Good morning, and welcome to the Dominion Energy Business Review Investor Meeting. I'm David McFarland, Vice President, Investor Relations and Treasurer, and we are pleased that you've joined and taken the time to be with us today. Joining me on the stage this morning are Bob Blue, Chair, President, and Chief Executive Officer, and Steven Ridge, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. We'll proceed this morning with approximately 45 minutes of prepared remarks. Then Bob and Steven will be joined by Diane Leopold, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, for the question and answer portion of our meeting. Instructions for posing questions will be given a little later, and we will discuss some measures that differ from those recognized by GAAP. Reconciliation of our non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures, which we can calculate, are contained in the Investor Day supplemental materials. I en courage you to visit our Investor Relations website to review webcast slides as well as the supplemental materials. Finally, please take a moment to review the important note for investors beginning on slide two. Our discussion today will include forward-looking statements and estimates that are subject to various risks and uncertainties. Please refer to our SEC filings, including our most recent annual reports on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, for a discussion of factors that may cause results to differ from management's estimates and expectations. With that, I'll turn it over to Bob. Well, thanks, David. Good morning, everyone. We are very pleased to present the results of our top-to-bottom business review. Undertaking the review was the right course of action for our company, and we've been focused throughout on moving quickly but carefully, while adhering faithfully to our original commitments and priorities. Over the last months, we've worked methodically to deliver a result that comprehensively and finally addresses foundational concerns that have eroded investor confidence in our company over the last several years. We rejected partial solutions that leave key risks and elements unaddressed. Instead, we've embraced a strategic and financial profile that is durable and transparent. As a result of the review, Dominion Energy is now on a path to achieve maximum long-term value for our shareholders, customers, and employees. With that background, let me walk through the review's most significant achievements, as shown on slide five. First, we've narrowed our strategic focus. Dominion Energy is now a pure-play, state-regulated electric utility, serving over four million utility customers in one of the most attractive regions of the country, the Southeast United States. Strong demographic trends, robust economic growth, increasing electric demand, combined with common-sense energy policy that promotes reliability, affordability, and the transition to cleaner energy over time, make Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina a compelling geographic foundation for our business. Our largest utility, Dominion Energy Virginia, serves the largest data center market in the world, larger than the next five biggest U.S. data center customers combined. Economic growth, electrification, accelerating data center expansion are driving the most significant demand growth in our company's history, and they show no signs of abating. This unrivaled demand growth will drive significant regulated capital investment to ensure we continue to power our customers every day. Let me pause here for just a moment to recognize our incredible employees at our gas utilities in Ohio, Utah, North Carolina, Wyoming, and Idaho, who set the standard for industry reliability, environmental and safety performance, customer service, and community engagement. Those employees have been an integral part of the Dominion Energy team, and we know they'll continue to flourish as part of the Enbridge family. Second, we've taken steps to put our regulated utilities on solid financial, policy, and regulatory footing. In Virginia last year, we supported bipartisan legislation that provided meaningful rate relief to our customers, and it created a regulatory framework that ensures we recover prudently incurred investments in a timely fashion, thereby providing financial returns that allow us to compete for investor capital. This allows us to continue to invest billions every year in support of our customers and the state's economic, energy, and environmental goals. In South Carolina, we've worked incredibly hard to regain the trust of policymakers and regulators. We've done this by doing what we do best: putting our heads down and delivering affordable and reliable service to our customers. An exceptional customer experience positions our company to deliver the best results for our shareholders. Third, we've advanced the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind commercial project towards successful, on-time, and on-budget completion. We've provided numerous updates, which I'm not going to repeat here, including, most recently, a video that featured the enthusiastic and unwavering first-hand testimonials of our commercial partners. I highly encourage investors to review our existing disclosures, because they'll see exactly why we're so optimistic about the project. Further, we've secured a well-capitalized and experienced financing partner on terms that significantly de-risk the project for Dominion customers and shareholders. Fourth, we've maintained our commitment to our current dividend. Earnings growth, combined with a period without dividend growth, will restore our payout ratio to a peer-appropriate range over time. Fifth, we've taken meaningful steps to deliver a robust and sustainable credit profile. Inclusive of the sale of our remaining interest in Cove Point and the securitization of deferred fuel and our asset sales that are currently pending regulatory approval and closing, we will have successfully raised a total of $16 billion of after-tax proceeds. When you combine that with $5 billion of OpCo-level debt that will convey with the gas utility sales, we expect to reduce debt by $21 billion. We've improved our qualitative business risk profile by narrowing our strategic focus, enhancing the financial footing of our regulated utilities, and reducing offshore wind project risk. We know from past experience what it's like to live with a balance sheet that I would describe as only get along. So we've outlined a prudent but modest ongoing common equity plan that will align us with peers and allow us to finance our significant capital plan in a balanced manner. As a result, we expect to exceed our downgrade thresholds on average through the plan between around 100 and 200 basis points at Moody's and S&P, respectively. Sixth, we've taken seriously the feedback we've heard from investors about the dissatisfaction with past earnings quality and plan assumption risk levels. As a result, we've committed that we will no longer pursue unregulated solar investments for the purpose of generating upfront operating earnings from tax credits. We've committed not to reflect gains from certain asset sales and operating earnings, and we've changed our accounting methodology for unregulated investment tax credits that aligns us with peer utility companies. We announced the evaluation of a retirement plan asset rebalancing. That's expected to reduce future funding risks, overall plan asset variability, and retirement plan-related earnings. As we've said throughout the review, we're serious about delivering high-quality earnings going forward, and these proactive steps amply demonstrate that. Seventh, we've steadfastly maintained our focus on cost discipline. As I'll discuss later, we found ways to reduce costs without affecting our best-in-class system reliability and customer service. In addition, we've carefully reviewed our corporate costs to determine what expenses are truly vital to delivering on our mission and generating compelling returns for our shareholders. Finally, we've extended our track record of applying governance best practices. As part of our ongoing and long-standing approach to board refreshment, we've added two new highly qualified board members in the last six months and six new board members over the last five years, bringing the average tenure of our 11 remaining directors down to six years. We've increased board engagement with investors and increased transparency more generally, including the detailed disclosures in today's presentation. As previously announced, the board's made material modifications to my compensation to better align my financial incentives with our shareholders. The board will continue to ensure our shareholders' interests are properly represented through robust governance. As part of the board's regular process of reviewing structure and leadership, Rob Spilman has decided to rotate out of the lead director role after our annual meeting in May. The board intends to elect him chair of the Compensation and Talent Development Committee at that time. Rob is an exemplary lead independent director and has been since he assumed that role in 2020 after serving as audit committee chair. His wise counsel, his business acumen, his level-headed demeanor, and his deep knowledge of our company have been essential throughout the business review, and he has been critical to its success. Our entire board, without exception, feels lucky to have him serve in the role of lead director. He's been a personal mentor to me for many years, especially since I assumed the role of CEO, and he'll bring the same skills he's exhibited as lead director to the chairmanship of the Compensation and Talent Development Committee, where he'll succeed Mike Szymanczyk, who, as we announced in November, will not be standing for re-election as a result of our age-based mandatory retirement policy. When Rob rotates out of the position of lead director in May, the board intends to elect Susan Story to that role. Susan, who currently serves as chair of our Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility Committee, is well known to many of you from her very successful tenure as CEO of American Water and CEO of Gulf Power prior to that. We've been fortunate to have her on our board for the last several years, and we're delighted to welcome her to this new role. With that, let me share a short message from Rob, Susan, and Joe Rigby, chair of the Audit Committee. As you'll hear, the entire board has been intensely involved throughout the review. On behalf of Dominion Energy's Board of Directors, thank you for attending today's investor meeting. I'd like to begin by expressing our excitement for the future of the company. Today marks the start of a new era for Dominion Energy. The entire board believes the top-to-bottom review has delivered a result that solidly positions the company to create maximum long-term value for all stakeholders. Thanks, Rob. It's important that you, our owners, know that the board has been intensely involved throughout the review process. We've received frequent and comprehensive updates from management and our advisors. We've rigorously questioned critical assumptions, analyses, and conclusions. We've met with investors directly and taken their feedback to heart. We've met without management, asking hard questions and challenging each other and ourselves. Under the board's oversight, management guided the review, attacked issues that in the past challenged the company's performance, and maintained unwavering focus and effort throughout.... We commend Bob and his team for the transparent and thorough manner in which they have conducted the review. And as a result, we have great conviction in the leadership team and strategic and financial plan you are learning about today. That's exactly right. The company is positioned to deliver a durable, predictable, and high-quality growth profile based on strong regulatory frameworks, improved financial positioning, and optimal capital allocation. The board has better aligned management compensation with financial performance, and we've continued best practice board refreshment. Since 2019, we've added six new directors, which will represent more than 50% of the board. It is also worth noting that over the past year, the company has settled multiple rate cases, continued to be one of the industry's most efficient and cost-effective operators, significantly advanced the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, and had one of its safest years for our employees in the company's history. Notwithstanding how much has been accomplished during the review, the hard work continues. Great assets, great people, and a great financial plan are not enough. For the business review to be successful, we must now consistently execute. You've heard Bob say clearly that he is personally accountable for the company's performance. Let us, the board, also be clear: we will hold Bob and the management team accountable, and we expect that you, the company's owners, will hold us to account as well. We assure you that the rigor of our oversight will not wane now that we enter a new chapter. As stewards of investors' capital, we take our responsibility seriously and realize our obligations are to maximize shareholder value. Thank you, Susan. I'll conclude our remarks where we started, emphasizing the board's excitement for and confidence in this strategy, this plan, this management team, and the company's future. Please enjoy the rest of today's meeting. Thank you. As you heard from Susan, we recognize that we must consistently execute against the financial targets we provide you today and in the future. As is always the case, I'm accountable for, and my entire leadership team has embraced our commitment to consistently deliver high-quality earnings growth that meets the plan. With the conclusion of the business review, Dominion Energy is positioned to offer an updated investment proposition, as shown here on slide seven. Our strategy is simple: operate exceptional utilities in growing pro-business states with constructive regulatory frameworks. Our financial profile is compelling. Approximately 11%-13% total shareholder return, premised on 5%-7% of durable and high-quality annual EPS growth, plus a 6% current yield anchored by our commitment to the current dividend. The results of the review deliver a robust and sustainable credit profile. We expect our consolidated FFO to debt between 2025 and 2029 to average 15%. We'll use our strong balance sheet to support a $43 billion five-year capital investment plan. That'll deliver a 7.5% total investment base annual growth rate. Finally, as you'll see in the extensive appendix materials today, we're committed to transparency and providing additional disclosures to assist our shareholders in understanding the key value drivers across our businesses. Let me turn now to our pure-play utility profile, as shown here on slide eight. Over the five-year plan, we expect our regulated utility operations in Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina to produce approximately 90% of annual operating earnings, excluding corporate segment drag. Our state-regulated utility model offers investors increased predictability and is enhanced by our concentration in these fast-growing, constructive, and business-friendly states. Another approximately 5% will come from the income generated by the Millstone Power Station under an existing long-term power purchase agreement, combined with significantly hedged energy and capacity revenues associated with the non-PPA energy production. Details around the financial profile and projections of Millstone are included in the appendix of today's materials. Combining the contributions from our regulated utility operations with our de-risked Millstone revenue results in 95% of our annual operating earnings on average, being highly visible and predictable. The remaining 5% on average includes the contribution from the remaining non-PPA, non-hedged Millstone power sales, as well as our renewable natural gas, legacy long-term contracted solar portfolio, and the Jones Act-compliant wind turbine installation vessel, Charybdis. On slide nine, we categorize our business in ways that further highlight our attractive operating characteristics. We operate across a diverse and constructive set of regulatory frameworks. You'll note that zero-carbon generation has grown significantly, such that by the end of 2024, over 75% of our investment base will consist of electric wires and zero-carbon generation. To that end, we remain committed to our 2050 net zero goal, and we're proud of the significant progress we've made toward that goal by reducing carbon emissions from our electric business by 47% from 2005 through 2022. As we've said before, achieving our net zero goal will require supportive public policy and significant advances in technology, particularly to reduce the cost of long-term energy storage and to develop dispatchable zero carbon generation. I'd also note that approximately three-quarters of this investment base is eligible for a rider recovery or includes a forward-looking mechanism for purposes of establishing base rate revenues. This allows for more timely recovery of investments and costs, all of which minimize this traditional regulatory lag. And so as a result, we fully expect to be able to earn our authorized returns at our regulated utilities. Rider-eligible CapEx programs include, among other things, offshore wind, solar, dispatchable reliability-required natural gas-fired generation, electric and gas storage, nuclear relicensing, electric transmission, strategic undergrounding, and grid transformation. Now, let me spend a minute on each of Virginia and South Carolina. In Virginia, we're tasked with keeping the lights on for some of the most critical government facilities in the United States, as well as building and maintaining important infrastructure for the reliability of the largest data center market in the world. Closer to home, we also serve 2.5 million residential customers. At the beginning of the review, I spoke about the need for a durable regulatory construct that provides for a competitive and fair return on utility investments. I also highlighted how important it is that we ensure that near-term economic and customer bill pressures don't preclude the full realization of the benefits of our long-term resiliency and decarbonization capital investment opportunity. I believe the reasonable regulatory reform that we supported during the 2023 Virginia General Assembly, taken together with the Virginia Clean Economy Act of 2020 and the Grid Transformation and Security Act of 2018, positions our company to attract capital to continue to deliver exemplary reliability and resiliency, as well as exceptional customer value. We've worked hard to engage constructively with regulatory stakeholders, and the result has been a growing track record of reasonable approvals and settlements that benefit customers and shareholders. As the most recent example, just two days ago, the State Corporation Commission approved, in its entirety, the comprehensive original settlement in the biennial base rate case proceeding. Turning to growth. First, the growth we're seeing in our territory is real. Eight of the DOM Zone's all-time highest summer demand peaks, along with six of the DOM Zone's all-time highest overall demand peaks, were just in the last 12 months. PJM's 2023 forecast, as shown on slide 11, projects peak summer load growth in the DOM Zone of approximately 5% per year for the next 10 years. This increase is driven primarily by data centers, to a lesser extent, electrification in both DEV service territory and in other service areas within DOM Zone. Northern Virginia is the largest data center market in the world. To give you a sense of how unique this is, consider that the region is bigger than the next five largest U.S. markets combined. It's also larger than the next four international data center markets combined. We continue to plan for and advance projects that will enable incremental increases in power for the data center customers in Eastern Loudoun County. Incremental data center sales are great, but we really focus on the full value chain of regulated distribution, transmission, and even generation investment that will be necessary to keep pace with demands and improve overall customer reliability. This includes evaluating the need for dispatchable generation, especially during the winter, and the need for on-site backup fuel storage. We've included some additional disclosures around data centers in our appendix materials. In Virginia, the unique intersection of industry-leading demand growth, strong policy support for resiliency, decarbonization, affordability, and economic growth, and a durable regulatory model represents an unprecedented opportunity. It will drive growth for many years to come and will rely on a healthy financial foundation. That's one of the reasons we've repeatedly highlighted balance sheet improvement as a key priority of the business review. Turning now to South Carolina on slide 12. DESC operates in a high-growth, business-friendly state with supportive legislation and a balanced regulatory climate. South Carolina's expanding and healthy economy provides a backdrop for DESC's sustained electric and gas utility growth. Since 2010, the state's population has grown by almost 14%, well in excess of the U.S. average. Last year, South Carolina was the fastest-growing state in the nation. Impressive growth in the manufacturing sector is supported by pro-business policies and tax incentives. The state was ranked number one for manufacturing by Site Selection Group in 2022. Like Virginia, South Carolina also has a common-sense approach to energy policy. Since Dominion's merger with SCANA, we've been laser-focused on strengthening our relationship with our customers and the Public Service Commission. We've prioritized transparent and consistent communication with the Office of Regulatory Staff. We've delivered excellent reliability and safety metrics, and we've maintained rates well below national averages. We've made meaningful progress in South Carolina. We'll continue to focus on being a responsible corporate citizen in that state. With this backdrop, capital spending at DESC is primarily driven by a mixture of rapid electric and natural gas customer growth and South Carolina's legislature's support for high standards for system reliability and integrity. Of the approximately $1 billion in annual capital spend at DESC through 2029, about half of that spend is on electric transmission and distribution projects, including grid enhancement, transmission line upgrades and investments in new technologies such as AMI and outage management systems. We've described the review as top to bottom. That means we analyzed our entire portfolio of businesses and determined that each of the segments we're discussing today is an important piece of the consolidated strategic and financial profile. 10% of our operating earnings will be generated by our contracted energy segment, which includes contracted zero carbon generation at Millstone in our solar portfolio, as well as RNG and Charybdis. All of these assets support decarbonization. Let me talk a little bit about each of these businesses, as shown on slide 13. Millstone provides 90%+ of Connecticut's carbon-free electricity. It's critical to the reliability of the region. Again, as a reminder, 55% of Millstone's output is under a fixed price contract through late 2029, with the remaining output significantly de-risked by our hedging program. Our 1.3 GW of non-ring-fenced solar portfolio has attracted contracts with high-quality counterparties. They have an average weighted remaining life of 13 years. Our renewable natural gas portfolio continues to ramp up. We've created two of the largest agriculture-based RNG programs in the country by creating a strategic alliance with Vanguard Renewables and the Dairy Farmers of America on the one hand, and joining forces with Smithfield Foods to create Align RNG on the other. End-to-end, the process is actually carbon negative, meaning it captures more greenhouse gases than it produces. It also gives farmers an income stream for what was previously an expense for them. And finally, Charybdis is the first Jones Act-compliant wind turbine installation vessel, and it's an essential resource in delivering CVOW on time and on budget, and supporting the U.S. offshore wind industry more generally, once completed. In addition to high-quality, regulated-like earnings, our contracted energy segment generates valuable cash flow from operations, which we estimate to be over $500 million per year on average. That supports our substantial state-regulated capital program and helps us maintain a healthy balance sheet. We've included financial details on each of these segments in the appendix of today's presentation. So what does it all look like on a consolidated basis? As you'll see on slide 14, we've established a new five-year growth capital plan to capture the years 2025 through 2029. We now project $43 billion of growth capital investment on behalf of our customers, over 80% of which is zero carbon generation or wires. That includes $23 billion in electric transmission and distribution, another $6 billion in solar and offshore wind, and we plan to invest $2 billion on the extension of our nuclear licenses in Virginia. Turning to O&M performance on slide 15. We constantly look for ways to optimize the efficiency of our operations while meeting high customer service standards and reliability needs. In recent years, we've driven down costs through improved processes, innovative use of technology, other best practice initiatives. Based on the most recent data published by FERC, we have a proven track record of being one of the most efficient companies for the benefit of our customers in the industry. So looking forward, we're focused on continuing to drive down O&M costs, normalized for riders and benefits. We very intentionally go through each of our segments, each of our assets, and each of our locations to find opportunities to lean into technology, improve business processes, and cost-saving initiatives. We expect 2025 normalized O&M to be flat relative to 2022 levels, 2022 levels, by removing about $300 million in costs to offset inflation, and that includes about $55 million in targeted corporate cost cuts. Beyond 2025, we expect normalized O&M to grow annually at between 1% and 2% per year through 2029. Turning to slide 16, let me address customer rates. Between 2013 and 2023, our typical residential customer rate on average was 12% and 9% lower than the U.S. average for DEV and DESC, respectively. Our most recent typical customer rate is 17% and 10% lower than the national average for those two segments, respectively. Going forward, we expect to see typical residential rates increasing by a compounded annual growth rate of around 1%-2%, which is obviously well below historical rates of inflation. That's a comprehensive estimate, by the way. It includes, among other factors, the impact of all the investment programs we've discussed today, including our decarbonization programs, because we know keeping bills low is essential to a successful energy transition. Before turning it over to Steven, let me summarize three final points. First, throughout the review, in frequent consultation with the board, we have devoted ourselves to thoroughly and methodically reviewing every aspect of our business. We're on a path to create maximum long-term value for shareholders. Second, we've always owned great assets, operated by some of the industry's most accomplished and dedicated professionals. They're devoted to our fundamental mission: to provide reliable, affordable, and increasingly clean energy that powers our customers every day. As a result of the review, we now have a solid long-term financial foundation that matches the remarkable quality of our assets and our people. Finally, our work is not done. Far from it. We are now 100% focused on execution. We know we must deliver, and we will. With that, I'll turn it over to Steven. Thank you, Bob, and welcome. Good morning, everyone. I am very excited to share with you this morning our updated long-range financial plan. Before I delve into the specifics, let me just share a few general observations. First, the Dominion Energy plan is premised on five key tenets, as shown on slide 19: strategic simplicity, consistent long-term financial execution, balance sheet conservatism, dividend security, and an exceptional customer experience that enables us to advocate for and achieve balanced policy constructs and reasonable regulatory outcomes. Second, I am highly confident in our ability to achieve this plan. We've taken a very hard look at our businesses, our capital allocation, our planning parameters, and key assumptions, and developed a robust plan that is premised on sound fundamentals and reasonable risk-adjusted assumptions. In other words, this is not a plan that needs every assumption to hit at 11 out of 10 in order to deliver the projected earnings and cash flow. This plan has been built to be appropriately but also not unreasonably conservative to weather unforeseen challenges that may come our way. Third, as Bob has mentioned, we have not pursued a series of half measures. Instead, we've learned from our past, and we've comprehensively applied that introspection and retrospection across the development of this plan. So with that context, let's jump in on slide 20. We are providing a long-range plan that runs through 2029, and I want to start with 2025 because we view it as the clean starting point post-review. We expect 2025 operating earnings per share to be $3.40 at the midpoint of our range. As is our standard practice, we're using a range around this number, as shown in the footnote and in the appendix, that accounts for variations from normal weather in our utility service territories. As we described in detail on the fourth quarter earnings call, this reflects the illustrative $0.10 impact from a lower expected return on assets, or EROA assumption, as a result of a prospective and entirely voluntary evaluation of retirement plan asset de-risking. As a result of the Inflation Reduction Act, renewable natural gas is eligible for the clean fuel credit, or 45Z, for produced RNG volumes. Authorizing legislation applies to volumes produced in 2025, 2026, and 2027, but sunsets thereafter. While many incentives, including federal transportation-related fuel subsidies, have been extended in the past, our plan conservatively assumes that this credit will sunset as currently scheduled. Consistent with our commitment to transparency, we are very deliberately highlighting this potentially expiring income stream for our investors. As final regulations have not yet been released, we're using what we feel is a reasonably conservative assumption for the value of the credit, which would yield approximately $0.10 a year of operating earnings from RNG 45Z credits between 2025 and 2027. Now, keep in mind, these projects became tax credit eligible after we began this investment program, and since these are production credits, there isn't a deferral-style accounting methodology allowed under GAAP. Given the existing legislative sunset for 45Z credits, we're applying our annual and long-term growth rate ranges to a 2025 operating earnings figure that excludes the impact of RNG 45Z income. As shown on slide 21, we're establishing an annual and long-term growth rate range of 5%-7% off a midpoint of $3.30. We expect the long-term growth rate to bias to the midpoint of around 6% over the planning horizon, with annual growth to be within the 5%-7% corridor every year. Note that we expect to see variation within that range as a result of the Millstone refueling cadence, which requires a second planned outage once every third year. To be clear, and as shown on the slide, total operating earnings will consist of this growth and the annual contribution from RNG 45Z credits. In 2025, that combination equals $3.40 per share. Just in case folks are wondering, if 45Z credits for RNG happen to be extended beyond 2027 and at a static value, we estimate that our long-term growth rate then applied to a base of $3.40, rather than the current $3.30, would only be about 20 basis points lower. Turning next to dividend policy on slide 22. Consistent with our commentary throughout the business review, we expect to maintain the current dividend level of $2.67 per share annually until such time as we achieve a utility industry-aligned payout ratio, and we think of that as being in the 60s range. When we launched the review, we made a very strong commitment to the current dividend, and since then, investors have reasonably factored that commitment into their investment decisions. We believe it is critical for our company's credibility with investors to stand by that commitment. We will actively monitor industry trends to ensure we're following best practices when we recommence dividend growth. Slide 23 provides a breakdown of the five-year growth CapEx plan, which Bob introduced. For more details, I would point to the very comprehensive appendix materials. We have put a ton of effort into providing more granular details than we ever have, which we expect will be most useful to understanding and modeling each part of our growth profile. Just a few items I'll highlight here. We're forecasting a total five-year capital plan of $43 billion, which drives consolidated annual investment growth of 7.5% through 2029. I'd note that we've shown DESC's rate base growth two ways. 6.6% excludes the negative impact of the capital cost rider amortization related to the new nuclear development. We feel this is a better representation of the fundamental utility growth. Inclusive of the CCR amortization, the growth is actually 5.1%. To be clear, our consolidated rate base CAGR of 7.5% includes the effect of the CCR drag. Normalizing for that, our rate base CAGR would be 7.8%. Bob mentioned previously, but worth noting, the strong percentage of capital investment that is eligible for recovery under rider-style constructs. This ensures we can recover prudently incurred capital investment in a timely fashion. As shown on slide 24, we've achieved significant quantitative and qualitative improvement to our credit profile. We intend to apply 100% of the estimated after-tax proceeds of $16 billion to reduce parent-level debt, which, based on current rates, will result in a reduction of around $1 billion of pre-tax interest expense annually. Together with the OpCo debt expected to be transferred with asset sales, we expect to reduce total debt by $21 billion as part of the review. In so doing, we expect to have one, improved our qualitative credit profile. Two, reduced the proportion of parent debt to total debt. And three, improved our cash cover metrics. Now, first, the qualitative impacts of the review. We've maintained our pure-play, regulated utility profile with exposure to a geographically diverse set of constructive regulatory frameworks. We've taken steps to stabilize and improve the financial footing of Dominion Energy Virginia, and we've meaningfully reduced the risk of the offshore wind project, subject to regulatory approval. Second, we expect to reduce the proportion of holding company to total debt from 41% to below 30%, as shown on slide 25. Now, keep in mind, Millstone, renewable natural gas, and the legacy contracted solar portfolio cash flows are completely unlevered. So we use a conservative 25% FFO-to-debt implied leverage capacity for those cash flows to derive a more accurate projection of true HoldCo leverage. Third, as shown on slide 26, we expect FFO-to-debt to average approximately 15% during the five-year plan. Now, given their respective methodologies, we'd expect published metrics at S&P to be a little higher and at Moody's a little lower. In both cases, we've created meaningful cushion above our downgrade thresholds, which we expect to remain at 14% and 13% at Moody's and S&P, respectively. In preparation for today's meeting, we engaged Moody's and S&P in formal credit advisory reviews and maintained frequent dialogue with Fitch. As I've indicated in the past, we don't speak for the agencies. That said, I'm confident that our long-range plan will be viewed constructively by the agencies. Finally, consistent with our current rating categories, we are committed to mid-BBB range unsecured credit ratings for the parent and single A range ratings for unsecured debt at DEV and first mortgage bonds at DESC. In order to maintain balance sheet conservatism, we're being very thoughtful about how we finance our business going forward. On slide 27, we refresh our outlook for sources and uses of cash. In aggregate, we expect operating cash flow to be the primary funding source for our cash needs. Our financing of plans assumes we increase the amount of hybrids in our capital structure by about $2 billion through 2029, and that we issue around $700 million of common equity annually, starting later this year, including $200 million through our DRIP program and around $500 million via ATM, as shown on slide 28. The residual financing need will be satisfied by net fixed income issuance. We view this level of steady common equity issuance as prudent, EPS accretive, and in the context of our sizable growth capital spending program, appropriate to keep our consolidated credit metrics within the guidelines of our strong credit ratings category. Now, I'll conclude the prepared remarks with slide 29. We believe the results of the review comprehensively deliver a robust and sustainable strategic and financial profile. We're focused on executing this plan for the benefit of investors, customers, employees, and other stakeholders. With that, I'll turn it back over to David. Thank you, Steven. We're ready to take your questions, and so for those in the room, please raise your hand, and a microphone will be brought to you. For those that are joining us virtually. Please enter your question in the Q&A box to the right side of your monitor, and I will announce your question on your behalf. So again, please raise your hand in the room if you have a question, and a microphone will be brought to you. Durgesh? Please state your name and your firm, just so everyone joining virtually can hear you. Thanks. Durgesh Chopra with Evercore ISI. Thanks for having us. Maybe just in the context of the long-term EPS growth rate, 5%-7%, can you just remind us how are you considering any additional expenditures or over what's budgeted on the offshore side? Just remind us what the arrangements there are and what level of risks is factored into your 5%-7%. Do you want to take that? Sure, I'll take that. Thanks, Durgesh. So our base financial plan assumes that we deliver the project on time, on budget, $9.8 billion, so that's what's baked in. Recognize that under the comprehensive settlement, supported by the various stakeholders in Virginia, that up to $10.3 billion, that cost, as prudently incurred, is fully recoverable from customers. And then also keep in mind that to the extent that there's any incremental above that, we have a partner who's funding 50% of that capital, up to $11.3 billion. So we continue to be exceptionally confident around the way the project is developing, and we feel like we've been reasonable in our assumption for costs for that project in this financial plan. Great. Anthony? Hey, good morning. Anthony Crowdell from Mizuho. Just two quick ones. In a normal course of the year, with maybe fuel deferrals and regulatory decisions, how much does your FFO to debt metric swing? And in that normal course of the year, will we always be above the higher threshold of 14%? And then second question is just some great data on the data center slides. It seemed that there's a lot of opportunity there, but I was surprised that it doesn't roll down into EPS growth rate. I actually wrongly thought that it would be with the strong data center growth in your service territory, very unique for the company, that we'd maybe see more demand and maybe more earnings growth. Thank you. Why don't you take the first? Yeah. Thanks, Anthony. I'll take that first question. Very good question. So we've quantified in the past some examples of when we've seen regulatory cost or rate pressure impact our FFO to debt metrics, and those have ranged in individual circumstances anywhere between 30 and 70 basis points. And by developing a cushion of 100 to 200 basis points on average at the Moody's and S&P downgrade thresholds, we feel like we've built a very robust cushion to withstand those types of pressures going forward. So we consider that objective, as well as the other objectives of the business review, as having been accomplished. Yeah, on your data center question, the data center growth is real, as we talked about. We've put together a plan that Steven described was appropriately conservative, that we're not setting every dial to eleven. And that goes for, sort of across the board. So, we think a 5%-7% growth rate is highly appropriate, taking into account, where the growth is coming from. I mean, when you look at what the rate base growth is in Virginia, it is pretty substantial. And then sort of put that in the mix with the rest of, the operating segments. 5%-7%, we think lands us in a very good spot. Great, thank you. Our next question will actually come from a virtual participant, Andrew Weisel from Scotia. On dividends, what exactly does 60s range mean? Does that mean below 70% or around 65%? We're trying to understand approximately when we might see dividend growth based on the 5%-7% EPS growth outlook. It means 60s. That we, we chose that, we chose that phrase for a reason. I, I can understand why you want to try to model very precisely, but our objective is to get to a peer-appropriate payout ratio. We define peer appropriate right now as mid-60s, or and we'll just see as we go along. So, I apologize, but we're not gonna offer a more specific number than that. I would add that, we've given the tools necessary to model what a payout ratio would look like over time. We've given a starting point for EPS. We've given a growth rate. If you simply took the $3.30 as an example, and grew it at the midpoint of 6% per year, and you assume we hold the dividend steady, it would be towards the very back end to get to that midpoint of 65%. But as Bob mentioned, before we recommence the growth, we'll take stock of what investor expectations. We'll be dialoguing with investors to make sure we understand what they think is best practices with regard to an appropriate payout ratio range. But for us today, mid-60s, in the 60s is appropriate. Jeremy? Hi, good morning, Jeremy Tonet, JP Morgan. Thanks for having us here this morning. Just wanted to see, I guess, if you look at the EPS in 2024 and 2025, the illustrations laid out, looks like that's above the 5%-7% long-term CAGR, 2025, a bit, you know, a bit above that. So just wondering what drivers factor into that versus the longer term growth range. You're right. Thanks, Jeremy, and we indicate in the slide that we expect a CAGR between 2023 and 2025 about 9%. There's several drivers that roll into that. But keep in mind, last year, we spent $10 billion of capital, and we're showing in 2024, $12 billion of capital investment. Then you can see in our profile in 2025, it moderates as offshore wind rolls off, and we start picking up some of the new project. So it's, you know, for some of that inner year, it's return to normal weather, it's the resumption of Millstone operations as normal. It's just significant rider-based growth based on that very significant capital plan. So those are the key drivers. As we look forward again, assume 5%-7% from 2025 to 2029. Got it. Thanks for that. And then, as far as the review process is concerned, and the assets that were retained within contracted energy, I was wondering if you could speak a bit more of why those businesses were kept versus sold. And also, as we think about the assets being divested, I imagine there's some dyssynergies that come along with that, and just wondering if there's synergies later down the road that could be captured against that. So I'll take the first part, and then, Steven can answer the second part. As we discussed in our opening, we looked at everything, and those contracted energy assets that we retained, we think are an important part of the business mix. They generate free cash flow that helps our balance sheet and helps us to invest in the regulated business. They are decarbonization sort of forward, all of them. And if you just look at each piece of them, you know, Millstone is an incredibly valuable asset in a region of the country that wants a carbon-free generation. It's essential to the reliability of the region. Our solar portfolio will just sort of steady Eddie produce cash. Renewable natural gas, we got in early, and we've developed one of the larger portfolios, and we think that that's gonna play well for us. And then finally, Charybdis is critical for us to build our offshore wind project ourselves. So looking at all the pieces put together, this was the right mix in our mind of great regulated growth opportunities in these growing states with common sense regulation, and then these sort of fairly small, obviously, in the grand scheme of things, deregulated businesses that generate some cash that help us there. And Jeremy, on dyssynergies. So, we've included a disclosure in the appendix today that shows 2023 corporate and other segment. That's to try and demystify a segment that has mystified investors for some time. And you'll see in there a line around corporate services and what's in there. So, as a result of the asset sales, there's about $100 million of pre-tax dyssynergies that are baked into this plan. And, we're attacking that. We're looking at O&M closely. We mentioned $55 million of targeted corporate cost cuts. So that's in there, and that's factored in, and then we're taking steps, as we always do, to manage our O&M, while not sacrificing exceptional customer reliability. So that is baked in. Great, just a reminder, for those virtual participants, please, submit your questions in the Q&A box, and I'll ask them on your behalf. But it looks like we have another question in the room. Paul? Hi, thank you. Paul Zimbardo, Bank of America. I really appreciate you putting this together. First one, hopefully an easy one on Virginia earned returns. Is it around the authorized level, below authorized, above authorized? And then the second, on the effective tax rate slide you give, so it looks like it dips down to, like, 14% from 18.5% and 16%. Is that an earnings driver, or is that kinda just the flow-through of the offshore wind projects? Thank you. I'll take the first, and you can take the second. We expect to earn our authorized, as I said in our opening remarks. We've got... If you think about Virginia, a big chunk of investment is rider recoverable. That's trued up every year. And then, we'll have base cases every two years. You know, the period we're in now, if you'll recall, the case that we filed that has been settled, the law said we couldn't seek a rate increase. So is there some chance that puts a little pressure on earned return in 2024, 2025? Maybe. Too early to know for sure. But, we're very confident in our ability to earn our earned returns in Virginia. And Paul, on your- Our authorized returns. I'm sorry. Can you just repeat that? Well, the question was about Virginia. I can talk about South Carolina, too, if you want. Happy to. We're not earning our authorized in South Carolina. We file quarterly reports there that shows that. We're filing a rate case today, or we're filing one, I guess, whenever the office opens in South Carolina. We're filing a base rate case there. That's on the electric side. On the gas side of South Carolina, you know, we have a sort of annual or regular rider kind of process. So we're earning our authorized in South Carolina on the gas side. On the electric side, we've been under-earning. We've been investing a great deal in South Carolina on behalf of our customers. And so we'll file a rate case today to seek to address that sum. And I mean, there's legislation moving through South Carolina that we'll see how it goes in the end, but it's clearly stating the desire of South Carolina policymakers, if it passes, to promote the financial health of the utility, and part of that, in our mind, is being able to try to limit regulatory lag some. ... Then Paul, on the second part of your question with regard to the effective tax rate, is your question? Could you repeat your question about— Sure. So it looked like the effective tax rate got to 13%-15% in the long-term assumptions versus 15%-17% in 2025. I don't know if that's an earnings benefit for the company, or that's just kind of the flow-through of, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind that goes to, ratepayers. There's an earnings benefit associated with that tax rate, and some of it also is shared with customers. Okay. Thank you. Shar? Hey, guys. Good morning. It's Morning, Shar. Shar from Guggenheim. Can you just speak to the vessel earnings within sort of the contracted energy segment? I guess, what's the visibility there? What's embedded in plan post the project, and is a potential monetization still an option as an offset to equity? And I do have a follow-up. You want to take that? Yeah. So we've been a teeny bit obscure on that, Shar. It's. And you'll see that. We've been very transparent around certain aspects of contracted energy. We've given more disclosure on Millstone than I think we've ever given. We're giving effectively five years of hedge information, capacity information, PPA information. We're also giving you an EBITDA number on the long-term contracted solar number. We're giving an even EBITDA number on RNG, although we're not giving you necessarily the specific embedded assumptions around open market prices in Millstone and the biofuel cost or price for RNG. Now, on Charybdis, contracted primarily going forward to our project, approved under an affiliate act, and then thereafter, we know we are aware, and we know there is significant demand for that vessel that will support construction up and down the Eastern Seaboard. But we're not explicitly disclosing what those day rates will be because, again, that's commercially sensitive information at this point. But you can look at how we've given you the breakdown of earnings for the contracted asset segment. You can kind of try and back in a little bit there. So that's the one piece we're going to make you do some work on. No, just kidding. But yeah, good question. We're not going to provide that detail at this time. To the extent we have an announcement to make, we'll provide that information. Okay, perfect. And then just the 4% midpoint, sales growth assumption for Virginia, can you just speak to how that, how that could trend within that 5%-7% if demand continues to accelerate in Virginia, and maybe there's a spillover effect obviously in South Carolina, too? Thanks. Yeah. The sales growth assumptions, like everything else I think we've put in, are well justified by everything that we've seen. We'll adjust as we go along if we need to, but you know, they fit squarely within the 5%-7% growth rate. We've got obviously a high degree of confidence in the data center load that's coming. We've got appendix materials sort of showing what's already contracted versus what we expect the peak demand growth to be among data centers in the DOM Zone. And Shar, just also point out, the appendix, we give you sensitivities for 2024 and 2025, so you can actually interpolate a little bit and say, "Hey, if I think it's lower or higher at these jurisdictions than what they've given me, I now have a tool to sensitize my own model." Again, we feel like we've been reasonable in our assumptions in the plan to the extent we saw better sales. But I think also one thing Bob said in his prepared remarks that's really key is sales from data centers are great, but they are lower margin. What we look at is the full value chain of distribution, transmission, and even generation, regulated investment that grows rate base, that ultimately translates into that durable, high-quality earnings growth. When we think about data centers, we're excited about the investment opportunity as much as we are about the sale opportunity, sales opportunity. Great. Nick? Hey, thanks. Nick Campanella at Barclays. Hey, Nick. Thanks for all the disclosures today. So I guess you talked about having 100-200 basis points of cushion in the FFO to debt. Is there kind of like a shaping to that as, you know, you started a high base, and you had this Millstone outage you highlighted, you have this big ramp in the offshore capital, but then all that D&A should start to accrue in 2027. So- Yeah. How should we kind of think about that? That's a really good question. I'll take that if it's all right. Yeah. So in 2023, unadjusted, we'd be at 12%, but that doesn't account for the asset sales, the weather, some of those adjustments that we've highlighted in the earnings walk. If you did that, you'd be in the 16%-17% range. For 2024, we'd expect to be in the 13%, but again, that's also not accounting for some of these asset sales that are still closing and the interest savings associated with that. By the time we get to 2025, we expect to basically be at that 15% number, FFO to debt. And we're using, you know, a very generic view of FFO to debt. We make some very simple adjustments around hybrid equity credit, and a couple of other small adjustments for programs that we have some capital that we earn a return and recovery on that looks more like expense. For Moody's and S&P and Fitch, they each have their own individual methodologies, and I mentioned in my prepared remarks, for that 15%, we'd expect under S&P's methodology to be a little higher and under Moody's methodology to be a little lower. 2025 will be our weakest year in that plan. And but then we see very strong rebounding, especially with offshore wind coming in in 2026 and 2027, and then staying strong thereafter. And there was a lot of thought, Nick, I'm glad you asked the question. There's a lot of thought put into this tenet of balance sheet conservatism. As Bob mentioned, we have lived with a get-along balance sheet for a long time. I think, seven of the last eight years, we've been below the downgrade threshold as published at Moody's, and, with rates increasing and so forth, it became more and more clear that that simply is not going to work. So we have tried to be real conservative around how we manage the balance sheet, because once you get behind the eight ball, and we've lived this, once you get behind the eight ball, it's very costly to get back on the front foot. So again, the 15% is an average, on a basic computation, that's pretty much over along the entire 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029 time period. I mentioned 2025 is gonna be our weakest year. Moody's a little bit lower, S&P a little bit higher than that 15%. Thanks for that. And then I guess, the LDC sales, can you just kind of remind us of the approval path and where you kind of stand in getting those closed? Sure. I'll talk a little bit about that. Sort of order we would expect Ohio, Utah, or Western, and then North Carolina. We're on the docket in the Utilities Commission in Ohio for March sixth, so next week. In Utah, we filed a testimony or filed, I'm sorry, with the commission saying, we seek to delay our rebuttal testimony filing because there's discussions the parties believe settlement is coming, potentially at hand. So think of that as in the second quarter, and then we would think, North Carolina, more likely in the third quarter. So everything is very much on track with respect to those. Oh, and I'm sorry, then, offshore wind in Virginia, you asked about the LDCs, but just our list of regulatory approvals, offshore wind in the fourth quarter, we would think. Great. Our next question will come from online, from Steve Fleishman and David Paz from Wolfe Research, with two questions. The first question is: "What are the potential upsides and risks to your plan?" And the second question is: "Can you please clarify what you mean by $0.10 of RNG taxes relative to $0.03-$0.04 of ITCs? I'll take the first, and you take the second. So on the we feel really good, Steve, about the capital plan, the growth plan that we've got. These are in regulated investment. These are real identified projects that are driven by customer demand, so, or state public policy. So that, that capital plan that we're talking about, we feel really good about. You know, look, could the, you know, unhedged part of Millstone number change a little bit, something like that? There might be some risks there, obviously, but the regulated capital growth plan, we think is very solid. We think it is appropriately conservative, and so we don't see a lot of risk associated with that. Yeah, and let me just add on those two points. Part of the conservatism is the assumption in our plan around reasonable rate case outcomes, reasonable interest rate assumptions, but informed by the market curve, basically. So we'll have some exposure to rates, but we haven't put our thumb on the scale on where we're starting with an assumption around those rates. Bob mentioned Millstone, but even there, we've tried to be conservative. What we assume in the plan is a little conservative relative to the market, observable Millstone power prices, and similar for our renewable natural gas inputs, which are small, but we've added some conservatism around the production profile and the price of the attributes. So again, there are some risks. Bob mentioned Millstone pricing, Millstone performance. I'd say interest rates are areas of risk for us, but capital is, I don't view one that we feel very concerned about in terms of the ability to deliver the capital plan we've laid out today. On the clarification, renewable natural gas projects qualify for two different types of tax credits simultaneously. They qualify for both an ITC, a traditional investment tax credit, which allows you to claim that credit at the time that the project goes in service. Under the deferral accounting methodology, we'll get the cash when it goes into service, but then we'll recognize the income from that stream over the useful life of the renewable natural gas project, which is 30 years. So for all the ITCs in our plan, they're recognized now over the long term, and that accounts for about $0.03-$0.04 every year. So that's baked in the $3.40 number that we've given you for 2025, and you should sort of expect that to be static through the rest of the plan. And it's, it's not really new ITC investment for the most part. It's just the, the RNG that we have through 2025, and then, the continuation of, of that, recognition. RNG also qualifies for the 45Z credit, which is more aligned to a product, think of it as a production tax credit. In that case, there is no deferral mechanism because it's, it's realized as you produce those volumes. So the $0.10, and we've actually ranged it in the appendix materials to give folks a sense of $0.08-$0.12, we're taking the midpoint of $0.10. That's driven by that very specific 45Z tax credit. And the way to calculate that 45Z tax credit, which I'm sure you know, is you start with an amount produced, which we've given you in the appendix. You use a starting factor, a diesel or gasoline. We've actually assumed the more conservative diesel factor, and then you multiply that by a carbon intensity score, and there again, the bottom end of our range of $0.08 uses a very conservative carbon intensity score, and the top end of our range, I would argue, still uses a very conservative carbon intensity score, but because those regs are not out yet, we don't know exactly. So we've tried to be very conservative around those assumptions. Great. Durges? Durgesh Chopra with Evercore ISI. Just a quick follow-up, Steve. In going through the slides in the appendix, there's a slide which talks about the cash tax benefit and it's a big swing from 2024 to 2025. First, can you clarify that represents actual cash out the door and in the door, and what's causing- Yeah. the move from 2024 over to 2025? Yeah, let me just- Thank you. If it's all right, let me pop open to that slide, and I'll walk you through it. So I would think of slide Durgesh 40 and 41 working in tandem with one another. So on 40, the very bottom row of that table, the consolidated cash tax benefit or payable, you can see what we've assumed for 2024, 2025, and then actually by year 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029. So the question is, what's generating either those cash taxes payable or benefit? And in 2024, what's driving the big payable is the sale of a gain on the sale of our assets, the LDCs, so that's what's driving it. And then you can see in 2025, we actually pop back to a benefit, and we hold that benefit for a number of years. So the benefit is driven effectively by what you're seeing on 41. The company is generating a normal course, both regulated and non-regulated, as we've talked about, and we've tried to be pretty detailed in the table, so you can audit it yourself. But it's generating some fairly significant tax. So what will we do with those tax credits? Effectively, for the first couple of years, we have the ability to use carryback provision. So because we're a cash taxpayer in 2024, as you see, if we generate benefits in 2025, 2026, and even in 2027, we can effectively use those benefits to offset what we already paid in cash taxes. And so that's why you see in 2025, 2026, 2027, we're actually in a tax positive. Then later in the program or in the plan, as we get a little further out, we can either consume those organically or we can use transferability, but we're actually not planning any transferability until, at the earliest, 2028, 2029, about there, later half of 2027, 2028, 2029. Does that make sense? Yes. Okay. Great. Our next question will come from online, from David Arcaro from Morgan Stanley. Are there any capital programs or investment categories that you're considering that could be potential upside to the capital plan relative to the $43 billion level? Yeah, as we've described, we think this is an appropriately conservative capital plan, realistic, based on projects that are actually coming. I can't tell you what could, you know, potentially change something, but I can tell you a little bit about how we're going to think about any change to or additions to the capital plan. It's going to be driven by customer need, by demand, by state policy, something like that. And we're going to think very carefully about, as Steven talked about in his prepared remarks, about how we finance any kind of CapEx. We need to make sure that we're very comfortable with the balance sheet impact, and we're very comfortable with the business risk profile. So as we think about, you know, potential changes to any sort of capital plan that we've shown, and as I've already described, the projects that we have in there, in that plan are very real, and we feel very good about them. Those are the kind of things that we're going to consider if there are potential upsides to that. Yeah, I would just, if it's okay, I just- Sure. I would just add, we've adopted a mantra of spending what we can afford. So first and foremost, we're going to satisfy the customer demand, reliability, and policy-related. We're going to think about affordability for the customer, of course. And then ultimately, when it comes to financing it, we're going to spend what we can afford, and that's how we're going to maintain a healthy balance sheet, which will put us in a position to best serve our customers, and which our view, that unlocks our best possible return for our shareholders. One more question from online, from Sophie Karp, from KeyBanc. Could you talk a little bit about your parent debt? Are there any opportunities to reduce it further? I think she's asking about, kind of what's your guidance for parent debt. Yeah, thanks, Sophie. I think we've given that guidance of 30% of parent debt to total debt. We've given an appendix slide that actually walks through that calculation by year through the plan, and we think that's appropriate. And as we go forward, we will use the parent both equity and debt to maintain balance sheet conservatism, but also to fund these programs. I think we have one in the back from... Yep. Hi, thank you. Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs. Thanks for all the detail today. Maybe first just on O&M, as we think about the long-term CAGR of that 1%-2% relative to the 2%-2.5% at Virginia and South Carolina, can you just talk through what some of those offsets would be to get you to that 1%-2% range? Yeah, we're very focused. I'll let Steven add some detail if he wants. We're, as we said, we're focused on corporate O&M control, and I would just sort of describe, there's no one thing. There's a variety of, you know, we'll take advantage of technology to improve productivity. We'll focus on programs. We'll reduce corporate sponsorships. We'll think about our real estate portfolio. One example, we've already announced that we're selling our corporate headquarters in Cayce, and we've moved people into very good office space in other existing buildings. So, that's some of the things that are driving the difference between what you're seeing as the overall and the utility. I don't know if you want to add any further detail to that. Great, that's super helpful. And then maybe just to follow up on the financing plan, just as you think about that $2 billion in the hybrid over the course of the plan, any color on timing or sort of structure there? Structure... Thanks, Carly. So structure will be, think of it as Basket C, Moody's 50% equity credit, enhanced junior subordinated note. note. We've used that. As I mentioned, we've got $3 billion of what we consider hybrid capital in the capital structure today. About half of that is junior subordinated notes, and half of that's preferred. As we think about it over the plan, we've given in 2024, for instance, a net zero increase in hybrid, but we actually show ourselves issuing. That's because we have a JSN that comes off in October. I would expect we'd refinance that. So we'll be opportunistic about it. If you think about $2 billion over that timeframe, you can sort of back into what sort of an annual run rate might look like. That's how we'll think about hybrid issuance going forward. Great. Well, thank you. Oh, one more from Jeremy? I think Shar, Shar's got one too. We're not ignoring you, Shar, I promise. Jeremy asked his quota on the earnings call. Exactly. Jeremy's demonstrated a true ability to get back in the queue. I just kept coming back for more. Jeremy Tonet, JP Morgan. Just wanted to touch on the funding plan a little bit more, if I could. And, as it relates to reducing parent debt, the cadence thereof, is it, is it gonna be largely timed to LDC sale proceeds? Mm-hmm. Would it be lumpy like that? Any other color there? And then on the equity side, is there any ability to defray equity needs, be it transferability, nuclear tax credits, or any other items that could maybe impact that? Yeah, so it, to get to that, 30%, I think in the slide for 2024, it's showing 27%-ish. That, that's those proceeds coming in Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4. While we're still financing, like last year, we financed $10 billion of CapEx, this year, 12, which is why you don't see a $20 billion reduction in debt. So that, that'll be lumpy. And then from there, it'll be smooth, is how I'd describe it. In terms of the amount of equity, that, that we think is a very reasonable amount of equity as a percentage of our market cap over the plan. We'll always look for opportunities, of course, as, as any company would, to reduce the amount of equity need, but not in our case, to the sacrifice of that robust credit cushion. Could things come along? I think we've accounted for a lot of those things in our plan. And so I think that's what folks should put in their model. That's helpful. Thanks. And then slide 35, just want to confirm a point there. As far as it relates to the 2023, 2024 illustrative earnings, that has the 45, the RNG 45 tax credits in those numbers? I think I know exactly what- Referring to the bridge, Yeah, so there is no RNG 45Z in 2024 because it's not eligible. It starts in 2025. So the 306 has none. So back to one of your earlier questions, what's driving $0.10 of that growth? So if you actually took, instead of 340 in 2025, if you took the 330, which is X 45Z, that CAGR of 9% is 7.6%. It's a little closer to that 5.7. Still higher because of that huge amount of capital we spent in 2023 and that we expect to spend in 2024. Does that help? That's very helpful. Thanks. And then just one last one, if I could, is: you think about the next biennial here, any way to frame, I guess, thoughts going in, conservativeness, just any color? Yeah. What I would suggest, as you're thinking about that, the way we think about it, is we've demonstrated over the course of the last, I don't know, three, four years, our ability to work very constructively with parties in regulatory proceedings of all types. As we just described, we settled the Biennial one, I guess we're calling it, with everybody. The hearing examiner wrote a really long report, and the commission said, "We like the stipulation that everybody agreed to." If you look at our clean energy filings or nuclear Subsequent License Renewal rider filings, all of those, we find constructive outcomes. So we expect to do the same thing going forward. As Steven said, and as we have said before, our plan is premised on constructive regulatory outcomes. Our history would suggest that that's very realistic. You know, we are important in Virginia and South Carolina to the states' goals, and we need to be financially healthy in order to help the state achieve those goals. We want to, that is our objective, is to help the states where we do business succeed, because our business succeeds when that happens. An important part of that is constructive regulatory outcomes, and everything that we've been seeing would suggest that's gonna happen. Great. Thank you. Great, I think we'll take our last question from Shar. Hey, guys. Just real quick on the 15% FFO to debt, super healthy. Steven, do you know how much of that breakdown can come from nuclear sort of PTCs? It's kind of been topical with investors- Yeah ... especially as you get to the tail end of this year and rhetoric around IRA and- Yeah Repealing IRA can come about. So I guess, talk about how much of that is from nuclear PTCs and whether there's an offsetting factor, just in case nuclear PTCs go away. Thanks. Yeah. Thanks, Shar. We think of nuclear PTCs as very customer beneficial. So let me break it down. In Connecticut, with Millstone, the extent that Millstone qualifies for nuclear PTCs, under the contract we currently have, the PPA, all of that value flows back to our customers, which is great for those customers. Very similar in our regulated utility construct. Those nuclear PTCs would go straight into our cost of service calc, and given the forward-looking nature of our base rate cases in both our jurisdictions and the time, the cadence of rate cases, we don't think of that as a credit help. We think of that as a customer help. To be clear, we have a very de minimis amount of nuclear PTC in our plan that ultimately makes it way to the bottom line, and that's just a function of how the cost of service works. Great. Well, thank you. This ends the Q&A session for today's presentation, and thank you very much for joining this event, and have a nice remainder of your day.