Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. My name is Rob and I'm your event operator today. I would like to welcome everyone to today's conference, Public Service Enterprise Group's second quarter 2025 earnings conference call and webcast. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. Later, we'll conduct a question-and-answer session for members of the financial community. At that time, if you have a question, you'll need to press the star and the number one on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, press star then the number two. If anyone should require operator assistance during the conference, please press star zero from your telephone keypad. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded today, August 5, 2025, and will be available for replay as an audio webcast on PSEG's investor relations website. I would now like to turn the conference call over to Carlotta Chan. Please go ahead. Good morning and welcome to PSEG's second 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 thanks to all of you for joining us this morning to review Public Service Enterprise Group's second quarter 2025 results and to discuss our outlook for the business over the rest of the year. Public Service Enterprise Group delivered another quarter of solid operating and financial performance, and PSE&G is on track to execute on its full year $3.8 billion regulated investment program to maintain reliability. Public Service Enterprise Group also benefited from a full quarter of regulatory recovery of and on over $3 billion of previously invested capital, which was approved in the October 2024 settlement of our electric and gas distribution base rate case. Public Service Enterprise Group's results also reflect the positive impact of higher output from our nuclear generating fleet, which benefited from the absence of a spring Hope Creek refueling outage experienced last year. During the past quarter, we also continued to prioritize meeting our customers' expectations on both the reliability and affordability fronts. In late June, we successfully operated through three consecutive days of 100 degree plus temperatures, prompting high electricity usage that set a summer peak load of 10,229 MW on June 24, the highest system load we have experienced since 2013. The value of our infrastructure resilience and storm restoration efforts benefited customers during a series of intense heat, wind, and rainstorms, providing yet another validation of our investments in the system to maintain reliability, which also improves the customer experience. Our utility crews in New Jersey and on Long Island are working tirelessly to safely keep the lights on, restoring service to interrupted customers on a timely basis, redirecting employees from non-emergency work to focus on emergent service requests, and deploying mutual aid to reinforce our local crews to restore service to customers even faster. During the four-day heat storm in June, PSE&G crews restored service to 99% of storm-interrupted customers within 24 hours. I could not be more proud of our team's work and these results. Turning to our affordability focus, given the warmer than normal summer thus far, higher electricity usage is expected to result in higher customer bills. In addition, our customers are seeing the electric rate impact of last year's PJM capacity auction, which is just now translating into summer utility bills. PSEG has responded by partnering with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities to implement a summer relief initiative providing all residential customers with deferred billing during two high usage summer months, shifting collection of the deferral to lower electric usage months with no interest charged to customers. The utility has also extended shutoff protections for income qualified residential customers and suspended electric reconnect fees through September 30. In addition, PSE&G is processing two sets of upcoming state funded residential energy assistance payments that will also reduce eligible customer bills. We also continue to connect our customers in need of payment assistance with all available resources, including our award-winning energy efficiency programs to help lower usage. Last month PJM released the results of its latest capacity auction, which priced within a FERC-approved price collar at $329 per megawatt day for the 2026-2027 energy year. Despite this latest increase in capacity prices, we anticipate a near flat impact on customer electric bills when this latest price is feathered into the BGS supply rates in June of 2026. This assumes other supply related costs remain the same, preserving the reduction from other charges expected to come off the bill. As we've discussed on prior calls, the resource adequacy challenges in New Jersey and across the entire 13-state PJM region are becoming more acute as we see both growing demand and new supply slow to respond. Recent reports reflect an increasing amount of new large load applications that are currently quickly eroding existing reserve margins within the confines of PJM. It's hard to see the path to new generation through existing market signals, which may require the consideration of a new approach to procuring capacity and resource planning in New Jersey. The legislature convened on June 30, having held a series of hearings on energy affordability in advance of the PJM capacity-related summer rate increases. Legislation introduced this past March, Assembly Bill 5439, could enable regulated utilities to be among those companies able to compete for potential generation projects should New Jersey decide to build or pursue new in-state generation. New Jersey remains a net importer of power and during the June heat storms imported nearly half of its electric needs from out of state. Abundant excess generation capacity to our west that for many years made power imports a convenient option is quickly being absorbed by rapid growth of native load in those states. In New Jersey, policymakers have begun to actively weigh the priorities of economic growth with system reliability and affordability and the state's environmental policies. In fact, today the BPU is conducting a technical conference on resource adequacy focusing on the recent PJM capacity auction results and state-driven solutions. We look forward to partnering with New Jersey and regional stakeholders to develop policy consensus on long-term comprehensive solutions that can meet our growing demand and improve resource adequacy while safeguarding affordability and reliability to meet New Jersey's energy needs. While these conversations continue, our $3.8 billion regulated capital investment plan for 2025 is 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. As mentioned last quarter, Public Service Enterprise Group began the second phase of its Clean Energy Future Energy Efficiency 2 program which will help customers save energy, lower their bills, and reduce carbon emissions while supporting job training and economic growth right here in New Jersey. Speaking of economic growth, as of June 30, PSE&G's pipeline of large load inquiries for new service connections grew to over 94, up 47% from 6,400 MW reported as of March 31. As I stated previously, these numbers include both mature applications that we refer to as new business, approximately 2,600 MW of the total which has gone up by 40% since March 31, as well as feasibility studies and initial leads. Our engineering assessment turnaround is still averaging about four months and this response time is supportive of the state's 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, our nuclear units generated and supplied the grid with approximately 7.5 TWh carbon-free baseload power and achieved a fleet capacity factor of 88.8% for the second quarter, lowered by the scheduled refueling outage at Salem Unit 1. During this fall's refueling outage, PSEG Nuclear will perform the work needed to extend Hope Creek's fuel cycles from 18 to 24 months. This is the first of several steps we are taking to optimize our plans, providing the grid with more reliable 24x7 carbon free power between now and Hope Creek's next scheduled refueling outage in the fall of 2027. In addition, our Salem upgrade project will bring approximately 200 MW, or the size of a small modular reactor, of incremental carbon free dispatchable power during the 2027-2029 timeframe. We were also pleased that federal tax legislation passed in July preserved the downside price protection from the Nuclear Production Tax Credit, or PTC, as well as the PTC availability for expansions of nuclear capacity, which supports the planned power upgrade at Salem. In addition, the legislation permanently extends 100% bonus depreciation to qualified business property. To summarize, we had a good quarter and first half of 2025, which provides us with a solid base to confidently deliver on our full year 2025 non-GAAP operating earnings guidance of $3.94-$4.06 per share, which is up 9% at the midpoint over 2024 results. Our 2025 guidance includes a full year of new distribution rates from our 2024 base rate case settlement rate, which was reached last October, as well as an upcoming refueling outage at our 100% owned Hope Creek Nuclear unit this fall. In closing, we are also reiterating PSEG's updated five-year capital spending program at $21 billion- $24 billion, which supports an expected rate base CAGR of 6% - 7.5% through 2029. This in turn drives PSEG's 5% - 7% non-GAAP operating earnings CAGR while continuing to use the nuclear PTC as our reference price for power. PSEG intends to execute this capital plan without the need to issue new equity or sell assets. I will 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 I'll rejoin the call for Q and A. Great. Thanks, Ralph. Good morning everybody. PSEG reported net income of $1.17 per share in the second quarter of 2025 compared to $0.87 per share in 2024, and non-GAAP operating earnings were $0.77 per share in the second quarter of 2025 compared to $0.63 per share in 2024. These solid results were up over 20% from last year's second quarter, reflecting the benefit of new distribution rates which were placed into effect at PSE&G in October of 2024 and higher generating volume at PSEG Power, which reflects the absence of last spring's Hope Creek refueling outage. Will take place this fall. Raising O&M and lowering outcome in the second half of 2025, we've provided you with information on slides 8 and 10 regarding the contribution to net income and non-GAAP operating earnings by business for the second quarter and first half of 2025. Slides nine and 11 contain waterfall charts that take you through the net changes for the quarter and year-to-date periods over the prior year in non-GAAP operating earnings per share, also by major business. Let's start with PSE&G, which reported second quarter net income and non-GAAP operating earnings of $332 million for 2025 compared to $302 million in 2024. For the year-to-date ended June 30, PSE&G reported net income and non-GAAP operating earnings of $878 million in 2025 compared to $790 million in 2024. Utilities results were driven by the implementation of new electric and gas base distribution rates that went into effect last October to recover a return of and on previous capital investments totaling more than $3 billion. Beginning on slide 9 with the Public Service Enterprise Group column, transmission margin was a penny per share higher compared to the year-ago quarter on higher investment and a prior. Year true-up. Our distribution margin increased by $0.10 per share compared to the year ago period, largely reflecting the impact of the rate case plus recovery of an on PSE&G's regulated energy efficiency investment. On the expense side, distribution O&M costs were a penny per share favorable compared to the second quarter of 2024, though for the full year distribution O&M is expected to be higher versus the prior year. Both depreciation and interest expense each rose $0.02 per share compared to the second quarter 2024, reflecting higher levels of depreciable plant investment and long term 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, had a net unfavorable impact of $0.02 per share in the second quarter compared to the prior period, reversing a positive $0.02 per share impact in the first quarter of 2025. Weather conditions during the second quarter, as measured by the temperature humidity index, were 21% warmer than normal but 14% cooler than the second quarter of 2024. As you know, the Conservation Incentive Program or mechanism decouples weather and other economic sales variances from a significant portion of our distribution margin while helping PSE&G promote the widespread adoption of energy conservation, including energy efficiency and solar program. Under the CIP, the number of electric and gas customers is the primary driver of distribution margin and each segment grew by approximately 1% over the past year. On the capital front, as Ralph mentioned earlier, PSE&G invested approximately $900 million during the second quarter and we are on track to fully execute our 2025 regulated capital investment plan of $3.8 billion focused on infrastructure modernization, energy efficiency and meeting growing demand, and we have maintained our five year regulated capital investment plan of $21 billion- $24 billion through 2029. We began the next phase of our energy efficiency program during the first quarter of 2025 and we anticipate investing up to $2.9 billion over a six year period. The energy efficiency program total includes approximately $1 billion of on bill repayment options to help our customers finance their energy efficiency equipment and appliances and provides customers with energy information and options to manage their energy use and lower their bills. Moving on to PSEG Power and Other for the second quarter, PSEG Power and Other reported net income of $253 million in 2025 compared to $132 million in 2024, and non-GAAP operating earnings were $52 million in the second quarter of 2025 compared to $11 million in the second quarter of 2024. For the year to date ended June 30, PSEG Power and Other reported net income of $296 million in 2025 compared to $176 million in 2024, and non-GAAP operating earnings of $224 million in the first half of 2025 compared to $180 million in the first half of 2024. Referring again to the waterfall on Slide nine, for the second quarter of 2025, net energy margin rose by $0.04 per share driven by higher nuclear generating output. O&M was $0.03 per share favorable compared to the second quarter of 2024, driven by the absence of last spring's Hope Creek refueling outage. Interest expense rose by $0.02 per share, reflecting incremental debt at higher interest rates. Taxes and other were $0.03 per share favorable compared to the second quarter of 2024, in part due to the use of a lower annual effective tax rate in 2025 that will reverse over the balance of the year. On the operating side, the nuclear fleet produced approximately 7.5 TWh during the second quarter, up by a half a terawatt hour over the same period in 2024, and reached 15.9 TWh for the first half of this year, both benefiting from the absence of last spring's Hope Creek refueling outage. Capacity factors for the nuclear fleet were 88.8% and 94.3% for the quarter and six-month period ended June 30, 2025, respectively. In late July, PSEG Nuclear has cleared approximately 3,500 MW of its eligible nuclear capacity in PJM's base residual auction at $329 per megawatt-day with the energy year beginning June 1, 2026 through May 31, 2027. This latest result is up from $270 per megawatt-day with a similar amount of capacity in the 2025-2026 PJM capacity auction for the second half of 2025. Results at PSEG Power and Other will be impacted by this fall's scheduled Hope Creek outage and the completion of the three-year zero emission certificate award that ended on May 31, which will offset higher capacity revenues related to the 2025-2026 auction results in the back half of this year. Touching on some recent financing activity, as of June 30, PSEG had total available liquidity of $3.6 billion including $186 million of cash on hand. On the financing front, PSEG Power issued $1.25 billion of senior unsecured debt this past May consisting of $750 million of 5.2% five-year notes due 2030 and $500 million of 5.75% ten-year notes due 2035. Proceeds from this sale were used to repay the $1.25 billion variable rate PSEG Power term loan that was scheduled to mature in June. PSEG's variable rate debt at the end of June consisted of a 364-day term loan at PSEG Power for $400 million which matures in December of 2025 and commercial paper as of June 30 following the redemption of the PSEG Power $1.25 billion variable rate term loan in May. Our level of variable rate debt represents approximately 3% of our total debt in July 2025. Federal tax legislation preserves the downside price protection of the Nuclear Production Tax Credit as well as the PTC availability for expansions of nuclear capacity which supports our planned power uprate at Salem. In addition, this legislation permanently extends 100% bonus depreciation of qualified business property, improving cash flow at PSEG Power as it executes on its planned capital program. As Ralph mentioned, we are reaffirming PSEG's full year 2025 non-GAAP operating earnings guidance of $3.94 - $4.06 per share as well as a long-term 5% - 7% non-GAAP operating earnings CAGR through 2029 nuclear PTC threshold. Our solid balance sheet supports the execution of PSEG's five-year $22.5 billion- $26 billion capital spending plan without the need to sell new equity or assets and provides the opportunity for consistent and sustainable dividend growth. That concludes our formal remarks and we are ready to begin the question. 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're on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset before entering your request. One moment please. The first question today is from the line of David Arcaro with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your questions. Oh, hey, thanks. Good morning. Good morning, David. Morning. Let's see. Today we've got the New Jersey. Resource Adequacy Conference going on at the BPU. I was just wondering if you could give a sense of where conversations stand with regard to the future of generation build in New Jersey. Thanks, David. Yeah, it's a little bit tough for us to do this real time. Folks are literally having conversations right now. There really hasn't been a big change from a legislative standpoint. We talked a little bit in the prepared remarks about the bill that is currently sitting in the legislature. I'm looking forward to the conversation today that's taken place. I would tell you we are advocating really for some decisions to be made by the state as we move forward. That's really just around what are the forecasts they're looking for. We'll be talking about that, what are the reliability outcomes they're targeting, what are the affordability targets they have, and finally the environmental policy goals. When you put those four pieces together, we think we'll be able to find the right answer and solution for the state and we'll be willing to help out in that in whatever way the state's looking for us to play a role. We're going to stick to those four points and really try to drive some decisions from the existing administration and obviously having conversations with the potential gubernatorial candidates. Absolutely, that makes sense. Appreciate that. There is a big increase in the data center pipeline for this quarter. I was wondering if you could give an update on maybe specifically with regard to the nuclear plant opportunities and an update on data center conversations there. What is the interest level that you're seeing in the site most recently? Thoughts on timing as to whether you could get to an agreement this year? I'm going to give that to Dan as I usually do on the data centers. I would just say from an economic development standpoint, we're glad to see New Jersey still playing a role in that. They have continued to advocate for data centers and for technology companies to locate into New Jersey. It's good to see that is working and that is playing out in the numbers that we provided. I think yesterday there was an announcement by CoreWeave for a large investment they're making in Kenilworth, New Jersey, for some real estate that they're purchasing. I think the work that's being done on the economic development front is bearing some fruits now. I'll let Dan talk specifically about anything down at Nuclear. David, you know, there continues to be discussion, and I think Ralph's earlier commentary on the numbers going up in the state are evidence of that. I think that, you know, you're well aware that our assets are both in New Jersey and in Pennsylvania, and I think those states and frankly, wherever power can be delivered from those units for the nature of what we have. The discussions continue. There continues to be interest, and we'll let the timing kind of speak for itself as we go forward. All right. Appreciate the color. Thanks so much. Our next questions are from the line of Nick Campanella with Barclays. Please just use your questions. Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Good morning. Hey, I just wanted to follow up on that last point. In your prepared, you brought up clearly the need to add new generation in New Jersey, the fact that the state is an importer of power. You talked about needing to balance affordability and resource adequacy along with economic development. Just how do you see that impacting your ability to move forward with a multi year contract by the. End of this year? Is it still your intention to deliver something by the end of the year? I just wanted to be a little bit more pointed on that. Thank you. Yeah, thanks, Nick. We've been saying we'd like to do something with this, with this administration. We've been saying that for many months now. I think that that would still stand. We're not going to do a deal just for the sake of doing a deal by a certain time frame. We've talked about that and that really hasn't changed. I think from a balancing standpoint, Dan just put it really well. We have assets in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have data centers showing up across the PJM footprint, not just in New Jersey. I think this resource adequacy conversation that's taken place today recognizes the fact that what happens in our bordering states matters to New Jersey. When you're importing 50% of your power on your peak days, those decisions that are being made by other economic development organizations, other governors, other utilities, all have an impact on what happens here in New Jersey. I don't think we have, you know, we tend to have to think we have all the answers. To your very specific question on how it all comes together, I think it's really a PJM question. It's not just a New Jersey question. Hey, that makes a lot of sense. I appreciate the context. Maybe with the capacity auction results, I know you kind of talked about the Zacks roll off that kind of offsets the 2025, 2026. When we think about 2027, 2028, how are you kind of framing where you are on a gross receipts basis? I guess my question is, are you now higher in the range because of the 2026 or because of the 2026, 2027 outcome? Thanks. I'll let Dan talk to again some more specifics here, but we have not come off of the fact that our guidance remains at the PTC 4 with our 5 - 7. I'll give it to Dan to talk from there. Yeah, exactly. It goes against the backdrop of what the market looks like, Nick. You know as well as anybody that capacity is a piece of what the nuclear facilities make as much as they run energy as a bigger piece. If you're seeing higher capacity clears that sustain, then you're going to see higher capacity component of the overall revenue that will sustain at a higher place. If energy markets, the electricity side, the energy side ends up moving to a point where you are higher, we're going to have moving off of that. We are not there right now with respect to what we see for the CAGR that we've put out, but we continue to monitor, we continue to market the output and ultimately that's going to determine where we land against the backdrop of future forecasts. Right now, as Ralph says, what we have out there is based upon the threshold. Thank you very much. Our next question is from the line of Michael Sullivan with Wolfe Research. Please proceed with your questions. Hey, good morning. Hi Michael. Hey, you guys, wanted to just ask another one on kind of the New Jersey supply situation. I guess outside of this bill that's out there, what are the other options if that weren't to move forward? You know, we saw kind of next door in Pennsylvania one of your peers doing kind of a JV outside of the regulated construct. Is that something you guys would consider at some point? We have, so we have very specifically said we are not interested in moving back into the merchant generation business. That has not changed for us. I think the construct that was mentioned by others is really maybe a little bit different, but I let them speak for themselves and you know, what does that leave us with? It leaves us with the PJM process. Look, we've been very vocal about that for many years at this company. We don't think that it's attracting additional generation. We think there's problems with the capacity process that exists, the market, as it's called, and how it exists there at PJM. Unfortunately, if there isn't a change and there isn't some more control taken by the state of New Jersey, we will be living with the outcome of that process. All we can speak to are the facts. The facts are that there has not been any new baseload generation built in New Jersey for quite some time. I believe our former merchant generation business was the last one to do so. Yeah. I think the other thing I would add to that, Michael, is, you know, some of the discussions that you're, that others are listening to concurrent with this call, I think are going to that topic. You know, there's other discussions. I think there's a. The PJM governors are going to meet next month to try to talk about what's going on. I think that right now all those discussions are against the backdrop of the challenges that we have from what's in place at PJM and what supply could come out of that process or not come out of that process. As a result, what things should be done to ensure that we have the supply we need. That's where those discussions are all circling around. Okay, that's really helpful. Appreciate all the color there. Just shifting over to OB3, can you maybe put a little more numbers or quantification around some of the benefits there, both with respect to bonus depreciation and what that does for your cash tax position, and then also the new tax credit on the upgrade. Any numbers around those two items you can give us? No. Michael, I think that the thing that it mainly did from the standpoint of the PTC is it retained what was in place. There was some discussion that, hard to tell exactly how much traction it got, about potentially shortening it or potentially changing it. Everything from a new group PTC perspective stayed in place. If we, in answer to Nick's question, move to a higher overall market condition, I would still love to have that protective backdrop of a PTC from the standpoint of an overall revenue threshold. What really for us was new within that was bonus depreciation. We had different bouts of bonus depreciation in the past and this one is laying out to make it permanent. As a reminder, the bonus is not throughout the entire company. It is only for the unregulated piece and there's not that much capital that's there. Is it a help? Yeah, it's a help, but it's kind of around the edges from the standpoint of an overall cash flow perspective that it will accelerate some of that cost recovery a little bit earlier than otherwise. Would have been the case. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Our next questions are from the line of Ross Fowler with Bank of America. Please receive your questions. Good morning, guys. It's actually Rennie here for Ross. I just had a quick question about the, you know, we saw a lot of affordability focused bills in this session. I guess from your perspective, which of those bills are kind of gaining the most traction and kind of will have likely the biggest impact moving forward, I guess in terms of like regulated gen, which you talked about, or cost deferrals or reassessing New Jersey's role in PJM. The session has closed officially. Right. They could always come back, but right now there is no scheduled time for the legislature to come back to discuss those bills. I think they have a couple of items that they're dealing with, like healthcare, but there's nothing that's very specific to the utility space. I would be hard pressed to say that any one of those specific bills are ones that we're focused on. I think what we're really focused on is finding a solution for the customers. We've done that with the short term and now we're trying to have a conversation which again is taking place as we speak at the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities on the resource adequacy, and we're going to continue to advocate as strongly as we have at PJM. I wouldn't point you to any one of those bills specifically because again, they may, they will change down the road if they even continue in some fashion. I would just leave it at that and not really speculate on what might or might not happen. Okay, that makes sense. Just secondly, I know you mentioned the 200 MW out of Salem, but I guess more broadly, what potential is there for incremental generation and upgrade of a nuclear fleet to upgrades, refueling cycles, life extensions, and then I guess how much of that has already been executed? Thank you for that. From an execution standpoint, much of the engineering work has been done on everything that you asked about. We did mention earlier in the prepared remarks the fact that in this refueling cycle that will be taking place in the fall at Hope Creek, we will be setting the unit up for the first time for a 24 month run. That is the change in the fuel cycle that we had talked about. We're continuing to execute on a plan that we have discussed and the engineering work, and we have not discussed the cost or the exact timing of that, but we plan the upgrades for the Salem units later in the next few years. Nothing specific has been out there on that yet. I think we did say we have that some by the end of the decade for sure. We'll have that information out by the end of the year. Okay. Okay, that makes sense. Thanks, guys. Thank you. Our next questions are from the line of Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your questions. Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. Good morning. Maybe just to start on the update on the large load inquiries at the utility level. Is that sort of 10% - 20% conversion rate still hold in your view on that 9,400 MW and is that all data centers at this point or are there any other customers in that bucket? are a few other customers in that bucket, but I would say the bulk of that, if not over 90% of that, is all data center related. If you think about the numbers that we quoted to you, the 9,600 MW is sort of everything together, and then the applied 10% - 20% kind of aligns with our what we call new business number that's out there. Short answer is yes, it's sticking with the 10% - 20%, and longer answer is you can see that in the details that we've provided. Perfect, thank you for that. Maybe just, you know, thinking about 2025 earnings growth as you think about 1H, you know, growth is tracking above your full year 9% expectations. I know that we'll have the Hope Creek outage in the fall, which will be a drag. I guess just would love your thoughts on how you feel about execution within the full year guidance range at this point in the year. Yeah, we tried to make the point. We feel confident about being within the range for sure, and we reiterated that. I don't think we're going to go anywhere beyond that at this point. Carly, you know, at the halfway point we do sit a little bit north, and I think that that Hope Creek outage, that's the reason we did highlight within the materials that that was coming at the back end. Just a reminder that that's 100% owned, and so when that does come through, it has a bigger impact as we move through quarter by quarter. Great. Thank you for the time. Thanks Carly. Our next questions are from the line of Ryan Levine with Citi. Please hear questions. Good morning. Would you seek the customer bill deferral mechanism for an additional year as a result of the higher PJM capacity prices during peak load months? Is that something you're contemplating given the recent event? That conversation will take place with a new administration and a new BPU. Right now there's nothing in the plan for the state of New Jersey to pursue that. Okay. In terms of, Just to. Be clearer, with respect to the capacity auction that just happened and the impact on the bill. What we saw in. June was the reflect of what I'll describe as a catch up. Because the PJM auctions were as delayed as they were, you're seeing the cumulative effect of catching up from the prior auction result to that $270 that we saw. What happened in June brought everything up to $270. You would not expect to see as a result of the $329, that kind of a jump, number one. Number two, if you just take a look at, in our normal BGS process, the auction that's rolling off the bill and the auction that's rolling on the bill, and you take a look at where prices sit. Now, not only do we not expect a jump like we saw in June, we don't really expect much movement at all because what's coming off the bill is a little bit higher than what would roll on at the current prices. That's not to say that something couldn't be done from the standpoint of what you're describing that's not in place. Now, Ralph answered 100% correct that you know, we want to work with the regulator as we were to do that, but it would not be in the face of an increase like we saw in June because that is not what is forecasted as we go forward just based upon the mechanisms and the pricing. Thanks for the detail on that. Just one follow up. In terms of the large load request. Additions, is there any color on how many customers or individual projects represent that large megawatt increase? Just to assess kind of the chunkiness of that ad. Yeah. I'll add some color without any details. The color is that what we see here in New Jersey would be smaller projects than what you're hearing in some other places. You're not talking about 1,000 MW hyperscale in the middle of the Garden State Parkway. It's a little different type of environment here. A lot of edge computing, a lot of backup locations, but it's large. Look, our peak load is not much north of 10,000 MW, and we're getting close to that in inquiries that we're receiving. It's a game changer for all of us. You're seeing it across the PJM footprint. We're getting our fair share is the way I would put it, but smaller projects than what some of the other states are saying. Lastly, you referenced the CoreWeave development from earlier in the week. Is that incorporated in this updated forecast or projection? There's a piece of the conversation that they've talked about that's in our current projections. They have not gone out with their full build yet for what they planned. Thank you. Thanks, Ryan. Our next questions are from the line of Travis Miller with Morningstar. Please proceed with your questions. Hi, everyone. Thank you. Hey, Travis. Hi there. Just following up on this resource ethics discussion at a high level. Wonder if you could characterize is the concern among New Jersey legislators, BPU, etc. that there aren't enough electrons, either energy or capacity in New Jersey that is at 50% import, or is it just that the economics aren't good for the customer bill, if that makes sense. How's that debate characterized? I would say in the near term it has all been focused on affordability and that's where the conversation has been focused with the capacity, price increases and what customers are seeing. It starts there right now. It is not too far in the recent past that you can look back and talk about reliability concerns that folks had. You can also not too far in the recent past talk about environmental concerns that people have had about what kind of power we were importing or not importing into the state. We continue to, that's why we keep bringing everybody back to the big, the big picture. What is out there from a policy standpoint that we can, you know, and then what solutions can we bring to solve for all those policies, issues that are being raised? I don't want to say it's all affordability because if it's not too far in the past, I mean, and my past is a little bit different maybe than others. I'll go back to 2003, when the lights went out. The whole focus at that point was on reliability. Not too far after that, we had an issue from affordability standpoint where we had some congestion that was taking place and that was resolved with some transmission build that was done. We focused back on some environmental concerns that were taking place and then we focused on reliability again after Superstorm Sandy. It's been all of those pieces that have been out there and have been discussed and we just reminded people of all of it as we focus today on affordability. Okay, that's great. I appreciate all that. Here's hoping the lights don't go out for you guys again through all this. One quick question on the, if the state were to go to a regulated generation option, would that need FERC approval? Would that have to go through FERC or some other federal entity? No, I don't believe it would. I think as long as the state, you know, it went to a regulator, they'll have to be a question about whether or not it's an FRR or how they would actually go about the process. I do not believe it would require any FERC approvals. Okay, very good. That's all I had. Thanks so much. Thanks, Travis. Our next questions are from the line of Paul Fremont with Ladenburg Thalmann. Please proceed with your questions. Paul. Thank you very much, and congratulations. On a strong quarter. I just wanted to maybe better understand. CoreWeave. Would the relationship there be with the utility or with PSEG Power? If there is a relationship between. Public. Service and the new data center? Yeah. The only thing that's been out there with CoreWeave has been the utility. That's what we spoke to and that's what we've included here. Paul, anything else from a relationship standpoint will come out when Dan talks about whatever Dan talks about down the road at future conversations. Okay. The purchase that they made involves some cogeneration facilities. Is it contemplated that there would be a need for additional generation at the site? If so, you know, how much in terms of megawatts? Yeah, that's a question for their site management. I wouldn't be able to tell you. There is a cogen facility there, so I guess it's sort of a behind the meter generation. As we have said multiple times, there's cogeneration in the state of New Jersey and there's multiple sites that have that. A lot to be determined there as to how that's used and what other needs they might have. How big is the existing cogen facility? I don't have that off the top of my head. Again, it's a question for their site team. I'm not sure what capabilities that unit has today. Great. Nameplate was under 100 if I remember correctly, but I couldn't tell you exactly. Terrific. I think that's it for me. Thank you. Thank you. The next questions are from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Jefferies. Please receive their questions. Hey, good morning, team Ralph, Dan. How you guys doing? Great. There we go. Bring the energy up at the end here. Let's just quickly, first off, I gotta say speaking of energy up on the year, you guys are trending very well on the year, $0.26 year to date. I heard your comments about being confident in the range, but I'm curious where you'll land quarter as far as reiterating that guidance. Maybe a comment more than a statement, more than the question. To go back to the question, we appreciate that. Thank you. Absolutely. Maybe in response to Carly's, just going back to this Garden State Energy Storage. Right. I heard your comments earlier about power. Right. Maybe not necessarily expanding the scope per se, but what's the willingness to participate in this initial bid process that seems ongoing now of the gigawatt, or to what extent do you anticipate Power and or PSEG participating in the current phase or future phases. Right. Again, you could approach this from a few different angles. How do you think about that being, quote, the primary answer in the current environment as best we talk about this resource adequacy problem here in New Jersey? Yeah, there's a lot in that question. I would say how do we think about it from a primary solution? I'll dive on that a little bit. I want to take it from the three or four topics that we talked about and not the least of which is an affordability question. There is an environmental question or some other questions that need to take place there. Until we see what some of the pricing is at, I don't know how much of a solution it will be. We've seen prices that are high, we've seen prices that are coming down to some degree on some of the battery activity. I wouldn't say it's a silver bullet right now. I think it's part of an all of the above that we've advocated for years. I think if I'm not mistaken, we had made a filing over five years ago down with the state of New Jersey proposing a battery solution from our utility. We believe in it. It's just a question of how much from an affordability standpoint fits into that we like to call a Venn diagram where everything comes together, so a little bit more there and then our participation. We haven't talked to and I won't front run anything about that. There are multiple states that have some battery requests out and we look at all the opportunities all the time, but we have not commented on that. Got it. Ralph, you're always in the know on these things with respect to PJM and this conversation on governance and engagement here. How do you think we could look at the auction and just PJM and New Jersey's relationship going forward? I know they're asking for board seats and representation and shifts in government, but there's also a separate conversation about shifting the nature of this auction towards bifurcated structures or just other permutations that I'm sure are swimming. Out there, if you will. Any comments on any of that? Look, I'm going to take you back to things that we have said for, again, years and even when my predecessor was on this call, the governance at PJM doesn't allow for a lot of the things that people are talking about to just be unilaterally implemented. We have to get through a process where the members are going to vote on this. It may sound crazy, right, but the members are going to vote whether or not they want to have the governors participate or not, or their representatives. If not, maybe the governors could take some action to go down to FERC and have a conversation that could play out. This governance process is the core problem here right now. It's real. It's not something we have not said in the past. I just reiterate it. How crazy does it sound that the governors have to get a members committee vote to allow a vote to take place, to have a seat at the table? We have certainly tried to represent the customers. We welcome the transparency of the voting process that people are calling for. We think at the end of the day we'll get to a good solution here. It's not an overnight silver bullet, I'll use that term again, solution that's going to take place and I'm happy we have the collar in there right now. It's given us some time to have a conversation but it again didn't solve the long term problems that we're facing. Awesome guys. Thank you again. Thanks. I feel you. Thank you. Our last question is from the line of Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates, please proceed with your question. Good morning guys. Hey Paul. Just to follow up on these policy questions. I'm just wondering, I mean given that I think you mentioned Assembly Bill 5439, I don't think that's moved. I guess what I'm wondering is given that the legislature is kind of in recess here and the fact that you've got a governor who's leaving, we've got an election coming up here and just the politics of all of this and what have you. Is it likely that anything is going to happen legislatively, you think, this year in New Jersey, excuse me, given all these dynamics and the fact that we just don't seem to have that much movement on a lot of this stuff. Yeah, look, I think there's a lot of momentum behind it. I think there's a lot of consistency in the conversation, whether it's with the existing administration or either of the gubernatorial candidates. I think there's some nuances in how they would approach the solution. I think every one of them that we talk to continues to desire more control over those items that I mentioned. I continue to say them. It's the reliability, it's the affordability and the environmental piece of it and the forecasting. Right. I mean, you've heard that in the past. All four of those pieces need to come together. I think that every one of the, whether it's the existing administration or the two future potential administrations, feel like that's something they want more control over. Possibility exists. Right. It could happen. If there's alignment between the existing administration and an incoming administration, a lot of things could happen towards the end of the year. Okay. With respect to batteries and their ability to sort of give a capacity value, and given where prices are in the capacity market, is there any thought about revisiting what you were mentioning before? Because it sounds like you could build those as a utility asset. Any thought about how those might work economically, given where capacity markets are in the curve and what have you, or is it just what are your thoughts about that? I guess. Yeah. No, look, I think there's a lot of opportunity there from a revenue standpoint to what you're saying. Right now that's still all a merchant solution. The utility did propose a rate base solution and it has not been acted on yet. I respect that. Right now the BPU is, and it's been for many years, has looked at that as a merchant solution, which I think that Garden State Battery Storage specifically says they would like to have a merchant solution for it. Maybe the math works out. I won't opine on that right now. I'll just tell you that I think there's a role for the utilities to play and I think there's a potential role for the competitive markets to play. Okay, I really appreciate it. Thanks so much. Have a good one. Thank you. At this time, I'd like to turn the floor back to Mr. LaRossa for closing comments. Thank you. I'll end where I started, which is a thank you to the employees for the work that was done. This has not been an easy weather pattern for us over the past couple of months. While we talk about storms and we talk about heat, we don't talk about when that all occurs. These storms have rolled in consistently on Fridays, and the disruption that puts on people's lives, the ability for them to spend time with their families, is interrupted. We certainly just take a second to pause and thank everyone for the work that they've been doing during that time. I also want to thank our customers for engaging with us and having conversations. We are here for our customers, but we also know that there's challenging times from an affordability standpoint, not just with utility bills, but across the board. We are bringing those solutions in the near term and fighting hard and advocating for the long-term solution. You'll continue to hear and see more of us doing that, and you'll continue to hear and see more of us on the road as we get back out there in the next couple of months. Thanks for calling in and have a great rest of your summer. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.