Good day and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Eversource Energy first quarter 2026 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 the 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 now like to hand the conference over to your first speaker today, Reema Haider, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us today on our first quarter 2026 earnings call. During this call, we'll be referencing slides that are available on our website at investors.eversource.com. As you can see on slide one 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 the GAAP results is contained within our news release, the slides we posted last night, and our most recent 10Q and 10K. Speaking today will be Joe Nolan, our Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, and John Morera, our Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer. Also joining us today is Jay Booth, our Vice President, Comptroller, and Chief Accounting Officer. I will now turn the call over to Joe.

Thank you, Rima, and good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today for our first quarter 2026 earnings call. Beginning on slide four, we are starting the year on strong operational footing and with a clear plan for disciplined execution of our key strategic objectives of safety and reliability, strengthening the balance sheet and de-risking our business profile. As you can see on slide 5, our team delivered excellent operational performance, especially during the powerful blizzard we experienced in February. With over 40 inches of snow and wind gusts over 70 miles per hour, this Northeaster was one of the most severe blizzards to impact the Northeast, particularly Massachusetts, in recent years. We executed our large coordinated restoration effort, mobilizing thousands of line crews, leveraging mutual aid, and using remote switching and pre-staged materials to restore service quickly while keeping safety and critical facilities, our team worked in tight coordination with local and state agencies to prioritize life safety, accelerate restorations, and support impacted communities. In total, we responded to over 2,000 fire, police, and safety events and restored power to more than 500,000 customers. These efforts in our successful restoration reflect the benefits of ongoing infrastructure investments for our electric grid in emergency preparedness. We are very grateful for the support and positive feedback from numerous state and local policymakers, first responders and our customers. A majority of the customers surveyed after the blizzard said they greatly appreciated how quickly service was restored. Moving on to slide six, as we look to the current year, we recognize that there are some remaining items that we need to resolve to further strengthen our balance sheet and de-risk our business profile. First, on the sale of Aquarian, we received final approval from Pura in March. Last week, Pura denied an appeal from certain parties. We are now waiting for an additional appeal period to end in mid-June before we can close the transaction. Second, on Revolution Wind, as Orsted recently reported, the project is about 95% complete. The commercial operation date is still expected to be in the second half of this year, and we look forward to this much-needed source of generation for the New England region. Given the latest construction updates and cost estimates, we believe that the current contingent liability balance due to GIP remains appropriate. Finally, the recent decisions from FERC on the New England Transmission Owners Base ROE that was an attempt to address a 15-year-long complaint is flawed. We believe this decision by FERC departs from the statutory limitations imposed by the Federal Power Act and long-standing judicial precedent requiring FERC to set just and reasonable rates of return sufficient to attract the capital needed for essential utility investment. As priorities have changed over multiple administrations and commissioners at FERC, one thing has remained constant, New England's need for new energy supply resources to address affordability, ensure reliability, and support economic development. Achieving these goals requires a modern, more resilient transmission system, regardless of the energy source powering it. Our investments in transmission have delivered billions of dollars in savings for customers over the years by eliminating significant congestion costs for the region while making the grid more resilient. Funding these investments requires a stable, predictable regulatory environment to attract long-term capital at the lowest possible cost. For more than a decade, uncertainty stemming from FERC's lack of action after a U.S. Court of Appeals vacated FERC's prior order in the case in 2017 has challenged investor confidence. Unfortunately, this FERC decision further undermines utilities' ability to secure the capital needed to support state and federal policies and mandates to build and upgrade grid infrastructure and maintain safe operations and top-tier reliability for customers. As you have seen from some of our recent actions, we have appealed this decision and filed a motion for stay in the courts. We have also submitted a Section 205 filing following the exact FERC methodology used in their March 19th order, but with updated data. The data FERC used to derive the 9.57 ROE is over a decade old. By updating the data for current market conditions, the ROE comes to 11.39%. A key procedure of this filing is the potential for settlement. We are hopeful that all parties in this proceeding can come together to reach an outcome that benefits customers while also providing reasonable financial support for New England transmission owners to continue to upgrade and build the much-needed transmission system for future load growth. On the back of the FERC ROE decision, which lowered our transmission base ROE to 9.57, we did adjust our guidance for 2026, which John will reiterate in a few minutes. We are reaffirming our long-term earnings growth rate of 5% to 7% off the midpoint of our revised 2026 guidance. Let me now highlight a few key state policy developments across our territory. On slide 7, in Massachusetts, in March, Governor Healy signed an executive order to secure Massachusetts' energy future, establishing a comprehensive strategy to strengthen the Commonwealth's energy reliability, affordability, and independence. This order responds to extremely adverse shifts in federal policy, rising electricity demand, volatile fossil fuel prices, and global energy supply disruptions by directing state agencies to rapidly expand energy resources and modernize the distribution and transmission. The executive order recognizes that Massachusetts' energy supply needs are growing. It cites ISO New England projections that electricity consumption could rise by nearly 15% by 2035 and by nearly 50% by 2045, with peak demand increasing even faster. The order also emphasizes the need for immediate action to maximize federal tax credits for clean energy projects before they expire under accelerated timelines established by recent federal law. We appreciate Governor Healy's recognition that addressing regional supply constraints through an all-of-the-above approach is essential to achieving energy affordability. As an energy delivery company, we remain focused on maintaining and upgrading infrastructure to integrate new energy resources, enhance reliability, and control costs for customers. We look forward to continued collaboration with the administration, the legislature and other stakeholders to advance solutions that deliver lasting reliability and affordability benefits. In Connecticut, as we mentioned last quarter, we are going to begin our first rate review for CL&P in about eight years. We see that as an incredible opportunity to show how we vastly improve reliability and that those investments are valuable. We expect to file a letter of intent with Pura for the CLMP rate case later this month. We recognize that this will be a big ask, and as we do in other jurisdictions, we will collaborate with Pura and other key stakeholders to submit a ray case filing that is constructive, responsible, and designed to protect the interests of customers. Our filing will address customers' need for reliable electric service, affordability, and stable, predictable rates. Another key item for us is the recovery of storm costs. We expect to receive a final decision from Pura on our Connecticut Storm Cost Prudency Review in July, which would allow us to begin the legislative-backed securitization process. Importantly, securitization enables timely cash collection, improving our FFO to debt metrics while addressing affordability concerns. In New Hampshire, Governor Ayotte signed House Bill 1539, a bill allowing for the securitization of storm costs which provides an affordable path for recovery of our outstanding storm costs which are currently under review at the PUC. We are grateful for the support of the Governor and the General Assembly for passing this important legislation. As we have stated before, 2026 will be a truly transformational year for us as we operate within a changing regulatory landscape and navigate affordability concerns. We will maintain transparent communication with all our stakeholders and take decisive actions to mitigate potential risk. I will now turn the call over to John to discuss our financial results. Thank you.

Thank you, Joe, and good morning, everyone. This morning, I will review our first quarter 2026 earnings results, provide a regulatory update, including the recent FERC ROE decision, and also discuss our balance sheet, progress, and financing plan. We'll start with our first quarter results on slide nine. Our gap was $1.61 compared with gap earnings of $1.50 per share in the first quarter of 2025. GAAP results for the quarter include an after-tax charge of $43.9 million, or $0.12 per share, related to the FERC representing the refund for the first 15-month complaint period. Excluding that charge, our non-GAAP earnings were $1.73 per share for the quarter, as compared to GAAP as well as non-GAAP earnings of $1.50 per share in the first quarter of 2025. The $0.23 per share improvement over the prior years primarily in the gas segment with an $0.18 per share improvement driven by rate-based increases in Massachusetts and implementation of the Yankee gas rate case in Connecticut. Electric transmission improved six cents per share, primarily driven by continued investment in the system. Electric and water distributions are both up as well, due primarily to rate increases and cost control. Offsetting these positive drivers were higher losses of five cents per share at parent and other, primarily due to higher effective tax rate and higher interest costs, aligned with our expectations. Moving to slide 10, the first decision that was issued on March 19th arbitrarily reduced the base transmission ROE from 10.57 percent to 9.57 percent. As you can see on this slide, this case has been ongoing for nearly 15 years since the first complaint was filed on October 1 of 2011. The 10.57% rate was established on October 16th of 2014 and Eversource and the other New England transmission owners have continued billing at this rate even though the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit vacated for its order in April of 2017 which would have otherwise allowed us to bill customers using the original 11.22 separate commissioners, different chairs, each nominated by one of five separate presidential administrations before issuing this arbitrary and capricious decision on March 19th. The decision was based on a record of evidence over a decade old for a refund period far beyond what is allowed in the federal. When the decision was issued, Eversource and the other transmission owners have taken several actions to protect the right to a fair rate of return on invested capital. On April 2nd, we filed a motion for a stay at FERC, seeking to pause the order refund obligations and ensure time for an appropriate legal review. This was followed by a similar filing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on April 14th. Also on April 2nd, we filed a motion for an extension of the refund deadline. Without this extension, FERC's order would have required that we issue refunds within in 30 days, ignoring the necessary process of working with ISO New England and low servant entities throughout the region. This extension was granted by FERC, extending the deadline to May of 2027. On April 20th, we filed a request for rehearing at FERC, seeking to resolve the decision's multiple legal deficiencies. And lastly, on April 30th, we made a section 205 filing with FERC to establish a new base ROE using current market data, not market data that's over a decade old. Using FERC's own methodology from its recent decision and current market data, we arrive at a just and reasonable base ROE for transmission of 11.39%. We expect that this updated rate will be implemented towards the end of this year, subject to refund. This filing also includes a change to the ROE cap on transmission investments, raising the cap to 12.89%. We are disappointed with FERC's actions in this proceeding. Continue to protect our right to a fair rate of return on invested capital, we did make two disclosures during the quarter to reflect FERC's March 19th decision. There's an adjustment to our 2026 non-GAAP EPS guidance as disclosed in our 8K filed on March 31st. The change in the base ROE is expected to lower Eversource's future after-tax earnings in the aggregate by approximately $70 million for 2026, and we also adjusted for the potential Aquarion sale as a result of Pure's approval. These items together resulted in revised 2026 non-GAAP earnings guidance in the range of of $4.57 to 72 cents per share. The second disclosure was the after-tax charge of 43.9 million or 12 cents per share related to the FERC decision that I discussed earlier. Moving on to some state regulatory updates. I won't cover everything that Joe discussed, but I do want to touch on a few items. Proceed with the pending rate case as filed with Pura, seeking a distribution rate increase of $88 million. The rate case is expected to be completed towards the end of the year, and it would support Aquarion's ability to continue investing in its infrastructure and to provide reliable service. We are pleased with Pura's decision approving the sale. However, to the transaction not closed, we are prepared to replace the sale proceeds with other alternative financing solutions if necessary. Also in Connecticut, I would like to acknowledge the RAM decision that was issued on April 22nd. The decision addresses Tura authorized the funding of $100 million reserve for storm restoration costs. The second is that the decision uses is forecast data to set rates associated with PPAs. The use of forecast data is a change that we have long advocated. It also allows for rates to be adjusted on a more timely basis, avoiding large over or under recoveries. Both of these changes result in more stable rates for customers and more stable and predictable operating cash flows for Eversource. On top of that, PURE's decision makes these changes while lowering rates for customers. We thank PURE for their thoughtful and constructive decisions. In New Hampshire, Joe mentioned the new storm cost securitization law. This means that now in Connecticut and New Hampshire together, Eversource should recover approximately $2 billion in deferred storm costs and carrying charges through these securitization transactions within the next 12 to 18 months. Moving to slide 11 for a financing update, we executed on one of the latest steps in our plan to continue building balance sheet stability. When we issued our first junior subordinated notes in February, we were very pleased that the offering was more than five times oversubscribed and continues to trade at or above par. This gives us confidence that should we decide to issue something similar in the future, the market supports our strategy. I will underscore that our financing strategy is unchanged since the update we provided during our fourth quarter earnings call. We continue to expect that our equity needs over the next five-year forecast period are in the range of $800 million to $1.1 billion. As communicated previously, this financing plan includes flexibility related to the Aquarion transaction outcome. Next, on slide 12, I would like to share the latest affirmation of our strategy, which is that our FFO to debt metrics remain strong. Our latest metrics are 14.2% and 14.5% for S&P and Moody's, respectively. Consistent with our guidance, these are each over 100 basis points above the downgrade thresholds. In addition, on April 10th, following the FERC ROE decision, S&P reaffirmed its ratings and stable outlook for Eversource and our subsidiaries. These objective measures reflect the successful execution of our previously communicated strategy. Next, let me reaffirm our five-year capital plan of $26.5 billion, as shown on slide 13. This reflects our five-year utility infrastructure investments by segment through 2030. And we are off to a good start with CapEx of nearly $800 million through March, as compared to our 2026 forecast of $5.1 billion. As you can see on this slide, Connecticut AMI is not included in our plan. We look forward to the next steps on this opportunity following the recent constructive hearings held by Pura earlier this year. As we stated in the briefs we filed in March, our goal is to deliver the highest benefit for customers at the lowest possible. Moving to slide 14, we continue to look towards a meaningful inflection in our earnings growth driven by improved regulatory outcomes. That includes the recovery of storm costs through securitization in both Connecticut and in New Hampshire. It includes the completion of alternative financing opportunities and distribution rate adjustments included the result of our CLNP rate request in 2027. Lastly, on slide 15, we remain confident in our ability to deliver earnings growth towards the upper half of our long-term target of 5 to 7 percent by 2028. And just to be clear, this would be off of the midpoint of our revised 2026 non-GAAP earning CPS range. With that, I will turn the call back to the operator for Q&A.

Thank you. At this time, we will conduct the question and answer session. As a reminder, to ask a question, you will need to press star 11 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star 11 again. We do ask that you please limit to one question and a follow-up. Our first question comes from the line of Carly Davenport of Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open.

Good morning, Carly. Good morning. Thanks so much for taking the questions. Maybe just to start on Aquarian, I guess, as you mentioned, we're still about five weeks or so out from the new appeal window sort of closing.

So maybe could you just provide kind of your latest thoughts on the potential for further appeals to be filed in that process and I guess your temperature on this progressing to close? yeah you know we obviously we were pleased with the pure decision you know i think it was very clear and i think that they uh spoke to the issues that uh that the appeals you know surrounding the appeal and i felt very good about the decision you know we continue to be watchful down there as you know there are not just the parties that appealed there are others involved so we're vigilant but you know as we've said in the past that you know we don't have a gun to our head anymore if uh you know we do intend to close the transaction but if it wasn't to close it's not going to be the end of the world got it okay great that's helpful and then um just on the

the FERC ROE decision on you know you're obviously attacking this from a few different angles but just on the the 205 filing you did mention potential to reach settlement there so just maybe could you talk a little bit about what that timing could look like in the case that settlement is on the table versus, you know, if it has to go sort of a full length?

Sure, sure. As I said in my formal remarks, we feel that a new rate will be implemented towards the end of the year. I would say to your exact question, Carly, the first process or procedure out of the gate once we hear back from FERC within 60 days of the date of our filing is appointing of a settlement judge to the case to bring the parties to the table. So hopefully we can, you know, settle on the rate prospectively as well as address the legal deficiencies in the FERC order as part of that settlement conference. So that should happen later this year.

Great. Thank you so much. Thank you, Colin.

Our next question comes from the line of Char Perez of Wells Fargo. Your line is now open.

Good morning. This is actually Marcella on for Char. Thanks for taking our question. Hello, Marcella. Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning. Also kind of talking about the FERC decision, what's your level of confidence on the 15-month refund period, and what milestones should investors be watching for for clarity on whether that interpretation prevails in court? Maybe, for example, should we be paying attention to the MISO proceeding as something that might read through, and how should we be thinking about timing on that case?

Sure. From a data point, if we go the full process and not be able to settle with the parties, yes, I would agree the MISO decision is going to be a significant data point for us. But I think the process that we put forth into your question, specifically on the 15-month window, we do recognize that we are subject to a 15-month refund period. And therefore, we accrued for that in the first quarter, as I mentioned. So the 15-month refund period is law, and we recognize that. But arbitrarily, picking a retroactive date for the refund is where we think FURC did not follow the letter of the law.

That's really helpful. And then maybe shifting gears to New Hampshire storm cost securitization, just how should we be thinking about how much you'll pursue, if there's any carrying costs included in that, and then timing on when we might expect to see that filing?

Sure. So we're hoping the timing is soon that we can get to the table and work with the PUC and the Department of Energy in New Hampshire. I think the dollar amount is probably in the $4.70 range, and that would include the carrying charge that continues to accrue. So it's really to the customer's benefit. The sooner we complete the securitization, the better off our customers would be in lowering the ultimate cost that would, in fact, be securitized. So we hope that we could complete that transaction, I would say, in a reasonable timeframe, late 2027.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from the line of Steve Fleischman of Wolf Research. Your line is now open.

Good morning, Steve.

Morning. Hey, Joe, John. How are you doing? Wonderful. So, great. On the FERC, just to follow up on the FERC questions, when we think about the other parties that you might settle with, Who are the parties in this case at FERC? Is it your state advocates? Is it transmission customers?

It's a broad range of stakeholders that would be involved, obviously, as you very well know. This is a New England tariff. So all six New England state transmission owners are impacted. so you can expect that every consumer advocate from those states, the AG's office from 60 states will have a seat at the table and we are prepared to have those discussions with everyone involved.

Okay, and is there like a man, it sounds like, as you said, you can implement subject to refund by a certain date. Is there a deadline though where they actually have to rule by?

Sure. Good question. Our understanding is that FERC has 60 days from the date of filing to let us know when the rate can be implemented. FERC can suspend the rate up to five months. So I think we can all expect that if you take the 60 days plus the five months, so within seven months from the filing date is where we would expect the rate to be implemented, as I've mentioned on a subject-to-refund basis.

And then just on the Aquarion, I mean, what are we actually waiting for at this point to decide whether to close or not? Just for the, I mean, they rejected the reconsideration, so what is actually left from here?

Yeah, we're waiting for the appeal period to be exhausted, And so this is the second of the appeal period to exhaust on June 14th.

And that's at the commission or at the courts?

At the commission.

Okay. Got it. All right, I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Steve.

Our next question comes from the line of Sophie Karp of KBCM. Your line is now open.

Good morning, Sophie.

Good morning. Thank you for taking my question. So my question is, in light of all of the uncertainties you guys are facing with the FERC, right, process and kind of residual aquarium situation as you wait out the appeal window, how are you thinking about the timing of equity capital here you know uh does that make sense to just like issue the amount that you need and rip the band-aid off or would you wait and see these pieces kind of fall into place before you right size the offering um like what's your thinking process here sure sophie this is john so Let me just reiterate, our guidance is between now and 2030 to issue in a range of $800 million

to $1.1 billion. Clearly, that's a very nominal number over the next five-year period. Also, as another reminder, in February, we did do our first JSN offering, which I was very excited about. that brought in 1.5 billion of cash so right now we're seeing how this thing plays out and also as I highlighted in my formal comments within the next 12 to 15 months we would expect up to you know around 2 billion dollars of incremental cash coming in through the Connecticut and New Hampshire storm securitization proceeds so we will be very thoughtful and mindful of all of these significant interactions and transactions that could have an impact on our equity needs. So we really have no urgency to go to market right now. So we'll pay a close eye as to how these transactions ultimately materialize.

Right. Thank you. And then my other question is clearly not something that impacts your resources economics, but when we think about of energy supply situation in New England and like Millstone upcoming, the re-contracting potential, right? And the forward prices in New England, given the situation and global oil and gas markets, clearly that impacts affordability. And so what are you seeing in terms of a policy response, maybe across these territories to this in tandem, you know, impact from higher energy pricing in your territory specifically?

Yeah, well, you know, I've been very encouraged. I mean, we're injecting 2,600 megawatts of new power into the region. So, you know, that is really going to help moderate the clearing price at ISO New England. I think that if you look at the volatility in ISO New England, it's really not, it's not a very volatile market compared to PJM. So, you know, I feel good about it. You know, when I look at, you know, Clean Energy Connect injecting 1,100 megawatts into our system, I look at Revolution Wind at 704 megawatts, and I look at Vineyard Wind coming in at over 800 megawatts. That's having a significant impact on pricing in the region, so I feel very encouraged. You know, couple that with the fact that, you know, we are resisting data centers. I'm really not interested in a data center coming here. It's of no value to our residential customer, actually any customer. It's only going to drive up the price of energy. And so those are some of the things. And then you take a state like Massachusetts where they had an executive order that's looking at all things that we can possibly do. I mean, they have approved a natural gas pipeline enhancement with Enbridge that we're going to partner with to bring in additional gas capacity into the region. You know, as you know, we did purchase a 26-acre site from Joe Dominguez at Constellation that's going to allow us to inject upwards of 2,400 megawatts of power into the region. So I feel we're very well positioned to help our customers, you know, manage energy costs and try to drive. We want to drive that clearing price down and make sure that we provide a stable, reliable network for it to operate on. I mean, I continue to be encouraged by the number of requests that we're getting to inject into our system. You know, these clean energy resources, whether it's the hydro or the offshore wind. I mean, offshore wind is at a 50% capacity factor. It's very, very good. And it's at a time when we really need it. Those winter months, that's when it's really peaking. So I'm not really that concerned. Obviously, I love more generation. I wish we had, you know, a dozen more combined cycle plants built here. But the fact of the matter is I think we're still very well positioned and we're not going to see the volatility that some of these other exchanges are seeing.

Thank you. Appreciate the response.

Thanks, Sophie.

Our next question comes from the line of Andrew Weisel of Scotiabank. Your line is now open.

Good morning, Andrew. Hey, Andrew. Hi, good morning, everyone. Thanks for taking my question. Another one on the transmission ROEs. I understand what you're saying about the 205 process and how you can implement subject to refund. My question is, what will you be booking on a prospective basis in terms of earnings, say 2027 and beyond? Will you assume the 11.39% up and until the FERC or a court indicates that you shouldn't? Will future guidance be based on the 1139 or the 9.57 as a base ROE?

Well, first and foremost, the current guidance that we just reiterated and updated back when we issued the 8K, which was March 31st, assumed the current rate, which is 957. So we'll wait to see how this 205 ultimately shakes out later this year. We'll know that definitively. and we'll revise our guidance to reflect whatever rate we can bill to customers. But that will be done on the fourth quarter call in February once we've solidified this issue.

Right. Okay. So your assumption is that you'll get resolution before the fourth quarter call when you give guidance. Yes.

Under the current procedure, under the Federal Power Act, We expect a decision from FERC to determine when we can implement this new proposed rate. And as I've said, on a subject to refund basis. So we will be billing customers, provided that we don't mutually reach a settlement agreement with the stakeholders. This rate will go live, and the process to review and decide the ultimate rate that's just and reasonable, FERC will have plenty of time to do that.

Right. Okay. Let's hope they stick to the schedule. They don't always stay on. Then a second question, if I can. On the refunds of $880 million or so, I know the refund period was extended through May of 2027. From an accounting perspective, have you taken any sort of reserves or will you have to, or is that just sort of looming while the challenge and appeals play out?

Well, we'll see how things progress, but our position based on the legal merits of our case that we have filed for counsel and our own internal counsel, we feel we have a strong legal position that supports us not booking anything until we have further determination and clarity on the retroactive piece going back to 2014. So I want to be clear, but we do know that we have exposure, and we are subject to the 15-month refund period, as FERC just validated. We were also pleased, and we feel it was the right thing for FERC to do, to dismiss complaint two, three, and four. So we have that validated. But we do agree that we are subject on the Federal Power Act to the 15-month refund period. And that's why we booked that this quarter.

Okay. Very good. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from the line of Travis Miller of Morningstar, Inc. Your line is now open.

Good morning, Travis. Hey, thanks. Just one quick follow-up from me on FERC. I appreciate all the details here in the script. But on that FERC high level, given the uncertainty there, depending on what happens over the next year, what's the flexibility you have on your transmission investments and your CAPEX? Is that an area where you could potentially move around some capex if there's a decision that goes against you, or is there even a need to move around?

We certainly will look at that. I don't want to get ahead of our skis here, but that's something that we can look at. But, you know, right now where we have, and we said that in our formal remarks, that we were a bit, you know, taken back by this harsh decision that was just issued by FRER. because, you know, as Joe mentioned, we need more supply, right? And utilities transmission owners should be incentivized to explore investment opportunities that would reduce the overall cost for customers. If you recall back a decade ago where New England was under tremendous amount of congestion pressure and we unlocked that congestion and saving customers billions of dollars eliminating that price differential. So those investments have resulted in tremendous cost savings for our customers throughout New England.

Okay. I think that's all I had. I appreciate all the other details that you gave. Yep. Thanks for joining us today.

As a reminder, to ask a question, you need to press star 11 on your telephone. One moment, please. Our last question comes from the line of Paul Patterson of Glenrock Associates, LLC. Your line is now open.

Good morning, Paul. Good morning. This question is answered. I just, on the Connecticut PBR, is that, are you going to wait 10 years for something on that, or is that, I'm just joking around, I apologize.

But, I mean, you know, Paul, as you know, we've been untangling a lot of things down there. It's a very, very positive turnaround, I think, in Puro. We're getting very, very good decisions. We're getting fair decisions. You know, in the pecking order, yeah, PBR would be great to have. But at this point, we're just trying to sort through and get an orderly regulatory environment to operate in. So, you know, I'm not going to go poke the beer and start to talk about PBR right now. Let's get some other things or some other priorities that I have on my plate before I'm going to poke the beer on PBR.

Okay, so just wait and see kind of thing, I guess, right? Okay. And then I guess one of my questions is, do you know what triggered after all this time to sort of come out with this sort of out of nowhere?

Yeah, I mean, we can suspect that it was a tough decision, having this sort of linger out there for, you know, many, many years. I think the message that they've sent to New England transmission owners is we're going to let the courts make the decision on this proceeding. and that's why we're taking the legal action that we've discussed on this call today.

But do you know, I mean, okay, I appreciate it. Thanks so much. Thank you.

Thank you. I am showing no further questions at this time, so I would like to turn it back to Joe Noland for closing remarks.

Thank you again for joining us today. You still have time to get on David Campbell's effigy call. We gave you 15 minutes, But our teams have weathered a lot of storms this past year, and we delivered top-tier reliability for our customers. We are carrying tremendous momentum into 2026 with a clear focus on de-risking our business profile, resolving key open items ahead of us, and positioning the company for sustainable long-term growth. Thanks very much.

Thank you for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect.