to be very critical to keep that reliability.

Jeremy Tonet

Got it. Very helpful there.
And then going a bit further here with — there’s a big call on generation broadly in the country and just wondering if you could provide us thoughts on reserve margins how it stands now where it could be going. And as it relates to gas generation, coal generation — coal in particular, does it affect retirement timelines given this greater need? And at the same time, could CCS be part of the answer here? Just wondering if you have thoughts on these topics.

Scott Lauber

Sure. And gas generation is critical for us as we look at having something dispatchable. I mean, today the wind is blowing but some days the wind doesn’t blow or the sun isn’t shining. So we are looking at building our generation, the mix renewables, and gas generation and just to make sure we’re staying ahead of the reserve margin that’s needed for (inaudible) and they’ve continued to evolve their rules as more renewables appropriately as more renewables get on the system to make sure they have seasonal demand and the load following type of needs here and the capacity. So that is very important for us as we continue to grow out our capacity plans.
And what was your second part?

Jeremy Tonet

Carbon capture with regards to gas generation and just coal plant retirements in general — the generation (multiple speakers)–

Scott Lauber

In the carbon capture for us, we don’t have any natural place to store the carbon here in Wisconsin. And if we had to do carbon capture, we think it would cost our customers $1 billion to $2 billion more in order to do carbon capture and to haul it someplace that you look at where you’re going to store it and then you have the transmission of it. So we of course, looked at it. Is it possible? It just did not seem viable and cost effective for our customers versus the plan that we’re developing here and we laid out in front of you.
And when you think about the coal retirements, we already retired Oak Creek 5 and 6. The other units 7 and 8, we plan to retire at the end of 2025. And we’re doing that because we’re putting in some of the more efficient gas generation. And to be quite honest, if we weren’t going to retire 7 and 8, we’d have to add additional capital to those plants to have them extend longer and add the carbon capture.
So those are still planning being retirement. Some of the plants like Western 3, we plan on retiring by 2031. We all — we continue to look; does it make sense to use natural gas there? Some other fuel. I don’t know if it’d be economical or not, but it really hasn’t adjusted much of our coal adjustments either — our coal fine retirements.

Jeremy Tonet

Got it. That’s very helpful. Thank you for that.
And just one last quick one, if I could as far as ’25 funding needs are concerned for equity content. Just wondering, is it makes sense for the ATM? Could we see a block? How much transferability, I guess, is in the mix here?

Scott Lauber

Sure. I’ll let Xia take that one.

Xia Liu

Yeah, so we have — remember we still have the employee benefit plans on, so that will be part of the equity rate for next year. So the ATM should handle the remaining piece fairly easily. So we don’t plan to have a block sale right now.
The tax credits are already included in the FFO. So on average, we’ve been selling $100 million to $200 million so far. And as we continue to add renewable projects, that number could grow a little bit, but those are already assumed in the FFO.

Operator

Nicholas Campanella, Barclays.

Nicholas Campanella

So just one for me, a lot of things have been answered, I guess just decomposing that 8.8% asset based growth figure, it does seem like a lot of the growth is coming from Wisconsin. So just what’s rate-based growth outlook in Wisconsin as you see it today versus what you’ve been trending at or executing at the past few years?
And that’s it for me. Thanks.

Scott Lauber

So when you look at the 8 — the rate base go through Wisconsin, it’s got to be, oh, I don’t know. I imagine between 14% and 15% pretty significant rate-based growth. But remember that’s where all the economic growth is.
And when you look at the economic growth and we usually look at the growth and try to break it into different components being whether it’s growth from sales, growth from resiliency, and a lot of our growth. I would say, I don’t know, $8 billion to $9 billion that is related to economic development and growth of the support of the economy.
So it’s really driven that that sales are going to help grow into that, so that’s significant. And then ATC has good growth. So we’re also growing a lot in the American Transmission company which is Wisconsin-based also the FERC regulated. So a lot of growth in Wisconsin largely driven by economic development.

Xia Liu

Yeah, Nick, 40% of our — for — this is Xia. 40% of our total capital is we call the growth capital. So that comes with the large customers paying for their required demands and the related cost. So we feel good about the growth in Wisconsin and also the driver for it.

Operator

Paul Patterson, Glenrock Associates.

Paul Patterson

Just to follow things up. Is there any change — well, first of all, could you just remind me what your — what the rate increase outlook is given the new CapEx program if it’s changed at all and just what it is again.

Scott Lauber

Sure. And we’re right now going through the rate case in Wisconsin. So if you go out and you’re starting to look at ’27 to 2030, you got to break it into this capital, as Xia said a lot of it’s being supported by economic development. So I think rate increases will be in line with inflation. We do have some reliability projects that we’re putting in place that we’re doing some overhead to underground, to add more stability as we continue to see some stronger weather patterns and wind patterns across the state. So that may take it up maybe 1% above inflation. But for the most part, a lot of this capital is being driven by economic development, which will come with megawatt hours and megawatt sales.
So it’s not like it’s all on the back of our retail customers at any needs. And Microsoft has said, and they put in their testimony, they understand and they need to pay their fair share. They don’t plan on subsidizing anyone else, but they also realize that they’re not supposed to get subsidized either. So they have been perfect. And as we look at potentially other data centers coming in, that’s the playbook to make sure everyone pays their fair share appropriate amount.

Paul Patterson

And then on the — I apologize if I missed this but, but it looked like there was a big increase in gas normalized sales in commercial or something for Q3 when I looked at your (multiple speakers)–

Scott Lauber

Yeah, and we can — when you look at Q3, commercial industrial. Yeah, it was up a little bit. Q3 is such a small volume quarter that any little change can affect it. So I would not read much into it. I would look more at the year to date where we are. Q3 that could have been just an anomaly with the meter issue is something that I mean there’s so small of volumes in that quarter. You got to really look at the year to date.
All right, thanks, everyone. That concludes our conference call for today. Thank you for participating. If you have any more questions, please feel free to contact Beth Straka at (414) 221-4639.

Operator

Call has now ended. You may now disconnect.