This conference call transcript was computer generated and almost certianly contains errors. This transcript is provided for information purposes only.EarningsCall, LLC makes no representation about the accuracy of the aforementioned transcript, and you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the information provided by the transcript.
spk12: Hello, and welcome to the First Energy Corp second quarter 2024 earnings conference call. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to turn the call over to Irene Prezel, Vice President, Investor Relations and Communications. Please go ahead, Irene.
spk00: Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to First Energy's second quarter 2024 earnings review. Our President and Chief Executive Officer, Brian Tierney, will lead our call today, and he will be joined by John Taylor, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Our earnings release, presentation slides, and related financial information are available on our website at firstenergycorp.com. Today's discussion will include the use of non-GAAP financial measures and forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause our results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements can be found in our SEC filings. The appendix of today's presentation includes supplemental information along with the reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures. Now it's my pleasure to turn the call over to Brian.
spk08: Thank you, Irene. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us today and for your interest in First Energy. Today I will review our financial performance and highlights for the second quarter, as well as our progress executing our business plan. I will also provide updates on recent regulatory and legacy issue developments, discuss trends we are seeing in the industry, and review the value proposition we offer our shareholders. Looking at our second quarter results, GAAP earnings were $0.08 per share in the second quarter of 2024 compared to $0.41 per share last year. We recorded a number of special items that impacted second quarter gap results, which John will address in a few minutes. Operating earnings for the quarter were 56 cents per share versus 47 cents per share last year, an increase of 19%. Positively impacting second quarter operating earnings were rate adjustments and associated investments to better serve our customers. Customer demand was also a positive impact for the quarter, with weather-adjusted residential and commercial sales up 4% and 7%, respectively. These positive impacts were partially offset by higher planned operations and maintenance expenses and expected dilution from the 30% sale of FET. The items driving growth for the quarter point to the expected trend of improving utility earnings quality. Our capital investments to improve the customer experience increase 22% for the first six months of the year. This is reflective of our improved balance sheet that enables our energized 365 capital plan. We are executing well in 2024 and are on track to achieve the goals we've outlined. Today, we are reaffirming our 2024 operating earnings guidance range of $2.61 per share to $2.81 per share. We are reaffirming our 2024 CapEx plan of $4.3 billion versus $3.7 billion in 2023. And we are reaffirming our 6% to 8% long-term annual operating earnings growth rate. June 1st marked my one-year anniversary with First Energy. Our employees have made a significant amount of progress in the last year, positioning the company for success. From an operations standpoint, We have organized First Energy into four new segments representing our five major businesses. We have restructured the company into a strong operating company model and recruited external and promoted internal executives to lead these businesses. These changes put leadership, responsibility, and decision-making closer to the customer. We are investing in our people by engaging with our unions to enact mid-cycle pay adjustments to help ensure we are paying competitive wages to our representative workforce. We started an effort to hire journey-level line workers to better serve our customers, and we are forming a new apprenticeship program to further support a skilled and well-trained workforce to serve our customers going forward. Regarding capital investment, we initiated our new five-year $26 billion capital investment program, Energize 365, to enable the energy transition and improve reliability and the customer experience. Energize 365 represents a 44% increase in investment over our previous five-year plan. On the regulatory front, we concluded constructive regulatory engagements in Maryland, New Jersey, and West Virginia, representing 35% of First Energy's rate base. In Ohio, we currently have three traditional rate proceedings in flight. We received a constructive order in May for our ESP5 case, but one that left a number of unresolved issues. We have asked for rehearing on those issues and are seeking to obtain more clarity during this phase. We filed a partial settlement agreement in our GridMod2 case in April, focused on deploying automated meters for all of our customers. Hearings concluded on this non-controversial issue on July 2nd, and we are anticipating an order in the fourth quarter. We filed our base rate case in late May requesting a 10.8% ROE and an average equity ratio of approximately 55%. We will be updating that filing today to reflect changes from the ESP5 order and other updates. We expect this case to continue well into 2025. In Pennsylvania, we filed a base rate case in early April requesting a $502 million rate adjustment including an 11.3% ROE and an equity ratio of 53.8%. As is customary in Pennsylvania, we will engage with intervening parties in an effort to reach a settlement prior to the scheduled hearings in mid-August. New rates are expected to be effective January 1st of 2025. Also in Pennsylvania, we filed our Long-Term Infrastructure Investment Plan 3 on July 22nd. This five-year plan will result in approximately $1.6 billion in investments to support enhanced reliability. The proposed LTIP 3 is about twice the investment of the prior plan and demonstrates our ability to invest our strong balance sheet for the benefit of our customers. Finally, in New Jersey, we are currently in settlement discussions for our Energize New Jersey plan, which was filed in November and updated in February. This is a $935 million plan designed to upgrade Jersey Central Power & Light's electric grid infrastructure using modern technology and smart devices to help reduce the size and duration of outages. We are currently in settlement discussions and hope to reach a constructive outcome. From a financial standpoint, the strides First Energy made over the past year to improve its balance sheet were nothing short of remarkable. On March 25th, the company closed its transaction to sell 30% of FET. This was the final transaction of a multi-year $7 billion equity raise that has transformed the future prospects of the company. On July 17th, the company received the last $1.2 billion of the $3.5 billion sale. This cash has been used to pay down short and long-term debt and re-equitize our operating companies. Rating agencies have taken notice with all three rating First Energy Corp's senior unsecured rating as investment grade and S&P and Fitch retaining positive outlooks. Last week, S&P increased FET's senior unsecured rating from BBB- to BBB+, and retains its positive outlook. This two-notch upgrade reflects FET's enhancements in liquidity, governance, and cash management practices and places FET's senior unsecured credit rating at or above the ratings of our fully regulated utilities. This significantly strengthened balance sheet represents a major transformation for First Energy, as well as a significant differentiator for many of our peers. It is on the basis of this balance sheet that we were able to introduce Energize 365 and make the investments needed to enable the energy transition and improve reliability and the customer experience. Many of our peers still have to raise significant amounts of equity to continue to grow or will have to issue large debt volumes at higher rates. First Energy does not have to do either. The balance sheet component of our transformation is complete. We are now focused on executing our operating and regulatory plans for the benefit of our customers. Turning to slide nine, let's talk about data centers. We are getting a fair number of load study requests from data center developers across our service area. Large load studies for this type of development have more than doubled from last year. We are fortunate that in much of our service territory, we have excess transmission capacity to serve this and other economic development priorities. This capacity comes from previous manufacturing, processing, and generating facilities. We are also participating in the PJM open windows related to Dennett Data Center and other load growth. We were successful last year in the Window 3 RTIP solicitation process, and we'll be submitting proposals for the current one. Generation resource adequacy has become a very hot topic over the past year. It appears that load growth and baseload generating retirements could outpace dispatchable generating resource additions. As you know, in four of our five states, we are wires-only utilities. We are working with customers, states, and other interested parties to help ensure there is adequate capacity to meet growing load and enable the energy transition. Finally, regarding potential retail tariff changes, we are reviewing our current tariffs and think there is enough flexibility to allow us to negotiate terms for us to serve new loads and at the same time, maintain existing customer protections. We need to be able to serve all loads affordably. If we find the need for future tariff adjustments, we will file them on a state by state basis. During the second quarter, we made significant progress resolving legacy issues. On July 21st, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Ohio filed a status report confirming that First Energy successfully completed the obligations it was required to perform for a three-year period under the deferred prosecution agreement, including remediation measures and the implementation of a compliance and ethics program. As a result, the reporting requirements related to those obligations have ended. As provided under the DPA, we will continue to fully cooperate with the DOJ on other outstanding matters, and we will continue other reporting obligations. This was an important step as we put the past behind us and move forward as a stronger company with a robust culture of ethics, integrity, and compliance. We have reached an agreement in principle with the SEC staff, subject to the approval of the Commission, which would settle the SEC's security claims against First Energy. The proposed settlement is based on the facts set forth in the DPA. We have recorded a reserve of $100 million for this settlement. Similarly, we are in the final stages of a resolution with the Ohio Organized Crime Investigations Commission. The resolution is expected to include a non-prosecution agreement based on the facts in the DPA and is expected to resolve the Ohio Attorney General's civil case against First Energy. We have recorded a reserve of $19.5 million in anticipation of resolving both Ohio matters. The three docketed cases related to these legacy issues continue to move forward at the PUCO. An audit report is due on August 28th on the political and charitable spending review. Discovery continues and hearing is scheduled for October 9th on the corporate separation review. Discovery is ongoing with the hearing scheduled for February 3rd on the Rider DMR slash DCR audit. We continue to cooperate in these audits and appreciate that these cases are the appropriate form for review of this activity and not our business as usual rate cases. Let's take a moment to review First Energy's value proposition to shareholders. Our six to 8% operating earnings growth rate is predicated on an average annual growth and rate base of 9%. Our ability to invest in our system for the benefit of our customers is enabled by our strong balance sheet. We have the need, opportunity and means to make the necessary investments to enable the energy transition and improve reliability and the customer experience. First Energy has an attractive low risk profile that supports solid BBB credit metrics. We are targeting a 14 to 15% FFO to debt profile over the horizon and do not anticipate incremental equity needs for our Energize 365 investment plan beyond our employee benefit programs. The increase of traditional utility earnings means that our earnings quality has improved and our customer affordability is expected to remain strong for the foreseeable future. Our long-term annual operating earnings growth rate combined with our dividend represent a total shareholder return proposition of 10 to 12%. We have made significant progress on strengthening our balance sheet, restructuring our business, putting legacy issues behind us, and focusing on our operational, regulatory, and financial plans. The men and women of First Energy are singularly focused on that execution and serving our customers. Before I turn the call over to John, I would like to mark two significant management transitions for First Energy. Two executives have recently notified me of their decision to retire after many years of service to the company. Chris Walker, our Chief Human Resources Officer, will be retiring with nearly 39 years of service. I would like to thank Chris personally for all she has done for me over the past year and also thank her for her many years of dedicated service on behalf of our employees. We owe Chris a debt of gratitude and wish her well in retirement. After more than 40 years of service, Irene Prezel has decided to retire. Many of you have gotten to know Irene as our head of investor relations and communications. For many years, Irene has been the face of the company to investors and the public alike. We are grateful to Irene for her leadership and dedication to serving our employees, investors, customers, and the public. We wish her the best going forward. With that, I will turn the call over to John.
spk11: Thank you, Brian, and good morning, everyone. I also want to extend my sincere gratitude and best wishes to Chris and Irene. They have been great to work with over the years and have always been there for me and the employees of the company. I wish them every bit of happiness in their retirement. Today I'll review our financial performance, discuss economic and customer trends, and provide an update on our regulatory and financial initiatives. Let's start by reviewing the larger special items that impacted our second quarter gap results. These include increased asset retirement obligations recognized in connection with the planned transfer of a legacy impoundment site to a third party and the impact from the new EPA legacy coal combustion residuals rule. Cost associated with redeeming high cost debt using the proceeds from the FET transaction. Charges connected to the anticipated resolution of the OOCIC and SEC investigations, partially offset by the receipt of insurance proceeds associated with the shareholder derivative lawsuit settlement, and regulatory charges resulting from a commitment in the Ohio ESP-5 order. We continue to see strong execution on our energized 365 capital investment program, solid financial discipline, and a culture of continuous improvement. And because of that, we delivered second quarter operating earnings of 56 cents per share, which is above the midpoint of our guidance and compares to 47 cents per share for the second quarter of 2023. The results primarily reflect new base rates in our integrated business, strong invested capital across all of our businesses in formula rate investment programs, and significantly higher year-over-year customer demand. Looking at our segment results for the quarter, in our distribution business, operating earnings were 22 cents per share compared to 24 cents per share in the second quarter of last year. This reflects plan increases in operating expenses we discussed previously, partially offset by higher customer demand and rate-based growth in formula rate investment programs, and a lower customer rate credit in Ohio as part of our 2021 earnings test settlement. In our integrated segment, operating earnings were 21 cents per share versus 12 cents per share in the second quarter of last year. Results primarily reflect new base rates in Maryland, West Virginia and New Jersey that went into effect over the past eight months, rate-based growth in distribution and transmission formula rate investment programs, and the impact of higher customer demand, partially offset by a higher effective tax rate. Operating earnings in our standalone transmission segment were 14 cents per share compared to 18 cents per share in the second quarter of 2023. Year-over-year rate base increased more than 10% as a result of our transmission investment program, But this was offset by the dilution from the 30% interest sale of First Energy Transmission LLC to Brookfield, which closed in March of this year. Finally, in our corporate segment, losses were $0.01 per share versus $0.07 per share in the second quarter of 2023. This improvement is the result of ongoing lower financing costs from the redemption of high-cost debt. More detail on our second quarter and year-to-date results can be found in the strategic and financial highlights document we posted to our IR website yesterday afternoon. Looking ahead, we are providing guidance of 85 to 95 cents per share for the third quarter, which reflects the continued impacts of new base rates in our integrated business, continued rate-based growth, and higher customer demand, partially offset by a lower planned earnings contribution from Signal Peak. And as Brian mentioned earlier, we are reaffirming our 2024 guidance of $2.61 to $2.81 per share, as well as our long-term 6% to 8% annual operating earnings growth rate. In his remarks, Brian shared a look at the trends related to data center growth in our service territory. I want to expand on that by taking a quick look at some of the broader economic and load activity in our region. Recent economic trends over the past year are positive in our region, including GDP that has averaged just over 2% for the past year and employment growth of just under 1.5% over the past 12 months. And from a customer demand perspective, we're seeing positive weather adjusted customer demand of 1% over the last 12 months, primarily resulting from increases of 1.3% in the commercial and 1.1% in the industrial customer classes. with demand in the auto and services sectors of 14% and 7% respectively. And so we believe we're in a great position to serve our customers and our investment program will adjust as needed to ensure capacity and reliable service. From a financing plan perspective, earlier this month we received the remaining $1.2 billion in proceeds from the $3.5 billion, 30% FET interest sale to Brookfield. You'll recall that we received the initial proceeds of $2.3 billion when the transaction closed in March, the remaining $1.2 billion in an interest bearing notes that were extinguished with Brookfield's final payment on July 17th. We're deploying those proceeds in a credit accretive manner consistent with our plan to further transform our balance sheet and support our Energize 365 grid investment program. As we've discussed, the sale completes a series of transactions over the last two and a half years that resulted in nearly $7 billion in equity capital at an equivalent share price of $87 a share or 36 times trailing PE multiple. In total, these proceeds were used for over $3 billion in high-cost debt redemptions at FECorp, including the remaining $460 million of the 2031 bonds in the second quarter. nearly $2 billion in utility long-term debt redemptions, and $2 billion to pay off short-term debt that would have otherwise been financed with long-term debt at our utilities. Following the closing of this transaction in March, our corporate credit rating was upgraded by Moody's and S&P, restoring it to investment grade at all three rating agencies. The credit ratings at our subsidiaries were also upgraded, and this momentum continued last week as S&P further upgraded FET and its subsidiaries. Going forward, our focus is on continued execution of our plan, achieving credit-supportive regulatory outcomes, moving past legacy issues, and financing our robust investment plan in a credit-supportive manner, consistent with a BBB flat credit profile. Additionally, earlier this month, we launched a request for proposal for a second pension lift-out transaction to eliminate the remaining $700 million in non-regulated pension liability. This transaction is successful, would eliminate all non-regulated pension liability, further reduce pension volatility, and improve the quality of earnings of the company. Recall that in December of last year, we executed the first pension lift-out transaction, removing approximately $720 million of pension liability at 95 cents on the dollar. Turning now to recent regulatory activity. In Ohio, we filed our base rate review on May 31st. The request was for a $94 million rate adjustment on rate base of $4.3 billion, a 10.8% proposed return on equity, and a 55% equity capitalization ratio based on a 2024 test year. The rate adjustment supports recovery investments in the distribution system and customer experience enhancements while keeping rates affordable for customers. The case includes recovery of investments in riders DCR and AMI, which includes the GridMod 1 capital investments in base rates and resetting those riders to zero. It also includes a request to change the recovery of pension costs from service cost only to total pension costs, including previously incurred actuarial losses, as well as a request for a pension tracking mechanism to avoid volatility in the future. And it includes recovery of other costs previously incurred, including the major storm restoration costs, and a program to convert streetlights to LEDs. Today, the Ohio companies will file an update to the base rate case review filing with an updated rate request. The update is necessary to include the impacts addressed in the May 15th ESP-5 order and to update 2024 test year financial information through May 31st to reflect actual operating results. Our initial request represents an estimated overall bill impact for typical residential customers ranging from a rate decrease of 1.3% in Toledo Edison to a 3.5% increase in CEI, or an average increase of 1.4% across Ohio. Also in Ohio, on May 15th, the PUCO issued an order approving our ESP-5 with modifications, which became effective June 1st. The order extended Rider DCR through the conclusion of the base rate case, but excluded certain investments from recovery in Rider DCR. The order also provided for recovery of vegetation management expenses for the first two years of the ESP and prospective deferral of major storm expenses. While we appreciate the support for key terms of our ESP-5 in the near term, the order did not provide clarity regarding these key terms of the ESP for the entire five-year period. with many directed to the base rate case for resolution. We subsequently filed an application for rehearing, seeking greater certainty regarding key terms, as well as proposed modifications, which included shortening the ESP5 term to three years, providing full recovery of investments in the DCR through the conclusion of the base rate case, and other proposals that preserve the economic value of the order for customers. Earlier this month, the P.U.C.O. granted the applications for rehearing filed by all parties for the purposes of further consideration. This step gives the P.U.C.O. more time to make its final decision. There is no statutory deadline for the decision. This summer, hearings were held in our Ohio Grid Mod 2 settlement, and we anticipate an order during the fourth quarter. In Pennsylvania, earlier this month, we filed the third phase of our Long-Term Infrastructure Improvement Plan, known as LTIP 3. which is part of our Energize 365 investment program. LTIP 3 includes a total projected investments of $1.6 billion over five years. Building on the projects completed in LTIP 1 and LTIP 2, the third phase of the program supplements reliability investments and includes both grid modernization and system resiliency projects. This includes target investments to accelerate infrastructure improvements and help enhance service reliability for the more for more than 2 million customers in the state, while remaining focused on affordability. Investments are recovered through a distribution system improvement charge, or DISC, based on actual capital structure and the benchmark ROE, which is currently 9.8%. The cumulative average residential customer rate impact recovered through DISC is $2.88, or a 2% increase. Pending PUC approval, We expect capital deployment to begin in the first quarter of 2025 with disc revenues estimated to begin in the second quarter of 2026. Also in Pennsylvania, in mid-August, hearings will begin in our base rate review filed in April. As we discussed on last quarter's call, this is a request for a $502 million rate adjustment on rate base of $7.2 billion with an 11.3% proposed return on equity and a 53.8% equity capitalization ratio. The review builds on our service reliability enhancements in Pennsylvania with additional investments in a smart, modern electric grid and customer-focused programs, while keeping rates comparable to other utilities in the state. Key components include implementing a 10-year enhanced vegetation management program to reduce tree-caused outages, reduce outage restoration time, and reduce future maintenance costs. recovery of costs associated with major storms, COVID-19, and LED streetlight conversions, changing pension recovery from average cash contributions to traditional pension expense, including previously recognized actuarial losses. The review also includes a blended federal statutory tax rate of approximately 27%, but also continues to provide customer savings from previous legislative changes to federal and state tax rates. Additionally, the application proposes a pension OPEB normalization mechanism to track and defer differences between actual and test year expense to reduce volatility from the pension. And as Brian mentioned, we are engaging with the intervening parties in an effort to reach settlement prior to the scheduled hearings in mid-August. Finally, in addition to the settlement discussions on our Energize New Jersey infrastructure improvement proposal, We were also engaged in settlement discussions for our New Jersey Energy Efficiency and Conservation Plan. This plan, which was filed with the BPU in December 2023, covers the period from January 1st, 2025 through June 30th, 2027, with a proposed budget of approximately $964 million. It consists of a portfolio of programs addressing energy efficiency, peak demand reduction, and building decarbonization. with recovery of lost revenues and provides a return on the investments. The BPU suspended the procedural schedule July 1st in light of these settlement discussions. A final BPU decision and order is required no later than October 15th of this year. So we're making good progress in 2024. We're executing well. We have a strong strategy and opportunities to continue our positive momentum and growth. Thank you for your time today. I'll open the call to your questions.
spk12: Thank you. At this time, we'll be conducting a question and answer session. If you'd like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star 2 if you'd like to remove your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star keys. One moment, please, while we poll for questions. Our first question comes from Shar Perez with Guggenheim Partners. Please proceed with your question. Hey, guys. Good morning.
spk08: Morning, Shar.
spk13: Morning, Brian. Just a couple quick ones here. Brian, just on the growth numbers out there, obviously you're highlighting the opportunities around data centers and kind of large energy-intensive consumers. You have transmission capacity to take on the load, but you still have this kind of 1% load growth figure out there. You know, a lot of your peers have been raising expectations. Some are quantifying the impacts. I guess what's holding you back and how and when are you thinking about updating investors around potential upsides there? Thanks.
spk08: Thank you for that, Sean. We're going through our evaluation of our future load growth rate right now. Look, we're seeing some things that are positive from the data center side, some of those still a few years out. We're seeing some positive impacts from adoption of EVs in places like Maryland and New Jersey. But overall, we're still seeing, you know, modest, steady load growth and not seeing it knock out of the park at this point. There's been so much talk about data centers, Char, and when we look at it, even if we get the load growth, they're generally taking service at a transmission level. which isn't as earnings impactful. Today, it could be rate impactful in a positive way to our existing customers as we spread some of that existing capacity over more units. But the real opportunity for us around data centers has been around things like the PJM Open Window 3, where we were awarded about $800 million worth of opportunity to invest in the transmission system to serve some of that data center load that's in that Northern Virginia panhandle of Maryland area. So that's where we've seen more impact from the data centers, but more to be seen. And I anticipate probably around EEI will be able to update you on the low growth.
spk13: Okay, perfect. And then lastly, and maybe somewhat related, it's been noisy around sort of co-located nuclear data center deals in PJM. I mean, some of your current states like in Pennsylvania and Ohio could see similar deals like we saw with Susquehanna and AWS. I guess, why haven't you filed at FERC around the Susquehanna ISA docket when most of your peers have? And what's your stance on the current complaint out there? Thanks.
spk08: Yeah, so thank you for that question. Look, I think those are things that FERC will figure out in time. It's not as business impactful to us at this point, given our service territory and where we are. And I'm interested to see what FERC has to say about that. I'm not sure what their tools are to be able to block something like that, what their view is on whether or not it takes net capacity out of the market, and what that would do for existing customers. You know, we just saw some pretty high prints on the PJM capacity auction yesterday. I think people are looking to that mechanism to solve generation resource adequacy. I'm not sure it really does, right? That's one print in that auction that happened yesterday. There was virtually no new generating capacity was offered. And I just don't think that a one-year print or a two-year print or a three-year print is going to solve that problem and attract significant increased investment into the PJM region. It's something we need to figure out. It's important for our customers. We're actively engaged in that discussion. But I don't think the PJM auction is the place where that issue is going to be solved.
spk13: Got it, Brighton. And just a quick follow-up on that. Are you referring to potentially owning a certain amount of peaking assets and rates? Is that what the discussions are?
spk08: So the issue is how could we help that happen? You know, in certain of our states today, we're not allowed to own capacity. In West Virginia, we do. In Maryland, under circumstances, we could. In Ohio, under certain circumstances, we could. But in other states, we'd have to have legal challenges to allow that to happen. And if our states were to come to us and say, we would like you to invest in some form of dispatchable generation for the life of the asset at a regulated return, Those are things that we think would benefit our customers if other people aren't adding the capacity, and today they're not, and those are discussions that we think would be constructive on behalf of our customers.
spk13: Okay, perfect. Fantastic, guys. We'll see you soon. Thank you again.
spk08: Thanks, sir.
spk12: Our next question comes from Steve Fleshman with Wolf Research. Please proceed with your question.
spk10: Yeah, hi. Good morning. First, I don't know if Irene started working there when she was 10 years old, but congrats to Irene on 40 years and her retirement. I guess first question, just on Pennsylvania, you mentioned you're getting close to settlement discussions there. Just any sense yet on kind of the likelihood that you might be able to reach a settlement in Pennsylvania?
spk08: So thanks for that, Steve. Those talks are in early discussions. Um, and you know, it's, we would always like to reach a settlement and present that to the commission, but I'd say early stages at this point, and we're optimistic that we'll be able to get something done hopefully, uh, before the hearings in August.
spk10: Okay. And then just on the, uh, going to Ohio on the ESP five, the, uh, I guess the benefit you're seeking to kind of keep it a shorter period, it sounds like, the benefit of that is that you'll have less time to kind of just be there with an ESP with this limited definition, or do you really want to just get better definition over the life of the ESP of some of these clauses?
spk08: Here's what happens, Steve. Yeah. The commission punted some key aspects of ESP5 to the base rate case. And so it's hard for us to accept a five-year plan when there's uncertainty beyond the current rate case. And so if we were to time those things up a little better and get more certainty on it, it's easier for us to accept an ESP5 over a five-year term with more certainty. It's really hard for us to know what's going to happen to certain of those items that got punted after we get a resolution in the base rate case.
spk10: Got it. That's right. And then obviously it's your decision whether to accept an ESP or not. So that's part of the, got it. Okay. And just, I know you mentioned that you are, you know, I guess far enough on some of the Ohio issues to, to take a reserve on those this quarter. Just, Maybe you could just talk to, and then resolving the DPA2 period, could you maybe just talk to kind of your overall take on the environment there and how First Energy is viewed these days?
spk08: Yeah, so thank you for that, Steve. Look, we've worked very, very hard to take responsibility for what happened in the past, make any payment and penalties that we need to, and move on beyond that. The thing that was very positive this quarter was in three of those issues, we made some real significant progress. First, there was the filing by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Ohio, recognizing that the three-year term of the DPA had ended and that we'd been fully compliant with the requirements during that term. Second, we were able to make progress on the OOCIC. Um, and we were able to take a reserve for the amount that we think will be required, uh, to put that behind us. And then third, we were able to make progress, uh, achieving an agreement in principle subject to commission approval with the sec. So across all fronts, we're making real progress on putting those legacy issues behind us and focusing on the future. And I think it's being well received in all of those venues.
spk10: Great.
spk08: Thank you. Thank you, Steve.
spk12: Our next question comes from Jeremy Tenet with JPMorgan Chase. Please proceed with your question.
spk09: Hi. Good morning.
spk12: Good morning, Jeremy.
spk09: I just want to follow up a little bit more on some of the earlier points on power prices here. And given the rise in both capacity and energy prices, just wondering how you think about this impacts customers, build headroom there. And just do you see any potential efforts out there to kind of, you know, curb this? Could you share any thoughts on potential for state legislation to support new generation, states to form a strategic reserve, multiple VIUs coming together for a larger consolidated IRP, greater FRR use, or just in general, do you see anything happening to stem higher price?
spk08: Jeremy used just about every acronym we have in the industry in that question. That was amazing. Here are some of the things that we're doing right now, right? It was late breaking news yesterday afternoon. So we're going by a jurisdiction by jurisdiction analysis of the impact of a couple of things. One is the higher capacity print that we saw yesterday, but we also still have some energy prices in there that are reflective of the, um, the Ukrainian impact on gas prices and electricity prices in the United States. And some of those are rolling off at the same time those higher capacity prices will be rolling in. So we're trying to determine right now in a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis how that will happen and what the impact to our customers will be. In West Virginia, we think the impact will be kind of a wash. We have about the amount of capacity that our West Virginia customers need. and buying and selling at those amounts, we don't expect there to be a significant impact in the state of West Virginia. As we look forward to the other states, right, we have what I would say among the most progressive energy policy states in the country and among the most traditional as well. So I think West Virginia's traditionally been responsive to being pro-coal, but also all of the above. We've added some solar there recently. And I'd like to see if in our next IRP we might be able to add some combined cycle gas in West Virginia in addition to that. And then in some of the other states where we're wires only, we're open to any construct that would allow us to invest in capacity on something that looks like a regulated basis. So if we were to have in Pennsylvania and Ohio something that looked like NYSERDA or NYPA where a state agency could buy at long-term capacity that they might hold an auction for that anyone, competitive generators, regulated generators, could offer into those auctions if it looked like a regulated basis and we could offer in a price that would allow us something that looked like a regulated return and allow us to recover on a pass-through basis uh, fuel and energy, those are things that we'd be willing to do. The thing we wouldn't be willing to do would be start competitive generation of our own. That's something that, uh, we've recently come out of. We paid a heavy price for that. We've rebuilt our balance sheet, uh, uh, in the wake of that. And that's not a place that we're going to be going back to, but other things, other opportunities that could benefit our customers have the capacity that they need be responsive from a price standpoint.
spk09: are all things that are on the table and are all things we're talking to our states about got it that's clear competitive generation then they've done that yep just wanted to pivot uh a bit here a smaller question just wondering if you could speak to the size of cost savings that you guys are expecting with uh some of the facility optimization uh moves you're making uh you know shrinking uh changing locations just where those initiatives stand today and What can we expect for timing impact of that and other kind of cost-saving initiatives on your radar?
spk11: Hey, Jeremy, it's John. I think we'll see some savings associated with, you know, for instance, getting out of the general office headquarters here in Akron and moving over to an owned building. You know, but those savings, I would say, are fairly minimal in the grand scheme of things. You know, where we're really trying to focus our efforts on continuous improvement and taking cost out of the business is really around our productivity of our workforce, investing in infrastructure and data and technology that will help us drive better decision-making, faster decision-making. And we have some pretty aggressive targets on productivity of our workforce so we can make sure that we get contractors off the property, that we do our work ourselves. That's where the bulk of the savings are coming from. And in fact, if you look over the last couple of years, we've done a pretty nice job of taking cost out with about $200 million of cost savings in 23, about a hundred million of that was sustainable and we're targeting $70 million of cost savings this year. Um, so we'll continue to do what we can to offset inflation going forward. And that's part of our plan.
spk09: got it that's very helpful and just i forgot to mention with my earlier question if um as far as offshore wind is concerned is um is that anything that is uh on your radar at all or um or really just kind of the transmission side just wanted to check on that i'll tell you what our favorite part of offshore wind is it's the on-land part and and we are investing a significant amount of money
spk08: to shore up the transmission system in New Jersey to enable their initiatives to have significant offshore wind come ashore in our service territory. And we're making hundreds of millions of dollars of investments to enable that. And that's the part of offshore wind that we want to participate in.
spk09: Understood. Appreciate it. Thank you.
spk08: Thanks, Jeremy.
spk12: Our next question comes from Nick Campanella with Barclays. Please proceed with your question.
spk02: Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Good morning, Nick. I know a lot of talk on PJM. I wanted to follow up in that, you know, Brian, I know you said that one print is not a signal, but we'll have another one in December. And, you know, my guess is that not much changes just given the lead times. to build this generation. And I guess my question is, is there a tipping point? You know, if this is kind of truly a step change in the environment, is there any need to reevaluate how you deploy capital? Or are you very comfortable kind of where you are right now?
spk08: Thanks. Look, so thank you for the question, Nick. Look, I think it's interesting. I'd call yesterday's print the canary in the coal mine, and the canary didn't make it. If you look at what's happened with the IPP prices over the course of the year, they are all anticipating higher prices in the years going forward. If you look at the amount of new generation that cleared in the auction yesterday, according to PJM's auction report, it was like 100 megawatts, so essentially nil. uh in the auction prior to that it was about 300 megawatts again not not the right amount if people were to respond to yesterday's print and say yeah i think it's a good idea to invest in baseload dispatchable generation and pjm it would be six years before that capacity would come online the reality is that we can increase load and build data centers uh almost immediately And it takes years of planning, permitting and procuring and construction to build a power plant. So I think it's indicative of the future, but it certainly doesn't solve the problem. So what we're going to do is what we need to do is enable the energy transmission. You need a robust grid to be able to do that. PJM keeps opening these open windows. There's a current one open that we will be submitting proposals to. We just had significant action that we won in the last one, and we'll continue to do that. And we're going to engage in the discussion constructively with our states, regulators, and customers to see if there's a way that we could deploy our balance sheet capacity for generation that looked regulated-like to us and our investors. That's how we're viewing the lay of the land right now. I don't have the silver bullet. That's the solution that will solve this tomorrow or in two years or in three years. But we're engaged in that discussion. I just don't think the PJM construct is going to fix the issue even if it sends some positive price signals.
spk02: Hey, and thanks. I really appreciate your thoughts on all that. And then, you know, you brought up the balance sheet capacity. And, you know, one thing that we've noticed is obviously you've done a great job de-risking the balance sheet this year. You're really not relying much on capital markets this year either. And I know you kind of are working towards another update, you know, maybe in the fall or later in the year. Just as you roll forward, presumably the CapEx plan fees pressure higher. And how are you kind of thinking about financing that? Is this a plan that kind of continues to have you know, sizable balance sheet capacity where we, you know, equity on a roll forward. Thank you.
spk11: Hey, Nick, this is John. So we'll work through that as we, you know, do our long-term plan and update the investment community in the, you know, springtime or, you know, wintertime of next year. I would tell you, listen, you know, we got to balance a couple of different things. You know, we want to be at a triple B flat credit rating with, you Rating agencies were not there yet. If you look at where their thresholds are versus where our plan targets are, we do have some balance sheet capacity. I would say 4% of the CapEx program is probably in the right neighborhood, but there's going to be a lot of puts and takes as we think about the capital plan over the next, you know, five to 10 years that we'll have to consider. You know, is it base capital that you'll have regulatory lag, or is it formula rate transmission capital? Those are all things that are going to go into the mix. But we do have some balance sheet capacity, but I would probably peg it at less than 5% of the CapEx program.
spk02: That's really helpful. Appreciate that. Have a great day.
spk11: Thanks, Dave.
spk12: Our next question comes from Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question.
spk01: Hey, good morning. Thanks so much for taking my question. Just wanted to quickly go back to the load growth piece. Strong prints across both commercial and residential customer classes this quarter. Could you just talk a little bit about what's driving that and kind of how you see that evolving going forward?
spk11: Yeah, Carly, let me start with residential. I mean, we're just generally seeing at least this quarter higher average usage per customer across all of our jurisdictions. especially in areas like New Jersey and Maryland, which have a much more progressive energy policy with respect to electrification of vehicles or electrification of other industries. We also continue to see higher customer growth in Maryland, given some of the economic activity that we're seeing in that part of our service territory. So that's really what's driving the residential growth for the quarter. If you look at commercial, Commercial for us is kind of our small and medium sized businesses. This is a customer class that took a pretty hard hit after the COVID pandemic. We saw a pretty significant drop off. And now we're starting to see some of that rebound. And if you look at the last four quarters, three of the four have been higher quarter over quarter. And it's getting closer to what I would call pre-pandemic level usage. So those are really what are the drivers for the residential and commercial prints for the quarter.
spk01: Great. I appreciate that. I'll leave it there. Thank you.
spk08: Thank you, Carly.
spk12: Our next question comes from Michael Longan with Evercore ISI. Please proceed with your question.
spk03: Hi. Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. So in the Ohio rate case, obviously it's early on. But just wondering if you see an opportunity for, you know, ultimately reaching a settlement there. You reached a partial settlement in Gridmon 2 this year, you know, a settlement with the House Bill 6 refunds credits a few years ago. You know, now you're resolving some of the legacy issues in the state. But that being said, you know, ESP 5, there are some issues with that. So, you know, just wondering what your thoughts are about ultimately reaching a settlement there.
spk08: Michael, it's always our desire to reach a settlement in any of these rate cases. This one is something that I think is very much at its early stages. We'll be filing our update to the rate case filing later today. And then, of course, we'll be engaging with interveners and other interested parties as we work our way through the balance of 2024 and well into 2025. So, yes, always want to reach a settlement, always open to that. and always striving to do that in any case that we file.
spk03: Got it. Great. And then secondly for me, obviously the big CapEx increase earlier this year, the 44%, you know, an expectation is that you'll file more regular rate cases. You know, obviously you have the two big ones going on in Ohio and Pennsylvania right now, and you recently reached settlements in your other states. Just wondering how we should think about, you know, the jurisdictions and timings of your next rate cases.
spk08: Yeah, so thank you for that as well, Michael. Look, I have the belief that a well-run and growing utility should be going in for regular rate cases. We have a strong balance sheet. We have Energize 365, the CapEx plan that we're pursuing. By the way, we have a significant amount of our capital is covered under riders and trackers, but I think a very regular interaction with our regulators is something that we should be doing regularly. So I think in most jurisdictions we should be going in every two to three years at the max and updating rates, clearing out trackers and riders, getting them reflected in base rates, and then moving forward with those again. So I just think it's a hallmark of a growing utility. that you should be regularly engaging with your regulators.
spk03: Great. Thanks for taking my question.
spk08: Thank you, Michael.
spk12: Our next question comes from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Please proceed with your question.
spk07: Hey, good morning. Good morning, Paul. I wanted to echo Steve's congratulations to Irene, first of all. Well, all my questions have been answered, but just sort of back to the sort of the regulated or sort of central procurement ideas that you were throwing out there. I'm just wondering what jurisdictions in your distribution-only service territories do you think are more receptive to that idea than others? So those ideological issues that we're having, I mean, for whatever reason, some might be, you know, as logical as something might be, some might be a little bit more resistant or a little bit more receptive than others. I'm just thinking, any thoughts about in your discussions about who might be a little bit more open to that idea?
spk08: Yeah, so, Paul, you ask a politically fraught question. Look, I think the real need here in the near term is for baseload dispatchable generation. And we are ready, willing, and able to engage in all of our jurisdictions for anyone who would like to add that on a regulated type basis. You know, West Virginia has really said to us that coal is important to them, but everything should be in the tool bag in West Virginia, and we're willing to engage with them on that basis. Maryland and Ohio, under certain circumstances, we could add generation there, and Pennsylvania would take a legislative change. So, you know, we are open to all, and if they're open to us, we'd be willing to engage on that regulated type basis. And again, There are people that get upset and say, oh, you're going back to regulation. I don't think you have to go back to regulation. I think you can still have energy markets. I think you can still have retail choice where you have it today. But I also think you could have constructs like NYSERDA or NYPA where they could buy on behalf of the state's residents. And that doesn't have to be an end to competition. And they could even have auctions where all people could participate in that, utilities, independent power producers, and others. So for the people that say it has to be one or the other, I just don't think that's a valid premise.
spk07: I agree. Thanks a lot. Have a great one.
spk08: Thank you, Paul. Appreciate it.
spk12: Our next question is from Andrew Weissel with Scotiabank. Please proceed with your question. Hi, good morning.
spk14: I want to also congratulate Irene on an incredible career. And Chris, I don't know you, but looking at the number of new leaders who joined FE in the last year, I think you certainly deserve congratulations as well. Thank you for that.
spk08: We'll pass that on.
spk14: Just a couple quick ones on the balance sheets. I know you're targeting 14 to 15% FFO to debt consistent with prior guidance. Are you still on track to reach that by year end? Where does that metric stand as of June 30th after the FET proceeds? And I see you're still reiterating equity needs of up to $100 million per year, yet you've taken $120 million of reserves. Should those turn into cash outflows, would that ultimately require incremental equity as sort of a one-timer, or would you be able to satisfy that without more equity? And I recognize the timing of that would be very uncertain, but maybe just some thoughts on that.
spk11: Yep. Andrew, this is John. So we've made significant improvements in the metrics. Just if you look at where we are as of the trailing, you know, 630 numbers, close to 200 basis points of improvement. A lot of that is coming from higher FFO. But if you just look at our debt levels, they're about $2 billion below where they were this time last year. I do think we're going to be a little bit challenged this year to hit the 14%. A lot of that is because of the SEC and OOCIC accrual. If you were to back those out, we would be closer to the 14%. But longer term, we're going to be at 14% to 15%.
spk14: Okay. Does that mean by next year or will it be a little bit more than that?
spk11: It would be next year. It would be next year, so sometime like in probably the first, second, or third quarters of next year on a trailing basis, we would probably get to that 14% level.
spk14: Okay, great. Thank you. Then just a quick follow-up. Remind me, if you were to do a pension lift-out, would that be cash or non-cash?
spk11: Well, it would be funded through the pension plan. It would be non-cash to the company, but the pension plan would have to fund it. which would use the investments that it has on hand to fund that.
spk14: Right, okay, but it wouldn't require external financing.
spk11: No, no, no, that's right. If you think about what we did in December, we eliminated a $720 million liability by paying 95 cents on the dollar through the pension plan. So no external financing to the company.
spk14: Okay, very good. Thank you so much.
spk11: Thank you, Andrew.
spk12: Our next question comes from Greg Orrell with UBS. Please proceed with your question.
spk04: Yeah, thank you. And thank you, Irene. Appreciate it. Just a couple of timing questions just on the potential construct of, you know, a NYSERDA-type agency. What is the earliest, do you think, Something like that could get started in any of your states. And then just on grid mod two, I know you've got the partial settlement there. What's your thinking on sort of the timing to get that done? What has to be done there?
spk08: So let me take grid mod two first, Greg. Would anticipate an order in the fourth quarter of this year on the settlement that we proposed. So hope to get that done. like I said, this year, and we could start making those investments right away on the AMI. On the NYSERDA, it would require legislation changes in all of our jurisdictions to make that happen. And then they would have to have a process where they would run an auction to do that. So, you know, I'd say it's not a short-term process. It would require legislation change and then activation of that new entity. to do what it needs to do on behalf of its customers. So on behalf of the residents of the state rather than customers. The important thing about that is it could be a structural change that could be a path forward rather than an auction to auction, do I build, don't I build. There would actually be a structure for how the state would procure its incremental needs that could survive auctions, administrations, and the like, and it could be truly sustainable. And I think we need a sustainable solution here, even if it's not a short-term fix. Yep. Thank you.
spk12: Thank you, Greg. Our next question is from Anthony Croteau with Mizuho Securities. Please proceed with your question.
spk05: Hey, thanks for squeezing me in. Just one quick one, Brian. You talked about the PJM contract, maybe it's not going to, you know, it's struggled to attract new generation, canary in a coal mine, you know, all this. Do you think as we're in this period, while they're trying to figure out how to incentivize new generation, that could delay the economic growth or, you know, stall the economic growth or low growth that you should see in the region?
spk08: I don't think so, Anthony. You know, obviously we have capacity to use still. I think, you know, we're still serving capacity. We're still adding load. We still have transmission capacity to serve people. I think long term, it could be a problem for economic development and load growth. And I think that's why we need to solve it. So it's not happening now. It could happen going forward. And I think on a regional and statewide basis, That's why we need to think about this. We can't cede our competitiveness to other regions because we don't have the energy to serve them. And it's our job to make sure that doesn't happen. Great. Thanks for taking my questions. Thank you, Anthony.
spk12: We've reached the end of our question and answer session. And ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's teleconference webcast. You may disconnect your lines at this time and have a wonderful day. We thank you for your participation.
Disclaimer