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 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. 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 the fact of the matter is 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 risk that worry me or are going to keep me up at night, Collie. 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're up front about the charges.

Understood. Great. Thank you so much for the caller.

Gail, one moment for our next question, please. It comes from Nicholas Woods with the Bank of America. Please proceed.

Good morning, Nick. 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 wanted 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%, 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 feel very good about that.

Got it. 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?

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.

Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Sophie Karp with KBCM. Go ahead, Sophie.

Good morning, Sophie.

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 there 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 line of that all out there and how will that reflect in rate-based?

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 in 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, customers in Connecticut would be able to take advantage of that pricing um so with that i i would say if we get the green light this fall um we would start the project um mobilize it in um next year and you know five years later that's when you you know everything will be uh wrapped up so that billion dollars some of that will will fall into uh will fall beyond our forecast gotcha all right thank you very much it's all for me thank you thank you

Your next question is from Anthony Crowdel with Nizuho. Please proceed.

Good morning, Anthony. Hey, good morning, John. Good morning, Joe. How's it going? 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, like, 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 refund?

So first and foremost, we stand with our guidance that we want to be 100 basis points above the downgrade thresholds, and and we've been very successful, as you can see on that slide. 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 the 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. Thanks, Anthony. Thanks, Stephanie.

Thank you. One moment for our next question. It comes from David Pass with Wolf. Please proceed.

Morning, David.

Good morning, guys. 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. I was afraid to say your equity is $800 million to $1.1 billion through 2030, you know, setting aside FERC refunds. Is that the way to read?

Correct. That slide does not assume that you would be in a position to refund the FERC, other than the 15-month refund that we've already accounted for and booked.

Okay. And you said no more equity issuances for 2026. Correct.

That is 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 26?

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, the taxes, 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.

We don't have very much at the parent and other other than taxes and interest. right okay that's it thank you thank you thank you so much and our next question is from jeremy tonet with jp morgan please proceed morning jeremy hey jeremy hey guys this is actually aiden kelly on for jeremy appreciate the time just yeah just 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 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 $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've 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, which is certainly within our five-year period. So we've included that in there as well. So that's the composition of the 1.8.

That's very helpful. Thanks, John. I'll leave it there.

Okay.

Thank you. And our last question comes from Julian DeMullen-Smith with Jeffreys. Please proceed.

Morning, Julian. Hey, Julian.

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?

Yeah, sure. I think the primary driver is, let me step back. This docket has been open for a 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, you know, 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 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 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 in the upper half of that five to 7%. 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 that we're...

Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Sure thing. Have a good day.

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.

And this concludes today's conference. Thank you for participating, and you may now disconnect.