FERC Boosts MLPs

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) became MLP investors’ new BFF last week. Only four months ago, FERC’s revised policy on allowing imputed tax expense in setting tariffs caused a memorable intra-day 10% drop and contributed to dismal 1Q performance (see FERC Ruling Pushes Pipelines Out of MLPs). Ever since, MLP investors have regarded FERC warily, sensitive to additional market shocks. Cost-of-service pipeline contracts, historically common but rare nowadays and the source of much of this volatility, are unlikely to be employed in the future.

The clarification issued last week was unambiguously, if modestly, good. MLPs are still not allowed to include taxes paid by their equity investors as an operating cost in calculating applicable rates on interstate natural gas pipelines. But they can now include taxes paid by a corporate parent (if they have one), a feature omitted from the March announcement. Moreover, Accumulated Deferred Income Tax (ADIT), which most natural gas pipeline MLPs had built up, will no longer have to be refunded to customers. This had been recorded as an income tax liability using accelerated depreciation, offset by cash received from customers on cost-of-service contracts that relied on straight-line depreciation.

Depending on timing, some firms had accrued a significant net cash benefit and faced the prospect of returning this excess to customers. One research firm estimated the sums involved in the $BNs, in effect a retroactive fee adjustment. This possibility has now been eliminated.

By excluding ADIT, pipelines will show more equity invested which will in turn lower their Return on Equity (ROE). Typically, a pipeline tariff is deemed “fair and reasonable” if it generates a 10-16% ROE.  The net result will be that some contracts will fall below the threshold, reducing the likelihood of lower rates and even opening the door to bigger rate increases.

Since 2014 when Kinder Morgan (KMI) led the way, large MLPs have been converting to corporations in order to access a broader set of equity investors (see Corporations Lead the Way to American Energy Independence). More recently, Enbridge (ENB) and Williams Companies (WMB) both announced plans to roll up their MLP affiliates. TransCanada (TRP) told investors that financing assets at their MLP, TC Pipelines (TCP), was no longer viable.

Uncertainty around future FERC policy guidance tipped the scales for these conversions. But many other incentives to abandon the MLP structure and become a corporation remain. These include: onerous profit sharing with the GP (known as high IDR splits) which makes raising equity capital more expensive; potential tax shields at a corporate parent, reducing the tax advantage of being an MLP; the small investor base for MLPs (buyers are mostly old, rich American taxpayers); limited opportunities to drop down assets from parent; unfavorable rating agency treatment of debt due to the complexity of structure; and poor corporate governance rights.

Investors in Boardwalk Partners (BWP) probably received the worst FERC-induced outcome. The March policy statement depressed BWP’s stock price, letting Loews (the General Partner or GP) trigger an obscure clause in their Limited Partnership Agreement. This allowed them to  buy-in all the outstanding BWP units at their recent average price ($12.06), close to its all-time low. Only five years ago BWP was trading over $30. The Loews buy-in relied on a legal opinion that March’s announcement was an adverse regulatory ruling harmful to their business. The buy-in transaction duly closed last week, conveniently just before FERC’s revised policy guidance which would likely have nullified the legal opinion on which the buy-in relied. This is an example of the weak governance to which MLP investors subject themselves when there’s a controlling GP. Former BWP holders will join the growing list of MLP critics.

Investors welcomed the bounce. FERC solidified its reputation for unpredictable rulings that roil the market. But for CFOs trying to optimize their financial structure, their regulator’s market moving pronouncements aren’t helpful. The 202-page policy notice was accompanied by a concurring statement (rather like a dissenting opinion in a Supreme Court ruling) from the two Democrat commissioners. They noted that, “today’s order is simply guidance” and that individual rate cases would be judged on their legal merits.

Although the economics for MLP-owned natural gas pipelines are better than before, it’s unlikely that any MLP that’s converted to a corporation is regretting it. WMB will have to re-examine its previously announced roll-up of WPZ, but will also have to consider a somewhat capricious regulator whose direction may change again following the next general election in 2020.

East Daley released analysis showing that Williams Partners (WPZ) might be better off remaining separate from its corporate parent, WMB. They showed the treatment of TransCo’s pipeline network (WPZ’s principal asset) before and after the policy update, with an almost 5% swing in calculated ROE. The new, lower return supports the case for higher tariffs, which is why MLPs rose.

Interestingly, although Thursday was a good day for the sector, the Alerian MLP ETF (AMLP), which is 100% MLPs, saw net redemptions of $100MM. The FERC news raised prices but didn’t induce new buying. A week of arcane accounting developments (ADIT) and obscure adverse legal clauses (BWP) showed that MLPs are complicated.

In other news, KMI’s 2Q earnings were modestly better than expected. Of note was a 12% increase in volumes of natural gas, reflecting growing U.S. production. It also looks likely that the $2BN proceeds of their sale of the TransMountain pipeline to Canada’s Federal government will be used to pay down debt. Like most midstream energy infrastructure businesses, KMI is far more stable than their stock price would imply. Its Distributable Cash Flow (DCF) is on target to reach $4.6BN this year, up 3%. Since 2014, its worst result has been a 4% decrease.

Nonetheless, KMI’s stock has taken investors on a wild ride. In spite of their steady DCF, in late 2015 they slashed their quarterly dividend by 75% from $0.50 to $0.125, so as to redirect cash towards growth projects and pay down debt. It was a move that many others followed. Today, its payout is at $0.20 and is 2.4X covered by DCF. Decisions on how to finance their business were far more impactful than operating performance, which is why it sports an 11.5% DCF yield, awaiting buyers from more expensive sectors.

In many ways KMI is reflective of the sector.

We are invested in ENB, KMI, TRP and WMB. We are short AMLP.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Important Disclosures

The information provided is for informational purposes only and investors should determine for themselves whether a particular service, security or product is suitable for their investment needs. The information contained herein is not complete, may not be current, is subject to change, and is subject to, and qualified in its entirety by, the more complete disclosures, risk factors and other terms that are contained in the disclosure, prospectus, and offering. Certain information herein has been obtained from third party sources and, although believed to be reliable, has not been independently verified and its accuracy or completeness cannot be guaranteed. No representation is made with respect to the accuracy,  completeness or timeliness of this information. Nothing provided on this site constitutes tax advice. Individuals should seek the advice of their own tax advisor for specific information regarding tax consequences of investments.  Investments in securities entail risk and are not suitable for all investors. This site is not a recommendation nor an offer to sell (or solicitation of an offer to buy) securities in the United States or in any other jurisdiction.

References to indexes and benchmarks are hypothetical illustrations of aggregate returns and do not reflect the performance of any actual investment. Investors cannot invest in an index and do not reflect the deduction of the advisor’s fees or other trading expenses. There can be no assurance that current investments will be profitable. Actual realized returns will depend on, among other factors, the value of assets and market conditions at the time of disposition, any related transaction costs, and the timing of the purchase. Indexes and benchmarks may not directly correlate or only partially relate to portfolios managed by SL Advisors as they have different underlying investments and may use different strategies or have different objectives than portfolios managed by SL Advisors (e.g. The Alerian index is a group MLP securities in the oil and gas industries. Portfolios may not include the same investments that are included in the Alerian Index. The S & P Index does not directly relate to investment strategies managed by SL Advisers.)

This site may contain forward-looking statements relating to the objectives, opportunities, and the future performance of the U.S. market generally. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of such words as; “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “should,” “planned,” “estimated,” “potential” and other similar terms. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, estimates with respect to financial condition, results of operations, and success or lack of success of any particular investment strategy. All are subject to various factors, including, but not limited to general and local economic conditions, changing levels of competition within certain industries and markets, changes in interest rates, changes in legislation or regulation, and other economic, competitive, governmental, regulatory and technological factors affecting a portfolio’s operations that could cause actual results to differ materially from projected results. Such statements are forward-looking in nature and involves a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, and accordingly, actual results may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. Prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements or examples. None of SL Advisors LLC or any of its affiliates or principals nor any other individual or entity assumes any obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, subsequent events or any other circumstances. All statements made herein speak only as of the date that they were made. r

Certain hyperlinks or referenced websites on the Site, if any, are for your convenience and forward you to third parties’ websites, which generally are recognized by their top level domain name. Any descriptions of, references to, or links to other products, publications or services does not constitute an endorsement, authorization, sponsorship by or affiliation with SL Advisors LLC with respect to any linked site or its sponsor, unless expressly stated by SL Advisors LLC. Any such information, products or sites have not necessarily been reviewed by SL Advisors LLC and are provided or maintained by third parties over whom SL Advisors LLC exercise no control. SL Advisors LLC expressly disclaim any responsibility for the content, the accuracy of the information, and/or quality of products or services provided by or advertised on these third-party sites.

All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that any specific investment will be suitable or profitable for a client’s investment portfolio.

Past performance of the American Energy Independence Index is not indicative of future returns.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
1 reply
  1. Elliot Miller
    Elliot Miller says:

    There are still many reasons to remain an MLP. Just ask Randy Fowler of EPD or read his statement in the current issue of Midstream Business as to why EPD is retaining its partnership status.
    Many of the so-called incentives to conversion cited in this article are specious. For example, IDRs can be eliminated –and have been eliminated in many MLPs– without abandoning partnership status. And there remains an investor base which wants to put money into an entity which (a) does not have to pay an entity level tax, and (b) makes fully or largely tax deferred distributions. Much of the private equity money coming into the midstream is in limited partnerships. Frankly, this rush to conversion, where it does occur, is often chasing a fad, doing it because others do it, and not for real economic benefits. And writing positive articles about it without also discussing the benefits of retaining partnership status, does not present a fair or balanced perspective.


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.