Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to Talen Energy First Quarter 2025 earnings call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. To ask a question during this session, you will need to press star 11 on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star 11 again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would like now to turn the conference over to Sergio Castro, Vice President and Treasurer. Sir, please go ahead. Thank you, Michelle. Welcome to Talen Energy's First Quarter 2025 conference call. Speaking today are Chief Executive Officer Mac McFarland, Chief Financial Officer Terry Nutt, and Chief Commercial Officer Chris Morice. They are joined by other Talen senior executives to address questions during the second part of today's call as necessary. We issued our earnings release this morning, along with the presentation, all of which can be found in the investor relations section of Talen's website, talenenergy.com. Today, we are making some forward-looking statements based on current expectations and assumptions. Actual results could differ due to risk factors and other considerations described in our financial disclosures and other SEC filings. Today's discussion also includes references to certain non-GAAP financial measures. We have provided information reconciling our non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures in our earnings release and the appendix of our presentation. With that, I will now turn the call over to Mac. Great. Thank you, Sergio, and welcome everyone to the call. We appreciate your continued interest in Talen Energy. In an uncertain market, we remain certain about our strategic path forward and our investment thesis. While the markets have been choppy and tariffs and trade restrictions on things like rare earth metals have introduced complexities, we remain committed to the simplicity of executing our business plan, focusing on operations, commercialization of our megawatts, returning capital to shareholders, and executing our growth strategy through our contract with AWS at Susquehanna and expanding our strategy to contract megawatts at our other sites, thereby delivering the most free cash flow per megawatt, and that is how we measure ourselves. We believe the long-term prospects for the IPP business and for Talen, more specifically, remain strong. Our fundamental view of tightening power markets has not changed. Our belief in ever-growing data center load has not changed. Our belief that Pennsylvania is a hub for data center development has not changed. In fact, many of these beliefs have strengthened. PPL just announced 11 GW of advanced data center development in their transmission territory where our plants are located. New development costs and construction timelines are escalating. Some estimates for new CCGTs are $2,200 to even $2,600 a kW, while some uncertainty around supply chains, tariffs, and tax policy have also hindered renewable development. All the while, hyperscalers continue to affirm or accelerate their capital plans, and they're showing no signs of slowing. All that said, market news of data center rebalancing and a lack of strength in power forwards has led some skeptics to question the underlying thesis in the IPP space and its intersection with data centers. To those skeptics, we say we are undeterred. Rebalancing is just that: rebalancing, and the forward markets are thinly traded and don't reflect the new normal of tight power markets. Turning to slide two, we had a solid quarter bolstered by strong load and power prices, as well as very good operations and performance by our fossil plants, Susquehanna, and the commercial team, all working together to deliver $200 million of EBITDA and $87 million of free cash flow, which is ahead of our Q1 internal estimates that underpinned our 2025 guidance. I'd like to thank the women and men of Talen that have delivered these results, who worked tirelessly through the winter cold snap and kept the lights on. During Q1, we continued to execute under our share repurchase program, buying back $83 million worth of shares. The AWS Campus has been electrified, and we are delivering power and receiving revenues under our existing contract. AWS continues to build out the campus with multiple buildings under construction. We are excited about the future that this brings as we continue to execute under our current arrangement in the approved 300-megawatt ISA. We are moving forward and not looking back. We look forward to hosting investors at the site so they can see the activity for themselves. I'm sure you all want to know how and when we are moving past the 300 megawatts of our current ISA. As I have said before, we don't comment on commercial activities we are undertaking. That said, we remain keenly focused on finding the right solution for our customers and Talen. But let me add this: last year was one of the most exciting years in my career in the IPP space, and I'd like to say that Talen played a role in that. And in 2025 is shaping up to surpass last year as the intersection of power and data centers is validated. While not a Q1 activity, we have extended our refueling outage on Susquehanna Unit 2 to perform incremental maintenance. We went into this outage with a plan to gain operational efficiency through the recovery of 27 MW through a fix in the condenser. We worked and performed this work. In the MW we do expect to recover. However, while doing this work, we identified incremental maintenance we felt prudent to undertake during the spring period of low prices, and we extended our outage by just over three weeks and at an incremental cost of roughly $20 million. We believe this incremental work will restore megawatts in excess of the 27 that we originally planned to achieve. All of this leads us to expect a payback approximately one and a half years at today's prevailing market prices. This sets us up well for the future with more energy to sell, and ultimately, this decision is the right thing to do at the right time. We have incorporated our favorable first quarter results into our guidance for 2025 and also included the incremental maintenance we are undertaking, and as a result, we are narrowing and affirming that guidance, and our 2026 outlook remains unchanged. We turn to slide three. Our view of the markets is not wavered. We continue to see tightening markets driven by increased demand. In Q1, we saw 7 terawatt hours, or approximately 3.5%, of incremental deliveries on a weather-adjusted basis in PJM when compared to prior year. This caused our fleet to be dispatched by approximately 1.6 terawatt hours more than it was in the same quarter last year. The additional generation all came from our fossil fleet and supports our view that energy demand will increase the dispatch of our flexible fleet. As I mentioned, we have seen PPL announce even more data center load from prior estimates last year, and we see other forms of demand further strengthening. AI continues to move forward at a significant pace, and hyperscalers continue to raise or affirm their capital investment plans. Further, cloud services and hosting activity continue to show significant growth, as indicated by several earnings reports over the last few weeks. While data center demand and AI is somewhat of a recent phenomenon, and the markets are trying to digest a lot of discrete data points, data points that include ship production and sales, lease terminations, and new data center announcements in the rebalancing I mentioned earlier, from where we sit, we do not see a pullback. And while there will be a supply response to this increasing demand, in the short term, things like the efforts I described to bring more megawatts to the grid at Susquehanna will happen across the industry. However, we don't see notable new build coming online until late in the decade. And with supply chains tight and tariff and trade restrictions going into place when a lot of equipment is sourced in Europe, the cost of new builds makes new supply even more challenged in the short term. In the long term, we do believe that supply will ultimately arrive in response to market demand and signals. But there is some truth to the view that current capacity pricing, as well as the forward markets, don't support new build investment and don't reflect the tightening market. Chris will provide some additional detail on our hedging program later that demonstrates that while we believe the forwards are not representative of supply and demand fundamentals, we did take the opportunity in the first quarter to layer on additional hedges in 2026 and 2027 when the forward market was well bid. Turning to slide four, I mentioned most of this in my opening remarks. We continue to execute. AWS continues to build. We are delivering electrons and receiving dollars. And as a reminder, the schedule over the course of the year is to ramp up to 120 MW. With that, I'll turn it over to Terry on slide five. Terry. Thanks, Mac, and good morning, everyone. Let's look at our first quarter financial and operating results. Our team continues to deliver from an operational perspective. During the quarter, our fleet ran well during periods of high demand, demonstrating the value of a dispatchable fleet. We generated 9.7 terawatt hours of power with an equivalent forced outage factor of 1.2%. Slightly less than half of this generation came from our carbon-free Susquehanna nuclear facility, as our fossil fleet ran more in periods of high demand. While we experienced higher runtimes at our fossil plants, our Montour and Brunner Island facilities saw significant increases in generation during the quarter. Safety remains our first priority across the fleet, and our team worked safely during the busy winter run in cold conditions. Our Q1 recordable incident rate was only 0.4. This is in line with or better than our peers. Turning to slide six, I'll provide some more financial details. We had a solid start to the year with results better than our estimates. We reported an adjusted EBITDA of $200 million and adjusted free cash flow of $87 million. The weather in PJM was cold this quarter, with heating degree days in Philadelphia above the 10-year average. Below-average temperatures during the first quarter of 2025 contributed to increased demand that resulted in higher settled on-peak power prices compared with the prior year. On a comparative basis, our first quarter results in the prior year benefited significantly from approximately $165 million of realized hedge gains, with Q1 2025 only containing a modest hedge impact. Our fleet performed when needed, as evidenced by our low forced outage rate, and our fossil fleet generated approximately 20% more power than the same period last year, despite the absence of our ERCOT assets. As you may remember from our investor day in September of last year, our earnings in the second half of 2025 will be higher due to the inclusion of the 2025-2026 capacity pricing of approximately $270 a megawatt day and the Reliability Must-Run impacts of our Brandon Shores and Wagner facilities. As Mac mentioned earlier, we are reaffirming and narrowing our previously announced 2025 guidance ranges. The strong performance in the first quarter and expectations for the balance of the year are expected to offset the impacts of the extended Susquehanna outage. Our narrowed Adjusted EBITDA range is $975 million-$1.125 million, and our narrowed adjusted free cash flow range is $450 million-$540 million. In the near term, market uncertainty on trade restrictions and tariffs do not have a material effect on cost. In the longer term, it is more uncertain as we evaluate tariffs and the impact throughout our supply chain. Our 2026 outlook remains unchanged from what we disclosed at our investor day back in September. These ranges continue to demonstrate Talen's robust earnings and cash flow growth profile, which includes tripling adjusted free cash flow per share by 2026. Turning to slide eight, we continue to target a return of 70% of adjusted free cash flow to our shareholders. We view share repurchases as the first priority for excess cash, and we will use that as the benchmark to measure the return profile of any growth opportunities. As Mac mentioned earlier, the pullback in the equity market allowed us to purchase $83 million, or approximately 452,000 shares in the first quarter. Since the start of 2024, we have repurchased approximately $14 million, or 23% of our outstanding shares. We have approximately $1 billion in buyback capacity remaining through year-end 2026 and balance sheet flexibility to execute our program or act strategically if the right opportunities present themselves. Moving to slide nine, we remain committed to maintaining net leverage below our target of three and a half times, along with ample liquidity. As of May 2nd, our forecasted net leverage ratio was approximately 2.6 times, well below our target. In addition, we have approximately $970 million of liquidity with over $270 million of cash on the balance sheet. During the quarter, we took advantage of falling rates to execute $550 million of interest rate swaps, and since the end of the quarter, we added an additional $150 million of swaps, which reduces our floating rate exposure and allows for more predictable cash flows. With that, I'll now turn the call over to Chris. Thanks, Terry, and good morning, everyone. Moving to slide 10, I'd like to highlight our hedging activity this past quarter. Our hedging strategy is focused on maintaining appropriate risk tolerances with an emphasis on protecting cash flows across our generation fleet. On the left, there is a graph of average calendar year 2026 and 2027 PJM West Hub around-the-clock pricing. On the heels of a strong winter, prices rose, and our commercial team started to layer in additional hedges during the period. As a reminder, we have a pragmatic, not programmatic hedging strategy, which gave our team the flexibility to add hedges during higher price periods as detailed on the right-hand side. In Q1, we doubled 2026 and 2027 hedges in a rising price environment. These actions allowed us to increase certainty of the near-term cash flows for the business while still maintaining appropriate exposure to rising price fundamentals in 2027 and beyond. With that, I'll hand discussion back to Mac for closing remarks. Great. Thanks, Chris. This remains an exciting time to be in IPP. Market fundamentals remain incredibly strong. Data center load growth continues to arrive. We continue to execute on our AWS contract. All of this gives a strong conviction in our investment thesis, and Talen is well positioned to power the future. We appreciate everyone's interest in Talen and for joining us on the call today. We'll now turn it back to the operator and open the line for questions. Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star 11 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star 11 again. The first question comes from David Arcaro with Morgan Stanley. Your line is open. Hi. Thanks so much. Good morning. Morning, David. Following up on maybe a few comments of your peers this week, one of your peers highlighted a shift in customer interest toward front-of-the-meter deals. I guess I was wondering if you could maybe elaborate on your current conversations and with the backdrop of this FERC process going on? Has there been a change in tone or strategy or desire to go front-of-the-meter versus behind-the-meter here in your conversations as well? Thanks. Appreciate the question. Look, I mean, I'd first start with we have a current transaction or contract with AWS that we're executing under. And as I mentioned in the remarks earlier, we're actively delivering megawatts and receiving revenues, etc., and ongoing construction there. Since the time I think we signed that contract, we've mentioned to people that we've been looking at all different forms of opportunity with respect to how to power data centers and to expand our growth strategy. And you've seen a lot of activity, obviously, that started with the denial by FERC of the ISA extension, and then the technical conference, and then the ongoing dialogue back and forth with PJM. PJM's submitting eight different alternatives and basically allowing options of ways to power data centers. We think that's highly supportive and continue to support that process. In working with our counterparties, we are looking at a number of different ways to get megawatts quickly delivered because it's speed to market and how to contract megawatts across the fleet. So we've been working actively for over a year on that, and that's pretty much it. Cole, anything you want to add? No, I think that's right, Mac. I mean, we said last September at our analyst day that across our fleet, we're looking at a variety of different options. Obviously, we had the Susquehanna behind-the-meter deal with Amazon, but obviously, a front-of-the-meter solution is the right solution in many cases. And so we have been working on those kind of constructs for a while. And obviously, with the FERC denial in November, we've been, I think, saying routinely that we're working on alternative commercial solutions there as well. Maybe just one further point, and I mentioned this in the opening remarks, and I think it is something to pay attention to. You continue to see PPL discuss the backlog moving from nine gigawatts to 11 gigawatts, and they've been advancing that. So there are going to be a number of solutions in the territory where we have plants, land, water, access, transmission capability, etc., to connect to the grid. So I think you're going to see that activity show up. And now it's just a matter of how does it get its power sourced and where does it come from? And PPL is actively engaging with PJM and thinking about what is going to be needed from the transmission system. So I think that all points to the signs that the customers are there and how the contractual arrangements are going to occur. That's going to evolve. As I mentioned, I think it's going to be a really exciting time in 2025 when this power data center intersection gets validated. Yep. Got it. No, that all makes sense. Appreciate the color. And maybe touching on the current status of the FERC process and colocation, how do you see that playing out here in terms of the path forward? Do you see a path for a settlement process potentially opening up? So, yes, and hard to predict, I guess, is not to bury the headline. Look, the FERC process has been evolving, okay? But they have said, and Chairman Christie has said, that they want to resolve it quickly. I think you saw there was a conference at the Pennsylvania PUC, again, wanting to promote the ability to serve large loads, data centers, etc., wanting to move quickly because people realize that there's a huge amount of economic development associated with this. Pennsylvania realizes there's a huge amount of economic development and wants to become a hub, if you will, for data centers. And so we're obviously involved in watching this, and I think that the PJM's eight options that went to FERC, and then FERC looking to resolve this matter in a quick fashion. We're highly supportive of. But again, so a lot of that FERC process, which we're engaged in the FERC process. We also have a legal matter pending in the Fifth Circuit with respect to our ISA, and then all the commercial activity of Cole and his team, that continues to progress because there are a number of different ways by which to resolve how to get data centers powered, right? And so those are all evolving and progressing. Okay. Great. Yeah. Appreciate the comments. Thanks so much. Thank you. Our next question comes from Angie Storozinski with Seaport. Your line is open. Thank you. So I wanted to follow up on the comments about PPL. So I'm actually looking at the PPL zone. It seems to me like about seven gigs of peak load and about 13 gigs of installed capacity in the PPL zone. And as you said, PPL is showing 11 gigs of potential incremental demand. And PPL does not provide generation, right? So whoever joins from that queue needs to procure electricity, presumably many of them from your plants. And yet you are staying away from making any comments about other assets, not Susquehanna. So that's number one. And number two is, given that, again, the existing load and the queue add up to more capacity than currently available in the PPL zone, would you be open to maybe expanding some of your assets under long-term contracts? Yeah. As I said, our growth. Well, first of all, good morning, Angie. How are you? I'm glad to hear from you. So look, as I said, our strategy when we. It was just March of last year when we signed the contract. And since that day, we've been moving forward. And our growth strategy is focused on leveraging our platform. So let's unpack that for just a second, which is how do we use a platform? We have a number of different assets. In addition to Susquehanna, the focus has been on Susquehanna and how do we expand at Susquehanna, which we always said would have to be a change to that contract in some form of grid to provide the same reliability. So we've been looking at that. We've been looking at how do we use the rest of the assets in our portfolio and provide a platform solution. So when you have single assets, you don't have necessarily the same risk backstop that you do when you have a portfolio. You don't have the same balance sheet you do when you have a portfolio of assets. So we've been looking at how do we leverage that portfolio and leverage the work and the, I'll call it IP, if you will, lessons learned, first mover advantage, whatever you want to call the contract with AWS. We've been looking at how do we leverage that across the fleet. So while I'm not talking specifically, I hope that gives you a flavor for what we're trying to do. And no comment about expansion of existing assets. I understand you don't want to... Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. Yes. I forgot to say no comment on the expansion of existing assets. Okay. That's great. Well, Angie, as you know, and I always appreciate the questions, but I think it's fair to ask the questions, but it's also fair for us to say, "Look, we don't comment on M&A activity. We don't comment on commercial arrangements that we're working on or not working on. We don't comment on MNPI, having it or absence of having it." Okay? We just don't do that as a matter of practice because we're focused on executing our strategy. And then when we have points in time by which we can let the market know by having something executed, we will do so. It's just a matter of practice that we do. When you're working on commercial activities, whether it be contracts, acquisitions, divestitures, any of that, it doesn't behoove anybody in that process to have public discussion about it because they're commercial activities, and you don't want to give one side or the other leverage. So as a matter of. I'm sorry, but it's a matter of practice. We just don't comment on those things. Okay. So just one last one. So you have a head start as far as contracting of assets, if only because of Susquehanna. Admittedly, nobody else has a house contract, so it's not like you've lost it. But as the time goes by, are you concerned that that head start or that competitive advantage is not going to last in a sense that this time-to-power benefit that you currently possess is just going to go away as additional deals are announced by your competitors? First of all, I do think we have a first mover advantage. There's hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure, transmission infrastructure sitting on the ground at Susquehanna. There's hundreds of millions of dollars of buildings and other infrastructure that's going in. We have a contract we're executing underneath that. As we go through the ramp-up, as we go through billing, as we go through all of this, we're further advancing what we know about how to power data centers and what that looks like. The conversations that we have because of the 11-GW backlog, etc., we're advancing our knowledge. As far as I've said, and sometimes I regret, and sometimes people like to put it back to me, I've always said I'd like to announce our second deal before somebody announces their first. I'll stick to that. That's true. But at the same time, a rising tide lifts all boats. And I think the more that the industry can sign contracts and prove up this intersection, as I mentioned in my remarks, of data centers and power and validate that, the better off the entire industry is. But we're competitive. So yes, we want to be announcing more deals and doing it before anybody else. But it's just how these things work. We could talk about complexity. We could talk about time and contracting and legalese and all that type of stuff. But at the end of the day, we are executing, and there's a lot of activity. So don't think that our lack of public discussion about what we're doing is a lack of effort or progress. Cole, anything you want to add? Yeah. Just kind of piggyback on the point around Susquehanna. We have a couple-year head start, right? As Mac said, we have substations in the ground, buildings that are actively drawing power, and the campus expanding. So we don't need to wait for an announced next contract to continue to expand that at rapid pace. And then back on the point around our other assets, they're in an advantaged position, right? They have the right characteristics: water, fiber, land, etc. But also, as you noted, Angie, they're in the right location, right? There's 11 gigawatts potentially coming to this zone, whether it's contracted or not. Those assets are in really good position, and we're able to and have been advancing opportunities to lock that in. And let me just add to that, which is, I think, that Vince and the team at PPL have been very constructive. And they have a commercial mindset that is allowing data centers to flourish in their backyard, if you will. And we have a constructive relationship with them. And they also have a transmission system that can absorb a lot of these megawatts and, as they've said, not impact residential customers. So that's a big advantage. And we like the position that we're in, and we like who we're working with. Good. Thank you. Thanks, Angie. Our next question comes from Michael Sullivan with Wolfe. Your line is open. Hey, good morning. Morning, Michael. Hey, Mac. I wanted to just ask for a little more detail on the Susquehanna outage. I guess, how confident are we that it'll be back in the next week or so? And then just in terms of what's being improved here, how should we think about that? Yeah. So look, I'm glad you brought that up. But from a schedule standpoint, obviously, when you go into a nuclear outage, you have a literally minute-by-minute type schedule. And we've done that with the extension. So mid-May is the target here. But with all things, schedules can move. But we have confidence in the fix that we're doing, which is we went into the condenser and knew that we had some maintenance, and that was planned. And that was to get us approximately 27 MW that would get us back to full capacity injection rates, which then would go into the capacity market. But when we did the uprate over a decade ago, we actually got past that from a capability of the plant, that capacity injection rating. And so we determined incremental work. I could go through the arcane engineering stuff of the extraction steam system between the condenser and the turbine, etc. Without getting into that, there were just some other things that we found that would further enhance effectively the steam flow. When we did that effective repair work, we anticipate getting incremental megawatts. That's why when we put that in there and say the $20 million of incremental cost plus the, call it lost opportunity, albeit during low-price environment in the spring here of the three and a half weeks, we say that we're going to get payback on that over the time because we're going to get even more energy out of the system. That's the work we're doing. Hopefully, that answers your question. Happy to take a follow-up, Michael, if you have one. Yeah. Yeah. No, that's very helpful. So it sounds like it's more on the generation side of things. Yeah. No, I should have made that very clear. It's on the non—so we describe things as nuclear island and non-nuclear island. It's on the non-nuclear island aspect of things. So it's basically on balance of plant is the way that we would say it internally. Okay. Very helpful. Thank you. And then my second question was, oh, sorry. Were you about to say something, Mac? No. No. I was just waiting on your next question. Just maybe updated level of conviction in the 2026 outlook that you gave back in September. I know you've layered on some hedges here. Pricing been moving around. We've now got the cap floor construct for the auction coming up. Yeah. Sure. I'm happy to, and Terry should get in here too and Chris as well. But look, I think Chris hit on it. That's why we actually had it as part of this presentation, is we saw some opportunity to put some hedges on. We don't necessarily need to go in and hedge. We do it when we look at adjusting our risk tolerances. What I would say is the market was well bid in the term market, 2026, 2027 during the first quarter cold snap, right, as Chris mentioned. And so we layered in some additional hedges. But if you look out, the backwardation in the market does not make sense to us, I think, is the way that I would say it. If you have that fundamental view of tightening markets, the capacity market, I think, is supported. Terry, Chris, Terry, you want to. Yeah. No. Michael, just to be direct, we have a significant amount of confidence in our 2026 outlook number. As you mentioned earlier, you've seen the forwards move. We've obviously seen the commodity market even the last few days get a bid in some of these out years. So we've got a ton of confidence on that. We do have to see the results of the upcoming auction. There could be maybe even potential upside from that, depending on the outcome. But that sort of dovetails with maybe a follow-up question from you or one of your colleagues on how we feel about the auction. But ton of confidence. Okay. Thanks very much. Appreciate it. Our next question will come from Jeremy Tonet with J.P. Morgan. Your line is open. Hi. Good morning. Morning. Just wondering as it relates to capital allocation. I know this has been touched on a bit here before as it relates to buybacks. But just wondering, any thoughts you could share with us with regards to the pace of buybacks in a given quarter? We've seen a lot of share price volatility, right? And just wondering if free cash flow in a given quarter impacts pace or any other considerations we might think about just given the level of volatility we've seen out there and how that could influence the buyback pace. Yeah. Jeremy, happy to take that. Good morning. So from a pace standpoint, obviously, you can take a look at what we did in the first quarter as an example. When market opportunities present themselves, we're going to get out there and put our share repurchase program in place and get moving. Ultimately, the more dollar per share from a free cash flow standpoint that we can produce, ultimately, that's our goal, right, is growing that free cash flow per share, growing what that looks like for our remaining customers. We do have a little bit of seasonality in our cash. And I would tell you there's a little bit of that just given how our debt service works, but not anything to where it keeps us out of the market for any quarter or any period of time. So as I mentioned earlier, we've got over $270 million of cash on the balance sheet, ready and willing to transact when we can. Got it. Hey, Jeremy. It's Mac. I might just add, look, I think we filed our proxy the 19th of March, and in there, you would have seen if you looked at the share count because it's a current filing. You have to put current numbers in. You would have seen versus the 1231 share count that we had bought back shares, and so if you go back to the early March timeframe, that's a couple of months ago that we were in the market, and we were executing trades at that point, buybacks at that point in time, and we just felt as though that was a good use of capital. We've always said that our benchmark is returning capital to shareholders before we would go and make other alternative uses of that cash. And so as Terry said, we're there, and we're going to be supportive of the stock when we can. No, got it. That makes sense. I just didn't know if there could have been more in the quarter given the volatility, if there's any limiting factors to understand the response there. So thank you for that. I wish we could have bought a billion back at 185. That's a little joke, okay? But there are limits as to what you can do on volume per day and things of that nature. I think there were people that wrote that when we got down into that $185 range or plus or minus, that that was sort of a reflection, wasn't even a reflection of just pure fundamentals before you think about power plants, before you think about adding data centers on top of that. Look, I think we've shown the propensity to execute under our capital allocation program and have bought back now what, like $1.9 billion. 23% of the market cap. Yeah, and again, we're going to continue to evaluate that strategy, and that's our benchmark. Got it. That's helpful. And then just wanted to pivot towards PJM, the market a little bit here. With the PJM auction calendar now approved, just wondering how you think that sets up incentives, I guess, for new builds in the next few years here. How do PJM's recent approvals, fast-track new generation play into this? Any thoughts and proposals to re-regulate in Pennsylvania given, I guess, some of the news we hear out there? Yeah. So Jeremy, there's a lot in that question. So maybe we can take this one step at a time. From a constructive standpoint for what we see, and maybe let's touch on the capacity auction real quick, we think the upcoming capacity auction will be extremely constructive. Chris had a few comments to that here at the end on re-regulation and policy discussions in Harrisburg and the like. Obviously, we're proponents of what the IPP and the merchant generation space has done over the last several decades of bringing generation to bear. Once again, when you take a look at any sort of tightening cycle, the initial supply response is usually, I mean, it's a very orderly process. You're going to get additional upgrades from existing sites, first and foremost. That's usually the lowest cost of incremental generation. Then you're going to get potential retirements that were in the plan that are not going to be retired. And we've seen some of that already, right? So you're seeing that supply response. The question of new build outright is a challenging one because you now have two auctions where you've got a floor and a ceiling that limit the outcome from a capacity standpoint. And I would tell you the combination of those capacity outcomes with the existing energy price is not enough to cover a decent return on investing $2,200 and, heaven forbid, $2,600 or $2,700 at kW for a combined cycle generation plant. And so that new build, green build development is challenged from that standpoint, even before you get into whether or not you can touch on it from a supply chain standpoint. Chris, you want to add anything on the capacity auction? Yeah. Look, I think to say it simply, right? Things still look tight. We've gotten updated parameters, reliability requirements up, ELCCs down. So some knowns and unknowns. Of the unknowns, DR, wind participation, those will be variable. But maybe instructive, right? Let's go back and auction. As we're active in that space and trading bilaterally, you saw some prints coming across that certainly didn't reflect where the auction cleared. And so the variability on price outcomes continues to be wide. With the collar in place, the curve is steep. And quite frankly, we're 1.5-1.6 gigs from price in floor on outcomes. So again, the price variability is certainly heightened. But given the fundamental underlay, things still look tight and things still look. Where are you seeing trades, Chris, for 2026, 2027 in the bilateral market? Maybe that's a. Yeah. Again, it's varied. Coming out of the last auction, we saw some 300 prints come through. We're seeing a little more different flavor of three-year strips, two-year strips, contemplative of a high clear this year with some uncertainty in the back half. So again, all indicators still pretty constructive, but certainly some unknown variables vis-à-vis wind and DR that could impact that. Got it. That's very helpful. I'll leave it there. Thanks. Thanks, Jeremy. And our next question comes from Julian Dumoulin-Smith with Jefferies. Your line is open. Hey, good morning, team. Thank you guys very much for the time. I appreciate it. Maybe to follow up on. Hey, hey, Mac. Thank you. So maybe just to follow up a little bit on the earlier question from Mr. Sullivan there. Can I follow up a little bit on the non-nuclear island? Just what exactly is it that you guys are upgrading? If I can get a little bit more details. I mean, does it pertain to the blades here or what is the status of the generator blades? No. It's the extraction steam system that comes off of the turbine that then eventually the steam flows down into the condenser. We knew we had work to do in the condenser. That's the 27 megawatts that we're talking. But as you went up river, if you will, back towards the turbine, there were some additional repairs and incremental maintenance on some of the piping effectively there. So it's the extraction steam system. It's that simple. And when we do that incremental work, what it'll do is effectively, and this is a layman's term. I am an engineer, but I quit doing that like 30 years ago, but is tightening the flow of the steam. And by doing so, for the same fuel, you get additional energy out of the system. Got it. Okay. So turbine blades and the generator system? It's not. No, it's not the turbine. It's not the turbine. Excellent. I appreciate that follow-up question because I should have been clear. Thank you for saying it multiple times. Yeah. It's not the turbine. It's the surrounding component. Excellent. And right. And as a consequence, your confidence in the timeline of the outage, etc., I think you said a week away here is pretty high. Yeah. Look, I think going into, yeah. As again, you put together timelines, and you put together the best of it with the best available information. But we feel good about the mid-May timeframe. Got it. Okay. Yeah. I don't mean to press you too much there. Appreciate it. All right. Excellent. All right. Just if I can pivot slightly here. I mean, Montour is an interesting asset you guys have. Obviously, a lot of focus on your Susquehanna site, and there's a certain degree of adjacency. How do you think about the concept of additionality here? I mean, some of your peers have been commenting on this, and certainly, you guys have an interesting potential player on this avenue. So again, I'm trying not to pry on your commercial terms, and as much as I'm trying to think about the scope of how you think about what could come ahead here, especially in light of this growing conversation on additionality. Look, I think that, and discussed this before, when I think about the markets and the tightening of the markets, I think of things in sort of a near-term, mid-term, and longer term. And in the near term, what we have, and I've said this before, and if you look at, by the way, it's being validated in our results because if you look at the runtimes on Montour versus a year ago, we have plenty of energy in the system. What we have the next five years is effectively trying to solve a capacity issue for 20-40 hours. And I think that's where the industry has started to talk about how do we solve that 20-40 hours, and we have enough energy there. With respect to additionality, I think what you're saying, and I hope I got it right, you're talking additionality in terms of incremental megawatts or plants on. Yep. That is the end of the decade, that next five-year period, 30- 35. That's when we're going to need energy and capacity that is new. In my mind, we have a capacity shortage, which again, is just 20-40 hours for the next five years. With the data center load coming, there will have to be additional megawatts brought to bear. That's just a fact as load growth, as I mentioned, this is an exciting time because we're seeing load growth again in the industry, which hasn't occurred, particularly in the Northeast. There's been, in the Gulf States, you've seen load growth pretty fairly substantial in Texas, Louisiana, etc., from industrial load. But data center load coming to the Northeast, and specifically Pennsylvania, we're excited about. But yes, there will have to be additional megawatts brought to bear. But again, I think that is a 2030- 2035 timeframe if we, as an industry and as a load, can solve that 20- 40 hours a year. And I think that can come through demand response, things like getting incremental energy from our current megawatts, which we're looking at and doing, installed or current installed capacity across the fleet. So when it comes to additionality, I think it's a good discussion, but it's a discussion that, to me, is in the out years. And again, as I said in the opening, those construction costs are going up. You're looking at $2,200-$2,600 a kW range is what others have said, whether it be greenfield or brownfield. It doesn't matter. I mean, the costs are going up because of the materials, etc., and it's long lead time. And so the current markets don't support that. So again, we have pricing and megawatts right now, and it's speed to market for a lot of this data center load. It's like producing it now. But then we still have to solve this short-term 20-40 hours a year issue. And I think we, as an industry, can do that. Yep. Absolutely. But just to set expectations with respect to your portfolio here, again, I know you're in the race to get this second deal done. It wouldn't necessarily be focused on incremental megawatts at the Montour site or what have you. It would be focused on a more conventional use of existing capacity, if I'm hearing you right. I think there are multiple ways to supply power to data centers. You got it. All right, sir. Good luck. I'll see you soon. Okay. Julian. Our next question comes from Ross Fowler with Bank of America. Your line is open. Good morning, Terry. Morning, Mac. How are you? So first question, just any updates on the litigation process at the Fifth Circuit around the ISA or just we are where we were? Hey, John. You want to take that, John, or General Counsel? I'd be happy to take that, Ross. We're monitoring. Hang on a second. I'm thinking about a different issue. Give me two seconds here to think this through. Yeah. So look, the Fifth Circuit is proceeding. The briefing schedule is going to come out in the next couple of weeks. That appeal has a lot of technical issues. And I don't want to bore everybody with the lawyerly technical side of it. But the upshot is that that FERC decision turned on theoretical concerns about non-conforming provisions to applying those to hypothetical future transactions. And we think FERC should have evaluated our transaction and not future transactions that might or might not occur. So that process is going to play out over the course of the next several months in the Fifth Circuit. And as Mac has said several times, we're doing that along with other things. So, Ross, let me just throw a little bit of additional color there. We are pursuing that option because we felt as though the denial of the ISA incremental to 960 from 300, which, by the way, that ISA had been approved, amended, and approved, and then denied, that it was denied without prejudice, which meant that they didn't reason or argue why it was denied. And our Fifth Circuit case is basically to ask FERC through the legal process to state why—this is layman's terms, not a legal term—to basically provide a reasoned argument as to why it was denied because we felt that that was a prudent thing to do. That makes complete sense. And then following on Julian's questions and maybe Angie's questions too, I know you're not going to comment on specific assets, and I know we've sort of beaten up the additionality question. But as I think about it, you have the agreement with AWS off the back of a nuclear plant on a co-location basis now. As you flip that from a 30,000-foot view to natural gas, what kind of strategic things or risk factor things, big picture things are you thinking about about how a natural gas plant arrangement would have to work different from a nuclear arrangement? Yeah. Again, I'm going to go back to why this is so exciting to be in the IPP space right now. If you go back, for those of us that can, a couple of decades to the early 2000s, trade floors had not only dealing with real-time spot and sort of Bal- month, Bal- week, etc., there was also origination, which meant longer-term contracting. And that skill has atrophied a lot, okay, in the industry. We're obviously rebuilding it. And if you think about it, the behind-the-meter deal, AWS, or any of the other contemplated solutions that we're thinking about how to power data centers are effectively origination structured-type deals. To do that, you have to, in my opinion, have a platform like Talen has, which is a trading floor, the ability to source and contract for gas, schedule gas, be able to understand the risks associated with it, being able to backstop. If you were to go sell, for example, this is an example. If you were to go sell a long-term contract off of a single gas unit, that has risk embedded in it to the counterparty and to the structure if that unit is to go down. But if that unit goes down and you have incremental megawatts across a fleet, you have an ability to portfolio risk that and to backstop that. We're excited about the platform that Talen has to be able to find creative solutions and to go back to the world of origination and structuring where you had contracts for CNI, which if you think about the Amazon contract, it is a CNI-type customer. It just happens to look a lot like an aluminum smelter that runs 24 by 7. But those contracts were one, three, five, seven, sometimes even 10 years or longer, like our AWS contract. Cole, you want to jump in on this? Yeah, so look, I mean, the question around what's different between gas really versus nuclear, if I can cut to that, I think there's one fiscal and one financial broad buckets that we've been working on. And one is just the reliability aspect, right? We talk about Susquehanna having one unit back up the other in our current arrangement behind the meter. And I think we've gone back to our analyst day last year. We've been saying a gas deal likely looks different. It needs to have some kind of grid support because of the reliability features and whatnot. And so we've been working on this type of arrangement well before the FERC rejection in November and have some thoughts there as we talk with counterparties. And then on the economic side, it's really around price risk, right? Obviously, there's the gas commodity risk on a long-term contract and who warehouses that. There's a variety of different structures to do that. We certainly are built, as Mac was alluding to, to warehouse the appropriate risk and manage that for the appropriate return. And so that's where we're at with our discussions with counterparties. Yeah. That's well said because when we say things like warehouse risk, we mean manage it for our customers. And we think that we're well positioned to do so. We have a good balance sheet. We have a diverse portfolio of assets in addition to Susquehanna that allows us to do that. So when people start asking questions about—and by the way, we use front-of-the-meter as shorthand. No one's really defined what front-of-the-meter or front-of-the-meter gas is. But if we just use that as a general umbrella concept, that means that somebody is going to have to be effectively a retail provider that can provide a full solution over a long-term managed risk but do so at an appropriate return. And we like how we're positioned there, and we like how we're positioned and where our assets are positioned as well. Yeah. That's a very comprehensive answer. And Mac, I'll say, unfortunately, I am old enough, or maybe fortunately, I'm old enough to rest. Take care, guys. Thank you. It's unfortunate, I think. I'm going to believe. But anyway, yes. You're in good company, Ross. Take care, guys. Our next question comes from Craig Shere with Tuohy Brothers. Your line is open. Good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. Hey, Craig. Good morning. Digging a little bit further on Angie's gas-fired and Julian's Montour question, a leading midstream company has announced some rapid-fire greenfield simple cycle data center deployments that look to be online the next couple of years. Any thoughts on reconciling your 2030- 2035 timeline for additionality, given that if your comments are focused more around efficient CCGTs, but data centers are happy with seemingly perpetually simple cycle support, does that change your math at all? No, not really, Craig. I mean, I think the corollary here is it was interesting in the shale boom. I don't know, maybe 10, 15 years ago, right after sort of 2009 and 2010, back in 2008 when the forward strip was trading $11/MMBtu, West Texas had a problem with electricity. And there was a lot of upstream guys that said they were deploying trailer 18-wheeler-mounted CAT systems out there to power their rigs and to power their pumps and compressors and things of that nature. I think that's a little bit of a corollary. There was a data center, I think it was in Memphis, that got plopped down, and some reciprocating machines got plopped down next to it, which are probably the least efficient, but it gave a speed to market. I think that's all sort of within the realm of solutions and trying to figure out how to power data centers. And so I don't think that's inconsistent. My comments about 20, but you can do that on a smaller scale. But when you start talking gigs, that's when I was talking 2030-2035 being the CCGTs. Cole, Terry? Yeah. No, Mac, I think you hit on it. It's a question of scale, right? As you think about that technology and what it's able to be used for, the scale and the size matters, and then also the question of what's your backup to that, and is it interconnected to the grid or not? I think that's important. Yeah, and one other thing on that. Look, other companies are going to find pockets of opportunity to build in the near term for speed to market. Our speed to market advantage is already our existing assets, right? So we have high heat rate machines or higher heat rate machines already in Montour and some other assets. So for us, it just wouldn't be a natural fit to add more of that. If anything, it would be to add the high-efficiency machines over the longer term. Yeah. Exactly, and again, I think, Craig, it goes back to it's going to take a portfolio to provide a portfolio of solutions. Understood. Flipping a little bit to the auction and front-of-the-meter, an industry peer seemed to anticipate notable demand response increases in the upcoming auction that could pave the way for more front-of-the-meter PPA solutions by effectively peak shaving and allowing IPPs to tap their spare gas-fired capacity. Would you agree with that outlook, both in terms of the progression of the front-of-the-meter market and also in terms of the pending auction? I think, Craig, what you're hitting on is a growing chorus, and we've done a number of visits to DC and thinking about how to this intersection with respect to, and without getting into those private conversations, I think it's thematic in the industry that people are looking at and saying, "We have emergency response capability through backup generators," just like backup generators at your house. I mean, I wouldn't suggest that we go aggregate all of those, but it could be an option to solve things that are in size, and people are looking at, as I described, how to solve this 20-40-hour issue, not necessarily boil the ocean and try to get a bunch of new build when there's supply chains, etc., when we have energy as Cole was just, we have energy capacity at Montour. We were running Montour at 7% three years ago, and we're now running it at 46% in the first quarter. I mean, it can ramp up, and it's a gas unit. Maybe it's a 10-heat rate, so it's not as efficient, but it is quick to market. It can ramp up, but it can't solve that 20-40 hours because it was already counted in those 20-40 hours. And so demand response and the ability to solve that, we think, needs to be. Again, that's atrophy because there wasn't the need for it. We think that needs to come back. Those muscles need to be rebuilt, and we need to get some good rules in PJM on how that works and we need to think about how do we integrate that across the load, if you will. But in doing so, you can't change the reliability of the load. And when you think about things like data centers and their load, who knows what they're doing? You don't want to cut their load when they're performing, I don't know, DOD activities, or they're doing things for hospitals, etc. You can't do that. But we need to think about how do you integrate that and solve this 20- 40-hour issue across the system for the next five years. And I'm specifically talking about PJM right now. Great. Thank you. Hope that helps. Hope that was very helpful. Yes. Yeah. I think we're just coming up on time. We got one more question? Yes. Our last question will come from Durgesh Chopra with Evercore. Your line is open. Good morning. Thank you for squeezing me in. I just had a quick clarification on the FERC PJM discussion earlier on in the call. So obviously, one of your peers has asked for a settlement among settlement talks among parties. Just your views there, Mac and Terry. I apologize if you've discussed this earlier a couple of calls this morning, but just your views there on the settlement. You were talking to Vistra yesterday. Their thought was that settlement actually pushes out the decision even further. So just any thoughts you can share there and how do you think this plays out? Look, we weren't a party to the show-cause order. It was rejected or somewhat staunchly rejected by PJM, and we're not pushing for that show-cause order, nor did we, and so PJM's pushed back on it. We think the regular course of what's going on right now in absence of that show-cause order is the most effective way to get to a resolution. And if I'm, thank you, Mac. And there's no timeline, right, on that, correct? I mean, you obviously want to get a decision as quickly as possible, but FERC is under no time, there's no set timeline for when FERC should act. There's not an explicit timeline, but if you listen to the White House, if you listen to Chairman Christie, everybody says, "We need to figure out the AI dominance," which means data centers, which means we need to figure out this solution. So as a practical matter, there is an overall guiding principle to solve this sooner rather than later. And so it's just going to need to take its course. Again, we want to continue to pursue that because we believe that the eight options that PJM put forth need to be preserved. But that is not stopping us with respect to our other activities on the commercial front. Thank you. Really appreciate the time. Okay. Thanks, Durgesh. Great. And thanks, everyone, for joining us today and for your continued support of Talen. Have a great day. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.