EOG Resources Inc

NYSE:EOG

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. My name is Rob and I'm your event operator today. I would like to welcome everyone to today's conference, Public Service Enterprise Group's Fourth Quarter and Full Year Results 2024 Earnings Conference Call and Webcast. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded today, February 25, 2025, and will be available for replay as an audio webcast on PSEG's Investor Relations website at https://investor.psg.com. I would now like to turn the conference over to Carlotta Chan. Please go ahead.

Good morning, and welcome to PSEG's Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2024 Earnings Presentation. On today's call are Ralph LaRossa, Chair President and CEO; and Dan Cregg, 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-K will be filed later today.

PSEG's 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 as reported in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles or GAAP in the United States. 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 LaRossa.

Thank you, Carlotta, and thank you, everyone, for joining us this morning to review PSEG's 2024 results and our outlook for the business going forward. Let's start with our strong results. PSEG reported net income of $0.57 per share for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $3.54 per share for the full year.

For non-GAAP operating earnings, PSEG reported results of $0.84 per share for the fourth quarter and $3.68 per share for the full year, which was at the top of our 2024 guidance range. Our reported results for 2024 also marked the 20th consecutive year that we have met or exceeded management's non-GAAP operating earnings guidance to investors. We are proud of this track record and confident that our team will continue to build on it. We are also successful in achieving our strategic and regulatory objectives for 2024.

First, we settled PSE&G's first electric and gas distribution rate case in 6 years all with a balanced outcome that recovers prudent investments, maintains our favorable affordability profile and mitigates variability for our customers. Second, PSE&G received approval to invest $2.9 billion in its Clean Energy Future Energy Efficiency 2 program over the upcoming 6-year period.

This second phase of the BPU statewide energy efficiency framework has resulted in a meaningful increase to the program, which will enable us to make investments at more customer premises to reduce energy usage improve affordability and reduce carbon emissions. Third, we efficiently executed the utilities planned $3.6 billion capital spending program and notably completed the advanced metering infrastructure program on time and on budget, installing approximately 2.2 million smart meters in customers' homes and businesses.

And fourth, and I'm very happy to say we implemented new deferral mechanisms for pension and storm expense coming out of the rate case. This increases the predictability of PSE&G's future financial results and stabilizes rates for customers. Speaking of customer rates, the new base rates that were placed into effect last October represented an annual increase of about 1% per year since our last rate case in 2018.

Also, last October, PSE&G lowered its gas commodity charge to $0.33 per therm for the winter of 2025. The third supply charge reduction since January of 2023. All of these steps will serve to moderate the recent outcome of the BGS auction results, which will increase customer electric bills this June 1. PSE&G's record of reliability, affordability and customer satisfaction continues to be a valuable combination.

We were recently named #1 in customer satisfaction with residential electric and gas service in the East among large utilities by J.D. Power in 2024. The utility also received the PA Consulting 2020 liability one award for the Mid-Atlantic region for the 23rd consecutive year. I want to take a moment to recognize and thank all of our over 13,000 employees for the incredible teamwork and individual efforts that deliver 2024 strategic objectives and financial results.

So let's turn to our outlook for 2025, starting with Slides 5 and 6. For the current year, we have initiated PSEG's non-GAAP operating earnings guidance at $3.94 to $4.06 per share, which is up by 9% at the midpoint over our 2024 reported results. Our 2025 guidance midpoint is the new base year for PSEG's 5% to 7% non-GAAP operating earnings CAGR at the nuclear production tax credit threshold for the 2025 to 2029 period.

I would also note this CAGR, while unchanged as we pursue incremental revenue opportunities at PSEG Nuclear starts from a $4 midpoint of 2025 guidance that is 9% higher than our 2024 non-GAAP results. For 2025, we plan to invest $4 billion across enterprise driven by regulated investments. We also raised PSEG's 2025 to 2029 capital spending plan to $22.5 billion to $26 billion, which is up by $3.5 billion from the prior plan.

This increase is largely comprised of incremental investments at PSE&G that will meet growing customer demand, modernize infrastructure and further execute on the previously mentioned energy efficiency programs. Please see Slides 14 and 15 for the updated regulated capital spending plan and rate base projections for the 2025 to 2029 period.

This updated 5-year capital spending program is expected to support a PSE&G rate base CAGR that continues at 6% to 7.5% over the upcoming 5-year period, which grows from a starting point of approximately $34 billion, which is notably 12% higher than the year-end 2023 balance. Something new for PSE&G this year has been a significant increase in inquiries from large load and data center customers.

Last year at this time, these totaled under 400 megawatts. Today, the interest has grown to 4,700 megawatts, which includes both mature leads and initial inquiries. This pipeline represents an over 12-fold increase over the last year. The average size of these project leads is in the 100-megawatt range, which can often fit within PSE&G's existing robust utility transmission infrastructure.

We are responding to these inquiries in under 4 months on average. Approximately 25% of the 4,700 megawatts of new business leads have been incorporated into PJM's 2025 system peak lower forecast. As I mentioned earlier, the basic generation service auction results will raise the residential electric bill starting June 1.

This increase is being driven by the significant rise in the capacity prices coming out of PJM's latest RPM auction conducted last July, which reflects growing energy demand combined with the need for new power generation. As a reminder, electric supplies of pass-through costs that PSE&G does not earn a profit on. Even with this upcoming BGS increase, our combined bill still compares favorably to all other utilities in New Jersey, and we remain a leader across the nation on our low share of wallet comparison.

PSE&G's bill remains at about 3% of total income for medium income customers and even lower still approximately 2% or our low to moderate income customers that take advantage of payment assistance programs. Turning to PSE&G Power & Other, while the PTC threshold provides sufficient support to meet PSEG's 5% to 7% long-term growth outlook, we continue to pursue nuclear revenue growth opportunities at PSEG nuclear that would be incremental.

These opportunities to contract portions of our nuclear output under long-term contracts can also benefit the economic development interest of the state and helping to attract AI hubs to New Jersey. We had an exceptional year in 2024 continuing to execute on our business plan and in doing so, have made our businesses more predictable and our earnings growth more visible.

These benefits will enhance our ability to drive our future performance that prioritizes maintaining our financial strength making disciplined investments and delivering operational excellence. Another key PSEG distinction that we are proud to extend our ability to continue supporting another robust 5-year capital program without the need to issue new equity or sell assets through 2029, even with the latest $3.5 billion increase over the prior plan. Before I conclude, I want to highlight that our Board of Directors recently announced a $0.12 per share increase in PSEG's annual common dividend to indicative annual rate of $2.52 per share for 2025.

This is PSEG's 14th consecutive annual increase, made possible by a long-standing commitment to financial discipline that has enabled us to pay a common dividend to our shareholders for 118 consecutive years. I'll now turn the call over to Dan to walk you through the results for the quarter and our outlook for 2025 through 29th period, and then we joined the call for Q&A.

Thank you, Ralph, and good morning, everybody. As Ralph mentioned earlier, PSEG reported net income of $3.54 per share for the full year of 2024 compared with net income of $5.13 per share for 2023. And non-GAAP operating earnings for the full year of 2024 were $3.68 per share compared to $3.48 per share for 2023.

For the fourth quarter of 2024, net income was $0.57 per share compared to $1.10 per share in 2023 and non-GAAP operating earnings were $0.84 per share in the fourth quarter of 2024 compared to $0.54 per share in 2023. Slides 8 and 10 detail the contribution to non-GAAP operating earnings per share by business segment.

The fourth quarter and full year of 2024 and Slides 9 and 11 contained waterfall charts that take you through the net changes for the quarter-over-quarter and full year periods and non-GAAP operating earnings per share by major business. Starting with PSE&G, which reported fourth quarter 2024 net income of $0.75 per share compared to $0.58 per share in 2023.

PSE&G had non-GAAP operating earnings of $0.75 per share for the fourth quarter of 2024 compared to $0.59 per share in 2023. Utilities results were driven by the implementation of new electric and gas base distribution rates. The new rates went into effect on October 15 and the fourth quarter results reflect the impact of seasonality of gas revenues during winter months.

2025 comparisons will benefit from a full year of new rates for both gas and electric revenues. Compared to the fourth quarter of 2023, transmission margin was a benefit of $0.02 per share due to higher recovery of investments. Distribution margin increased by $0.16 per share and reflects the impacts of the rate case on gas revenues in the fourth quarter.

Distribution O&A expense was $0.01 per share favorable compared to the fourth quarter of 2023, primarily due to the timing of spending. Depreciation and interest expense rose by $0.01 per share and $0.02 per share, respectively, compared to the fourth quarter of 2023, reflecting continued growth in investment and higher interest expense.

Lower pension and OPEB income resulting from the cessation of OCA related credits, which ended in 2023, resulted in a $0.02 per share unfavorable comparison to the year earlier quarter. And lastly, the timing of taxes recorded through an annual effective tax rate, which nets to 0 over the full year and other taxes had a net favorable impact of $0.02 per share in the fourth quarter compared to 2023.

And for the full year, PSE&G results reflect higher earnings from increased investment in infrastructure replacement and energy efficiency as well as the rate case partially offset by higher interest and depreciation expense from higher investment balances. Weather during the fourth quarter, as measured by heating degree days, was 12% warmer than normal, but 3% cooler than the fourth quarter of 2023.

And as I'm sure you know, weather variations have a minimal impact on PSE&G's utility margin because of the conservation incentive program, or CIP mechanism. This decoupling mechanism limits the impact of weather and other sales variances positive or negative, on electric and gas margins while helping PSE&G promote the widespread adoption of its energy efficiency program.

Under the CIP, the number of electric and gas customers is what drives margin, and each segment grew by approximately 1% in 2024. On capital spending, as Ralph mentioned, PSE&G invested approximately $0.9 billion or $900 million during the fourth quarter. And for the full year 2024, our capital spending totaled $3.6 billion slightly higher than our original plan of $3.4 billion based on the continued execution of our electric system reliability programs, including Energy Strong and last mile spend in the IAP, our ongoing gas infrastructure replacement spending as well as our energy efficiency programs.

For 2025, we plan to invest approximately $3.8 billion in regulated investments focused on infrastructure modernization, energy efficiency and meeting growing demand and electrification initiatives. We've rolled forward our 5-year regulated capital investment plan through 2029 amounting to $21 billion to $24 billion compared to our prior plan of $18 billion to $21 billion. The $3 billion increase in regulated investments is driven by incremental reliability and resiliency investments under PSE&G's existing infrastructure programs and the CEF E2 program.

Our 2025 to 2029 regulated capital investment plan is expected to produce compound annual growth in rate base of 6% to 7.5%, starting from a year-end 2024 rate base of approximately $34 billion, including construction work in progress and as Ralph mentioned, is an increase of approximately 12% over the same number for year-end 2023.

Moving to PSEG Power and Other. For the fourth quarter of 2024, PCEG Power & Other reported a net loss of $0.18 per share compared to net income of $0.52 per share in the fourth quarter of 2023. Non-GAAP operating earnings were $0.09 per share for the fourth quarter compared to a non-GAAP operating earnings loss of $0.05 per share in the fourth quarter of 2023.

For the fourth quarter of 2024, net energy margin rose by $0.18 per share, driven by higher recontracting prices at nuclear which includes the net impact of the nuclear PTC that took effect January 1, 2024. As anticipated, we realized a significant portion of the increase in the 2024 gross margin over 2023's gross margin during the second half of the year based upon the shape of our underlying hedges.

O&M was $0.01 per share unfavorable. Interest expense was $0.02 per share higher, reflecting incremental debt at higher rates and lower pension income and OPEB credits were $0.01 per share unfavorable versus the fourth quarter of 2023.

Taxes and other were $0.01 per share favorable compared to the year earlier quarter. On the operating side, the nuclear fleet produced approximately 7.3 terawatt hours during the fourth quarter at approximately 31 terawatt hours for the full year running at a capacity factor of approximately 86% and 90% for the quarter and full year, respectively. Touching on some recent financing activity.

As of the end of December, PSEG had total available liquidity of $2.6 billion, including approximately $100 million of cash on hand. Through December 2024, cash from operations was strong though well below the 2023 level, which is substantially helped by the return of cash collateral.

Our cash collateral balance was approximately $250 million as of December 31, which supported our strong liquidity position. Last November, PSE&G repaid its $250 million, 3.05% secured medium-term notes, or MTNs, upon maturity. And in December of 24, PSEG Power entered into a new 364-day variable rate term loan for $400 million, supported by the strength of its cash flow.

And also in December, PSEG Power amended its existing $1.25 billion variable rate 3-year term loan agreement to extend the maturity from March to June of 2025, which just helps manage our cash position during the upcoming year. At the end of 2024, Power had $1.65 billion of debt outstanding with $1.25 billion swapped to a fixed rate, mitigating fluctuations in interest rates through March of 2025.

And given our swaps, we continue to have a low level of variable rate debt, approximately just 7% of total debt at year-end. Looking ahead, our solid balance sheet supports the execution of PSEG's 5-year capital spending plan dominated by regulated CapEx. Without the need to sell new equity or assets, and provides for the opportunity for consistent and sustainable dividend growth.

Now before I conclude my remarks, let's review some earnings drivers for 2025, and those are outlined on Slide 5. The most impactful driver will be the implementation of new distribution base rates in effect for the full year. Recall that the fourth quarter of 2024 is a seasonal peak for gas which comes into play in a projection of the new base rates over a full year. Also note, electric seasonality will produce a similar impact from the third quarter of this year.

In addition, cloud-based recoveries for investments in GSMP, the infrastructure management program, or IAP, and the CEF energy efficiency II program will also add to 2025 utility margin. Partly offsetting these positives are higher O&M, interest and depreciation expense, reflecting higher investment balances of PSE&G as well as higher interest expense at PSEG Power and parent related to refinancing maturities at higher current interest costs.

At PSEG Nuclear, our 100% owned Hope creep nuclear unit has a scheduled repealing set for the fall of 2025 that will include the fuel cycle extension work to extend its next scheduled refueling in 24 months for the fall of 2027. And as a reminder, the 0 emission certificate amounts earned by our New Jersey nuclear units will conclude in May of 2025.

In closing, we delivered our 20th year in a row of meeting or exceeding our guidance, and we carry that confidence forward to our full year 2025 non-GAAP operating earnings guidance of $3.94 to $4.06 per share, approximately 9% higher at the midpoint over 2024 results. We also extended our 5% to 7% non-GAAP operating earnings CAGR through 2029, starting with 2025 as the base year.

As Ralph mentioned, we're continuing to pursue incremental revenue opportunities at PCG Nuclear, which could enhance that long-term growth CAGR relative to the range that we've provided based on the PTC. That concludes our formal remarks, and we are ready to begin the question-and-answer session.

[Operator Instructions] The first question comes from the line of Shahriar Pourreza with Guggenheim Partners.

So just, Ralph, starting off on the nuclear side with Artificial Island, do you see sort of commercial discussions being delayed with the recent actions at FERC? Does the complexity of like behind-the-meter deals, changed the deal structure, the potential opportunities around side of the meter? And any sense on timing, especially given the governor's ambitions?

Yes. Thanks, Shahr. So I'm going to let Dan give you some details on that. But since you mentioned the governor, I would just say this on that front. He -- well, the New Jersey Economic Development Authority has made a few comments about their wind port and specifically that they're looking at alternative uses for that wind for. So that's one thing that we just want to point out.

The governor has also mentioned that he has in a recent call and show that they're looking at alternate uses for it. So you kind of put those pieces together. And we know that there's some interest from the governor standpoint and from New Jersey standpoint to continue for us to look to pursue these opportunities. And as far as -- so that's the timing issue that you hit on the back end. And Dan, we'll kind of address generically the upfront piece.

Yes. I think, Shahr, our messaging there is really fairly consistent. I think we've continued to see interest. We continue to have discussions with multiple parties for various elements of what we're talking about, and that interest remains strong. So I think you touched on FERC as well. I think that while it would have been great to have complete answers throughout everything from what FERC said, I don't know that we necessarily expected that, and we got to wait for some. But I think directionally, what they said was favorable for the flexibility to do what you want to do and those details are yet to be written. So we'll continue to see what happens there, but I think our messaging is really consistent with respect to what's going on related to nuclear.

And the glass at full on the FERC, Shahr, just to reinforce that. The timing of it is pretty aggressive, and there was a clear message from FERC on their need to get to a solution here. So we took that as a positive. We certainly could have been in a different place at least for the one potential solution behind the meter is still in front of the meter and there's still other offload opportunities there.

That's a fair point. I appreciate that, Ralph. And then I just want to make sure, does the PSE&G pipeline of opportunities and inquiries you just highlighted, it's over 4 gigs. Does that negate any of the artificial island opportunities? Like in other words, any chance that a potential deal with artificial island kind of shift towards the front of the meter with PSE&G or the Artificial Island counterparty is completely separate from the PSE&G conversations you just highlighted?

Yes. So I think the message on the 4,700 megawatts, which includes other things besides data centers. We were clearing there was data centers plus a large load. And believe it or not, we're still seeing some large electric vehicle interconnections that are taking place. So it's a number of items.

I think there's 2 takeaways, though, that we want to make sure, first of all, from a data center standpoint, there is interest from the industry in New Jersey when you see 4,700 megawatts showing up. That's a request that is showing up. So that's part one. And part 2 is the state's marketing in this area has been working. They've got a Helix that they've announced in New Brunswick, their number of Nokia, New Jersey, Bell labs just announced that they're going to be in New Brunswick. So there's a number of the efforts that are taking place are taking hold, and we just look forward to the momentum continuing.

The next question is from the line of David Arcaro with Morgan Stanley.

Let me see. I guess the PJM auction has been getting a lot of attention recently. FERC is going to be relooking at auction structures and a number of changes are underway now. I was wondering if you could comment on how you're thinking about the outlook for the PJM market what could change? Are there possibilities of structural changes here? And how do you navigate that maybe both from a customer impact and for your nuclear fleet?

Yes. So I think the way we are specifically addressing is by setting our -- all of our targets off the PTC 4. We've been very clear about that and the impacts there. Well, from a customer standpoint, we will do everything in our power to help keep customer costs down from an affordability standpoint. We will -- we have done that. We will continue to advocate on that behalf.

I just don't know whether or not the premise of the question of the PJM market is valid because I don't know if there is a PJM market anymore, and we've been talking to that for quite some time. So my concern there is mostly from a reliability standpoint. Are we going to be able, in this construct to attract generation to the PJM region as a whole.

And if so, is it going to be in a timely enough fashion for everything that we have going on in the region? So those are the questions at hand. It's really focused on reliability and affordability for us. And we're going to keep advocating on customers' behalf in both of those areas.

Yes. I think just to add on to that a little bit, David. I think those are the longer-term elements that are going to be really important for resource adequacy, and it's vital to get that right. And I think there's still work to be done there. I think for the near term, to the extent that this collar in pricing ends up being put forth for a couple of years, it can give you a little bit more stability as to where things are going to turn out.

But I go back again to Ralph's first comment that what we're basically putting out from a financial standpoint is the PTC floor. So to the extent that things move below that, that floor is there, if it moves above that, there could be some potential benefit for us. But I think job one is getting resource adequacy, right?

Yes, absolutely. I appreciate that color. And maybe somewhat related, I guess, is the uncertainty in the outlook for PJM broadly deterrent for new large load customers, new -- maybe new customers broadly looking at the market. There's been I guess, with all these changes being considered for the auction construct and looking at the resource adequacy challenges ahead in the market. Are you seeing that lowering the interest levels from some of these customers? Any perspective there would be helpful.

Yes. No, I'd point you back to the data in the prepared remarks, where we talked about the increase from 400, I think, megawatts to 4,700 megawatts of interest and large load in New Jersey alone. So I really can't talk for the other jurisdictions. But certainly, in New Jersey, we're still seeing that uptick that we reflected in those remarks.

Our next question is from the line of Nick Campanella with Barclays. .

I just want to put a finer point on Shar's question just in terms of bringing maybe a commercial deal forward for the nuclear fleet, are you still watching and waiting for the state at this point? Or is it really waiting on FERC? And then just a follow-up to that is just as we kind of think about the time line, if a large load customer was to be able to connect the facility? What's the time line for ramp? And can that affect earnings in 2027? Or is this more later dated towards the end of the decade?

Yes. Nick, I think that we're not waiting on anything on the state, and I think we're not waiting anything either from the standpoint of Fork, I think that some of the details with respect to what flexibility there can be may come out of where that goes. But I think there's the ability to continue to work and we are continuing work with respect to the state that we're in right now.

We're -- it's interesting. I do think that there was some expectation by some that we might see something more definitive coming out of FERC. But I will say that they did highlight 30 days and another 30 days, they seem to have understood the urgency in what they said even though we didn't get complete clarity on what they did.

So I think that urgency will be helpful as we continue to go forward, but it's not stopping anything. I think from the standpoint of some final details as to how some things can be done, it may add some flexibility.

Okay. And then just like the -- I guess, the ramp for a customer, just -- it does take time for these data centers to ramp up, it seems like. And I'm just wondering, is this something that you think can impact the outlook on the 5-year plan? Or is it more longer dated than that?

Yes. Think about it in a couple of different ways, Nick. I would say that to the extent that there is a sale of what exists today, then something could happen quicker to the extent that somebody needs to build the data center for that power to flow to, it's going to take a little bit longer.

So I think depending upon the nature of where things go, and there's a couple of things that we're working towards, that's going to dictate the timing as to when you might see something along the line.

Okay. I appreciate that. And then just following up on the capacity auction commentary. Just wanted to try to understand if we kind of continue to clear near the 270 level, how does that kind of impact your gross receipts calculation out to '27 and where you are in the range?

Yes. So I would say as you go out in time, you're going to have to take a look at what's in place from the standpoint of hedging and where the market goes. And then you're going to lay that capacity price on top of it. I'll remind you that at least in the structural formation of how the capacity auction is set, it's based upon a net cone, which is net of energy.

And I think that as you do see one price rise, the other price should react in the opposite direction, the prices being energy and capacity. So we saw some of that when we saw the last clear go up, we saw a temporary decline in energy prices. And so there is a relationship there.

I think that if I were you and I was looking out in time, I think to the extent that you saw increases in energy and you thought that we were going to clear higher, it would move us higher within the range or above the range depending upon where you go, right? We have the comfort of the floor. And I think the stability of that is really important to us and should be for you to think about how the results are going to go. But that upside is there to the extent that markets move up.

And don't -- the only thing I would add is not to forget in those calculations that you make, that there's an inflation adjustment to that floor. So in the out years, that will impact where those lines cross and -- which I think was the root of your question. .

Our next question is from the line of Paul Fremont with Ladenberg Faiman.

Great. I guess, first question, can you give us sort of any color on hedges that you have at PEG Power has -- normally, I guess, you would be at 90% for this year. What -- how should we think about sort of past guidance versus where you are right now?

Paul, what we have done and what we have said that we've done is try to balance the existing uncertainty of the definition of grocery seats in order to try to make sure that we're going forward in a way that minimizes our risk of results, understanding that we do have a PTC floor.

What I would tell you directionally is that has not resulted in kind of radical shifts from the standpoint of what those hedging percentages would have been back when we had more of a 3-year ratable. So to your point, if you want to think about being somewhere in the '90s in '25 and maybe 2/3 and '26 and 1/3 and '27 is what we would have told you based upon a more ratable approach.

And while we've made some movements to that, I don't think of that as being very radically different than the ratable approach.

Great. And then I guess you used to provide sort of a breakout of net income guidance between the utility and Peg Power and other. Is there a reason why you've not done that for this year?

It's just -- I think we made that change a year or 2 back, Paul, and we're comfortable with leaving it at the enterprise level. utility. We've been pretty consistent about that. So give or take in that range, but we're comfortable discussing this at the enterprise level. .

And then just to sort of follow-up on Nick's question. The gross margin sensitivity that you provide includes capacity prices to the extent that the auctions continue?

I'm not sure if there's a question in there.

The question is, should we -- in other words, you give $1 per megawatt hour as sensitivity? Does that include the $1 per megawatt hour equivalent of the capacity auctions?

Yes. I think about that as an all-in price that you would see for a megawatt hour. And yes, you had to variablize the fixed charge. But yes, that's the right way to think.

The next question is from the line of Paul Zimbardo with Jefferies.

Our next question is from the line of Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates.

So just I mean back to the sort of the -- sorry, back to the original question about the timing on the colocation. I noticed the language that the chair reiterated on Friday and what have you. But what does that actually mean in terms of when you think that actual order might come out?

Well, I have to take it at their face value and they said they want to come out shortly thereafter. I think it was the words that came out in the last statement. So I mean we could guess what shortly means. But I think they've been pretty consistent in delivering on what they've said they're going to do. So I wouldn't expect it to be much beyond the 60 days if that is that that's taken.

Okay. And then you also said something that was interesting about the PGM market or the lack thereof. It's basically something that obviously is being -- there's just a lot of activity, a lot of discussion a lot of apprehension, I think, about reliability and pricing and what have you. Do you have anything you'd like to share in terms of what potentially might what you might be looking for, I mean, in terms of maybe a longer-term setup or something? Or just what are your thoughts about it? I mean I'd just be curious as to what you think might come out of of all the examination of this "market" and what -- how it might evolve?

Well, I think it's going to depend upon what state you're in and what the economic policies of that state is. You certainly hear certain positions being taken in Pennsylvania. You see positions being taken in other states. I just talked specifically to New Jersey.

We have Edeka, which is the law of the land here from a generation standpoint. And the utilities are not involved in that process. We do have PSC gene nuclear, which is involved right now in the generation side of the business. But New Jersey is at a crossroads. And I think right now, we're all trying to figure out the best way to move forward. I don't think there's a clear answer on it. So I don't want to front run any policy decisions that are being made in the state. But it's certainly something we need to continue to discuss for the 2 reasons that we stated upfront, affordability for customers and the reliability.

Absolutely. Any idea when we might see something of a proposal or anything?

Yes. There's some talk about it energy master plan coming out, but look, Paul, to be honest about all of this, I think there are some decisions that have to be made that will probably bridge administrations here in New Jersey, right? So I think what we're trying to do as a company is continue to educate everyone on the issue and try to help people think through different opportunities that the State of New Jersey could pursue. .

The next question is from the line of Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs. .

Sorry to put a stop to the Paul train there. But thanks for all the color so far on the power side. Maybe just one from me on the regulated side. Just on the GSMP III filing. Do you still expect to revisit that this quarter? And then would that be upside to the plan in '26 plus? Or are there already assumptions kind of baked in after the GSMP II extension kind of runs itself out?

Yes, Carly, we are starting to have those conversations, and it is in the plan is the simple answer to both of those things. So that work is part of our core business activities and something that we expect to continue. So those conversations have started. .

Next question is from the line of Paul Zimbardo with Jefferies.

Back on the Paul train.

Can you hear me, hopefully, we're on the train .

We got it. We got it, Paul.

There we go. Yes. The neighborhood reception is not always the best, but -- I want to follow up on a little bit just on the balance sheet side. So I saw the no additional equity in the outlook even with the CapEx increase. Could you walk us what was the actual 2024 FFO to debt and kind of where do you envision the credit metal throughout the plan?

Yes. Paul, I don't have that at my fingertips, and I think you'll be able to pull that together when the K comes out, so I won't jump that. But we continue as we look forward and as we're putting forward the forward-looking guidance for the next few years. We continue to be in that mid-teens range and are in a pretty good place from that perspective, which is the reason it gives us the comfort to say exactly what we did say within our prepared remarks.

Okay. Got it. I'll follow up on that one. And then shifting a little bit on -- going back to the BGS, looking at the 1-year results for commercial industrial or your zone it was very high on a dollar per megawatt day basis, almost $700 in the market. I know that you do not participate in that with your unregulated fleet. But just is there any thoughts or kind of takeaways of kind of that indicates to what New Jersey could look like without a robust supply response to customers?

Yes. So Paul, that we were, I think, around 17% all in, in the numbers that were generated by the state and published. And I think that there were other ones that were up in the 20s, these are residential provider of last resort rates that are in that BGS, right? So first of all, customers are certainly have the opportunity to shop.

I would expect some of that to happen from third-party suppliers. But for those customers that are relying on BGS, it is something that we have to lean in on certainly from a payment assistance standpoint, which we're working on and then also from our energy efficiency program and continuing to get the energy efficiency message out for customers and helping them gain access to those programs. So those are the 2 pieces that I would say what it means to us in the state of New Jersey, but we are higher but not as high as some other areas in the state.

Yes. I mean just a reminder on that BGS contract, that's not something that we profit from that the pass-through coming from the supply providers. And the biggest element related to the increase that we are seeing is coming from the auctions that happened to PJM. And so that I do think you probably will see more interest in shopping. But I think at the end of the day, the providers are going to have to go back to that same well, which had some higher prices in the last auction. .

Okay. And just to clarify, let's display commercial and industry like there so clear that $66 a megawatt day for PSE&G. Just if you have any thoughts on that?

Yes. I mean I think it's still coming from the same supplier base just with a different calculation going to them. And I think the same ability to shop is going to exist there. So I think you've got a parallel dynamic that's going on within that sector as well. .

Our final question is from the line of Anthony Crowdell with Mizuho.

Just a quick follow-up to Paul Patterson and kind of the comments you're making about maybe the PGM market I don't know if you said it doesn't exist or whatever. Just is the State of New Jersey in a net long position on generation? And if so, what's the reserve margin there? Or do you have a reserve mark?

Yes. So the state of New Jersey does not have an integrated resource plan. So there's not a reserve margin set for the state of New Jersey than anybody can quote you but we are short, right? So if you look at some of the information that's out there, New Jersey is a net importer, especially on the peak days. So we look to and PJM has still -- the last numbers I saw were -- we had about 2% more margin than what their target was, right? The question is, as this load comes in, where do we move to and where does that reserve margin get to, which is the need for the additional generation and the resource adequacy conversation we keep having.

Right. So as Ralph said, peak times is going to be different than off-peak seasonal. It matters a lot when you are talking about it, but across the year, we are a net importer. .

One of the options is just a question. Obviously, you said you need a resource adequacy plan. But is it similar to maybe other states that have gone maybe like -- I've got the acronym, I think maybe FRR or just pulled out the generation and the load, is that one of the multitude of options that the state could face? Or should we be thinking about something different?

Yes. No, I absolutely believe that that's something that the state could consider, right? The state could go in a bunch of different paths, but Deca is the -- I keep referring back to that from back in the 2000 time frame when we deregulated and the rules were put in place. And we count on PJM, right? And that's the market that's out there. So when I say I'm not sure about what kind of market it is. It's a market that has been influenced by and by a number of factors.

And so they're trying to balance affordability and reliability with a free market, and that's a tough thing to do. So we'll see where it goes. But it's certainly something that, from a state of New Jersey standpoint, we're going to keep banging the desk about because we've got to get it right as we participate in that market.

Thank you. I'd like to turn the floor back to Mr. LaRossa for closing comments. .

Well, thank you, Rob. So look, I think we had a lot of conversation about where we expected it to be, which was on a lot of the nuclear output in the potential data centers and so on and so forth. But I don't want to lose sight for 1 minute of all the good work that was completed back in 2024. And that's -- we do a fantastic job day in and day out, and that shows up in a multitude of areas. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And we look forward to seeing you on one of the roadshows. Thanks. .

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