Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. My name is Shamali. I am your event operator today. I would like to welcome everyone to today's conference, Public Service Enterprise Group's 1st quarter 2026 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 the members of the financial community. At that time, if you have a question, you will need to press the star and the number one on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, please press star and the number two. If anyone should require operator assistance during the conference, please press star zero on your telephone keypad. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded today, May 5th, 2026, and will be available for replay as an audio webcast on PSEG's Investor Relations website at https://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 2026 earnings presentation. On today's call are Ralph LaRossa, Chair, President, and CEO, and Daniel 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 materials. 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 to review PSEG's first quarter 2026 results. Starting with our financial results, PSEG reported net income of $1.48 per share and non-GAAP operating earnings of $1.55 per share. Our first quarter results reflect continued investment in utility infrastructure focused on reliability and cost savings energy efficiency programs at PSEG. At PSEG Power, higher gas volume and capacity revenues have more than offset the absence of the zero-emission certificate program that concluded last May. With this solid start to 2026, we are maintaining our full-year non-GAAP operating earnings guidance in the range of $4.28-$4.40 per share. On the operations front, I'm very pleased to report that our utility and nuclear operations delivered excellent reliability during one of the harshest winters in decades. In preparation for these extreme weather events that included high snow accumulation, ice, and arctic air temperatures, PSEG initiated its winter weather readiness procedures and ensured adequate staffing for timely storm response. Starting in January with Winter Storm Fern through Winter Storm Hernando in late February that dropped 30 inches of snow on parts of northern New Jersey, PSEG systems held up well during intense conditions. With a relatively small group of customers that were affected by the weather, PSEG was able to restore service to virtually all customers within 24 hours. I can't say enough about our employees who carry out PSEG's storm response work and who brave the elements to keep the lights on and homes warm for our customers. The utility experienced peak winter gas sendout on February 7 following over one week of subfreezing temperatures. These conditions underscore the need for continued investment in gas infrastructure modernization to address the impact that extreme temperatures have on our aging cast iron gas system. Despite the year's winter weather, PSEG is on track with its 2026 CapEx plan of approximately $4.2 billion, investing in critical energy infrastructure, cost-saving energy efficiency, and system modernization for reliability and to meet new demands. During the same time, we have worked with the governor's office and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities to keep electric rates flat in 2026, in keeping with the executive orders one and two that are addressing utility costs and generation supply. PSEG's electric customers will also benefit from the update reflecting the latest Basic Generation Service Auction results, which will go into effect on June 1. On February 1st, we also kept residential natural gas rates flat for the remainder of the 2025/2026 winter heating season, delivering to our customers the lowest gas bills in New Jersey and in the region. There is more good news for PSEG electric customers. In early March, FERC issued an order supporting PSEG and the state of New Jersey's objection to its PJM transmission cost allocations. FERC's ruling reallocating these costs is expected to result in significant refunds of over $100 million based on our estimates to PSEG customers after PJM's implementation. While this matter is still being litigated at FERC, it's another example of how PSEG works in partnership with the state at the regional and federal levels to keep our customer bills as low as possible. I'd also like to mention that we're ramping up PSEG's technology-driven conservation efforts. PSEG recently launched two new ways to reduce energy use during peak times to save customers money and help reduce strain on the grid. The first is our demand response program with over 32,000 residential and small business customers already enrolled to receive an upfront payment for reducing air condition use and other activities like EV charging during selected peak hours throughout the year. The second program are new residential Time-of-Use rate that can save customers money by shifting some of their usage to off-peak time. This new rate option leverages the more detailed electric usage made available by our AMI investment in smarter meters. Combined with our energy efficiency programs, PSEG offers customers a variety of ways to reduce energy usage, manage their bills, and starting this summer, participate in creating a more flexible energy grid through our virtual power plant pilot. The BPU has started the process of implementing the directive in the first executive order to examine the regulation of the electric distribution utility business model. We expect that the BPU consultant will release a study this summer, and that a stakeholder process on the topic will continue throughout the remainder of the year. We intend to fully engage with the BPU throughout this process. Turning to PSEG Power. First, I'd like to congratulate the PSEG Nuclear team for completing a second consecutive breaker-to-breaker operating run at Salem Unit Two to begin their refueling outage this April. That notable accomplishment contributed to a 95.5% capacity factor and supplied 8 terawatt-hours of reliable carbon-free baseload energy to New Jersey and the grid during the first quarter. Last week, FERC approved the extension of the PJM capacity price collar through the 2029/2030 Base Residual Auction. This extension is expected to stabilize the effect of upcoming auctions on New Jersey's BGS default prices, even as regional demand growth advances with a limited supply response. As part of an all-of-the-above long-term approach to increasing New Jersey-based generation supply, Governor Sherrill recently signed legislation lifting a decades-long moratorium on new nuclear construction. The announcement made at our three-unit site in Salem County highlighted broad support from policymakers, legislators, and labor leaders. PSEG is engaging in efforts to advance new nuclear development at PSEG's site, and we believe the site's unique strengths, including an early site permit, prime logistics, access to a skilled workforce, and opportunities to leverage our operating expertise through contractual arrangements, make it a leading candidate for new nuclear deployment. We have also been watching developments related to PJM's proposed reliability backstop procurement auction. This is intended to be a one-time procurement or emergency auction to accelerate new dispatchable generation that can be brought online by 2031 to serve data center-driven load growth. More details from PJM are expected over the next month, and we will continue our vigilance during the stakeholder process to advocate on behalf of PSEG's customers. Wrapping up, PSEG had a strong operating and financial quarter to start the year by doing the right thing for our customers, our communities, and our shareholders with an eye towards a sustainable future. Our corporate reputation for excellence beyond our well-known reliability and customer satisfaction awards was recognized again last week when PSEG was named to the Dow Jones Sustainability North America Index for the 18th year in a row. We are maintaining the broad set of financial projections that we shared with you late in February, starting with our five year regulated capital investment plan of $22.5 billion-$25.5 billion at PSEG and $24 billion-$28 billion for PSEG, both through 2030. This investment program supports the utility's 6%-7.5% compound annual growth in rate base also through 2030 and helps drive a 6%-8% non-GAAP operating earnings CAGR at PSEG over that same period. I would highlight again that items including nuclear revenue opportunities above current market prices, winning additional competitive transmission solicitations or making incremental system investments to connect several thousand MW of solar and battery storage resources to the grid to meet new demand would be incremental to our 6%-8% non-GAAP operating earnings CAGR. I will now turn the call over to Dan, who will review this quarter's results and then rejoin the call for our Q&A session. Great. Thank you, Ralph. Good morning, everyone. PSEG reported net income of $1.48 per share for the first quarter of 2026, compared to $1.18 per share in 2025. Non-GAAP operating earnings were $1.55 per share for the first quarter of 2026, compared to $1.43 per share in 2025. We 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 nine contains a waterfall chart that takes you through the net changes quarter-over-quarter and non-GAAP operating earnings per share, also by major business. Starting with PSEG, which reported first quarter net income and non-GAAP operating earnings of $577 million for 2026, which compares to $546 million in 2025. The utility's results reflect ongoing investment in energy efficiency, gas system modernization, and transmission. The seasonality of gas demand and the continued gradual increase in the number of electric and gas customers. Starting with waterfall on slide nine, compared to the first quarter of 2025, transmission margin increased $0.01 per share due to higher investment. The first quarter distribution margin increased by $0.07 per share compared to the year-ago period and largely reflects incremental gas margin from the third quarter 2025 GSMP II extension roll-in, an increase in the number of customers in the quarter, and higher gas demand outside of the decoupling mechanism. Higher investment in energy efficiency also contributed to distribution margin in the quarter. Distribution O&M expense was $0.01 per share higher compared to the first quarter of 2025, reflecting an increase in operating costs due to inflation and extreme weather in January and February. Depreciation and interest each rose by $0.01 per share compared to the first quarter of 2025 due to capital investments and higher long-term debt interest rates. For utility taxes and other, lower flow-through taxes had a net favorable impact of $0.01 per share in the first quarter compared to the prior year period. First quarter weather, as measured by heating degree days, was 5% colder than normal and 8% colder than the first quarter of 2025, but had a limited impact on utility margins. As you know, the Conservation Incentive Program, or CIP 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 programs. Under the CIP, the number of electric and gas customers drives margin, and residential customer growth for both segments was about 1% over the past year. On a regulated capital spending program, PSE&G invested approximately $800 million during the first quarter, and we remain on track to execute our full-year 2026 plan of approximately $4.2 billion focused on continued investments in infrastructure modernization, energy efficiency, electrification initiatives, and load growth. We've also maintained our five-year regulated capital investment plan of $22.5 billion-$25.5 billion through 2030. PSE&G began the next phase of the GSMP III program in the first quarter, and we anticipate investing a total of $1.4 billion over the three-year period. The GSMP III program total includes approximately $1 billion in accelerated recovery and $360 million in stipulated base. Also in the first quarter, the BPU certified the results of the annual New Jersey Basic Generation Service, or BGS auction, that was held to secure electricity for customers that have not selected a third-party supplier. These auction results will have the effect of lowering the cost of electricity supply by 1.8% on PSE&G residential electric bills for energy and capacity starting June 1 of this year. Moving to PSEG Power and Other, for the first quarter of 2026, we reported net income of $164 million compared to $43 million in the first quarter of 2025, while non-GAAP operating earnings were $201 million for the first quarter compared to $172 million for the first quarter of 2025. Referring again to the waterfall on slide nine, the first quarter of 2026 net energy margin was flat compared to the year earlier quarter as higher gas operations and capacity prices were offset by the absence of zero-emission certificates, lower generation volume, and the absence of fuel and energy management fees under the renewed LIPA contract, which commenced in January of 2026. O&M costs declined in the quarter, providing a $0.06 per share benefit compared to the same period in 2025, primarily reflecting a net reduction in operational expenses and an adjustment to tax reserves. The impact of higher interest costs and lower depreciation expense netted to a drag of $0.01 per share in the first quarter, reflecting incremental debt at higher interest rates, partly offset by lower depreciation expense, reflecting our expectation that the NRC will approve a 20-year license extension for the New Jersey nuclear units. Lastly, taxes and other items had a net favorable impact of $0.01 per share in the quarter compared to 2025. Touching on some recent financing activity, PSEG had ample liquidity totaling $3.9 billion at the end of March. This includes approximately $400 million of cash on hand, primarily related to net PSE&G financing activity during the quarter. PSE&G entered into a $500 million, 364-day variable rate term loan in February, further supporting our liquidity position. Also during the quarter, all of our revolving credit facilities totaling $3.75 billion were extended by two years through March of 2031. On the financing front this past January, PSE&G issued $1 billion of secured Medium-Term Notes, or MTNs, consisting of $500 million of 4.2% MTNs. To 2031 and $500 million of 5.63% MTNs to 2056. A portion of these proceeds were used to repay $450 million of MTNs at just under 1% that matured in March 2026. PSEG also has limited exposure to variable rate debt, which totaled approximately $915 million and consists of two 364-day term loans and commercial paper, and represented a low 4% of our total debt at the end of March. Looking ahead, our solid balance sheet continues to support the execution of PSEG's five year capital spending plan, directed mostly to regulated CapEx without the need to issue new equity or sell assets, and provides for the opportunity for consistent and sustainable dividend growth, as demonstrated by the 2026 indicative annual rate of $2.68 per share established by our board in February. This new dividend rate represents an annualized increase of approximately 6% for 2026 and marks our 15th consecutive annual increase. In closing, we delivered solid operating and financial performance to begin the year and are maintaining PSEG's full year 2026 non-GAAP operating earnings guidance of $4.28 to $4.40 per share. We are also reaffirming our 6%-8% compounded annual growth rate for non-GAAP operating earnings through 2030 based on the continued execution of our strategic plan. That concludes our formal remarks, and 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. The first question comes from the line of Shar Pourreza with Wells Fargo. Please proceed with your question. Hi, good morning, team. It's Constantine here for Shar. Thanks for taking the questions. That's why I paused a little bit there, Constantine. I wasn't sure if it was you or him. I didn't even wanna say hello to Shar first. How are you, Constantine? Oh, doing quite well. Thank you so much. Just maybe a quick one starting on the BPU and the legislative process on utility constructs. Are the different branches finding their footing in terms of priorities? Is there anything in the cost of service model getting attention? I guess, do the changes in ROE move the needle on affordability, or is there just a general recognition that the pressure is coming from the supply demand that's really outside the state? Look, I totally agree with what you just said. I think a lot of people are finding their footing. I think there's been a lot of constructive conversations, both between the companies, the administration and legislators and the BPU. I think everybody's trying to do exactly what you said, find their footings. I think everybody does recognize the challenge has been generated from outside the state. I also think we all know that we have some responsibility to do what we can from an affordability standpoint for our customers. Everybody's trying to row in the same direction. I hope you hear my tone. I feel positive about the way that we're trying to approach it as a team approach rather than a finger-pointing approach at this point. Great. Appreciate that. Just maybe shifting to the PJM capacity and reserve auction process. Some of the PJM neighbors have been vocal around it. What could we see in terms of your participation in the RBA from both the power side and as the EDC, and any concerns around capacity cost allocation for your zone? Yeah. I mean, Constantine, you know, I don't disagree with a lot of the comments that have been made outside this area. As you said, there's a lot of people being pretty vocal about it. I would just think that we should all just be a little bit calm and watch what happens here. There's a lot of steps to go through. I don't wanna overreact to anything. Obviously, we need to protect the customers, the utilities, make sure that they're not being burdened with planning assumptions that are being driven outside of anybody's responsibility. You know, we've got some states that have IRPs. They have their own planning assumptions. We have PJM with its own planning assumption. Then you have customers putting in requests. All of that needs to be balanced and, you know, to put that on the backs of the, of the utilities just doesn't seem to make a ton of sense for anybody. We'll see how that plays out over time. I feel like, look, it's a, it's a chance for us to bring more generation in. We all know there's a resource adequacy problem. I don't know how much we're gonna get done, we being the region, by 2031. I think it's a good, it's a good step that we're trying and, you know, hope it produces some results. I think the limiting factor of 2031 is gonna make it really tough for us to, you know, make this a game changer. Constantine, just, you know, inherent within your question, you did talk about cost allocation, and I think, you know, very consistent with some of our actions related to a FERC decision around cost allocation, we're gonna continue to look out for our customers. In this instance, like in the one that I'm referencing and that we talked about within the prepared remarks, we'll continue to make sure that those allocations to the best of our ability are gonna be fair for our customers. Maybe just to clarify, do things like the capacity price cap extension provide any additional upsides on the power side kind of versus the 6-8 plan? Well, I think we had spoken in the past about the fact that we thought things were gonna stay about where they were. I would leave the comment there. Okay. Appreciate it. Thanks so much for the confidence. Thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question. Hey, Carly. Hey, good morning. Thanks so much for taking the questions. I knew it was gonna be you, Carly, so I. Glad to make it easy for you. Maybe just starting on New Jersey, I guess we do have a stakeholder meeting being held by the BPU this week on Executive Order one, kind of focused mostly on the utility business model. I guess anything that you're expecting out of that meeting in terms of focus areas or what you think is on the table to address as we think about the utility business model in New Jersey? Yeah, I think we, consistent with what we've said in the past, we expect performance to be one of the biggest issues that'll be on the table, and we welcome that. In the areas that we've seen focus in other states, our performance, we think, has been exemplary, and I would expect that to continue. You know, I would, as I've said in prior meetings, in some ways welcome the recognition of our utility for the work that they've been able to accomplish from a reliability standpoint, certainly from an ability to hook up customers and customer satisfaction. You know, those three areas are areas that we think we have a lot of strength in, and if that's where the performance conversation goes, we would be supportive of that. I think that's where you know, we'll be at the meeting, we'll be participating, and we'll be constructive in the conversations. Got it. Okay, great. That's helpful. Maybe just sticking in New Jersey, but just on the nuclear side, I know you mentioned the lifting of the moratorium kind of in your prepares. Just maybe talk a little bit about how you envision PSEG kind of participating on the nuclear task force in the state, and maybe what some tangible updates could look like as we think about the opportunities around new nuclear in the state. You know, thanks for that. We've been obviously leaning in. It's clear that the Sherrill administration is supportive of additional generation. It looks like nuclear is one of those areas that there's some momentum being gained in that area. Obviously, the signing of that legislation we thought was a great event, great signal from the administration of their support. We're gonna continue to do what we've been doing, which is try to enable it and advocate really, really hard for the state. We think we have a great site down at Salem. There's been, you know, port construction was completed. It's gonna make some construction activities easier. We have some great labor in that area, and we have the technical capabilities and operational performance to, you know, deliver additional megawatt hours out of that area. We're gonna be advocating hard and try to stay lockstep with the administration on that. Great. Thank you so much for the time. Thanks, Carly. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan. Please proceed with your question. Hey, Jeremy. Hi, good morning. Good morning. Was just wondering if I could start with large load increase here. Just wondering if you could provide a bit more color, I guess, on the current state of conversations and interest there, and where does the total count stand, you know, versus last quarter or I think it was 11.8 as of the end of December? Yeah, Jeremy, that's about right. We've seen, you know, it's interesting. Last year, if you go through the year, we saw quite a significant increase as you step through time, and I think the, you know, you kind of were seeing the knee of the curve as the interest more broadly was coming about in data centers. I'd say directionally, you've seen that kind of level off within the state. That 11,000 we always talked about as being somewhere, I don't know, maybe 10%, 15%, 20% of that may come to fruition if we look based upon history what we've seen within different new business coming forward. Hard to predict on that, which is, I think a broad topic across the sector. I'd say we're still kind of in that ballpark. I think the change that we saw across last year had us put that forward so people could get an understanding. The leveling off, there's a little bit less to talk about on that front. You know, we still pursue the ability to try to serve some of that load, either here or in Pennsylvania, where we have the Peach Bottom units and that activity continues. Got it. That's helpful. That kind of leads to my next question here, if you might be able to provide some color bifurcating between the states as far as interest or type of activity, type of conversations. At the same time, just curious, I guess, as how does demand response currently factor into any of these discussions, and has that changed over time? No, I don't think the DR has changed the discussions over time, but I do think the first part of your question is a little bit more pointed and provides a little bit more differentiation, just literally by virtue of what type of data centers are interested in going where. I would say that, absent the significant tax incentives in New Jersey, we have not seen the sizable interest in New Jersey. That's been a consistent concept that we've talked about for a while. In other states, and there are plenty of them, where some of the larger hyperscalers have the ability to. Derive some of the financial incentives to be able to go there. They are following those incentives from everything we've seen, and I would say that the opportunity set to serve them follows suit with that. Got it. Makes sense. I'll leave it there. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks, Jeremy. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Nick Amicucci with Evercore ISI. Please proceed with your question. Hey, Nick. Hey, guys. How are we? Good just a couple quick ones for me, if I could. When we just think about kind of the cadence at Salem and the potential for the capacity upgrade, would we pretty much assume that you would be seeking the extension first and then any kind of firm announcement on a potential upgrade? You're talking about the license extension first? Yeah. Yeah. The license extension, the Salem units have current licenses that run through 2036 and 2040. Anything we would do to extend that another 20 years would happen in advance of that. What we've talked about with respect to the upgrade by comparison, we said either the outage in 2027 or the outage in 2029 is when we would anticipate those coming on. There'll be activity, I think, on the license extension. I think you'll see the upgrade come through within those two time frames that I mentioned. Yeah. Very specifically, we're not counting on that license extension to be in before we do the upgrade. That's not a gating factor, right? Got it. Got it. Perfect. Then if I could, to just given kind of the strong performance, obviously, you know, somewhat weather driven in the first quarter, but roughly 36 adjusted EPS, roughly 36% of midpoint. That's, you know, pretty above seasonal. Just wanted to see I mean, understanding that it's early still in the year, what would you need to see kind of going forward to then kind of move either to kind of cut the guidance range to the upper half or kind of increase guidance all together? Yeah. Nick, I think, you know, on a normal year, even when you're decoupled just volumetrically, you're gonna see a lot more coming through in the winters and the summers. I think there's a piece of that that you see coming through from this winter. I think if I were to give you know, a one-word answer, it would be what the summer ends up looking like. I mean, we're decoupled, we don't have as much of an impact from that perspective. There are some elements, you know, whether it's weather-driven demand's a little bit higher on gas and that those demands moving things or even just the snow removal, things along those nature have an impact on what the results look like. We have more of those types of events, I think, like everybody else in the winter and in the summer. I would say get through the summer and see what we look like. Yeah. Right I think you saw it, Nick. The other piece to this, just to remind you all, we mentioned the gas ops there and that there was some value generated from our gas operations group. Just a reminder, that also goes to offset customer rates pretty dramatically. Another good news message for the customers in New Jersey that we were able to transact in that area. Perfect. Thanks, Dan. Thanks, Ralph. I'll see you guys in a couple of weeks. See you. See you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Jefferies. Please proceed with your question. Hey, good morning, Ralph, team. How you guys all doing? Good, Julien. How are you? Quite well. Thank you, guys, very much. Appreciate it. Looking forward to another video from you soon, Julien. Oh, come on, bring it on. Let's do it. Gotta keep it lively. Look, let me ask you guys about PJM here. I know people keep needling you about it, and I wanna just come back to it real quickly. How do you think about your participation, whether in a bilateral context or, you know, outright in some other permutation? Again, we've heard comments this morning. We've heard comments elsewhere. I mean, just how do you think about that coming together? Just how would you set expectations around this process? You all are keeping close tabs on this whole process at the state level and at the PJM level. How would you set expectations about what ultimately happens in terms of backstop versus, you know, bilateral versus just capacity not getting procured on a timely basis? Yeah. In your questionnaires or participation, you mean in new generation or existing-? In, yeah, in any flavor. I'm curious about your waxing about the process and then separately your participation in any flavor. Yeah. Look, I think the number one thing that we've been focused on, and this goes back a long time before the words resource adequacy were popular was, is the reliability, right? The reliability of the grid. We've been on that since 2003, since the lights went out. We start from there, looking out for the customers and then looking out from a customer cost standpoint. I think we need to make sure that we're protecting the customer, number one, and making sure that there's enough product to deliver to the customer, number two. I'm not sure that the current, the way it's currently drafted, really does both of those things. I think there's a little bit of a concern about putting that burden on the LDCs versus the LSEs and whatever other acronyms we wanna throw in there. We will participate in the process, and we're gonna advocate strong. We've got a new CEO at PJM that's just stepped into the role. I wanna before we pass any judgment on what's going on at PJM, let's give them a chance to get their feet under them and get the organization structured the way they want, and the rules and proposals the way they'd like to see them. We'll continue to look at this from the customer's perspective and advocate on that behalf. Part two is, you know, when you think about generation and inheriting that, it's, "Hey, where's this supply gonna come from?" We inherently get the question all the time, "Hey, will you participate?" We've always said we'll participate in utility-like generation. We think we have some sites that make sense. The question is the fuel supply, and whether or not that's a fuel supply that makes sense for the state that, you know, those sites sit in. We're open to it, but it's gotta be utility-like investments when we have those conversations. Got it. Okay. Fair enough. When you think about you guys keep talking about new nuclear, and obviously I get why. How do you think about what that looks like in the state in terms of next steps? I mean, a lot of folks talk about it, but obviously, you know, you've gotta get the right risk construct. I totally appreciate that. Just tangibly, what would the next step look like here? Just to show progress if there is to be something to happen. I think it's gonna be a combination of government supporting the effort, right? You're gonna need to see some strong support from the federal government. There's rumors around that in different ways, shapes, and forms that you hear being discussed from different departments in Washington. Number one, I think we would need federal support. Number two, you'd have to have state support. I think you need states looking for offtake agreements. You need hyperscalers looking for offtake agreements. You need companies supporting it. You know, I think there's a combination of things that would have to come together. It all, to me, starts with the government being aligned, and that government being aligned from the long term, right? You need to ensure that not only do you have some financial support, but that you have the permitting support and the siting support. Heard a lot of that from our governor, that that's one of the things that they want to streamline here in New Jersey. Again, aligned with building new generation. I don't see any state taking on new nuclear without the support of the federal government. Sorry, just to elaborate on the last one real quickly, your response there. Is there a timing on when you could follow through on contracted new gen, whether that's gas or more specific storage or solar? No. I mean, I think you gotta see what all the rules are. That was my point. You know, when you look at this reliability backstop, I think we'll see what those rules are to come out. If that's a pure market solution, that's not something we're interested in, and that was the point I wanted to make. We're not interested in markets. Right In participating in that. That's not what our core business is. If we're looking for rate base, utility-like, we've done that in the past, 30-year PPAs, those types of things. I don't know what'll come out of this RBA. Really, remember, that's only on the capacity side, right? You still got the whole energy side that you gotta figure out how you get a contract for. I hear you. All right. I'll leave it there. More to go. Thanks, Julien. See you in a little bit, in May. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Sullivan with Wolfe Research. Please proceed with your question. Hey, guys. Hi, Michael. Good morning. Hey, hey, Ralph. Picking up on the kind of your last comment there, just the energy side of the equation. Any color you can give on just this pretty sharp move in PJM pricing and how you're thinking about that on kind of both sides of the house? Like any color on longer term hedges, and then how you're thinking about kind of the bill impact from that on the utility side? Well, Michael, this is Dan. The most immediate impact on the bill is gonna be the BGS that we just procured in February. From a bill perspective, we know what things are gonna look like. For PSE&G customers, they're gonna see their bill go down 1.8% on June 1st because of what happened on BGS. Again, from a customer perspective, that will change again next June 1st. There's a lot of stability inherent within the BGS construct that the state put together many, many years ago that still does exist. I think, you know, more broadly if you think about markets, one of the things I do think that markets are trying to figure out is where this RBA does go to, and what it does bring in from a supply perspective. People are weighing their own individual views as to how much load is gonna come on the system and what generation is gonna be there to meet it, and that's ultimately through the market construct how prices are gonna be set. I think those are the bigger questions that people will continue to digest. Like in any other market, they'll use the available data, but in this instance it's how much load is gonna actually come online, when it's gonna come online, and the same two questions around supply. I think you've seen some movement over time as people try to think that through. In general, I think you're gonna have a tighter market because I think the path to incremental demand is a little bit clearer from a volumetric perspective than the path to incremental supply. Okay, that's helpful. Any color on how much you're hedging into this in the out years? No. I mean, the thing that we've said is that for the prompt year, we're pretty close to fully hedged. Then as you look through the next couple of years, that'll cascade off a little bit. Okay. Last thing, just kind of next couple months here into kind of the summer recess at the legislature, anything you expect or are focused on getting done between now and then? I'll weigh in there a little bit, Michael. I think that affordability remains a hot topic here in the state. I think we are prepared for those conversations as they continue to take place, and we continue to be supportive. I think there's possibility for people to be talking about resource adequacy solutions. That's something else that might be out there. Again, we're just monitoring. Once those issues, if there's any legislation introduced, we'll assess them and comment on them. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Sophie Karp with KeyBanc Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question. Morning, Sophie. Hi, good morning. Good morning. Thank you for taking my question. I'm curious if you see any opportunities potentially for yourselves in the upcoming PJM transmission open window. Yeah. Sophie, I think that we even referenced a little bit of that on the prepared remarks. We, on an ongoing basis, do take a look at what comes through those open windows. We'll do exactly the same thing this summer when the next window opens. I think I would call it a careful look at what we think makes the most sense for things for us to do. I think we have a pretty deep well of experience in building transmission, and that doesn't mean that everything is gonna make sense for us. We go through pretty carefully taking a look at what we do think makes sense, and we will put in a competitive bid to the extent that we think something does. I'll remind you, the capital plan that's in place doesn't have anything that we have not already won through a competitive process. I absolutely think we have the skill set to be able to expand in that area. We will just increment the capital plan to the extent that we do win as we go forward. Thank you. On the kind of data centers, I appreciate your comment that, absent of the incentives, they're not necessarily looking to locate in New Jersey. Is it an option for your New Jersey assets to have virtual PPA, virtual offtake with, like, facilities elsewhere, or is that not a major focus right now? No, look, we are deliverable to beyond New Jersey, and even today, that power flows on the grid in the region. There is absolutely the potential for us to do something with the New Jersey units or the Pennsylvania units beyond the node that they're at and beyond the zone that they're in. Yes, that is possible. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Sophie. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Rinny Singh with Bank of America. Please proceed with your question. Hi, Rinny. Hi, guys. Thanks for taking the question. you know, first on the BGS auction, obviously, you got the 1.8% reduction that's going to go into effect June. I guess, how are you thinking about the repeatability of that, you know, with capacity prices either staying at the same level or going lower and, you know, potentially power prices going up? I guess, do you think you can kind of keep up the same decreases year-over-year? I mean, you understand the pieces as well as we do, and the way that auction works is that it's gonna be for a three year period for the third of the load. What you're doing is taking a look at least by design, unless there are delays at PJM, capacity auctions that have already transpired, so that's a known item. We don't know what they all are now, but we'll know what they are by the time that auction comes around. Then a forecast of what energy prices look like. That's probably your biggest variable as you go forward, what will those energy prices look like? The other thing I would say, though, is it being an auction for a third of the total demand, if you were to see a $3 impact in the price of energy, you would see a $1 impact come through towards the bill because of the gradual effect of that. You'd see that $1 increase across three years, but the gradualism of that mechanism is gonna provide gradualism in the impact on rates to customers. You know, beyond that, trying to estimate exactly where things are gonna go is kind of tough to do, obviously. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. But- And then- Yeah. Rinny, I just to reinforce something Dan said there, just a reminder, the last time we had sticker shock was due to the fact that there was a capacity market delay. Even if prices are incrementally up a little bit, you're not gonna have that same sticker shock situation that we experienced a year ago when the BGS price came in so high because the capacity prices had piled up for three years. Those increases sitting there caused the challenge that we had. It wasn't necessarily incremental, especially in a what we believe is a very good mechanism in the BGS. Yeah, it's a great point. For the delay in the capacity auction, you would not have seen the magnitude of year-over-year increase that you saw. Yeah. No, I think that is very clear. It makes sense. And then on the RBA, I know we've talked a lot about it on this call, but I saw the proposal that you filed jointly with some other EDCs. I guess, how are you thinking about what, you know, what's the ideal things that need to be solved and, you know, would be in your favor for that? Like, in terms of I saw that the Load Serving Entity, you know, should be the cost responsibility, but anything else that you would point out? No, what I said earlier, I think is the key is the planning process, right? You really got to make sure that the planning process is a solid one and there's consensus around it, and then whoever is the planner is the one that winds up with the accountability, right? That's the key. To have the planning done by, you know, a town and then the accountability sit at the county level doesn't make a ton of sense, right? I'm just using some sort of parallel there. I just really think we gotta get all of that aligned. As I said earlier, states have IRP requirements. In addition to the states having the IRP requirements, PJM has been granted by the EDCs the responsibility for transmission planning. You put those pieces together, and it's kind of odd for that to wind up back with the EDCs. Therefore, the LSEs are load-serving entities that are the entities that have been identified with the responsibility is where we believe the burden should sit. Okay. I think that all makes sense. Very clear. Thanks so much, guys. Thanks. Thank you. Our last question comes from the line of Anthony Crowdell with Mizuho Securities. Please proceed with your question. Hey, Ralph, Dan, thanks for squeezing me in on a busy morning. Just a follow-up to, I think, Nick's question earlier on the nuclear uprates and maybe the timing of them. Just, if you could help me, when do you file for the timing, but also approval for the uprates, is that an additional CapEx opportunity, or it's further out in the five-year plan, or you already have it included in your current plan? Yeah. We've got the capital that's included there. The timing of it is gonna depend upon which outage it goes into, Anthony. That's when I said 2027 or 2029. We'll have an outage for those units in 2027, outage in 2029. Depending upon as that thing, how it moves forward, that's when we'll end up seeing that uprate go through. You're asking about the uprate, not the license extension, right? No, no, more the license extension. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Yeah. The license extension, we'll get information back in over the next X amount of years, right? I know NRC is trying to move that a little bit quicker than they have in the past. At that point, they'll let us know whether or not we have to change the oil, change the tires, what needs to be done. We'll be able to forecast the CapEx at that point. Again, I know it, the timing is not clear with the NRC. Is that within the five year period or it could be, or it could also be outside the five year period? I think we would gain consensus with NRC of the work that needs to be done in the five year timeline, and I think the work would be completed outside the five year timeline. Great. That is all I had. Thanks so much. Thanks, Anthony. Thanks, Anthony. 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 all for your interest in and dialing in today. I know it's a busy day for many of you on the call, so I appreciate you taking the time. Looking forward to speaking to everybody at AGA. I'll end with another thank you to our team here for the work that was completed through this past winter. It was not easy for us, people continued to work above and beyond our expectations. Thank you to the team, thank you all for calling in, looking forward to seeing you all at AGA later this month. Take care. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's teleconference. You may disconnect your line at this time. Thank you for your participation.