Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. My name is Shamali, and I am your event operator today. I would like to welcome everyone to today's conference, Public Service Enterprise Group's First Quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call and Webcast. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question and answer session for members of the financial community. At that time, if you have a question, you will need to press the star and the number 1 on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, please press star and the number 2. If anyone should require operator assistance during the conference, please press star 0 on your telephone keypad. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded today, April 30, 2025, and will be available for replay as an audio webcast on PSEG's Investor Relations website at investor.pseg.com. I would now like to turn the conference over to Carlotta Chan. Please go ahead. Good morning and welcome to PSEG's First Quarter 2025 Earnings Presentation. On today's call are Ralph LaRossa, Chair, President, and CEO, and Dan Cregg, 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 30-minute question and answer session. I will now turn the call over to Ralph LaRossa. Thank you, Carlotta, and thank you for joining us this morning to review PSEG's First Quarter 2025 results and discuss the outlook for the business. PSEG delivered a solid operating and financial performance at both our utility, PSE&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 the October 2024 base rate case settlement, as well as the seasonality of gas revenues, which are concentrated in the first quarter. Results also reflected the positive impact of our consistent and reliable nuclear generation performance, which 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 six years. During these challenging conditions, PSE&G maintained high levels of reliability and efficient customer response times, while PSEG Nuclear generated and supplied the grid with approximately 8.4 TWh of 24x7 carbon-free power. PSEG's focus 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 and storms from the recently concluded rate case. This predictability, combined with PSE&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 flexibility to deliver safe and reliable service. The domestic concentration of our supply chain also limits the amount of tariff-related cost pressure on our own end. Combined with our multi-year labor agreements with all of our New Jersey unions extending into 2027, it 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 1st. As a reminder, BGS is a pass-through cost for energy supply that PSE&G does not earn a profit on. The increase is largely due to the July 2024 base residual auction result of $270 a MW 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&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 and balance, upward pressure on energy prices will persist. While these discussions are ongoing, PSE&G continues to offer an enviable record of reliability, affordability, and customer satisfaction. PSE&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&G also began rolling out the second phase of its Clean Energy Future Energy Efficiency II program, which 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 twelve-fold increase in inquiries from large load or data center customers into PSE&G's new business pipeline, which had grown from 400 MW in early 2024 to 4,700 MW. These numbers include both mature applications and initial leads. Our latest update now shows PSE&G experienced another quarterly increase in large load inquiries for new service connections, and this pipeline now exceeds 6,400 MW of capacity requested as of March 31. Our engineers have been responding to these inquiries on a 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 a 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 TWh 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 to change the current New Jersey law that prohibits regulated utilities from building and owning new generation. We remain open to this possibility, and 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 co-location, with the position that the behind-the-meter data centers 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 90-day settlement process, which could be a path towards timely establishment of rules for co-location. To recap, we are reiterating PSEG's full-year non-GAAP operating earnings guidance at $3.94-$4.06 per share, which is up by approximately 9% at the $4 midpoint over our 2024 reported results. We are also reiterating PSE&G's updated five-year capital spending program at $21 billion-$24 billion, which supports an expected rate-based CAGR of 6%-7.5% through 2029. This, in turn, drives PSEG's 5%-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&G, Nuclear, Long Island, and Ed Services for their dedication and positive difference they make every day for our customers, our company, and the communities where we live and work. I'll now turn the call over to Dan, who will walk you through the results for the quarter and our outlook for the remainder of 2025, and then rejoin the call for our Q&A. Thank you, Ralph. Good morning, everybody. PSEG reported net income of $1.18 per share for the first quarter of 2025. That's compared to $1.06 per share in 2024. Non-GAAP operating earnings were $1.43 per share in the first quarter of 2025, compared to $1.31 per share in 2024. We've provided you with information on slide 8 regarding the contributions to net income and non-GAAP operating earnings by business for the first quarter. Slide 9 contains a waterfall chart that takes you through the net changes quarter over quarter in non-GAAP operating earnings per share, also by major business. Starting with PSE&G, which reported first quarter net income and non-GAAP operating earnings of $546 million for 2025, compared to $488 million in 2024. Utilities results were driven by the implementation of new electric and gas-based distribution rates that went into effect October 15, 2024. As Ralph mentioned, the recovery of previous capital investments totaling more than $3 billion. Starting with the waterfall on slide 9, compared to the first quarter of 2024, transmission margin was a penny 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. In particular, gas revenues, as approximately half of our annual gas revenues are realized in the first quarter. Margin also benefited from recovery of energy efficiency investment. Distribution O&M expense was $0.05 per share unfavorable compared to the first quarter of 2024, 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 a penny per share and $0.02 per share, respectively, compared to the first quarter of 2024, 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 2024. As a reminder, weather variations have a minimal impact on PSE&G's utility margin because of the Conservation Incentive Program or SIP mechanism. This decoupling mechanism limits the impact of weather and other sales variances, positive or negative, on electric and gas margins, while helping PSE&G promote the widespread adoption of energy conservation, including energy efficiency and solar programs. Under the SIP, the number of 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&G invested approximately $800 million during the first quarter. We remain on track to execute on our 2025 regulated capital investment plan of $3.8 billion, focused on infrastructure modernization, energy efficiency, and meeting growing demand. We have maintained our five-year regulated capital investment plan of $21-$24 billion through 2029, representing a $3 billion 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 $2.9 billion over a six-year period. The energy efficiency program totals include approximately $1 billion 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 2025, Power and Other reported net income of $43 million compared to $44 million in the first quarter of 2024. Non-GAAP operating earnings were $172 million in the first quarter, compared to $169 million in the first quarter of 2024. Referring to the waterfall on slide 9, for the first quarter of 2025, net energy margin rose by $0.02 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&M increased by $0.03 per share compared to the first quarter of 2024, mostly driven by higher nuclear costs, and interest expense rose by $0.02 per share, reflecting incremental debt at higher interest rates. Lastly, the timing of taxes recorded 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 $0.04 per share in the quarter compared to 2024. Touching on some recent financing activity, as of the end of March, PSEG had total available liquidity of $4.6 billion, including approximately $900 million of cash on hand. While PSEG had significant available liquidity in the year-end 2024 at $2.6 billion, this represents a significant improvement as we accessed the bond markets at both PSE&G and PSEG during the first quarter. In total this quarter, we issued $1.9 billion 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 $3.75 billion revolving credit facilities by one year to March of 2029. PSEG's variable rate debt at the end of March was at PSEG Power, consisting of a $1.25 billion term loan, which matures this coming June, and a 364-day term loan for $400 million, which matures in December of 2025. 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&G issued a total of $900 million of secured medium-term notes, consisting of $400 million of 5.05% medium-term notes due March 2035, and $500 million of 5.5% medium-term notes due March of 2055. A portion of the proceeds will be used to repay $350 million of 3% medium-term notes due May 15. Later in March, PSEG issued $1 billion of senior notes, consisting of $600 million of 4.9% notes due March 2030, and $400 million of 5.4% notes due March 2035. A portion of these proceeds will be used to repay $550 million 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 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-$4.06 per share. We are also reaffirming our long-term forecast of 5%-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. Operator, we are ready to begin the question and answer session. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session for members of the financial community. If you have a question, please press the star and the number one on your telephone keypad. If your question has been answered and you wish 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 Coffin Team here for Char. Thanks for taking the questions. Hey, Coffin. Hey, Josh. Good morning. Maybe just starting off on the 6,400 MW of large load interconnection that you've noted in the prepared remarks, do you see a timeline starting to form on the potential load inflection? How is New Jersey thinking about resource adequacy with that load potential? You mentioned the legislative potential, but do you 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 think what I heard was, when do we see that load coming in, the 6,400, and also how resource adequacy is being thought about in New Jersey as a result of that? Is that? Right. Yeah, okay, great. Look, we have always said, take that 6,400 and apply a factor, 10%-20%, and we'll leave that to you all to think what the right amount is. Again, remembering for us, from an earnings standpoint, we're decoupled. The way we think about it is more from this good news for customers if we can spread any costs across additional MWh. That would certainly be a positive from a customer standpoint. For the timing of it, I think it's happening at different stages. We are seeing some interconnections take place already. Obviously, the ones that are a little bit larger in the couple hundred MW requests we have, there still seem to be some folks that have been shopping for the best location for their particular application that they might have. We just see that the state's economic development plan is taking hold and happy to see the amount of additional MW of requests that we've had come in. As it relates to resource adequacy, look, that's a big conversation that's taking place across the entire RTO footprint right now. We just saw some new planning numbers come out from PJM that we have some questions about. There's an upcoming TIAC meeting. We're going to be asking some questions at that TIAC meeting regarding some of the assumptions that are in there. The one thing that we heard from our legislators over the last week or two was to be more vocal about that. 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 proposed legislation in New Jersey. We had some hearings last week. There is discussion of it. I would say right now it is at the discussion point as opposed to certainly being active, but we are here and remain available as a resource to the state if they decide to take resource adequacy into their own hands through some legislation. Understood. Appreciate that. On the FERC 206, with the comments that were filed last week, do you have a view on settlement process versus outright order, any preferred route from your perspective? Has that FERC process come up in your commercial discussions at all at Artificial Island? 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. I'll let Dan, I think you were asking a little bit about specific conversation, so I've always given that to Dan, and I'll do that again as that is being led by his team. Generically, as it relates to the proceeding down at FERC, we would always like to see a settlement, right? I mean, that to me is always the best solution. I would love to see the industry come together and find solutions to help the tech industry out. It's pretty clear based upon some information I continue to see. Tech needs for generation continue to grow. We, as an industry, need to find a common solution 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. That has been the single concern that we've had since this process started. Dan, you want to talk a little bit about? Yeah, no, I agree with Ralph. I think the non-discriminatory aspect is really important. I just leave the commercial aspect to just a single comment that I think that the counterparties are looking for the most flexibility that they can have. Right now, there's some uncertainty related to how much they will have. They're waiting on this answer, whether settlement can get us the best answer, which it seems like it's going to be more representative of what the parties are looking for. I think that that would be ideal, but they're never easy to get. Time will tell whether we'll have one of those. Excellent. Appreciate that. Thanks for taking the questions. Thanks, Coffin. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Durgesh Chopra with Evercore ISI. Please proceed with your question. Hey, Durgesh. Ralph, good morning. Thank you for taking my question. Good morning, Dan. Hey, just on the commercial arrangements related to nuclear, just understand there's a lot of moving pieces and the timeline is uncertain. Just from a demand perspective and a 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. We've seen Microsoft, Amazon, some of the other hyperscalers sort of pull off of some of their contracts. Just seeing if you're seeing any softness there. No, I definitely would not call it softness. I think there's still a demand for power, and 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. I would say there continues to be interest in the nature of the power and the scarcity of the power that nuclear provides. Durgesh, overall, that's why we included those numbers that we did in the new business activity that we're seeing. It has not slowed down. Again, maybe it's the same person calling 50 locations and asking the same questions, but I don't see that as the case. These are unique, at least for us, they're unique requests that are coming in. I continue to be surprised and impressed by the amount that we're seeing. Good. 10,000 MW peak, Durgesh. 6,400 is not all coming in. I mean, Ralph talked about some lower percentage of that, but the requests do continue. Got it. That's very helpful c olor. Just switching gears quickly on LIPA, just what to expect there. I believe there are some meetings here at the end of May. Do you expect a decision then, or what are kind of the data points or dates we need to track throughout the year as they make the decision on whether you're going to provide services there or not? Durgesh, I got to take a half a step back for you. I don't know if you're aware of the meeting that just took place at LIPA on this subject. Are you up to speed on that? The first, I think there was a what I'm up to speed on is there was a first, I guess you went toward the first portion of the contract, and then there's the bigger contract that's still. Right. Right. Yeah. No, there was actually, over the last 24 hours, there's been a lot of activity on this front. Let me just try to summarize for everybody on a call what's taking place. There was a recommendation made by LIPA Management to select 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 it after we started this call. We're just happy to see that we're still in consideration, but I don't know any more than that. All I can promise 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. There was this flurry of activity over the last 24 hours, and that culminated within the last hour, as I said, with a no vote from the LIPA board on the management recommendation to select a different service provider. Got it. Sorry, I missed that. Do we know what the next step is here? Do they go back to the drawing board, or what happens? Yeah, it gets right back to what you said. On May 22nd, there's going to be a next board meeting, and I expect that we'll hear some next steps. They went into executive session after the public session. I would imagine that that, among other things, would be addressed. Perfect. Okay. I'll leave it there. Get back in the queue. Thanks so much. All right. Thank you, Durgesh. 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 New Jersey and affordability, I was just curious if you could elaborate on your strategy or approach to managing affordability, just given some of the concerns, I think, stemming from PJM capacity pricing. 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. Look, our concern is trying to reach some consensus that helps customers over 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 deferral of charges to customers that is under consideration from all the electric distribution companies here in New Jersey. We would certainly be supportive of anything that comes out from the board. There are legislators that have proposed a number of different bills. I think the most significant one would be the one that would be addressing the core problem here, which is supply. Another way to procure supply in the state, if someone in DeAngelo put a bill in 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. We think we have some unique sites that could be helpful in meeting that, the ones that have pipes and wires already to it. Obviously, we'd have to take some different actions on the site to generate there. We're listening to everyone. It's an issue that is going to face customers. As I mentioned in the prepared remarks, it's going to hit every customer. We want to help our customers as best we can through this time. It's one piece of the affordability challenge that they're facing. Yeah. The other things that are going on in the background, David, there's a lot of customer assistance like LIHEAP, 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 hit toughest from the standpoint of some of these increases. A lot of activity at the company and a lot of activity outside the company all addressing this particular issue. 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, to an earlier question, as we're decoupled, we can help the customer and be supportive without any financial impact to us as a result. Yeah. Excellent. Okay. That's helpful. Thanks. On your efforts to contract nuclear capacity with data centers, I was just curious, do things now stand? 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 then 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, again, I'm going to give that to Dan to give you any details he wants. I think he addressed a bunch of what you said before. Look, we think the FERC process is helpful to show that the industry as a whole is meeting the needs. I would encourage us to reach a settlement on that front so that we can show solidarity in meeting the customer's needs here and that customer being the technology companies that are so thirsty for generation. Dan, you want anything specific? The simple answer is no. It is not contingent upon that. I think 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. Morning, Nick. Hey, good morning. Thanks for that real-time update on LIPA. That was impressive. I just wanted to follow up on the prior line of questioning just in regards to the commercial agreement. We kind of talked about this prior just being maybe a more realistic opportunity for '25. Just given everything that's transpired, I just wanted to be clear, 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. No change, Nick. We are still what we've been saying with respect to how we are progressing and what we're doing is still where we are today. Yeah. I don't have a real-time update for you other than to tell you the following from the Governor's standpoint. He is on another economic development mission in the Middle East and is talking about continued attraction of technology jobs to the state. I'll get an update on that as that progresses and there are some news reports about what he's doing. He's working until his last day here. One of the topics is to continue to attract technology companies. Okay. That's helpful. Just maybe remind us on the quantum of MW that could potentially be part of a commercial agreement. Would you be open to doing 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 some kind of a commercial agreement. All right. Thanks. See you at AGA. See you then. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jeremy Tonet with JP Morgan. Please proceed with your question. Hey, Jeremy. Hi. Good morning. Morning. Just maybe building a little bit on prior comments here and appreciating PJM's call for the next capacity auctions. How do you think about the potential capacity price outcome in the next auction as it relates to customer bill growth at this point? Do you see the price floor carries enough substance to incent ongoing investments in capacity supply or just any other thoughts on the market there? Look, we'll tag team this one again. 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 on the northern side of that collar from a range standpoint, somewhere between the midpoint and the top, I think, is what we continue to see in the consensus of documents that I've read. We have an internal opinion. We really don't talk about that, but I would say turn it back around 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 because we have rolled in three years' worth of capacity increases because we had that proxy price in the BGS auction before, we would not expect to see a large increase for customers in the forward years as a result. That's a positive. What's a negative is the prices are not coming down if those projections are right. It would kind of keep it in that same range, some percentage up or down, but not the double-digit increases that we've all seen here in New Jersey. 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? 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 have not done a lot of homework on costs and how that would wind up playing out with tariff increases and so on. Look, if we have an opportunity to do something to rate base, be able to answer that question in a lot more detail. Dan, you want to add anything? No, I'll just add two things. On your last point, the concept of bullet-prompt incremental generation, honestly, it's less about the price and more about the duration and the timeframe that you're talking about. Given the periods that the auction covers and given the timeframe that it takes to build something new, the price that they're putting out is not something that you're going to get if it prompts you to build a new unit. I think the timing continues to be the challenge at PJM. Just kind of maybe piling on what Ralph talked about before with respect to the overall pricing and customer bill, the BPU set up a good process so that you could gradually see changes over time. That good process, it kind of lost some of its benefits by virtue of PJM's delays in the capacity auction. 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. That proxy price, which was in the last go-round, the previous auction, as we move forward, is currently the previous auction. That proxy price is the $270 price we saw last time. 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. There could be smaller moves, but nothing the magnitude of what we've seen. The collar surrounds that $270. As Ralph said, it probably leads 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. Maybe pivoting to offshore wind and fully appreciating that PSEG 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 opportunities set? Are there any knock-on effects to you guys that we should think about? No knock-on effects for us to the east of New Jersey because we did not have anything in the plan, as 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 think, look, 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 parameters that exist because five years from now, we'll be dealing with the results of it. It's pretty clear to us to help customers. We need to either build more wires or build some generation in the state. It's important to have the accurate parameters built into the PJM process now so 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, Julien. Hey, pleasure. Hey, just following up on this affordability area, I'd love to hear a little bit more specifically. I know you guys alluded to kind of guiding customers with what's out there, but just want to make sure I'm hearing from you guys right, especially to 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 and what you're hearing from the stakeholders, whether it's the governor, the BPU, all this. Yeah. Look, again, I think what we're hearing, Julien, is what the whole country is here. Affordability is a concern. It goes from eggs to energy. From our standpoint, we want to do our part. 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 having this compounding effect. We can't change that. That is a governance issue that PJM needs to deal with, and they'll do what they need to do. What we can do is what we've been trying to do at PJM, which is advocate for some stability so we don't have this happen again. That is a long-term solution. I think 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. It could show up by new wires being built and bringing in generation from another location. What I hear 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 want to have more generation in the state. Those conversations are ongoing, and you've seen some of that in the press. What we can do in the short term is three things, right? We can help from an affordability standpoint, providing customers with access to some of these programs that are out there, assistance programs. We can help with energy efficiency, just continue to help people use less. We have talked about that quite a bit over the years. The new thing that was an idea that was put forth by the BPU was to try to get more people on a plan that would levelize the cost over a 12-month period. We have a program called the Equal Payment Plan. This would be a little bit different than that, but not very different as I currently read it. It would be more of a short-term solution so that customers are still incented to use less electricity in the long term and not count on an equal payment plan. That's a policy decision that will continue to be discussed at the board. We have said, and we want to be part of the solution, and we've always been that way in the state, and I don't see that being any different. Whether it's the long term, the rules, the supply, or the short term where we're trying to help customers out in the three ways that we mentioned, we're going to be here as best we can. Yeah. On that short-term item too, kind of an obvious statement, Julien, but our energy year starts June 1. You will see volume increases at the same time you are starting to see that price increase. Part of that design and part of that thinking is to take this thing out of the summer months. Yeah. Absolutely. Just to clarify here real quickly, on LIPA, 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, the $0.06-$0.08 ballpark that we're talking about here? Yeah. It is not that high. I think we have been saying 5-6, but I will not get into back and forth on that. I think, look, first of all, it is immediate. We would have to manage costs. Any of the costs that were associated with LIPA, we would have to remove those costs. There are multiple ways to do that. On the revenue side, we are always looking for other opportunities. We always have oars in the water on that front. I would hope that we could bring one or two of those opportunities we are looking at to fruition in a timely enough fashion to offset it. That is the goal here. That is why we are confident that we would be able to offset it and remain with our earnings projections that we have put out there to 5-7. Got it. All right. Excellent, guys. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Thanks, Julien. 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. Hi, Carly. Hey. Maybe just to follow up on the large load pipeline comments from earlier, any indications you can share on the breakdown of that 6,400 MW in terms of what are more geared towards initial applications versus those that are more mature in the process? Yeah. Carly, 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 trying 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've said as a 10,000 MW peaking system, we don't expect 6,400 MW to come on. Ralph mentioned earlier, 10%-20%. I think we continue to try to do some guesswork. Obviously, you don't know when someone starts to initiate an interest exactly where they're going to go. 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 going to be more likely and which are not. I don't know. If you're in that 10-20, 25% range, somewhere within there, I think, is a reasonable expectation as to what's going to come forward. That's also used for planning purposes. We don't plan our system around 6,400 MW coming onto the system. We plan for a subset of that based upon that experience. It's probably in that ballpark. It's an imperfect estimate, but it is an estimate. Got it. Okay. Very clear. That's helpful. Thank you. Maybe just as you think about 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 you see as necessary there? Carly, I do not want to completely dismiss it because what we do not know, we do not know. I am very comfortable that we do not have any real problems around the corner because of the type of work that we are planning over the near term, right? It is kind of the very straightforward replacement activities that we have in that last mile. We are not planning on large transmission projects in this cycle. We are not planning on that. We have a little bit of substation and switching station work to do, but no major efforts like we had after Superstorm Sandy. Since that major work is behind us, large project risk is behind us. We are really focused on this last mile activity. The only project that we have of any magnitude is the Maryland project. I've had no indications yet that we have any supply chain concerns on that front. Great. Thank you so much. Thanks, Carly. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Sullivan with Wolff Research. Please proceed with your question. Hey, Michael. Hey, Ralph. I know you kind of 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 the long-term solution? How long-term are we talking? If you were able to bring regulated generation online, how long would that take? Yeah, Michael, I don't want to turn around something that isn't there yet. It'd be hard for us to say that. I would simply be thinking about that this way. We're seeing five- to six-year lead times on some of the turbines. You could call that four. You could call it eight, depending upon who you talk to. I'll say five to six on that front. What we need is we need the decision to be made. By law, we cannot move into this area right now because of Hideca. If the law is changed in the state of New Jersey, we will be there for the customers and for the policymakers. It's a little bit of the chicken and the egg. When does the law get changed? When do we actually get to place orders to try to find some solutions? To give you a timeline when we could actually have additional supply on the system would be, I think, disingenuous on my part to do that. I think what we're doing in the near term is the best we can do with that parts that were dealt in. I say we as the state of New Jersey. We're all working together on this, the policymakers and the companies. Okay. Understood. Just kind of tied to that, just wanted to get your thoughts on the governor's challenge of the previous PJM auction results and how that factors into the dynamic. Yeah. Look, I think policymakers are rightfully concerned about the spike that they saw. 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 asking those questions either in public hearings or by sending letters as well. It is not a surprise. This is something you would expect leadership to do is to ask some questions when you have something like this take place. What took place here, as I think we've said multiple times, is we've had this governance challenge that has caused all three of these auctions to pile up on top of each other. As a result, the customers are seeing the spike. Yeah. I mean, Michael, they're going to do their investigation. They're going to find out what they find out. We're not aware of anything that's problematic. There's nothing wrong with that check going on just to validate what has happened. Okay. 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 bills out there that we should be watching? No. No. No. No. I think, look, I think there are three solutions, right, we have talked about. I say generation without picking a source or a technology. The first is you could have rate base, which I mentioned. The second is you could somehow incent a competitive generator to site here. The third is you can import. I mean, that is the simple way we think about it. The imports, we are going to probably need some bigger wires or more wires if we go that route. We, being the state, if we come up with a solution for a competitive generator, we will be there from an interconnection standpoint. We have been very vocal about the fact that we have been very responsive to those types of requests as they come in, regardless of the technology. If it becomes a regulated solution, we think we have a couple of sites that might make some sense for us. We just look forward to the continuing conversation and try to push it so we can avoid this can getting kicked too far. Very helpful. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Bill Appicelli with UBS. Please proceed with your question. Hey, Bill. Hi, guys. Just one quick question here. Just going back to something Dan said earlier about the commercial opportunities and flexibility being key. I mean, just maybe a little bit more color around what that means. Is that flexibility around being on-grid or the timeline of how quickly things can ramp? I mean, what exactly is sort of the flexibility aspect they're looking for? Since this is a follow-up on something Dan said, I'll let Dan answer. Yeah. Look, just think about trying to strike a commercial deal when there is uncertainty around rules that are going to be met urgently and that work continues to go on and on and on. I think really just trying to get in line how this is going to work and how it can work and what the optionality is with respect to how you would interconnect. It's nothing more complicated than that. We've said before, given where we are and given the transmission rates where we are, it is not as critical as it is in some other areas. I think all parties would prefer a situation where they have all the rules and they know exactly what they're dealing with. I think it's taken us a long time as an industry and as the regulators within the industry to come to that final answer. Now we had a question before about settlement. I think that would be a great answer because it would be the participants that are actually devising where things are going to go that would ultimately get approved. That does not happen overnight either. I think there is this general desire to move more quickly and get this done, but it has lingered for a while. That is really all it is. Bill is trying to solidify exactly what the landscape is that we are working at. Yeah. Bill, I would just add, look, if you think about where we have our generation right now, we can satisfy a bunch of things, whether it's redundancy, accessibility, extra capacity, location, and I could go on and on. We still feel very, very good about the opportunity set that's in front of us. Okay. And then just lastly, what are you guys seeing on adoption for demand response, right? That's obviously been something that's gotten more attention here as the price signals is going up. Is that something you're seeing an increasing level of interest in from your customers? Yeah. I think you see it in a couple of different ways, right? We do not have as much 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 mostly in that case from a thermostat standpoint and from some pools that are not running and so on at certain times. That has continued. Our energy efficiency programs that we talk about all the time address exactly that issue for mostly, again, mostly to residential customers. Okay. All right. Great. Thanks very much. Thanks, Bill. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the floor back to Mr. LaRossa for closing comments. Thank you so much. I think the conversation has rightfully been a lot today around affordability and what customers are facing. Again, we are not deaf to that issue. We know what's going on around kitchen tables. That is 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 those people that are having those same conversations around the table, regardless of the cause of the affordability challenges they might be having. We are very well aware of that. We are going to be here to be a solution provider to the state. We hope to continue to be a solution provider to the people of Long Island as well as we have discussed. We appreciate all of your interest. We will see you at AGA in May. Thanks for calling in. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.