Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Eversource Energy Q3 2025 Earnings Call. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your first speaker today, Rima Hyder, Vice President of Investor Relations.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us today on the third quarter 2025 earnings call. During this call, we'll be referencing slides that we posted this morning on our website. As you can see on Slide 1, some of the statements made during this investor call may be forward looking. These statements are based on management's current expectations and are subject to risk and uncertainty, which may cause the actual results to differ materially from forecasts and projections. We undertake no obligation to update or revise any of these statements. Additional information about the various factors that may cause actual results to differ and our explanation of non-GAAP measures and how they reconcile to GAAP results is contained within our news release, the slides we posted and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K. Speaking today will be Joe Nolan, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; and John Moreira, our Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer. Also joining us today is Jay Buth, our Vice President and Controller. I will now turn the call over to Joe.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us today. Starting on Slide 4. Over the past 10 months, our team's relentless focus on executing our key strategic initiatives has driven strong results and consistent performance. We are well on our way to delivering against these initiatives and ending the year on a strong note. Our strong results have also greatly improved our standing among our peers. On a year-to-date basis, our share price has been a top performer among the EEI peer group. Today, I'll walk you through how we're capitalizing on our unique market position, fueling sustainable growth and strengthening the balance sheet to power our future outlook. Moving to Slide 5. In the last few months, we have gained more clarity on the Connecticut regulatory environment and the impact for our ongoing and future regulatory proceedings at PURA. Additionally, each day of construction that passes yields progress on the derisking of Revolution Wind. We're seeing a constructive shift in Connecticut's regulatory landscape. Last month, Governor Lamont appointed 4 new commissioners at PURA, filling out the 5-member requirement under Connecticut law. With this new commission on the way, there is now a genuine opportunity to collaborate with all parties on regulatory initiatives and to achieve more balanced regulatory outcomes. This will enable us to better serve the needs of our customers in this state and to do so with a strong focus on safety, reliability and affordability. Critical needs exist for state and regional infrastructure investments to maintain a strong, reliable and resilient grid that can accommodate new sources of generation to meet the increasing levels of projected electric demand. A transparent and predictable regulatory process is going to benefit all stakeholders, including our customers, and we are looking forward to getting back to work on Connecticut's energy goals. For our ongoing Yankee rate case, we submitted a motion to adopt an alternative resolution with PURA. This was in response to PURA's request for parties to reach a consensus-based resolution to reestablish trust in balance in the regulatory process and avoid further legal appeals. Our proposal includes important customer affordability provisions that we believe are supportive of all stakeholders' affordability goals. We expect to see a final decision from PURA today. We remain on schedule to receive a final decision for the sale of Aquarion Water on November 19 and we continue to expect to close the transaction by the end of this year. As you may be aware, we filed a comprehensive offer of compromise to address concerns raised by the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel. The commitments that were outlined in the offer of compromise provide additional assurances that the transaction will serve the interests of Connecticut and the customers served by Aquarion Water. Moving on to an update on offshore wind. We have substantially completed construction of the onshore substation for the Revolution Wind project. We expect to provide back-feed energization to the offshore facilities by the end of November, which will support testing and commissioning of those facilities. In parallel, we will complete the final testing and commissioning of the remaining onshore equipment. Overall, as Orsted has stated, Revolution Wind is substantially complete and work has continued since the stop order was lifted in September. We recognized an increase to our liability to GIP in the third quarter, which was largely offset by tax benefits. We continue to support the project's owners in their completion of this important generation resource for New England. As I said at the start of the call, our execution has delivered positive results and we have made great headway on our many key strategic initiatives this year. We have continued to deliver on our operational metrics with top decile reliability performance among our peers. We have significantly improved our FFO to debt ratio through constructive regulatory outcomes and managed our balance sheet to support solid credit ratings. And we know we are not done yet. We have continued to invest in transmission and distribution infrastructure across our service territories. We are on track to invest nearly $5 billion this year. We have installed over 40,000 AMI meters in Massachusetts and completed the communication network deployment in the Western portion of our service territory. These achievements are just a few that underscore the strength of our execution engine and the depth of our operational rigor. As you can see on Slide 6, we have many growth opportunities ahead of us. Our service area is truly the crown jewel of the country. This area is home to cutting-edge biotech and research in the best universities and healthcare in the world. As these industries expand, they turn to us for a reliable, resilient grid, making us an indispensable partner in their success. We're seeing robust load growth, driven primarily by electrification of transportation and heating, decarbonization initiatives from both the public and private sectors and economic expansion across manufacturing and commercial sectors. These factors help to ensure that our growth is broad-based, durable and aligned with state sustainability goals. Year-to-date, we have seen weather-normalized load growth of 2%. And this summer, we experienced a peak of over 12 gigawatts, the highest record since 2013 as load growth in our service territory has started outpacing the impacts of distributed generation such as rooftop solar. The evolving electric demand landscape presents a need for numerous transmission projects such as upgrades linking onshore and offshore wind to load centers, interconnections improving regional reliability and addressing congestion as the generation mix for our region evolves. Some of the projects we are pursuing to get ahead of this continued load growth include the Cambridge underground substation, which will be the largest in the nation in 1 of 14 substations currently on the drafting table that we expect to build in Massachusetts alone to support future growth. Being opportunistic about land acquisitions in our service territory to support this growth, such as the Mystic Land acquisition we did last year with more in the pipeline. Responding to requests for proposals from ISO New England to address longer-term transmission solutions, such as the most recent one to bring power from Northern Maine to Southern New England. These opportunities, some being outside of our 5-year forecast period, could add billions of dollars to our future investment plans. Each project that we are considering not only supports our growth trajectory, but also deepens our value proposition as a grid innovator. We also recognize that as demand increases, affordability must remain top of mind. We are working closely with our regulators to offer our customers various options to address affordability as shown on Slide 7. We collaborate with large and small customers to design rate structures that incentivize efficiency. For example, earlier this year, we worked constructively with our regulators in Massachusetts to offer a 10% discount to our gas customers during the winter peak months and recover that in the summer months to smooth the impact of high bills. Similarly, starting this month, we are offering a seasonal heat pump rate in Massachusetts. Eversource electric customers who use a heat pump to heat their homes can take advantage of a seasonal heat pump rate, which is a reduced rate during the winter months. We are expanding energy efficiency programs to provide incentives for residential and low-income customers who choose to adopt energy-efficient technologies. These programs, coupled with AMI, give customers greater transparency and control over their energy spending. Our nation-leading energy efficiency programs have already generated $1.4 billion in savings for our customers. We have also implemented low-income discount rates for our most vulnerable customers, and we are recognized for our leadership in advocacy for state utility partnerships in hardship programs. We are excited about new energy supply coming into our region, which should alleviate supply cost pressure on customer bills. Over the next 12 months, Eversource is directly supporting new generation coming into the region totaling over 2,500 megawatts. We aim to deliver reliable, sustainable energy while keeping costs manageable and partnering with customers to ensure affordability through cost-effective investments, efficient operations, and equitable rate design. Before I hand the call over to John, I want to thank our 10,000-plus employees for their dedication, our regulators for their collaborative spirit, and our shareholders for their trust. We're executing against a clear strategy, serving an extraordinary customer base, and working to build the grid for tomorrow, responsibly and sustainably. I look forward to your questions and sharing more details on our path forward. With that, I'll turn the call over to John Moreira.

Thank you, Joe, and good morning, everyone. This morning, I will review third quarter earnings results, provide a regulatory update and discuss our recent financings and progress on credit metrics. I'll start with our third quarter results on Slide 9. As announced last month, during the third quarter, we recognized a net after-tax nonrecurring charge of $75 million, or $0.20 per share related to our offshore wind liability. This charge increased our estimated liability for future payments to GIP by approximately $285 million, which was offset by $210 million of tax benefits. These tax benefits were the result of a change to previously estimated tax attributes primarily associated with Revolution Wind. Our GAAP earnings for the third quarter of this year were $0.99 per share, including the impact of this recent offshore wind net charge. GAAP EPS for the third quarter of last year was a loss of $0.33 per share, reflecting the impact of the sale transaction of South Fork and Revolution. Excluding the after-tax losses from offshore wind in both years, non-GAAP recurring earnings for the third quarter of 2025 were $1.19 per share compared with $1.13 of non-GAAP recurring earnings per share last year. Now looking at the quarter results by segment, starting with transmission. Higher electric transmission earnings of $0.01 per share were due to increased revenues from continued investment in the transmission system. Next, we have higher electric distribution earnings of $0.03 per share that reflect distribution rate increases in New Hampshire and Massachusetts provided for cost recovery for infrastructure investments in our distribution system. These higher revenues were partially offset by higher interest, depreciation, property taxes, and O&M. The improved results of $0.04 per share at Eversource's Natural Gas segment were due primarily to base distribution rate increases in both Massachusetts utilities and from capital tracking mechanisms to provide timely cost recovery of investments in our Natural Gas businesses. These revenue increases were partially offset by higher interest, depreciation, and property tax expenses. Water distribution earnings were lower by $0.02 per share for the quarter as compared with the prior year, primarily due to higher O&M and depreciation expense. Eversource parent earnings results were flat for the quarter, excluding the net impact from offshore wind that I mentioned earlier. As a reminder, all of these segment results reflect the impact of share dilution. Overall, we are very pleased with the solid performance for the third quarter and our recurring earnings are in line with our expectations. Moving to some key regulatory items as shown on Slide 10. As Joe mentioned, we recently filed an alternative resolution proposal in the Yankee rate case. If adopted by PURA without modifications, the alternative resolution would waive our statutory right to appeal the final decision, resulting in a fair and balanced outcome. The alternative resolution is an improvement over the draft decision, increasing revenues by approximately $104 million as compared with PURA's draft decision of $55 million. The alternative resolution would also provide customer relief this winter to a greater extent than the draft decision by accelerating the refund of an existing regulatory liability. Also, as Joe mentioned, on the Aquarion sale, PURA has maintained its final decision date of November 19 and pending that decision, we continue to expect to close the transaction by year-end. In Massachusetts, we received the approval of our NSTAR Gas PBR adjustment, and we also filed a motion for reconsideration on the NSTAR Gas rate base reset. Next, let me reaffirm our 5-year capital plan of $24.2 billion, as shown on Slide 11, which reflects our 5-year utility infrastructure investments by segment through 2029. As a reminder, this plan only includes projects for which we have a clear line of sight from a regulatory perspective. Through September, we have executed on $3.3 billion of our $4.7 billion infrastructure investment plan. We are very pleased with this progress, and we are on track to meet our planned target for the year. We continue to see additional capital investment opportunities in the range of $1.5 billion to $2 billion within the 5-year forecast period. We plan to update our next 5-year capital plan in our fourth quarter earnings call. Turning to Slide 12. We remain highly focused on improving our cash flow position and strengthening our balance sheet condition. As I have stated before, we expect our FFO to debt ratio for 2025 to be approximately 100 basis points above the rating agency thresholds by year-end. In fact, our Moody's FFO to debt ratio was 12.7% as of the second quarter of this year and reflects an improvement of over 300 basis points from December of 2024. We expect this ratio to be over 13% as of the third quarter. As we have shared with you last quarter and as shown on Slide 13, we have executed on substantially all the items necessary to improve our cash flows and strengthen our balance sheet. As a result, our operating cash flows have continued to improve, increasing over $1.7 billion year-over-year through the third quarter. Moving on to our financing activity on Slide 14. While earlier this year we did not anticipate issuing long-term debt at the parent company during 2025. However, we did see the need to capitalize on favorable credit spreads, proactively prefunding an early 2026 maturity and strengthening our liquidity position. Given where our short-term debt balances were forecasted to be and in order to maintain an appropriate level of liquidity, we issued $600 million of parent company debt. On the equity side, to date, we have issued $465 million of equity under the ATM program. We expect that this level will take care of our equity needs for the near term. We also continue to pursue recovery of our deferred storm costs. As of the third quarter, 98% of our deferred storm costs are either under review or already in rates. And as a reminder, our previous cash flow improvement forecast did not assume securitization as the cost recovery mechanism for the Connecticut deferred storm costs. Next, I will turn to 2025 earnings guidance as shown on Slide 15. As announced in October, we are now in 2025 recurring earnings per share guidance to the range of $4.72 to $4.80 per share to a higher midpoint and reaffirming our longer-term EPS growth rate of 5% to 7% off of the 2024 non-GAAP EPS base. We remain confident in our EPS growth trajectory driven by disciplined execution of our strategic plan, targeted customer-focused investments in transmission and distribution are backed by constructive regulatory frameworks that enable timely cost recovery for our operations. Continued progress on storm cost recovery combined with strict O&M discipline strengthens our financial foundation and positions Eversource to deliver consistent long-term value to customers and shareholders. I'll now turn the call back to the operator to begin our Q&A session.

Our first question today comes from Shar Pourreza from Wells Fargo.

So just on Yankee Gas, obviously, everyone is watching this one. You've got this motion to adopt the alternative resolution out there. There's some stuff coming out now on it, I think. Is there anything you want to flag? And just remind us, what's kind of embedded in the plan around the outcome? Is it fair to assume that you're kind of conservative around what you're embedding there? And any sort of updates, I think we're starting to see some things come across. Appreciate it.

Sure. As you know, our call started at 9:00 and the commission went in and the order is out. We need to go through it. As you know, the devils are in the details. So we'll continue to take a good look at that, and I think we'll have some answers for folks on this call later today, I can promise you. John can talk to you a little bit about what's embedded in the plan.

Yes, I believe this aligns with our plan, and it seems that the decision is somewhat more favorable than the draft, which is very encouraging for us. However, as Joe pointed out, we still need to review it thoroughly. The details are not finalized yet. We will have much more information to share when we meet with everyone at EEI.

Perfect. I'm just glad we're getting through this process. That's good. And then just on the NSTAR Gas PBR, right? I mean, you have a proposal for recovery of roughly $160 million. Just walking through what you did and didn't get. Why did the Massachusetts DPU deny that? Is there kind of an opportunity to get it later? And does this mean you're filing a rate case? Obviously, the governor has been kind of warning around rates being too high, then guiding the DPU to scrutinize everything. So I just want to get a sense there. I appreciate it.

Good question, Shar. The $160 million consists of three major items. One is the roll-in of GSEP, amounting to about $107 million, which doesn't impact customers. It is simply a standard adjustment within the PBR that was approved for around $10 million. We proposed a mitigation plan for the DPU to roll in the rate base, similar to what was approved for EGMA last year, totaling approximately $45 million. We specified in our mitigation filing that if we didn't receive this rate base roll, our alternative would be to file a general rate case. As of yesterday, we submitted a motion for reconsideration and expressed our intent to file a rate case. There have been significant changes in the Connecticut PURA and Massachusetts as well, with two new commissioners who are relatively new to their roles. We are optimistic that our collaborative efforts with the DPU will yield positive results.

Okay. Perfect. Big congrats, Joe, on sort of the traction. It seems like you guys are getting to a pretty good inflection point here. So congrats.

Thank you. Well, I'm very, very proud of the team. We've worked very, very hard at that, getting our message out there. We've been all over actually all the states talking about the issues and engaging key decision makers. So we're really, really proud of the team. It took a village, but thank you, and I will see you at EEI. I'm looking forward to seeing you.

Our next question comes from Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs. Thank you. Well, I'm very, very proud of the team. We've worked very, very hard at that, getting our message out there. We've been all over actually all the states talking about the issues and engaging key decision makers. So we're really, really proud of the team. It took a village, but thank you, and I will see you at EEI. I'm looking forward to seeing you.

Maybe just to go back to Connecticut, I guess just as you think about the recent changes from a regulatory standpoint, are there any updates you can share from conversations with credit agencies in terms of their views, just given the focus on the regulatory environment and some of the credit rating changes that they've made recently?

Sure, I often discuss matters with the credit rating agencies, but I think you understand that they are currently in a wait-and-see phase. They want to observe some positive regulatory outcomes before making their decisions, similar to what we hope to see from PURA. However, we believe that this new commission is dedicated to collaborating with all utilities. Overall, they remain in a wait-and-see mode at this time.

Got it. Okay. That makes a lot of sense. And then just one other one, I guess, on Connecticut as well. I know you guys have talked previously about kind of timing to file another rate case at CL&P. Just kind of curious how the recent shifts kind of impact your views on timing there?

Yes, sure. We had never really had any intention to filing prior to 2026. So we are looking at that, as you know, a filing of that nature is comprehensive. So we would need to get test year and that type of stuff. This would not be something that would happen until at least the second or third quarter, if we were to file. Obviously, we're going through that now, and that's what we're looking at, at this point, Carly.

Our next question is from Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan Securities.

This is actually Aidan Kelly on for Jeremy.

You're breaking up.

Can you guys hear me now?

Yes, it's better now. Yes.

Upon on the equity...

But Jeremy, we're losing you again. Can you call in and we'll come back to you? We'll put you back in the queue?

Our next question is from Andrew Weisel with Scotiabank.

First question, Joe, you talked about the land acquisition strategy. I know Mystic was a big one last year. Can you talk a little more how you're thinking about this? Is this kind of like a land grab where you're trying to get as much acreage as possible in strategic locations for your own stand-alone development? Or is it working with potential customers or partners like large load customers or data centers? And would it be right to assume that dollars are small, it's more about optionality?

Well, yes, a couple of things. This would be for our own use, for our own regulated business. It's in locations that are strategic in nature to allow the injection of energy, whatever energy that is. We are not in the data center business. We're not attracting data centers. As you know, we have a finite amount of generation in the region. What we're working on kind of the single and double strategy that I talked about is to be able to unlock the captive generation that might be in the New England market to allow it to fall freely also to allow anyone else to interconnect into our territory. So we did purchase the Mystic, and we'll have some news on another very strategic site that we're excited about that will position this company for decades to come.

Interesting. Looking forward to that. Okay, great. Then on equity, just a couple of fine-tuning questions maybe for John here. It looks like the 2025 outlook went up by about $200 million, and you removed the comment that the majority of the outlook will be issued in the back half of the forecast period. But John, I think I also heard you say that you're satisfied for the near term after the recent activity. I might have asked a similar question last quarter, but just wondering about the outlook. Maybe you can detail some of these changes, does that relate to kind of CapEx or the long-term thinking of how to get to your targeted credit metrics?

Yes, yes. So I mean, as I said in my formal remarks, for the near term, I believe we're done, right? Although we took that off the slide, it wasn't an indication that we're going to continue to issue equity. Still the majority is we may have issued like 37%, 38% thus far. So I still stick to my position that the majority of that will be issued towards the latter half of next year. With the approval of Aquarion, once we get that decision, that's going to bring in net cash at $1.6 billion. And then with the securitization of Connecticut storm costs likely coming in the door in '27, I think we're primarily covered for those years. So my position still stands. So as I said in my formal remarks, the near term, we're good for now. I have the appropriate level of liquidity. I'm very happy with that, given the financings that we did in the last 2 months.

Okay. That's very clear, and it sounds like you're in a good position. Thank you so much.

Our next question is from Anthony Crowdell of Mizuho.

I guess JPMorgan did an update of the phone system in a new building there. Just, I guess, quickly on Revolution. I think it was reported from Orsted this morning, it's 85% complete, Revolution. Just if you could talk about what are maybe the critical parts left bringing the project to completion, that's end and is it second half '26 when you believe it's all finished?

Yes, Revolution is progressing very well. Orsted announced this morning that 52 of the 65 turbines have been installed. The work in Rhode Island is nearing completion, and we’re close to finishing the onshore substation, where we expect to start seeing some power very soon. Orsted mentioned a completion timeline for the second half of 2026, but we've made significant progress and moved the timeline up by 4 to 5 months. We're optimistic that we can see further improvements in the schedule. Overall, I feel very positive about the project and the efforts put into it, and I believe the project schedule will reflect that improvement.

When is the first megawatt, first power expected to come online from the project?

Yes. That's a matter for Orsted to address. We are essentially a partner involved in building the onshore component. They are leading this initiative, so they can provide you with the latest updates.

Got it. Flipping to the storm cost securitization in Connecticut, I understand it’s with PURA and there has been a recent change. Do you have any updates on the timing for a resolution regarding the storm cost securitization?

Yes, our main focus has been on the Yankee case and the Aquarion sale. These are our top priorities. We are now shifting our attention to the storms. The team has done an exceptional job of documenting everything, and we have seen significant success in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire. I expect similar results in Connecticut. We've advanced our timeline, and we anticipate a decision in the second or third quarter that will enable us to proceed with securitization, allowing funds to come in. Additionally, addressing interest costs presents a great opportunity to reduce those expenses.

Our next question is from Julien Dumoulin-Smith from Jefferies.

I look forward to seeing you all next week. I wanted to follow up on the situation in Massachusetts. I know Shar asked about it, but how would you set expectations regarding the transition from gas to the electric PBR? Considering the current context, is there anything we should take into account regarding the electric or EGMA?

We have a similar situation on the gas side as we do on the electric side and must meet specific performance standards. This is our first experience under the PBR structure for NSTAR Gas, which involves several performance metrics. There are three criteria we need to satisfy. One of these is the performance measures approved by the DPU, where we had 18 metrics; we performed well on 15 but missed the mark on three. Those three are subjective surveys driven by customer perception, like J.D. Powers, and are challenging because the company has limited control over them. Historically, the DPU has considered that the company couldn't do much in these high-cost situations. This led to the DPU's decision to not allow us to include the $45 million in the rate base. We filed for a motion for reconsideration yesterday and will continue our collaboration with the DPU, particularly with new personnel involved, as we move forward on this matter.

Right. But the PBR metrics on the electric side kind of have that same composition, though?

And we performed well. We have performed well. It's not an annual assessment with NSTAR Electric, it's a 10-year deal, you have a 5-year. So the fifth year happens in 2028.

Excellent. If I could just ask, you typically move forward with the fourth quarter. Are there any early indications, particularly regarding transmission and long lead time investments where you might already have some visibility? Additionally, do you have any insights from ISO New England's planning process this year?

The last 5-year plan we introduced indicates that the later years will no longer show a decline. I anticipate this trend will continue, with future periods reflecting more growth compared to historical patterns. The primary reason for this expectation is the clarity we have and the projects lined up, which will enable us to incorporate them into our planning. Operator, I would like to clarify a statement I made earlier regarding Andrew Weisel's question. I believe I may have misspoken, so I want to make this clear. I mentioned that our equity needs in the near term are addressed, and I stand by my previous statement that most of the equity requirements will arise towards the end of our forecast period. In my response to Andrew's question, I may have inaccurately indicated next year, but that is not correct.

Thank you for that clarification. Our next question is from Paul Patterson from Glenrock Associates.

I'm having a bit of difficulty with this. How should we consider your tax rate on an adjusted basis for the quarter and how do you see it progressing in the future?

Paul, this is John. As I mentioned earlier, in recent years we've benefited from some favorable tax advantages. Last year, we experienced a tax rate in the high teens, and we expect this year to be in the low 20s. Looking ahead to 2026, we anticipate reaching a more sustainable level. We have fully utilized some significant tax benefits in the past and will continue to take advantage of any tax opportunities available to us.

Okay. When I consider the after-tax impact or the effect on the offshore wind project that was counterbalanced by the tax benefits, should we assume that all of those tax benefits are included in the non-adjusted figure? It appears that they are being allocated. When you mention the write-off, it seems like it is being assigned to that write-off, and that information isn't coming through, correct?

That is not the case. The percentages I mentioned only pertain to our normal recurring results. The $210 million we obtained to offset the tax liability is directly connected to offshore wind and mainly reflects the final change in estimate from our position at the end of 2024. The characterization of that benefit indicates that we were able to classify the loss on wind as more ordinary rather than capital. Therefore, we adjusted the percentage used in 2024 regarding that tax split, shifting more to ordinary in this year's tax return filed in the third quarter. This allows us to carry forward more as ordinary, which has a carry-forward period of over 15 years. This is essentially the change in our tax position concerning offshore wind.

Okay, that answers the question, which is what I thought. I appreciate the clarity.

Our next question is from Sophie Karp with KBCM.

I don't know if you guys know this on top of your head, but I'm curious what legally constitutes kind of the end of the Revolution project as far as your agreement with Orsted? Like at what point are you no longer on the hook for anything there? Like is that first power? Is that something of other milestones? Any color would be helpful here.

Sure. So it's similar to the protocol we're using on the South Fork project. It would be COD. At COD, we will hand that over and that is when we are off the hook.

And what is COD specifically?

Full operation, turning over of all of the documents and anything associated with the work we have done, and the PPA is in full force.

I'm showing no other questions at this time. So I would now like to turn it back to Joe Nolan for closing remarks.

Thank you once again for taking the time to join us today. We know many of you have been patient investors over a long time, and we will continue to execute our key strategic initiatives that create value for our customers and shareholders. We look forward to seeing many of you at EEI next week, safe travels.

Thank you. This does conclude the program, and you may disconnect.