Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. My name is Rob, and I am your event operator today. I would like to welcome everyone to today's conference, Public Service Enterprise Group's Second Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call and Webcast. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. Later, we'll conduct a question and answer session for members of the financial community. At that time, if you have a question, you will need to press the star and the number 1 on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, press the star and the number 2. If anyone should require operator assistance during the conference, please press star zero from your telephone keypad. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded today, August 4, 2026, and will be available for replay as an audio webcast on the PSEG's Investor Relations website at https colon forward slash forward slash investor dot pseg dot com. I would now like to turn the conference over to Carlotta Chan. Please go ahead.

Good morning, and welcome to PSEG's second quarter 2026 earnings presentation. On today's call are Ralph LaRosa, Chair, President, and CEO, and Dan Craig, Executive Vice President and CFO. The press release, attachments, and slides for today's discussion are posted on our IR website at investor.pseg.com, and our 10-Q will be filed later today. CSEGs, earnings release, and other matters discussed during today's call contain forward-looking statements and estimates that are subject to various risks and uncertainties. We will also discuss non-GAAP operating earnings, which differs from net income or loss, as reported in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles or GAAPs in the United We include reconciliations of our non-GAAP financial measures and a disclaimer regarding forward-looking statements on our IR website and in today's materials. Following our prepared remarks, we will conduct a 30-minute question and answer session. I will now turn the call over to Ralph LaRosa.

Thank you, Carlotta, and thank you for joining us to review PSEG's second quarter 2026 results. In our financial results, PSEG reported net income of $0.67 per share and non-GAAP operating earnings of 86 cents per share, bringing our first half results to $2.15 per share of net income and $2.41 per share of non-GAAP operations. In PSE&G's system replacement, reliability, and energy efficiency were the main drivers of growth in our financial results in the second quarter. And that PSEG power and increase in realized market prices, higher nuclear generation, and gas operations more than offset the absence of the zero-emission certificate programs that concluded in May of 2025. With results of the first half of 2026 coming in as expected, we are pleased to reaffirm our full-year non-GAAP operating earnings guidance in a range of $4.28. This may have even been better as we successfully managed one of the most challenging storm restorations in our company's history the july 4th holiday weekend a series of heat waves and successive thunderstorms hit our service area accompanied by winds of over 70 miles per hour cng reconnected approximately 380 000 customers with nearly all customers restored within 24 hours of losing rating the value of our system reliability investments and our crew's steadfast commitment to our customers these round-the-clock restoration efforts were led by over 330 crews and were supported by over 10 million proactive customer communications. In addition to thanking our employees who participated in this, I want to highlight that we worked this multi-day restoration effort with an excellent safety record and provided PSE&G crews to help our neighboring utilities with their... Welcome to the upcoming review of our storm response by the New Jersey Board of Publicity. We're submitting a comprehensive post-event performance report to them tomorrow. PSE&G reached a peak summer load of 10,446 megawatts, highest level in 14 years, and activated demand response, part of our Clean Energy Future programs, during three separate events in early July, helping to keep peak energy costs down for customers. Programs now generate more than $1 billion in annual customer savings, helping nearly 525,000 residential and business customers save energy and lower utility bills since we began the CFEE program. We awarded approximately 9,300 jobs statewide over the past six years, including a network of more than 1,000 trade and union allies. performance-to-date in this program, including the success of our job programs, including the use of union labor for this work, to implement the BPU's recently adopted framework for a one-year extension of the EE-2 triennium. By this month, we are implementing residential bill credits consistent with Executive Order 1 and continuing the 12-month Scheduled Grief Fund of approximately $166 million of the zero-emission certificates that started back in June. PSE&G has also filed with the BPU to lower residential gas bills by more than 5% beginning in October, continuing to benefit our customers with the lowest gas utility bills in New Jersey and the region. It is to mention that PJM made a filing at FERC in June to implement a favor of allocation rules. Based on public data from PJM, this prospective change will result in approximately $33 million dollars benefit for the period running from june 1st through year-end 2026 when expected prospective annual benefit of approximately 65 million dollars this is another example of how we continue to advocate on behalf of our governor cheryl's inauguration her administration has been focused on new jersey affordability the governor's first executive order directed the bpu to study modernizing the electric utility business model and last month the BPU released its consultant report which also marked the conclusion of phase one of this directive formal recommendation was issued several examples of promising regulatory frameworks from other states and multiple reforms were highlighted in multi-year rate plans performance-based rates performance incentive metrics earning sharing mechanisms decoupling and shared saving mechanisms, all of which can further alignment and transparency between the utility business model, state energy policy goals, and affordability in the state. Now proceed to phase two of this effort, which is expected to focus on cost discipline, financing modernization, targeting incentives and shared savings, and stage performance-based real comments by subbalance assessment of the extent to which the business model changes can address affordability as well as the report highlighting the value of utilizing multiple criteria in its decision. As we prepare for these upcoming stakeholder proceedings, combined with the growing regulatory lag that comes from our historical test year and our robust capital program, we believe there is an opportunity to bridge Governor Sherrill's call for greater accountability and transparency with our regulatory requirement to recover prudently invested capital and update our cost of service. settled in October of 2024 established the requirement to file our next base case no later than 2029. We have stated before that we could file sooner if conditions warranted. When you consider that we have added a significant amount of distribution rate base at a time when there have been alternative is more frequent base rate cases. As a result, PSE&G currently anticipating During the PSEG power, PSEG nuclear also performed well during the quarter, supplying the grid with 7.8 terawatt-hours of carbon-free 24x7 baseload generation and achieving a capacity factor of 92% that included the second consecutive breaker-to-breaker run at Salem Unit 2. As widely expected, PGM's latest capacity auction priced at $325 per megawatt day, the upper end of the price collar, and fell 6.8 gigawatts short of PGM's targeted reliability requirement. This collar will remain in place during the upcoming December 2026 auction, covering capacity pricing into mid-2030. The uncapped price in the latest auction would have been $555 per month, but the reserve margin still falls well below PGM's reliability requirements. In the review, PGM's recent filing is detailing their reliability backstop procurement and IRAs rules. The Interim Resource Adequacy Service, formerly known as CONNECT, including PGM's Friday submission to federal phase of PGM's RBP, The PSEG Power recently submitted several throughout the region that may qualify as new dispatchable generation that could be paired with new large loads through bilateral controversy here in New Jersey. Governor Sherrill recently signed the Power in New Jersey Act into law, establishing a new nuclear procurement process at the BPU to procure at least 1,100 megawatts through a state-backed program. As the only operator of existing nuclear-generating facilities in New Jersey, PSEG Nuclear has been engaging in efforts to enable new nuclear development at our site. We obtained an early site permit from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission currently issued in the United States. New nuclear generation represents a compelling long-term solution to address New Jersey's growing resource adequacy needs and support economic development in South Jersey, and a successful framework will require an appropriate allocation. At the same time, PSEG powers continuing discussions with interested parties that see value in our existing nuclear production, future nuclear uprates, and other generation opportunities. Our teams delivered solid financial and operational results for the second year, enabling us to maintain PSEG's full-year 2026 non-GAAP operating earnings guidance. affirming PSEG's five-year non-GAAP operating earnings growth outlook through 2030 as we continue to pursue opportunities incremental to our long-term forecast, including the potential to contract our nuclear output under multi-year agreement. Importantly, our solid balance sheet enables the funding of PSEG's total five-year capital investment program of $24 to $28 billion without the need to issue new equity or sell assets and provides the opportunity for consistent and sustainable. Over to Dan, who will review the quarter's results and then rejoin the call for the Q&A session. Great.

Thank you, Ralph, and good morning, everybody. PSEG reported net income of $0.67 per share for the second quarter of 2026 compared to $1.17 per share in 2025, and non-GAAP operating earnings were $0.86 per share in the second quarter of 2026 compared to $0.77 per share. These quarterly results bring first half 2026 net income to $2.15 per share and non-GAAP operating earnings to $2.41 per share. provided you with information on Slides 8 and 10 regarding the contribution to net income and non-GAAP operating earnings by business for the second quarter and first half of 2026. Slides 9 and 11 contain waterfall charts that take you through the net changes for the quarter and year-date periods over the prior year in non-GAAP operating earnings per share, also by major business. Starting with PSE&G, which reported second quarter net income and non-GAAP operating earnings of $342 million for 2026, compared to $332 million in 2025. Utilities results were driven by ongoing investment in our energy efficiency and gas system modernization program. Our fall on slide 9, transmission margin was flat compared to the year-ago quarter, as higher investment was offset by a prior-year true-up, and our distribution margin increased by $0.05 per share compared to the year-ago period, largely reflecting incremental gas margin from GSMP2 extension roll-ins and higher investment in energy efficiency. In 2025, the expense was up by a penny per share, reflecting an increase in operational costs due to inflation. And depreciation and interest expense each rose by a penny per share due to ongoing capital investments. Utility taxes and other had a net favorable impact of a penny per share. Conditions during the second quarter, as measured by the temperature humidity index, were 29% warmer than normal and 9% warmer than the second quarter of 2025. As a reminder, the Conservation Incentive Program, or SIP, mechanism decouples weather and other economic sales variances from a significant portion of our distribution margin while helping PSE&G promote the widespread adoption of energy conservation, including energy efficiency and solar programs. Under the SIP, the number of electric and gas customers drives margin, and residential customer growth for electric was about 1%, and gas was flat over the past year. also benefiting customers as higher revenues from last year's warmer-than-normal summer weather will continue to be refunded to electric customers. And PSE&G has a 5% decrease pending for residential gas customers from the colder-than-normal winter earlier this year. Capital front, PSE&G invested approximately $1 billion during the second quarter and is on track to execute our full-year 2026 regulated capital investment plan of approximately $4.2 billion, focused on continued investments in infrastructure modernization, energy efficiency, electrification initiatives, and load growth. We also maintained our five-year regulated capital investment plan of $22.5 to $25.5 billion through 2030. We completed the GSMP II Extension Program in 2025, and were approved to roll in $23 million, effective April 2026, GSE&G continues to execute on the GSMP-3 program approved by the BPU last November. We expect to invest a total of $1.4 billion over a three-year period with approximately a billion of the total program receiving accelerated recovery with a balanced and stipulated base to be recovered in our next base rate case. Ralph mentioned earlier, We expect a cadence of more frequent base rate cases in the future as fewer clause-based IIPs cover our capital program. And since our last rate case concluded in 2024, PSE&G has made significant investments in distribution rate base to support the reliability of our system. We explore the details of the E3 Consultants Report addressing Governor Sherrill's Executive Order 1 related to New Jersey's regulatory construct. Elements of the report provide opportunities to enhance the transparency of the regulatory model, which would be helpful for setting customer expectations, as well as the inclusions of performance-based metrics, which, based on our high level of service and customer satisfaction, Switching to transmission and following up on the potential earnings impact of the recent legislation that could eliminate the 50 basis point RTO incentive, we estimated in our 2025 10K, that loss of that incentive could represent an annual headwind of $40 million of net income or approximately $0.08 per share. Last February, we considered the possibility that the RTO incentive earnings might be eliminated at some point when we rolled forward our long-term non-GAAP operating earnings guidance to 6% to 8% through 2030. I would also note that the effective date of this legislation is January 2027, so there will not be an impact on 2026 results. Moving now to PSEG Power and Other. For the second quarter, PSG Power and other reported a net loss of $8 million in 2026, compared to net income of $253 million in 2025. And non-GAAP operating earnings were $83 million in the second quarter of 2026, compared to $52 million in the second quarter of 2025. Referring again to the waterfall on slide 9, for the second quarter of 2026 versus 2025, net energy margin rose by $0.08 per share, driven by higher generation volume, higher capacity prices, and higher gas operations, partly offset by the absence of both zero emission certificates and the LIPA-related fuel and energy management fees. Compared to the second quarter of 2025, an interest expense rose by a penny per share, reflecting incremental debt at higher interest rates. Lastly, taxes and other items had a net unfavorable impact of a penny per share in the second quarter compared to 2025. In July, PCG Nuclear cleared approximately 3,600 megawatts of its eligible nuclear capacity in PJM's base residual auction at $325 per megawatt day for the energy year beginning June 1, 2028 and going through May 31st of 2029. This latest result represents a modest decline from the $333 per megawatt day price set in the prior PJM capacity. PSEG had strong available liquidity, totaling $3.4 billion as of the end of June. This includes approximately $200 million of cash on hand. On the financing front, in June, PSEG issued $500 million of 4.8% unsecured senior notes due 2031 and used the proceeds to prepay $500 million of a 364-day term loan initiated in February of 2026. A variable rate debt represented approximately 3% of our total debt as of the end of June. That consisted of the unhedged portion, or about half, of the $500 million, 364-day term loan at PSEG Power, maturing in December of 2026, and commercial paper. Looking ahead, our solid balance sheet continues to support the execution of PSEG's five-year capital spending plan, dominated by regulated CapEx, without the need to issue new equity or sell assets, and provides the opportunity for consistent and sustainable dividend growth. We delivered solid operating and financial performance in the second quarter and first half of 2026, enabling us to maintain PSCG's full year 2026 non-GAAP operating earnings guidance of $4.28 to $4.40 per share. We're reaffirming our 6% to 8% compound annual growth rate for non-GAAP operating earnings outlook through 2030, based on our confidence of executing our five-year regulated capital investment plan that also supports a 6% to 7.5% compound annual growth in rate base over the same period. We continue to pursue nuclear revenue opportunities, competitive transmission projects, and incremental utility infrastructure projects, including making incremental system investments to connect solar and batteries to meet new demand, which could provide upside to our current growth outlook through 2030. That concludes our formal remarks, and we are now ready to begin the question and answer session.

Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session for members of the financial community. If you have a question, please press the star and the number one on your telephone keypad. If your question has been answered and you wish to withdraw your polling request, you may do so by pressing star and the number two. If you're on a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before entering your request. One moment, please, for the first question. The first question is from the line of Nicholas Campanella with Barclays. Please receive your question.

Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions.

Good morning, Nick.

So, I guess, Ralph, you said in your PREPAREDs, just in regards to the base rate filing, you kind of talked about fewer investment infrastructure programs and the alternative as just more frequent base rate cases. Can you just maybe juxtapose that against this BPU report and how much of the decision to file is on the back of the report versus, I guess, anything that's transpired from the RTO adder that you brought up or the EE spend? And then what parts of this report and recommendations do you think make it into this base rate review. Thanks.

Yeah, thanks, Nick. A lot to make it in to this base rate making and that you need a base rate.

Okay, thanks. And then maybe just a lot's kind of changed since you gave the six to eight, and I know you're reaffirming that today, but I guess you're maybe pulling forward a base rate review. There's the RTO adder that's out there that I know you addressed is not going to to be really impactful until 27. Just taking into kind of account the moving pieces, just where do you kind of see yourself in this range?

Yeah, Nick, we talked a little bit about it a few different times.

Thank you.

The next question is in the line of Richard Sunderland with Truist Securities. Please receive your question.

Hey, good morning.

Thanks for your time today. Good morning. Thank you.

Picking up the RBA commentary there, can you speak a little bit more to uh the the project proposals and and i guess any way to frame the scale and type of opportunity that you're seeing for uh psec power in that yeah no rich thanks for that um so you know people have facilities that we have in pjm but we exited that we see an opportunity we think

inside new jersey a few outside new jersey that we're taking a look at that right now because they're not just like everyone else is i think even the load forecast is going to change we saw some things on that set here and many people did it back together. And we think that there's opportunities now that are more utility-like, which kind of align exactly with the investments we're looking at.

Got it. That's super helpful. And then, you know, I guess turning to the PSE&G side, but in similar light to a few of the opportunities you outlined in terms of the 6% to 8% range and upside. Can you speak a little bit more to what you're focused on right now in terms of capturing some of that, you know, distribution investment upside or other areas of focus and kind of the timeline to crystallize that and have a view on, you know, what may move into the plan over the next few years?

Yeah, look, we're at the beginning of next year and remain the same. I think, you know, our gas distribution business, you've seen a lot from any updates.

Thank you so much.

Questions are from the line of Carly Davenport with Goldman Please receive your question.

Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. Good morning, Carly. Good morning. Just two questions on the power side from me. One, could you provide any updates in terms of hedging activity beyond 2026, so where you are in 2027 or 2028 at this point?

There's nothing incremental for us to disclose. There's nothing in the materials that we have disclosed. we're working our way through the future years as we step through time.

Okay, got it. And then I guess just as you're thinking about potentially getting towards, you know, more regulatory certainty in PJM, I'm curious if you have seen any inflections in interest from data center or other large load customers for PPAs at power relative to prior quarters?

Yeah, I wouldn't say there's inflections, Carly. I think there's been some continued interest and pursuit on some things. I think that continues. You know, I think that the process in PJM is something that people have, I think, for the past few months. No one is out there. They've tried to figure out where it's going and what it's going to mean from the standpoint of new load. And I do think that this whole RBP and be expected of them so they can work against that backdrop. And so I think the fact that if something has to happen, they are not boxing themselves in through any kind of an agreement to trouble that thing that they need to call it inflections. I would just call it people reading the context of where we are with respect to PJM.

Got it. Okay. Makes a ton of sense. Thanks so much for the time.

The next questions are from the line of Michael Sullivan with Wolf Research. Please receive their questions.

Hey, Michael.

So, hey, Ralph, on the BPU review that's ongoing, any sense to when that's just fully wrapped up? And then on the rate case that you're about to file, any sense of size of rate increase or could it potentially be a decrease to align with the governor? How should we be thinking about that?

Yeah, Michael, I would say, you know, the BPU, I think they've got their own timeline. And as I mentioned, we've got a new president at the BPU who is speed. And then as far as RBC.

Okay, great, thanks. And then on the power side, can you just give a sense of, you know, to the extent you're pursuing opportunities in the RBP, what sort of returns you'd be targeting and how the math works with the $555 price cap in there?

Yeah, that's a great question, but I'm going to give that to Dan.

Look, I think a lot of that is a TBD, Michael, but it's, you know, right now the way that process is attractive, it would be foolish to provide what an expectation would be of returns in a competitive situation, so I won't do that. But I do think that there's enough there for us to be interested in exploring getting into the process and seeing if it meets the criteria, which what we've talked about is whether it's going to be utility-like or contracted enough to be attractive to us. And so, all of those elements that I just talked about go into, and you're going to compare your return to the risk that you're taking. So, obviously, it's more complicated than just providing a number to you with respect to what the return is.

Okay, great.

Yeah, Michael, let me just double down on what Dan said regarding the risk profile and the utility-like as well. But I do think that putting together, I think it's getting closer to utility-like with at least some of these opportunities.

Our next question is from the line of Jeremy Tenet with J.P. Morgan. Pleased to see if there are questions.

Hi, good morning. Thanks. I just wanted to go back to the bilateral discussions that you touched on before, and sorry if you had already said this, but in these conversations with bilaterals, is it interest in existing assets, new assets, or both, or how should we think about that?

Yeah, I think it's both, but more interest in the – you don't have discussions about new load coming on with at least a press to join that so to kind of fit with got it and so is there is it like kind of a one-to-one would you say or is there any ratio or this all just kind of varies

no there's not a there's not a got it one last quick one if i could you know obviously a lot of new supply needs um how do you think new nuclear uh could fit in here do you think there it is possible or that's just too far off at this point um just any thoughts there would be great I think, Jeremy, you kind of answered your own question there.

It depends upon the timeline that you're looking at. I do believe that nuclear makes sense. It's aligned, again, with the policies of the state. Twelve years, we need short-term solutions as well as long-term solutions.

And even if you take a look at what the RDP is talking about, they're talking about an in-service date of 2030, half the time, near-term, medium-term.

Got it. Thank you for your thoughts.

The next question is from the line of Rene Singh with Bank of America. Please proceed with your question.

Hi, guys. Hi, guys. Thanks for taking the question. I guess first on the, you know, the comments around the Phase 1 study, you know, there's a pretty broad range of reforms that they propose. I guess, how are you thinking about, as we move forward, this negotiation and your input into the stakeholder process and what, you know, would have the most merit in New Jersey, both like as, you know, utility owners and then the conversations with the BPU?

Yeah, look, we see multiple paths, and you kind of said there's, you know, things that have options, but not necessarily a multi-array plan in the industry that will provide, especially when you have NEO1. And so I look at that, and I say, you know, I welcome it because we have the additional results that we have as a company, and so from a performance-based rate standpoint, we welcome that. We have to, all the, you know, devil's in the details, and we'll work through that with policymakers, but I feel pretty good about where we are, and I think that our filing of a base rate case shows our willingness to be aligned from a timing standpoint with the next steps.

That makes sense. And then I think that kind of, you know, gets to my second question, you know, power is a big portion of the cost increases. And we have this RBP structure. And the cost is kind of allocated down to the to the state basis. How do you how do you think about the process there and the timeline for, you know, states, I guess, specifically New Jersey to, you know, create this cost allocation basis? And, and what is it kind of favorable in that regard that it is down to the states? And then, I guess, on the flexibility procedures, how are you thinking about the mandatory flexibility down to the transmission owner tariff versus, you know, PJ, I'm just dictating it?

Yeah, look, I think that there's still, again, we've got to look for a little more detail. We've got to see what comes out of FERC when they finally approve everything. But, you know, the state will be involved because the VPU will have some timelines that they'll have to meet. Right now, I think it's set up at 12 months, but we'll see how that changes the BPU. We can be very – we had – I think we – every year, we really had a date to get the RBA. I think we'll be exactly the right way to do this.

Okay. Great. Thanks, Ralph. Thanks, Dan.

Next question is from the line of Sophia Karp with KeyBank. Please receive your question. Hey, Sophie.

Hi. Good morning. Thanks for the time. um it's been discussed already from uh several angles but maybe let me try this one um are you guys seeing attractive opportunities to contract bilaterally for new builds like outside of the pgm contract like not as a part of the immediate bilateral auction but on your own with customers to facilitate their large load build out uh in the pgm footprint so if i'm going to give some of your peers are trying.

Yeah, so I'm going to give that to Dan.

I just want to just say, you know, that's being stood up right now to go through these To our new load, you're going to end up getting pushed and not necessarily be where they want them and maybe looking to do something to prompt some generation there. And I think to your question, it sounded like, are you in particular new load looking for new generation? I think that will get caught up into that RBP process, though. So I think there are other venues, and I think we've got one of the best sites that are out there with respect to the infrastructure in place.

And maybe just to build on that, as you consider these types of investments, how do you think about the target IRR or return that you would need to jump onto that? What's your thinking process here?

Sophie, I'm going to, again, just kind of reinforce something Dan said earlier. It all depends upon the risk, right? And we have said we don't want to be in a high risk of looking for utility-like returns. I don't want to go much further than that other than just to reinforce utility-like utility.

Thank you so much. We appreciate the color. That's all for me.

The next questions are from the line of Ryan Levine with Citi. Let's just see if you have your question.

Good morning, and thanks for taking my question. Given the New Jersey BPU and other PGM stake-level discussions around virtual power plants, how are you thinking about the opportunity for PEG?

Yeah, Ryan. Thanks. Again, it's an opportunity for us to show state policy. There's on the VPP side that we see, I think maybe nationwide if you were in that game or you're doing some other things, but for our New Jersey customers, it's more about aligning with policy.

Okay, but is there any initiatives that you have underway to address that alignment?

Oh, yeah, we have some work with the BPU on a couple of different items. I think they're going to, again, we'd be front-running them if we got ahead of that curve.

Okay, thanks for the time. Next questions are from the line of Paul Patterson with Glen Rock Associates.

Hello, Paul. Hey, how are you doing? Good morning. Just wanted to, the expected rate case and what have you, and sort of get your, and I apologize if I miss this, but the energy efficiency order that came out and how you see that, what is that? It seems a little unusual in terms of their return and what have you. I'm just wondering if you could sort of give me a better feeling for how you see that in the whole context of the regulatory environment there.

Yeah, it's not mandated, so we have union labor and the percentage in which we use union labor to achieve the goals that were put forward by the BPU. So I do think we are some different – and note that this is dealing with the investment, so that's also important. And I think it's also a reflection of the amount of, I'd say, the loan program, the on-bill financing that we're doing around that. There's a lot of specifics in what I just said to you, which makes it kind of unique in its standpoint, but it's unique from a – You know, back on nuclear, you know, I just I'm wondering if you could give a flavor for what stakeholders actually think about what the affordability impact of nuclear might be.

I mean, you know, I mean, this is around the country. There seems to be bipartisan buy into this. And I understand its appeal. But I'm just wondering when you're speaking to to policymakers, et cetera, or maybe you can tell me if there's been a big change in the cost of nuclear. I mean, I know there's this SMR technology, et cetera. But, I mean, do you think there's a full understanding about, I mean, when you start to this buy-in, about what the cost of new nuclear might be? Do you follow what I'm saying?

Give policy in any given policy makers.

Our final question is from the line of Travis Miller with Morningstar. Please just use your question.

Hey, Travis. Hi, everyone. Thank you. You answered most of my questions. A lot of details. Appreciate it. Just one quick follow-up. On the EO1 and the process from here, is the ball now in your court in terms of putting together proposals, best ideas, stuff like that to present to the BPU? Or are you still waiting for some more guidance either from the governor's office or BPU or some other entity before you start putting filings out?

Yeah, Travis, we'll participate.

Okay, so you think in terms of putting together actual proposals and stuff, that comes after the base rate case?

Well, no, I think by the end of the year, there's a timeline associated. There'll be some beginning of next year, put that framework together. Now you've got your, you can start.

That makes sense. A lot of work to do in 27th. Stay busy.

At this time, I'll turn the floor back to Mr. LaRosa for closing comments.

Well, thank you. Hey, just the fact that people were away from their families and from their barbecues and from everything that they wanted to be doing otherwise during that weekend. Without that operational excellence, we couldn't even be having conversations about what we can potentially do moving forward. And I think as I look forward, we've continued to get more regulatory clarity, both at PJM with some of the steps that they've taken and how that might play out on the generation side and here in New Jersey on the distribution side as we move ongoing conversations there. So regulatory clarity is starting to take place. Remain in Florida at PJM and in New Jersey in getting the system worked together. And I'll just end by wishing Carlotta a belief. When you give her a buzz next time, just make sure you say happy birthday. Thanks for dialing in.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.