Start 30 days free, no card. Full Pro access for a month, then decide. Start free
Analyst
Ross Fowler
Period: Reporting periods mapped to calendar 2024 Q4 – 2026 Q1 (6 quarters; questions recorded in 5).
- Questions
- 26on tracked calls
- Challenge rate
- 4%1 of 26 questions
- Companies
- 7questioned at least once
- Reporting periods
- 5with questions
These figures cover the whole profile: every tracked question, all reporting periods.
How to read these numbers
Challenge rate is the share of questions that pushed back, pressed for specifics or questioned management’s assumptions. It describes how questions were asked on the calls tracked here; it does not measure whether any view turned out to be right.
Rounding. Rates are rounded to whole percentages, so a small share can show as 0% even when some questions were challenging. The count beside each rate is exact; “none of N questions” means no question was challenging.
No questions recorded. “—” means there is nothing to calculate: no questions were recorded for that period on the calls tracked here. It does not mean there was no activity.
Fewer than 3 questions. A company-level rate is withheld when fewer than 3 questions were recorded for that company; the questions are still counted everywhere else.
Small samples. Profiles with fewer than 10 questions are marked Limited sample.
Reporting periods. Questions are grouped by the calendar quarter each company’s fiscal reporting period maps to, not by the date of the call. Periods without a calendar mapping are listed separately under their fiscal label.
Questions asked
Grouped by company, most questions first. Open a company to read its questions, newest reporting period first.
Showing 26 of 26 questions from 7 companies
AEPAmerican Electric Power7 questions · 3 reporting periods · 0 of 7 challenging
Calendar 2025 Q3
that looks like a pretty big earnings step-up as I look at the CAGR going out on the bars in 2028. Can you just kind of maybe Trevor, walk through the drivers of that?
Show response
Mihalik explained mid-plan CapEx peaks at ~$17B driving the earnings step-up. Positive legislative outcomes in Ohio (forward test year), Texas (HB5247), and Oklahoma (SB998) also contribute to the acceleration in 2028.
talking about $5.9 billion of equity in the plan. How are you thinking about the composition of the business? Do you think there's more potential for minority stake sell-downs?
Show response
Mihalik detailed ~33% equity for the $18B capital increase. ~$1B ATM in 2026, then no equity needed mid-plan, with block or ATM in back years. Fehrman confirmed no asset sales planned to fund the plan going forward.
Calendar 2025 Q2
the overall trajectory on the ROE trend from that 9.3% should push higher as well, if I think about that correctly
Show response
Mihalik confirmed Texas UTM should improve AEP Texas earned ROEs by 50-100 basis points from current 8.6%. Oklahoma SB998 will similarly help PSO's 8.3% earned ROE.
can you give us some color on the financing needs and the option for that incremental $16 billion?
Show response
Mihalik emphasized no near-term equity needs given pre-funding. Will use hybrids, growth equity, and growing operational cash flows. Formal financing plan at Q3 call.
Calendar 2024 Q4
Did you have a scaling of that versus the $2 billion you need in the current plan, or have you sort of not walked through all of that yet?
Show response
Michalek indicated securitization could cover a significant portion of the $2B remaining equity need if approved, benefiting both customers (lower rates) and AEP (filling the capital gap).
we've sort of seen, like, this idea where, you know, the off-taker would put in a significant portion of the capital and take more of the risk into that project?
Show response
Fehrman emphasized disciplined approach to SMR risk: filed DOE applications for two sites but far from firming up structures. Technology providers must back their product at an understandable price.
in that tariff, you know, have you disclosed what that rate is versus maybe other industrial commercial rates? Is it, like, a minimum power take requirement
Show response
Fehrman explained tariffs are project-specific cost allocations with multi-year commitments. Ohio tariff is data-center-specific while Indiana covers all large loads. Growth continues despite tariffs.
SRESempra7 questions · 3 reporting periods · 0 of 7 challenging
Calendar 2025 Q2
The incremental capital in Oncor in Texas and the transmission awards that you talked about in the deck, those are still outside the base plan with CCM coming in '27. How do you see the timing of a...
Show response
Jeff confirmed the $12B incremental CapEx is likely conservative, with a Board review in October and formal update sometime in 2026, driven by resolution of the base rate review.
does that mean to the extent you will or are discussing stake sales with third parties beyond the current investors that the strategic approach here on business mix is that the full stake is beyond...
Show response
Jeff outlined four value drivers (equity value, tax leakage, timing/use of proceeds, balance sheet cushion) but declined to guide to a higher equity sale level, noting flexibility to maximize value.
Calendar 2025 Q1
What would be the advantages or disadvantages of doing the rest of that 765 or 345
Show response
Allen explained 765 kV provides superior operational benefits including fewer right-of-ways and flexible generation siting, and Oncor owns over 1,300 endpoints.
KKR would be due on May 12th. And then we've got, if I've got it right, 10 business days for ADIA
Show response
Jeff clarified the sequential ROFR process and confirmed Q2 call as the appropriate time for an update.
Can you maybe talk about something in that program a little bit more specifically, like what you've achieved
Show response
Jeff detailed voluntary retirement programs, AI-driven call center improvements, and noted Oncor has lowest rates among Texas IOUs.
Calendar 2024 Q4
Just trying to understand kind of the moving pieces and maybe the magnitude of the moving pieces a little bit
Show response
Karen detailed the California GRC coming in below expectations, the FERC ISO adder ($20M impact), cost of capital decrease ($50M), and Oncor rate case timing as key drivers.
if I think about 7% to 9%, I'm just trying to think about the right base here. Should I think about that 7% to 9%, or now you're saying 9% off the 2026 base
Show response
Jeff clarified the 7-9% is a long-term sustained rate over 7-10 years, while within the 2025-2029 plan they expect to be at or above the high end.
FEFirstEnergy5 questions · 3 reporting periods · 0 of 5 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q1
you've got the NOPR out there, the colocated load order and the backstop procurement
Show response
Tierney wants large loads paying utility directly with utility earning return, similar to natural gas pipeline open season model. Opposes PJM as middleman in backstop procurement.
Calendar 2025 Q3
how are you thinking about the supply chain connected to that 1.2 gigawatts? Do you have a turbine in the queue
Show response
Tierney noted 3-4 year lead times (better than feared 4-5), haven't secured queue position yet but confident in regulatory framework to deliver by 2031.
How are you thinking about sort of the affordability pressures in that state
Show response
Tierney acknowledged political sensitivity despite understanding that generation is the driver; focused on O&M discipline and advocating against capacity auction costs.
Calendar 2025 Q2
How do you see those progressing from here? And when can we finally think about wrapping and closing that
Show response
Tierney confirmed no new issues raised in HB6 hearings, expects to put final period on proceedings by year-end.
what intervenors seem most concerned about through that process? And how would that shift your ability to have an opportunity to earn your allowed ROE
Show response
Tierney expects next rate case under new regime will be straightforward with limited historical review period and true-up mechanisms.
ESEversource Energy2 questions · 1 reporting period · 0 of 2 challenging
Calendar 2024 Q4
there's some legislative efforts in Connecticut to talk through or at least think about the statutory changes that were made around the Aquarion sale
Show response
Nolan expressed confidence in the sale, noting the same legislature enacted the enabling law seven months ago and the governor signed it.
we've seen the DPU has put out this proposal to end most gas line extensions. Does that shift your capital plan
Show response
Nolan declined to comment on the gas line extension proposal, saying it was too new and they were formulating their response.
ETREntergy2 questions · 1 reporting period · 0 of 2 challenging
Calendar 2025 Q2
can you kind of just contextualize, give us some color around what were, from your perspective, the main intervenor concerns through that process
Show response
CEO detailed customer bill impacts and reliability as main concerns. Highlighted cost-sharing benefits and resilience improvements from 500 kV transmission investments. No party disputes need for capacity.
Can you remind us of what the next phase of that process is? And would we get updates on that?
Show response
CEO confirmed fall MTEP submittal with potential updates at that time. Current plan includes $5.6 billion reviewed through MISO's MTEP process.
XELXcel Energy2 questions · 1 reporting period · 1 of 2 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q1
One of the things that maybe the market has been thinking about because we're focused on growth, growth, growth and more growth is sort of the layer of execution risk
Show response
CEO detailed 24 gas turbines secured, plus framework agreements with EPC vendors and equipment suppliers across all business lines. CFO emphasized scale benefits.
do you see potential to expand that beyond 2 gigawatts? How are you thinking about expanding that
Show response
CEO confirmed the JDA has no cap and could serve all generation needs for large loads, though it remains non-exclusive.
Show 1 more company
NINiSource1 question · 1 reporting period · 0 of 1 challenging
Calendar 2025 Q1
what you guys see as the advantage of the Genco structure
Show response
Lloyd provided four clear advantages: cost separation for customer protection, faster speed to market (bypassing 240-day CPCN), flexibility in risk/return negotiation, and preserving base business model.
Challenge rate by company
Every company this analyst questioned, most questions first. A company-level rate is shown from 3 questions; below that it is withheld.
| Company | Questions | Challenge rate |
|---|---|---|
| AEP American Electric Power | 7 | 0%none of 7 questions |
| SRE Sempra | 7 | 0%none of 7 questions |
| FE FirstEnergy | 5 | 0%none of 5 questions |
| ES Eversource Energy | 2 | —Rate withheld: fewer than 3 questions |
| ETR Entergy | 2 | —Rate withheld: fewer than 3 questions |
| XEL Xcel Energy | 2 | —Rate withheld: fewer than 3 questions |
| NI NiSource | 1 | —Rate withheld: fewer than 3 questions |
- AEPAmerican Electric Power · 7 questions0%none of 7 questions
- SRESempra · 7 questions0%none of 7 questions
- FEFirstEnergy · 5 questions0%none of 5 questions
- ESEversource Energy · 2 questions—rate withheld: under 3 questions
- ETREntergy · 2 questions—rate withheld: under 3 questions
- XELXcel Energy · 2 questions—rate withheld: under 3 questions
- NINiSource · 1 question—rate withheld: under 3 questions
Activity by reporting period
Questions recorded for each calendar quarter that companies’ reporting periods map to (not the call date), with the challenge rate for that period. Periods inside the range with no questions are shown as “No questions recorded”.
| Calendar period | Questions | Challenge rate | Companies |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 Q4 | 7 | 0%none of 7 questions | 3 |
| 2025 Q1 | 4 | 0%none of 4 questions | 2 |
| 2025 Q2 | 8 | 0%none of 8 questions | 4 |
| 2025 Q3 | 4 | 0%none of 4 questions | 2 |
| 2025 Q4 | No questions recorded | — | — |
| 2026 Q1 | 3 | 33%1 of 3 questions | 2 |
- 2024 Q47 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 7 questions) · 3 companies
- 2025 Q14 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 4 questions) · 2 companies
- 2025 Q28 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 8 questions) · 4 companies
- 2025 Q34 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 4 questions) · 2 companies
- 2025 Q4No questions recorded
- 2026 Q13 questions · challenge rate 33% (1 of 3 questions) · 2 companies
Topics
Topics tagged on this analyst’s questions.
- Regulation Policy12
- Capex Investment10
- Capital Allocation5
- Demand4
- Guidance Reliability3
- M&A3
- Supply Chain2
- Cloud & AI2
- Revenue Growth2
- Margin2
Show all 13 topics
- Innovation & R&D2
- Macroeconomic1
- Cost Pressure1