Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated Price & Performance (PEG)

On today's call are Ralph LaRosa, Chair, President and CEO and Dan Craig, executive vice president and CFO. The press release attachments and slides for today's discussion are posted on our IR website at investor.pseg.com and our 10 Q will be filed later today. PSEG's earnings release and other matters discussed during today's call contain forward looking statements and estimates that are subject to various risks and uncertainties. We will also discuss non GAAP operating earnings which differs from net income as reported in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or GAAP in The United States. We include reconciliations of our non GAAP financial measures and a disclaimer regarding forward looking statements on our IR website and in today's material. Following our prepared remarks, we will conduct a thirty minute question and answer session. I will now turn the call over to Ralph LaRosa. Thank you, Carlotta. Thank you for joining us this morning to review PSEG's first quarter twenty twenty five results and discuss the outlook for the business. PSEG delivered a solid operating and financial performance at both our utility PSE and G and our nuclear units. Overall results for the first quarter benefited from a full quarter of regulatory recovery of and on our invested capital approved in October 2024 base rate case settlement as well as the seasonality of gas revenues, are concentrated in the first quarter.

Results also reflected the positive impact of our consistent and reliable nuclear generation performance realized higher prices primarily driven by weather. Our service territory experienced multiple cold spells in January, and February with temperatures remaining below 20 degrees Fahrenheit for several days in a row which prompted our highest winter peak load for both gas and electric in the last years. During these challenging conditions, PSE and G maintained high levels of reliability and efficient customer response times. While PSEG nuclear generated and supplied the grid with approximately 8.4 terawatt hours of 24 by seven carbon free power. PSEG is focused on increasing the predictability of our results continues to benefit both customers and the company. Aided by our conservation incentive program which decouples revenues from volumes, and deferral mechanisms for pension storms from the recently concluded rate case. This predictability combined with PSE and G's predominantly residential and commercial customer profile also reinforces our stability as a utility investment with defensive characteristics in a turbulent equity market. We consistently manage our cost structure to keep bills as low as possible while maintaining PSEG's financial flex to deliver safe and reliable service. The domestic concentration of our supply chain also limits the amount of tariff related cost pressure on our O and M Combined with our multi year labor agreements with all of our New Jersey unions, extending into 2027 provides stability for our largest operating costs.

As we've discussed previously, the Basic Generation Service or BGS default rate is scheduled to increase our residential electric bills by 17% starting June 1. As a reminder, BGS is a pass through cost for energy supply that PSE and G does not earn a profit on. The increase is largely due to July 2024 base residual auction result of $270 a megawatt day that was reflected in the latest BGS update as well as a true up for the prior two years of BGS auction which had included proxy prices for capacity. Last week, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities directed the state's electric companies to submit proposals to mitigate the customer bill impacts of the BGS increase. PSE and G continues to work with the BPU and state policymakers to develop a solution. We understand the real kitchen table difficulties these PJM related increases will have on our electric customers. However, until new generating supply is added to the grid, given the existing resource adequacy imbalance, upward pressure on energy prices will persist.

While these discussions are ongoing, PSE and G continues to offer an enviable record of reliability affordability, and customer satisfaction. PSE and G's combined electric and gas bill still compares favorably to all other utilities in New Jersey. Our reliability metrics continue to differentiate our service, and our customer satisfaction rankings are second to none. I would add that this last metric measures us against all of our large peers in the East, not just in New Jersey. Our regulated capital investment plan for 2025 remains focused on infrastructure replacement and modernization to ensure safe and reliable service and to meet growing customer demand. These efforts are on track and on budget. PSE and G also began rolling out the second phase of its Clean Energy Future Energy Efficiency two program, will help customers save energy lower their bills and reduce carbon emissions while supporting job training and economic growth here in New Jersey. In February, we mentioned the 12 fold increase in inquiries from large load or data center customers into PSE and G's new business pipeline. Which had grown from 400 megawatts in early twenty twenty four to 4,700 megawatts. These numbers include both mature applications and initial leads.

Our latest update now shows PSE and G another quarterly increase in large load inquiries for new service connections. And this pipeline now exceeds 6,400 megawatts of capacity. Requested as of March 31. Our engineers have been responding to these inquiries on timely basis, still averaging about four months. And our speed to response is supportive of the state objective to spur economic development. To the extent these large load prospects convert into new utility customers in the future, fixed costs are then spread over larger user base which can help to lower existing customer bills. Turning now to PSEG Power and Other, our nuclear operations generated and supplied the grid with approximately 8.4 terawatt hours of clean and reliable base load power and achieved a complete capacity factor of 99.9%. Over the past quarter, there has been a lot of discussion in New Jersey about the need and potential for new generation in the region and potentially in the state. Specifically, legislation was introduced this past February that proposes change the current New Jersey law that prohibits regulated utilities from building and owning new generation. We remain open to this possibility we continue to work with New Jersey policymakers about this and other solutions to meet New Jersey energy needs.

Regarding the ongoing discussion around the pending data center proceeding at FERC, we recently submitted PSEG's comments in support of colocation with the position that the behind the meter data center should pay for their actual use consistent with the treatment of other behind the meter customers on our system. Such as rooftop solar and universities. Several other large generators and data center developers have requested a ninety day settlement process which could be a path towards timely establishment of rules for colocation. To recap, we are reiterating PSEG's full year non GAAP operating earnings guidance at $3.94 to $4.6 per share. Is up by approximately 9% at the $4 midpoint over our 2024 reported results. We are also reiterating PSE and G's updated five year capital spending at 21,000,000,000 to $24,000,000,000 which supports an expected rate base CAGR of 6% to 7.5% through 2029. This in turn drives PSEG's 5% to 7% non GAAP operating earnings CAGR using the nuclear production tax credit as our reference price for power. Before I conclude, let me again thank our 13,000 employees across PSE and G nuclear, PSE Long Island, and at services for their dedication and positive difference they make every day for our customers.

Our company, the communities where we live and work. I'll now turn the call over to Dan who'll walk you through the results for the quarter and our outlook for the remainder of 2025, and then rejoin the call for our Q and A. Thank you, Ralph. Good morning, everybody. PCG reported net income of $1.18 per share for the first quarter of twenty twenty five as compared to $1.06 per share in 2024 And non GAAP operating earnings were $1.43 per share in the first quarter of twenty twenty five compared to $1.31 per share in 2024. We've provided you with information on Slide eight regarding the contribution to net income and non GAAP operating earnings by business for the first quarter. And slide nine contains a waterfall chart that takes you through net changes quarter over quarter and non GAAP operating earnings per share also by major business. Starting with PSE and G, which reported first quarter net income and non GAAP operating earnings of $546,000,000 for 2025 compared to $488,000,000 in 2024. Utilities results were driven by the implementation of new electric and gas base distribution rates that went into effect 10/15/2024 And as Ralph mentioned, the recovery of previous capital investments totaling more than $3,000,000,000 Starting with the waterfall on Slide nine, compared to the first quarter of twenty twenty four, transmission margin was $01 per share lower due to the timing of expense recovery.

First quarter distribution margin increased by $0.20 per share compared to the year ago period and largely reflects the impact of the rate case recovering return on and of our capital investments. And in particular gas revenues as a proxy approximately half of our annual gas revenues are realized in the first quarter. The margin also benefited from recovery of energy efficiency investments. Distribution O and M expense was $05 per share unfavorable compared to the first quarter of twenty twenty four with the year over year increase driven primarily by timing as well as higher distribution operational costs due to inflation and the cold weather in January and February. Depreciation and interest expense rose by $01 per share and $0.02 per share respectively compared to the first quarter of twenty twenty four. Reflecting growth in investment and higher interest expense. Weather during the first quarter, as measured by heating degree days, was 4% warmer than normal but 13% colder than the first quarter of twenty twenty four. And as a reminder, weather variations have a minimal impact on PSE and G's utility margin, because of the Conservation Incentive Program or SIP mechanism. This decoupling mechanism limits the impact of weather other sales variances positive or negative.

On electric and gas margins, while helping PSE and G promote the widespread adoption of energy conservation including energy efficiency. And solar programs. Under the SIP, the number electric and gas customers is what drives margin and each segment grew by approximately 1% over the past year. On capital spending, as Ralph mentioned, PSE and G invested approximately $800,000,000 during the first quarter and we remain on track to execute on our 2025 regulated capital investment plan of 3,800,000,000.0 focused on infrastructure modernization energy efficiency and meeting growing demand. We've maintained our five year regulated capital investment plan of 21,000,000,000 to $24,000,000,000 through 2029 representing a $3,000,000,000 increase from our previous plan driven by reliability and resiliency investments our expanded energy efficiency program and demand growth. As mentioned, we commenced this next phase of our energy efficiency program in the first quarter and we anticipate investing a total of $2,900,000,000 over a six year period. The energy efficiency program totals include approximately $1,000,000,000 of on bill repayment options to help customers finance their energy efficiency equipment and appliances. Moving to Power and Other, For the first quarter of twenty twenty five, Power and Other reported net income of $43,000,000 compared to $44,000,000 in the first quarter of twenty twenty four.

Non GAAP operating earnings were $172,000,000 in the first quarter compared to 169,000,000 in the first quarter of twenty twenty four. Referring to the waterfall on slide nine, for the first quarter of twenty twenty five, net energy margin rose by point $2 per share driven by higher nuclear generation performance coupled with higher realized prices due to the cold weather mentioned earlier. The weather conditions also contributed to a higher margin in our gas operations for the quarter. O and M increased by $03 per share compared to the first quarter of twenty four. Mostly driven by higher nuclear costs and interest expense rose by point $2 per share reflecting incremental debt at higher interest rates. Lastly, the timing of taxes through an annual effective tax rate, which nets to zero over a full year and other items equally combined to have a net favorable impact of $04 per share, in the quarter compared to 2024. Touching on some recent financing activity, As of the March, PSEG had total available liquidity of $4,600,000,000 including approximately $900,000,000 of cash on hand. While PCG had significant available liquidity in the year end 2024, at 2,600,000,000.0 This represents a significant improvement as we access the bond markets at both PSE and G and PSEG during the first quarter.

In total this quarter, we issued $1,900,000,000 of long term debt which reduced commercial paper outstanding and increased cash on hand. Our liquidity position was further enhanced during the first quarter by extending the expiration of our existing $3,750,000,000 revolving credit facilities by one year to March of twenty twenty nine. PCG's variable rate debt at the March was at PSEG Power consisting of a $1,250,000,000 term loan which matures this coming June and a three sixty four day term loan for $400,000,000 which matures in December of twenty twenty five. As of March 31, we continue to have a low level of variable rate debt representing approximately 7% of our total debt. On the financing front, in early March, PSE and G issued a total of $900,000,000 of secured medium term notes consisting of 400,000,000 of 5.05% medium term notes due March 2035 and $500,000,000 of five and a half percent medium term notes due March of twenty fifty five. A portion of the proceeds will be used to repay $350,000,000 of 3% medium term notes due May 15. Later in March, PSEG issued $1,000,000,000 of senior notes consisting of $600,000,000 of 4.9% notes due March 2030. And $400,000,000 of 5.4% notes due March 2035.

A portion of these proceeds will be used to repay $550,000,000 of 0.8% senior notes due August 15. Looking ahead, our solid balance sheet supports the execution of PSEG's five year capital spending plan.

Dominated by regulated CapEx without the need to sell new equity or assets and provides the opportunity for consistent and sustainable dividend growth. In closing, we delivered a solid operating and financial performance to begin the year and we are on track to deliver PSEG's full year 2025 non GAAP operating earnings guidance. Of $3.94 to $4.06 per share And we are also reaffirming our long term forecast of 5% to 7% compounded annual growth for non GAAP operating earnings through 2029 based upon the execution of our capital investment programs and the use of the nuclear PTC threshold as our reference price. That concludes our formal remarks. And operator, we are ready to begin the question and answer session.

You. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session. For members of the financial community. To withdraw your polling request, you may do so by pressing the star and the number two. If you are on a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before entering your request. One moment please for the first question. Our first question comes from the line of Shar Pourreza with Guggenheim Partners. Please proceed with your question.

Hi. Good morning, team. It's actually Constantine here for Shar. For taking the questions.

Hey, Constantine.

Hey, Constantine. Good morning. Maybe just starting off on the 6,400 megawatts of large load interconnection that you've noted in the prepared remarks. You see a timeline starting to form on the potential load inflection And how is New Jersey thinking about resource adequacy with that load You mentioned the legislative potential, but do envision a potential shift on gas generation policy or anything else Yeah. You broke up a little bit at the end there, Constantine, but I I think what I heard was, you know, when do we see that load coming in at sixty four hundred and also the how how resource adequacy is being thought about in New Jersey as a result of that. Is that Right. Yes. Okay, great. So look, we have always said take that 6,400 and you apply a factor 10%, 20% and we'll leave that to you all to to think what the right amount is. Again, remembering for us, we're from an earning standpoint, we're decoupled. So the way we think about it is more from a this good news for customers if we can spread any costs across additional megawatt hours, and that that would certainly be be a positive from a customer standpoint.

For for the timing of it, I think it's happening at at different stages. We are seeing some interconnections take place already. Obviously, the ones that are a little bit larger in the couple hundred megawatt requests we have they still seem to be some folks that have been shopping. For, the best location for their particular application that they might have. But you know, we we we just see that the state's economic development plan is taking hold and you know, happy to see amount of additional megawatt of requests that we've we've had come in. As as it relates to resource adequacy, look, that that's a big conversation that's taking place across the entire RTL footprint right now.

And you know, we just saw some new planning numbers come out from PJM that we have some questions There's an upcoming TEAC meeting. We're gonna be asking some questions at at that TEAC meeting. Regarding some of the assumptions that are in there. And the one thing that we heard from our legislators over the last week or two was to be more vocal about that, and you can certainly expect us to be more vocal with our questions as we move forward.

Daniel, your other part of your question, Constantine, is you know, proposed legislation in New Jersey We had some hearings last week. There's discussion of it. So I would say right now, it's at the discussion point as opposed to certainly being active, but but we are here and remain available as a resource to the state if they decide to take resource adequacy their own hands through some legislation. Understood. Appreciate that. And on the FERC tool six, with with the comments that were filed last week and do you have a view on settlement process versus outright order kind of [indiscernible] any preferred route from your perspective? And how does that FERC process come up in your commercial at all in artificial island And would you be able to kind of mitigate any of that through any kind of continued provisions Or are we kind of walking step by step there? Yeah. So I'll I'll let Dan I I think you were asking a little bit about specific conversations, so I've always given that to Dan, and I'll do that again. As that is being led by his team. But generically, as it relates to the proceeding down at FERC, we would always like to see a settlement.

Right? I mean, that that to me is always the best solution. I would love to see the industry come together. And and find solutions to help tech industry out. It's pretty clear based upon some information I continue to to to see tech needs for generation continue to grow. And we, as an industry, need to find a common solution to to meet that. I certainly think that in doing that, we need to make sure that we're not discriminatory in one customer class versus the other. And that has been the single concern that we've had since this process started. But, Dan, you wanna talk a little bit about Yeah. No, I agree with Ralph. And and that's, I I think the the nondiscriminatory aspect is really important. I I think I just leave the commercial aspect to just a single comment that yeah, I think that that the the counterparties are looking for the flexibility most flexibility that they can have But right now, there's some uncertainty related to how much they will have. And so they're they're waiting on this answer whether a settlement can get us the best answer, which it seems like gonna be more representative of what the parties are looking for, I think that that would be ideal.

But they're never easy to get. So time will tell whether we can whether we'll have one of those.

Excellent. Appreciate that.

Thanks. Thanks for taking the questions. Thanks, Scott. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Durges Chopra with Evercore ISI. Proceed with your question. [indiscernible] Ralph, good morning. Thank you for taking my questions. Good morning, Dan. Hey, just on the commercial arrangements related to nuclear, just you know, understand there's a lot of moving pieces and the timeline is is you know, is uncertain. But just from a demand perspective and and the tone from your large load customer perspective, has that changed over the last few months, maybe since February when we spoke last on earnings? Has that changed? Obviously, there's a lot of news in the market. There's tariffs. You know, we've seen Microsoft, Amazon, some of the other hyperscalers you know, sort of pull off of some of their contracts. Just seeing if you're seeing any softness.

There.

No. I would definitely would not call it softness. I think there's still a demand for power. I think there's still a demand for that type of power. I think there's also a desire to have answers to some of the questions that remain outstanding. But I would say there continues to be interest in the nature of the power and the scarcity of the power that nuclear provides.

And and Durgesh, overall, you know, we that's that's why we included those numbers that we did the new business activity that we're seeing. I they're you know, it has not slowed down. And, maybe it's the same person calling 50 locations and asking the same question. But I don't I don't see that as the as the case. These are unique, at least for us, They're unique requests that are coming in and I continue to be surprised and impressed by by the amount that we're that we're seeing.

K. That's 10,000 megawatt peak I guess. So so 6,400 is is is not all coming in. I mean, Ralph talked about some lower percentage of that, but but the the requests do continue. So Got it. That that's very helpful color. Just switching gears quickly on Just what to expect there? I believe there are some meetings here May. You expect a decision then, or what are kind of the data points or dates we need to track throughout the year? Is is this they make the decision on whether you're gonna provide services there or not.

So, Durgesh, I I gotta take a half step back for you. I don't know if you're aware of the the meeting that just took place at Lipa. On this subject. Are you up to speed on that?

The one the the first I think there was a I'm up to speed on is there was a first I guess you weren't awarded the first portion of the contract, and then there's the bigger contract that's still Right.

Yeah. No. There was actually so over the last twenty four hours, there's been a lot of activity on this front. So let me just try to summarize for everybody on the call. Taking place. There was a recommendation made by life of management to select a, a different service provider. That recommendation was just voted down by the board. That took place within the last half hour. Or maybe within the last hour is a better way to say that after we started this call. So we are we're just know, we're we're happy to to see that we're still in consideration, but I don't know any more than that. And all I can promise to to anyone who's on a call, who lives on Long Island or to any customers on Long Island, we will continue to do the right thing and provide high quality service to the customers on Long Island. As long as we can. So there was this flurry of activity over the last twenty four hours and that culminated in within the last hours I said with a a no vote from the from the life of board on the management recommendation to select the difference service provider.

Got it. So I sorry. I missed that. So so what do we know what the next step is here? Do they go back to the drawing board? Or what's that? It it gets right back to what you said on May 22, there's gonna be a an the next board meeting, and I'll expect that we'll hear some next steps. They went into executive session after the public session, so I would imagine that that, among other things, are being addressed. So Perfect. Okay. I'll leave it there. Get back in the queue. Thanks so much.

Alright. Thank you, Zugash.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of David Arcaro with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question. Hey, good morning. Thanks so much. Hey, David.

Maybe on on New Jersey and affordability, I was just curious if you could elaborate on your strategy or approach to managing affordability, given some of the concerns I think stemming from PJM capacity pricing. But what are approaches that you could take to manage some of the concerns that have popped up from both the Governor and the Commission?

Yeah. No. I appreciate that question. Certainly, it has been a hot topic here. We look, our concern is trying to reach some consensus that helps customers over this this peak that came in. We are listening to recommendations that have come from the Board of Public Utilities. They have a couple of ideas about how they can help mitigate through some some deferral of of charges to customers. That are is under consideration from all the electric distribution companies here in New Jersey. We would certainly be supportive of of anything that comes out from the from the board. There are legislators that have proposed a number of different bills think the most significant one would be the one that would be addressing the core problem here, which is supply. And another way to procure supply in a state Assemblyman D'Angelo, put a bill in to to look to bring generation into the state and to open it back up to regulated utilities to have that opportunity. Again, Dan mentioned it a little bit in the beginning. We would certainly be willing to participate in that and help find solutions for the state. Think we have some unique sites that could be be helpful in in in meeting that, the ones that have pipes and wires already to it.

And and obviously, we'd have to have to take some different actions on the site to to generate there. But we're listening to everyone. It's it is a it's an issue that is going to face customers. And as I mentioned in the prepared remarks, going to hit every customer in you know, we we we wanna help our customers as best we can through this time. It's one piece of the affordability challenge that they're facing. Yeah. And and the other things that are going on in the background, David, there's a lot of customer assistance like why he'd been and we're making sure that customers are aware of the programs that are out there to help those in need that probably will be getting toughest from the standpoint of some of these increases. So a lot of activity at the company and a lot of activity outside the company all addressing this particular issue. And not to mention, the timing of our rollout of the energy efficiency program, which again I mentioned in the prepared remarks is very helpful on that front as well because we can help customers use less As I said, Earl to an earlier question, from a as we're decoupled, we can help the customer and and and and be supportive without any financial impact to us.

As a result.

Yep. Excellent. Okay. That's helpful. Thanks. And then on, I guess on your efforts to contract nuclear capacity with data centers, was just curious where do things now stand like are your discussions and negotiations contingent on the FERC process and figuring out behind the meter colocation arrangements and frameworks or such that that timeframe is going to be important and maybe critical to getting over the finish line here? Are there other approaches that may not kind of have to wait for the full FERC process? And potential settlement to play out.

Yeah. No. I I again, I'm gonna give that to Dan to give you any any any details he wants. I think he addressed a bunch of what you said. For. But look. We we we think the for process is helpful to show that the industry as a whole is meeting the needs. And, I I would encourage us to to reach a settlement on that front so that we can we can show solidarity in in meeting the customer's needs here and that customer being the technology companies that are are so thirsty for for generation. But then, you want anything specific? The simple answer is no. It is not contingent upon that. I think it it it's helpful to have that move forward, but the simple answer is no.

Okay. Got it. Thanks so much. I'll leave it there. Thanks, David. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Nick Campanella with Barclays. Please proceed with your question.

Good morning, Nick.

Hey, good morning. Thanks for that real time update on LIFO. That was impressive.

Hey. I I just wanted to follow-up on the the prior line of questioning just in regards to the commercial agreement. [indiscernible] you know, we kinda talked about this prior just being maybe a more realistic opportunity for '25. And just given everything that's transpired, can you I just wanted to be clear.

Like, do you still see executing on a nuclear deal in '25 as still on the table before the governor leaves office in your mind?

Yeah. There's no no change, Nick. We are still what we've been saying with to how we are progressing and what we're doing is still where we are today.

Yeah. And I I don't have a real time update for you other than to tell you the the following from the governor's standpoint. He is on another economic development mission. In The Middle East and is and is talking you know, continued attraction of technology jobs to the state. So I'll get an update on that as as as that progresses, and there's some news reports about what he's doing. But he is, he's working until his last day here. And and one of the topics is to continue to attract technology companies.

Okay. That's that's helpful. And then just maybe remind us on, like, the quantum of megawatts that could potentially be part of a commercial agreement would you be open to doing more than more than a third of it at this point? Just trying to take your temperature on that.

Yeah. There's not a target number, but I would say that there's no restriction on anything that we have within the portfolio to the extent that there's interest related to to some kind of a commercial agreement. Alright. Thanks. See you at AGA. See you then.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan. Please proceed with your question. [indiscernible] Hi, good morning. Good morning.

Just maybe, you know, building a little bit on prior comments here and appreciating PJM's color for the next capacity auction. How do you think about the potential capacity price outcome in the next auction as it relates to customer bill growth at this point? And you see the price floor carries enough substance to incent ongoing investments in capacity supply? Just any other thoughts on the market there?

Well, look, I'll we'll we'll tag team this one again. I I would say a couple of things. Turn around and make the comment. I've seen a bunch of reports that would indicate that the price that we could expect would be in on the northern side of that that collar and from a range standpoint, somewhere between the midpoint and the top, I think is what we continue to see in the consensus of of documents that that I that I've read. We have an internal opinion. We really don't talk about that. But I would say that I turn it back around and and mention what I've read from others.

The good news from that standpoint for our customers, if there is good news in this, is that the because we have rolled in three years worth of of of capacity increases because we had that proxy price in the BGS auction before, we would not expect to see a a large increase for customers in the in the forward years, you know, as a result. So that's a positive. What's a negative is the prices are not coming down if that if those projections are right. It would kinda keep it in that in that same range. Some percentage up or down, but not not the not the double digit and, increases that we've we've all seen here in New Jersey. And, that that was a combination of delays at PJM and the capacity market as well as a lack of generation, which gets to your second question, which is do we think at those prices? And Jeremy, I'd be way in front of my skis on that since we're not in the merchant generation business at the moment here. And don't expect to be ever again in the merchant generation business. We we have not done a lot of homework on on costs and how that would how that would wind up playing out and with tariff increases and so on.

So look, we have an opportunity to do something to rate base, be able to answer that question in a lot more detail. But, Dan, you wanna add anything?

No. Just add two things. On the on your last point, you know, the concept of bullet prompt incremental generation, it it honestly, it's less about the price and more about the duration and the time frame that you're talking about. So given the periods that the auction covers, and given the time frame that it takes to build something new, the price that they're putting out, is not something that you're gonna get if it prompts you to build a new unit.

So I think the the timing continues to be the challenge of PJM. And then just kind of maybe pile on our Ralph talked about before with respect to the overall pricing and customer bill.

The the BPU set up a good process so that you could gradually see changes over time.

That good process was it it kinda lost some of its benefits by virtue of PJM's delays in the capacity auction. So that proxy price amplified the effect of a price move because there was a catch up. We're still not caught up with respect to timing of capacity auctions And so that proxy price which was in the last go round, the previous auction As we move forward, it currently the previous auction. So that proxy price is the $2.70 price we saw last time. And so Ralph says we don't expect to see a big move by virtue of whatever happens within this auction. It's because we're sitting at that higher proxy price.

So there could be smaller moves, but nothing the magnitude of what we've seen. And the collar surrounds that $2.70. So but as Ralph said, it probably leaves you closer to where we are now, but without another jump like we are addressing right now within the state. Got it. That's helpful context there. Thank you for that. And maybe pivoting to offshore wind and fully appreciating that, Peg has exited offshore wind But maybe just any thoughts as far as recent frictions offshore wind that we're seeing today? And how you think that impacts maybe the transmission planning opportunity set? Are there any knock on effects to you guys that we should think about?

Well, no knock on effects for us to the east.

Of New Jersey because we did not have anything in the plan. As we had we've spoken about quite a bit. Maybe opportunities now to the west depending upon how we solve for the resource adequacy concerns and the capacity. I I I think look, we again, I'm going to be a little bit repetitive here. We have to be very loud about any concerns that we have regarding that process and the and the parameters that exist. Because five years from now, we'll be dealing with the with the results of it. So it's it's pretty clear to us to help customers. We need to either build more wires or build some generation in the state [indiscernible] it's important to have at the accurate parameters built into the PJM process now that we get it right in the out years.

Got it. That's helpful. I'll leave it there. Thank you.

Thanks, Jeremy.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin Smith with Jefferies. Please proceed with your question.

Hey. Good morning, team. Good to chat with you guys again. Hello, Julian. Hey. Pleasure. Hey. So just following up on this affordability area, I'd I'd love to hear a little bit more specifically. I know you guys alluded to you know, kind of guiding customers as to what's out there. But just want to make sure I'm hearing from you guys right, especially as you think about proposals and trying to assuage concerns out there. I mean, what would you say specifically you all bring to the table or would potentially bring to the table in a long term and short term sense here? I mean, I just want to understand the scope of how far this affordability narrative is going in the state. What you're hearing from the stakeholders, whether it's the governor the BPU, all this?

Yeah. Look. Again, this is, I I think what we're hearing, Julian, is what the whole country's hearing. Affordability is a concern. And and it goes from eggs to energy. [indiscernible] from our standpoint, we wanna do our part. And the conversation here in New Jersey was magnified quite a bit by everything we just talked about with the inadequacy of the PJM capacity market process. Being delayed as long as it was, and and having this compounding effect. So we can't change that. That's a governance issue that PJM needs to deal with, and and and they'll they'll do what they need to do. But what we can do is what we've been trying to do at PJM, is advocate for some stability so we don't have this happen again. That's a long term solution. Another long term solution is to get more generation more supply, that could show up as new generation in the state. We've talked a lot about the fact that we'd be more than willing to do it in rate base.

If we can play a role there and be helpful, we'll certainly do that. And it or it could show up by new wires being built and bringing in generation from another location. What I hear from from policymakers in the state is that they would like to have more control over their destiny. That would lead me to believe that we would wanna have more generation in the state. But those conversations are ongoing, and you've seen some of that in in the press. What we can do in the short term is is is three things. Right? We help from an affordability standpoint providing customers with access to some of these programs that are out there. Assistance programs. We can we can help with energy efficiency, you know, just continue to help people use less and we've talked about that quite a bit over the years. And the new thing that, you know, is was an idea that was put forth by the was to try to get more people on a on a plan that would levelize the cost over a a twelve month period. We have a program called the equal payment plan. This would be a little bit different than that, but but not very different as as I currently read it.

It would be more of a short term so that customers are still incented to lose use less electricity in the long term. And not count on on, on an equal payment plan. So, that's a a policy decision that'll be you know, continue to be discussed with the board, but we we have said and we wanna be part of the solution, and we've always been that way in the state. And don't see that being any different. So whether it's the long term, the rules, the supply, the short term where we're trying to help customers out and in the three ways that we mentioned we're we're gonna be here as best we can.

Yeah. And on that short term item too, kind of an obvious statement, Julian, but our energy year starts June 1. So you'll see volume increases at the same time you're starting to see that price increase. And so part of that design and part of that thinking is take this thing out of the summer months.

Yep. Absolutely. And guys, just to clarify here real quickly, on Lipa, you you guys have commented that you see offsetting potentially this headwind to the extent to which you may or may not get it. Would that be effective here as soon as start of next year as far as your ability to offset the full ramp, right? 6 to 8¢ ballpark that we're talking about here?

Yes. Well, it's not that high. I think we would say a $05 to $0.06 but we're I won't get into back and forth on that. I think that look. First of all, it's it's immediate we would have to manage costs. And any of the costs that were associated with LIFO, we would we would have to remove those costs, there's multiple ways to do that. And then on the revenue side, we're always looking for other opportunities and we always always have oars in the water on that front, and I would hope that we could bring water to those opportunities we're looking at to fruition. In a timely enough fashion to offset it. So that's that's the goal here, and that's why we're confident that we'd be able to offset it and and remain with our earnings, projections that we've put out there to five to seven.

Got it. Alright. Excellent, guys. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Thanks, Julian.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question.

Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking the questions.

Carly.

Hey, maybe just a follow-up on the large load pipeline comments from earlier.

Any indications you can share on the breakdown of that 6,400 megawatts in terms of what are more geared towards initial applications versus those that are more mature in the process?

Yeah. Carly, we it continues to morph as you go through time. Right? You'll have some drop off. You'll have some come on in. But we've generally characterized the number as try to do two things. The first thing we're trying to do is give an indication of total interest that has come forward. While at the same time also trying to bring some reality to it because we we've said as a 10,000 megawatt peaking, system, we don't expect 6,400 megawatts to come on. And and so Ralph mentioned earlier, 10 to 20%. I think it it we continue to try to do some guesswork. Obviously, you don't know when someone starts to initiate an interest exactly where they're gonna go. But as time goes on, their continued interest how far they go in the process, how often they communicate, and what they're doing, gives us some sign that we can get some kind of a gauge as to which are gonna be more likely and which are not. And so I know if you're in that 10 to 20, 25% Somewhere within there, I think, is a reasonable expectation as to what's gonna come forward. And that's also used for planning purposes.

We don't plan our system around 6,400 megawatts coming onto the system we plan for a subset of that based upon that experience. And so it's probably in that ballpark. It's a an imperfect estimate. But it is an estimate.

Got it. Okay. Very clear. That's helpful. Thank you. And then maybe just as you think about the the current five year capital plan, any color you can provide in terms of where you see potential exposure on the tariff front?

And any risk mitigation tactics that that you see as necessary there?

You know, Carly, I don't wanna I don't wanna completely dismiss it because what we don't know, we don't know. But I am very comfortable that we do not have any any real problems around the quarter because of the type of work we are planning over the near term. Right? It's it's kinda the the the very straightforward replacement activities that we have in that last mile. We are not planning on large transmission projects in the in this cycle. We're not planning on that. Do we have a little bit of of substation and switching station work to do, but no major efforts like we had after super storm Sandy. So since that major work is behind us, large project risk is behind us and we're really focused on on this last mile activity. And the only project that we have of of any magnitude is the Maryland project and I've had no indications yet that we have any supply chain concerns. On that front.

Great. Thank you so much.

Thanks, Carla.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from the line of Michael Sullivan with Wolfe Research. Please proceed with your question.

Hey, Michael.

Hey.

Hey. Hey, Ralph.

I I know you kinda just hit this in one of the recent questions just in terms of short term and long term solutions. But do you think the short term solutions are sufficient enough to kind of tamp down some of the political rhetoric here just given you know, like, the long term solution how long term are we talking? Like, if if you were able to bring regulated rate new ticket generation online, how how long would that take?

Yeah. Michael, I don't wanna I don't wanna front run something that isn't there yet. So it's so big. [indiscernible] to to say that. I would I would simply be thinking about that that that this way. We're seeing five to six year lead times on on some of the the turbines. And you could you could call at four, you could call at eight, depends upon who you talk to. But I'll say five to six on that front. So what we need is we need the decision based. You know, by law, we cannot move into this area right now because of ADECA. And and if the law has changed in the state of New Jersey, we will be we will be there for the customers. And for the policymakers. So you know, it's it's a it's a little bit of the chicken and the egg when does the log have changed, and then when do we actually get to place orders. To try to find some solutions. That's so to give you a timeline when we could actually have additional supply on the system would would be, I think, disingenuous on my part to do that. So so I I think what we're doing in the near term is is the best we can do with the parts that we're dealt.

And I say we, as the state of New Jersey. We're all working together on this. The policymakers, the companies.

Okay.

Understood. And just kind of tied to that, just wanted to get your thoughts on the governor's challenge of the previous PJM auction results? How that factors into to the dynamic?

Yeah. I look. I I think policymakers are rightfully concerned about the spike that they saw. And so I think you're seeing questions get asked in a number of different ways by a number of different policy leaders. We've had some assembly leaders, some senate leaders here in the state, [indiscernible] Either in in public hearings or or by sending letters as well.

So it's not a surprise. You know, this is this is something you would expect leadership to do is to ask some questions when you have something like this take place. And and what took place here as I think, you know, we've said multiple times, is we've had this governance challenge that has caused the three year you know, three all three of these auctions to pile up on top of each other. And and as a result, the customers are seeing the spike.

Yeah.

I mean, they're gonna Michael, they're gonna do their investigation They're gonna find out what they find out. We're not aware of anything that that's problematic, but I think there's nothing wrong with that check going on just to validate what has happened.

Okay. That's all. And just last one, just back to the long term solutions, is regulated generation in New Jersey the only solution that's being considered, or are there any other that we should be launching?

No.

Okay. No. No. No. I I think look. I think there's three solutions. Right? We've talked about And I I say generation without picking a source or or technology. You could the first is you could have rate base, which I mentioned. The second is you could have you could somehow incent a competitive generator to [indiscernible] And the third is you can import.

I mean, that that is the simple way we think about it. Any imports, we're gonna probably need some bigger wires or more wires. We go that route. Again, we being the state, if we if we we come up with a solution for competitive generator, know, we will be there from an interconnection standpoint. We've been very vocal about the fact that we've been very responsive to those types of requests as they come in regardless of the technology. And and if it becomes a regulated solution, we think we have a couple of sites that might make some sense for us. So we just look forward to the continuing conversation and try to push it so we can we can avoid this can't get kicked too far.

Very helpful. Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Bill Apicelli with UBS. Please proceed with your question.

Hey, Bill. Hi. Good morning.

Hi, guys. Just one quick question here. Just going back to something Dan said earlier about you know, the commercial opportunities and and flexibility being key. I mean, just maybe a little bit more color around what that means. Is that flexibility around being being on grid or you know, the the timeline of of how quickly things can ramp? I mean, what exactly is is sort of the flexibility aspect they're looking for? Well, since this is a follow-up on something Dan said, I'll let Dan answer.

Yes. Look, just think about trying to strike a commercial deal when there is uncertainty around rules that, are gonna be met [indiscernible] And that work continues to go on and on and on. And and so I I think, really, just trying to get in line how this is gonna work and how it can work and what the optionality is with respect to how you would interconnect. It it it's not nothing more complicated than that. And we've said before, given where we are and given the transmission rates where we are, it is not as critical it is in some other areas. But I think all parties would prefer the situation where they have all the rules they know exactly what they're dealing with. And I think it's just it's taken us a long time an industry and as the regulators within the industry to to come to that final answer. Now we had a question before about settlement. And I think that would be a great answer because it would be the participants that are actually devising where things are gonna go that would ultimately get approved. But that doesn't happen overnight either. And and so I think there is there's a general desire to move more quickly and get this done.

But it's lingered for a while. So that that that's really all it is. Bill is trying to solidify exactly what the landscape is that that we're working at.

Yeah. And, I would just I would just say, look, if you think about where we have our generation right now, we can we can satisfy a bunch of a bunch of things, whether it's you know, redundancy, accessibility, extra capacity, location, and I could go on and on. So we still feel very, very good about the opportunity set that's in front of us.

Okay.

And and then just lastly on, what are you guys seeing on the adoption for demand response? Right? That's obviously been, something that's been gotten more attention here as the price signals has gone up. Is that something you're seeing an increasing level of interest in from from your customers? Yeah. I I think you see it in in a couple different ways. Right? But we don't have as much as as you might hear from other companies because of the low industrial load that we have. From a residential standpoint, we do see it we see it show up from mostly, in that case, from a thermostat standpoint and from some you know, pool pools that are not running and so on. It's at certain times. And and that has continued in our energy efficiency programs that we talk about all the time. Address exactly that issue for mostly the again, mostly the residential customers.

Okay. Alright. Great. Thanks very much.

Thanks, Bill.

Thank you.

And there are no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the floor back to mister La Rosa for closing comments.

Well, thank you so much. Listen, I think the conversation has rightfully been a lot today around affordability and and what customers are facing. And again, we are not depth to that issue. We know what's going on around kitchen tables. And that's because of the 13,000 employees that we have here who are not only doing the job that they do day in and day out, but are are those people that are having those same conversations around the table regardless of the cause of the the affordability challenges they might be having. So we're very well aware of that. We're gonna be here to be a a solution provider to the state. And we hope to continue to be a solution provider to the people of Long Island as well as we've discussed. So we appreciate all of your interest, we will see you at AGA in May. Thanks for calling in.

And ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.