and taxes. Only 11% of the filed revenue deficiency is for increased O&M since our last rate increase. Compared to inflation, that's about a $45 million in expenses that have been avoided for our customers. We are proud of how the filing demonstrates our commitment to cost control. Additionally, as Joe described, we have clearly demonstrated in this filing that we can deliver strong reliability benefits in an affordable manner. Our customers and our regulators need to know that when we make investments in our system, those investments are being made to protect safety, improve reliability, and achieve state policy goals in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible. The filing also proposes a multi-year PBR mechanism that protects against future rate shocks. This PBR mechanism would provide gradual rate increases over time and ensure that customer bills reflect a fair cost of doing business. In the filing, we have included a plan for implementing AMI for Connecticut. with nearly $1 billion of capital investment and $300 million of O&M expense. As detailed in our filing, AMI would deliver customer benefits in excess of this estimated cost. Lastly, I want to highlight the economic development and heat pump rates proposed in our filing. These rates were designed after years of working closely with Connecticut stakeholders and policymakers to align our rate design with customer needs and state policy. Moving briefly to New Hampshire, I want to mention the annual base rate adjustment that was approved on July 21st. You'll recall that as part of our New Hampshire rate case, we proposed a multi-year PBR plan. The July order approved an increase of approximately $24 million that will be effective August 1st of this year. This is another example of how a well-designed PBR mechanism can help moderate rates long-term. Moving to slide 12, I would like to update you on the FERC ROE decision that was issued back in March which reduced the base transmission ROE rate and ordered a refund going back more than a decade. We have made several filings with FERC and with the courts challenging this decision. As part of these actions we did receive approval from FERC to extend the refund until mid-2027. We have also escalated our challenge with a petition for review and a motion for a stay of the FERC decision with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. In our June filings with the DC Circuit Court, we made multiple arguments. First, we argued that FERC exceeded its authority by ordering a refund for a period longer than 15 months allowed by the Federal Power Act. Second, FERC failed to declare that either the 11.14% or the 10.57% rates were unjust and unreasonable until March of this year. Third, that FERC denied Eversource and other New England transmission owners the opportunity for due process by delaying their decision for almost a decade in response to a higher core order for remand. And lastly, we argue that FERC set the 9.57% ROE rate in a range previously found to be unjustly low. The DC Circuit Court will consider our arguments and FERC's actions over the next several months. Stand with the FERC topic on slide 13, I would like to provide an update on the Section 205 filing we made with FERC on April 30th to determine the prospective ROE rate. As a reminder, our filing calculated the new base ROE rate of 11.39% by using FERC's existing ROE methodology and only updating it to reflect current market conditions. As required by law, FERC issued their order in response to our 205 filing on June 29th, accepting and suspending tariff revisions and establishing a paper hearing procedure. FERC's order was in line with our expectations, suspending the implementation of the requested ROE rate for the maximum five-month period allowed by law. Next steps in this process are that parties will file initial briefs by August 28th and reply briefs by September 28th. A new ROE rate is expected to go into effect on November 30th. Moving to slide 14 for a financing update, we continue to focus on enhancements to our balance sheet condition. We are pleased that we have closed on the sale of Aquarion on June 30th, generating a net cash benefit to Eversource of $1.7 billion. These proceeds will be used to displace debt at the parent company. The closing of the Aquarion transaction leaves our balance sheet in a much stronger position, and we do not currently anticipate any changes to our financing plans as described on this slide. Our equity needs over the five-year forecast period remain in the range of $800 million to $1.1 billion, and we do not expect to issue any equity over the remainder of this year. We continue to consider a variety of debt and alternative financing solutions for our future needs, including the securitization of deferred storm costs in both Connecticut and New Hampshire. Next, on slide 15, I would like to share the latest affirmation of our financial strategy, which is that our FFO to debt metrics remain solid. Our latest FFO to debt ratios as of March 31st of 2026 are 14.3% and 15.7% for S&P and Moody's respectively. Consistent with our commitment, these results are each over 100 basis points above the downgrade thresholds. We were also very pleased that Moody's changed Eversource's and NSTAR Electric's outlook from negative to stable in recognition of what we have recently accomplished. These objective measures reflect the successful execution of our previously communicated financing strategy. Looking at slide 16, we are encouraged by the final storm cost decision we received from Pura two days ago. Of the approximately $975 million that we requested, Pura approved approximately $870 million. Pura is deferring $60 million in storm costs pending the completion of a third-party audit review and audited $40 million in exclusions. Of the $870 million approved, approximately $200 million have already been recovered in rates. This results in approximately $670 million that is expected to be securitized. Pura did not approve the recovery of carrying charges that we requested. We are evaluating our options and next steps. With this final decision, we can now move ahead on the securitization process, starting with filing our financing plan at Pura in early fall. After hearings and purist review, we expect to receive a final financing plan decision in the first quarter of next year. This will allow us to begin the rating agency review, file the SEC registration statement, and begin marketing. With those steps completed, we anticipate cash in the door approximately one year from now. Next, let me reaffirm our five-year capital plan of $26.5 billion, as shown on slide 17. This reflects our five-year utility infrastructure investments by segment through 2030. I do want to note that we have now highlighted the potential increase to our capital forecast from the announcement of ISO's preliminary decision on the transmission RFP selection, as well as AMI in Connecticut. Turning to slide 18, we reaffirm our non-GAAP EPS guidance range of $4.57 to $4.72 per share for 2026. This guidance was revised in March for the lower base ROE rate of 9.57 as well as the sale of Aquarium. Lastly, on slide 19, we remain confident in our ability to deliver earnings growth towards the upper half of our long-term target range of 5 to 7 percent by 2028. Of note, this guidance currently assumes the 9.57% base ROE rate or transmission investments. As you can see on this slide, we have executed on many of our key initiatives. Through improved regulatory outcomes such as storm cross-securitization in both Connecticut and New Hampshire, the result of the CLMP rate case request in mid-2027, and the sale of Aquarion, we are confident and in our ability to achieve the higher growth as we move forward. With that, I would like to turn the call back to the operator for Q&A.
Operator
Thank you so much. And as a reminder, to ask a question, press star 11 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To remove yourself, press star 11 again. One moment for our first question. It comes from Char Puresa with Wells Fargo.
Please proceed. morning guys morning char morning joe um joe just on the storm cost i mean obviously the carrying costs were denied in full it's kind of material i guess how does that compare against what you had embedded in the financing plan i guess what are the offsets and next steps there and just i guess what are the components of the 1.8 billion from storm cost securitization just in terms of How much is Connecticut versus New Hampshire?
Sure. John, this is John. Let me take the storm decision that we received a couple of days ago. I think it's important for us, first and foremost, that we are very pleased to finally have a decision, and more importantly, the number in which we can move forward with securitization. Overall, when you read the decision, it is constructive. you know, certainly better than what we've seen from other rate decisions coming out of Pura. You know, however, we are a bit disappointed with a couple of items that we don't really, you know, agree with. You know, things like the $63 million that they deferred really doesn't make sense to us, and certainly the carrying charge. We continue to review the decision and really assess our options, as I stated in my formal remarks. But once again, we're encouraged that we finally have a number that we can move forward and get nearly 700 million in the door a year from now. As it relates to the carrying charge specifically, I do want to mention, you know, we only include things that we have in our forecast that we have a high degree of conviction. And more importantly, we have not recognized $1 of these retroactive carrying charges. So, one would conclude that in our financing plan, because we don't have a high level of degree of conviction, that we have not assumed that we would get the retroactive piece. But we think that we continue to be entitled to it, and we will assess our next steps.
Got it. Perfect. And then just the last thing is on the rate case. I mean, Joe, obviously it's a pretty sizable ask at Connecticut Light and Power, and Pura's posture in the storm decision, cost decision wasn't great. I guess, what's your read on how Pura approaches a filing of this size, especially kind of in an election year? It's early, but I guess how informed were stakeholders pre-filing? Were they surprised? I mean, I guess what's giving you confidence they're going to do the right thing?
Yeah, you know, it's obviously a large ask, but the fact of the matter is, you know, we have not filed a distribution rate change since 2017. I'm very, very proud of the reliability metrics, the investments that we've made down there in Connecticut, and I think that that will stand up in this proceeding. As John had mentioned, only 11% of the deficiency is coming from O&M, so you'll see how seriously we're taking cost controls. We feel very good about the investments. We think that our regulators will feel good about the investments. The other 90% of the deficiency is CapEx, resiliency, taxes, depreciation. It's nothing that's optional. It's about keeping the lights on and getting fair cost recovery. Not investing in the system, as you know, would be far more expensive. So, you know, as I said earlier, I am very optimistic. You know, it's encouraging what's been happening at Pura. You know, if you look at the past six months of decisions, whether it's around Yankee, whether it's around storm cost recovery, they're a very, very engaged regulatory body. All five of them are on the bench. All five of them are engaged. All five of them are asking very, very good questions. So we feel very good that we will get a fair hearing in Connecticut. I think that they're going to see that the money that was spent, the money we're seeking in rates is, you know, is prudent. And, you know, I'm very, very confident that we'll be treated very fairly in Connecticut. Just looking at the history over the past six months, it's very, very encouraging. And, you know, keep in mind, you know, as I tell folks, it is an election year. It's an election year in Massachusetts, election year here in Connecticut. and with that comes additional amount of press and drama but the fact of the matter is we will stick to the facts, we'll stick to our record, we'll stick to what we have done and we are very, very proud of that effort. Okay, perfect. Appreciate it guys.
Have a good morning. Thank you.
Operator
Thank you. Our next question comes from Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed. Good morning, Carly.
Good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. Maybe to start on the New England transmission opportunity that you highlighted, what are the next milestones that we should watch there to de-risk that potential investment to the point that you'd consider rolling that into the baseline? Would that just be the 4Q call, or is there anything we should watch there?
Yeah, I think the third quarter call, you'll have some good insight. We're expecting stakeholder the comments on August 14th on the preliminary recommendations. Then August, September, you know, ISO New England will review it. They're going to respond to the stakeholders. And we currently anticipate a publication of a final recommendation in September. So we should be in a good position for the third quarter call to give you more updates. And that will allow us to roll that into the plan.
And Carly, I'm sure you're going to have a follow-up question. I'm sure everyone is wondering how much of that $700 million will be rolled into our current five-year forecast taking us through 2030, you should think of it as probably half 50% of that CapEx will incur during that forecast period.
Got it. Okay. That's great. Super clear. Thank you for that. And then maybe just on the incremental revolution charge this quarter, can you just expand a bit on kind of the drivers that I guess were unknown relative to last quarter, and then any kind of risks that you see around cost slipping, you know, incrementally relative to this update?
Sure. You know, we have been watching this very closely in terms of our, the remaining charges associated with Revolution Wind. You know, as we had mentioned, the two stock work orders led us to lose that vessel, and that vessel needed to get remobilized in order to finish the job. You know, I'm very encouraged by many factors associated with Revolution Wind. First of all, we have every component needed to install it. The remaining pieces of the installation are very straightforward. There's no uncertainty around it. And, you know, we're delivering over 300 megawatts of capacity right now to the ISO New England grid, and we're ramping up. We're heading towards the 704 number. So I feel good about it. But, you know, the fact of the matter is, you know, the project is nearly complete. We have an in-service date of 2026, and we're going to finish this and get it over the goal. So I do feel very good that with the number that we have captured to date, And I don't see any other types of risks that worry me or are going to keep me up at night, Kali. I feel very good about it. We're going to bring this in, and I'm very, very proud of the work that was done. And obviously, we couldn't control the shutdowns, but we just wanted to capture that and make sure that, you know, we are up front about the charges.
Great. Thank you so much for the caller.
Operator
One moment for our next question, please. It comes from Nicholas Woods with the Bank of America. Please proceed.
Good morning, guys. How are you guys doing? I guess just going back to offshore wind a little bit, can you give us a sense of how much of the project is completed at this point? I thought I saw, maybe I didn't see it correctly, but I didn't see a percentage completion figure this time, so I just want to get a sense where we're at in terms of that. We'll start from there.
Sure, yeah. So the project is over 95%. And not actually 97% complete. So we are really in the final, you know, we're in the five-yard line to get over the goal. So we are very good about that.
Thanks for that. And then just touching on the FERC ROEs, there's several processes, as you guys highlighted, that are running kind of in parallel. You guys mentioned before that, you know, ultimately you guys want, like, an ALJ to be appointed and get, like, an overall global resolution to all these outstanding dockets. But, you know, has that view changed, or what do you guys expect from all of this?
Hey, Nick, this is John. So, you know, the process is pretty much in line with what we were expecting, with the exception that there was no administrative judge appointed to kind of work with the parties. But as you know, in any proceeding, you know, settlement is always on the table. I think FERC is very – what we like about it is FERC wants to accelerate this paper hearing to have a reasonable rate go into effect on November 30th, which is very quickly. And I think once we have that and we see the rate, I think that could potentially get parties to reengage and hopefully look at a global settlement.
Appreciate the time. Thank you so much.
Operator
Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Sophie Karp with KBCM. Go ahead, Sophie.
Operator
Hi, good morning.
Thanks for the time. I'm just curious, guys, now that a bunch of overhangs and, I guess, uncertainties are getting, you're getting to have them in the rearview mirror. So have you given any thought to maybe revising your long-term growth targets or at least like, you know, having them? So you're one of a few peers that don't explicitly have a rate-based growth target in your materials, things like that. So is there a path here now to higher precision and disclosures?
Hey, Sophie, this is John. So, I mean, we give enough information. we give you the annual CapEx, so you can certainly calculate a rough number. But our rate-based growth, and we do give that number as to what historically it's been, it's growing slightly over an 8% CAGR. So we do have that slide every year when we give forward-looking guidance. So we just felt it was something that wasn't really needed, because we do give enough color that someone could arrive at the annual rate-based growth. I don't know if you're familiar with the slide that I'm referring to, but we do give what is expected for a rate-based by 2030 based on our CapEx. So we do have that in our deck.
Right, right. Okay, secondly, I guess on the AMIs, right, Can you maybe talk a little bit about the timeline of the rollout there and how will that reflect in rate base?
Sure, sure. So let me start off with the process that we're nearing the end in Massachusetts. It's really a five-year journey. And as it relates to Connecticut, right now we have included that proposal, as I made my formal remarks in the rate case, but we also, outside of the rate case, requested an expedited decision to move forward, hopefully this fall, because we do want to take advantage of some contractual pricing that we were able to lock down for the vendors that we used in Massachusetts. So we feel that getting the green light for us to proceed with AMI in Connecticut by this fall, we could, customers in Connecticut would take, we'd be able to take advantage of that pricing so with that I would say if we get the green light this fall we would start the project mobilize it in next year and you know five years later it's when you know so that billion dollars some of that will will fall into will fall beyond our forecast period gotcha all right thank you very much it's all for me thank you thank you our next question is from
Operator
Anthony Crowdel with Mizzouho. Please proceed.
Good morning, Anthony. Hey, good morning, John. Good morning, Joe. How's it going? Wonderful. Just two quick questions. One is, I think, on the FERC refund, there was a decision out, I don't know, a month or two ago in MISO. I'm just curious if that, you know, strengthens your appeal arguments or complicates your appeal argument, and then I have a follow-up.
Anthony, I would say no impact. Our facts and circumstances from a legal standpoint is quite different than the MISO decision and obviously as you know the MISO impact on the rate was a couple of basis points here in New England it's much much greater so our legal position is different than the MISO and we feel good about our legal position and we just we've done everything we can as far as the motion for a stay and we're waiting for the court to rule on that, which could come any day now, but certainly we're hoping before we commence any refunds, which we have not at this point initiated any of those refunds at this time.
Great. And then if I could just slide 15 to give a lot of clarity on the credit cushion. Just I'm wondering if you guys have a targeted or a minimum credit cushion that you operated in, and if the FERC refund was upheld, meaning you had to pay it back, I guess, would you use any other levers to maintain, like, the cushion you guys showed today, or would you just use the balance sheet capacity that you have to maybe fund that So, first and foremost, we stand with our guidance that we want to be 100 basis points above the downgrade thresholds, and we've been very successful, as you can see on that So that's our priority, and I feel good about the forecast and us achieving that steady state.
As it relates to the refund, if we are in a position where we do have to refund the incremental $880 million, we would do that in a balanced manner.
Great. That's all I had. Thanks for taking my questions.
Operator
Thank you. One moment for our next question. It comes from David Pass with Wolf.
Please proceed. morning david hey david hey good morning guys um just i just wanted to confirm on equity so you're now with aquarium done and everything and all the orders you got in place and assuming the securitization as it stands today what um it's fair to say your equity is 800 million to 1.1 billion through 2030 without you know setting aside for a refund Is that the way to read?
Yep, that slide does not assume that you would be in a position to refund other than the 15-month refund that we've already accounted for and booked.
Okay, and you said no more equity issues for 2026. Correct.
All right, thank you. And then just switching gears to your parent and other drag, Is it fair to say that the first half of this year is a good indicator, a good run rate if we wanted to do a full year for the 2026 parent drag, and then how to think about that beyond 2026?
Yeah. I mean, as you can see, year over year, we're pretty much flat. So I think we have more normalcy, if you will, at the parent and other. But once again, you know, the taxes is the – that can go back and forth a bit. But I think to answer your question, I think it would be a good number if you modeled kind of the steady state going forward. You know, we don't have very much at the parent and other other than taxes and interest. Right.
Operator
Thank you so much. And our next question is from Jeremy Tonett with J.P. Morgan. Please proceed.
Hey, guys. This is actually Aiden Kellyanne for Jeremy. Appreciate the time. Yeah, just one quick clarifying question on my end. I think it was asked earlier in the call, but could you just break down the key assumptions that comprise the $1.8 billion estimate in storm proceeds in your plan, I guess beyond the $700 million in Connecticut, which we talked about, could you just quantify the cash flow drivers elsewhere across your jurisdictions?
So let me start with what makes up the up to the $1.8 billion. So we talked about, and we have it on the slide, the $700 million that we will move forward with securitization from the Connecticut storm decision that just happened this week. So it's $700 million. And we're sitting on about $450 million of New Hampshire storm costs that we're waiting for the final tranche to be approved. That's about $450. So we've included that in this slide as an update because now we have the legislation in hand. And then the difference between those two items and the 1.8 would be the carrying charges as it pertains to the Connecticut storms. As I mentioned, we are reviewing the decision and looking at our options and next steps. So we feel that there is a path forward for us to seek recovery of that, certainly within our five-year period. So we've included that in there as well. So that's the composition of the 1.8.
Great. That's very helpful. Thanks, John. I'll leave it there.
Operator
Thank you. And our last question comes from Julian DeMullen-Smith with Jefferies. Please proceed.
Morning, Julian. Hey, Julian.
Hi. Good morning, team. Sorry to disappoint you. This is actually Tanner James on for Julian. I just wanted to follow up on that AMI filing in Connecticut. particularly relating to the benefit cost analysis prepared that analysis details a slightly positive nominal net benefit but that turns negative on an NPV basis can you just provide some details regarding the proposal and prospects for implementation given the negative NPV for net benefit thanks yeah sure I think the primary driver is let me step back you know this docket has been open for multitude of years if we had approvals and had the green light to move forward with that, the cost-benefit analysis would have been much, much stronger and positive.
But because we haven't been able to get to a mutual place where we would feel comfortable in making the investment without having the assurance that we have recovery, we haven't done so. And we have updated the analysis and the costs have gone significantly higher. So the benefits really haven't changed. Now the cost component has changed.
And that's why we're really we're really close over time we think it's the right thing to do and we'll give customers the tools that they need to manage their energy consumption and we think that that's that brings a lot of value to the table understood thanks I may be following up on the long-term EPS guidance I noticed the disclosure with the earnings report projects cumulative five to seven percent EPS CAGR through 2030 could you just provide an update regarding how you might view either the linearity or the shaping of the earnings profile, or if there are other factors to consider regarding targeted EPS growth.
Sure. I did state in my formal remarks that we see the trajectory of growth rate, certainly between now and 2030, moving towards the upper half. So one would imply, and I also gave a bit more color that says by 2028 is when you can see that growth happening to put us on the upper half of that 5 to 7 percent. One would conclude that on a sustainable basis that 28, 29, and 30 to get us to the upper half by the end of 2030. So that's the trajectory.
Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Sure thing. Have a good day.
Operator
Thank you so much. And this concludes our Q&A session, and I will pass it back to John Nolan for final remarks.
Thank you for joining us today. We're pleased with our progress year-to-date. Remain confident about our execution momentum into the second half of the year. With a strengthened balance sheet, robust five-year capital plan, and ample opportunities for investment, we are well positioned for higher growth. Operator, this ends today's call. Thank you all for joining us.
Operator
Thank you, and this concludes today's conference. Thank you for participating, and you may now disconnect.
