Q1 2026 Earnings Call Transcript

Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Eversource Energy First Quarter 2026 Earnings Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speakers’ presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session.

To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star 11 on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star 11 again. Please be advised that today’s conference is being recorded.

I would now like to hand the conference over to your first speaker today, Rima Hyder, vice president of investor relations. Please go ahead.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us today on our first quarter 2026 earnings call. During this call, we will be referencing slides that are available on our website at investors.eversource.com. As you can see on Slide 1, some of the statements made during this investor call may be forward-looking. These statements are based on management’s current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainty, which may cause the actual results to differ materially from forecasts and projections.

We undertake no obligation to update or revise any of these. Additional information about the variables that may cause actual results to differ and our explanation of non-GAAP measures and how they reconcile to GAAP results is contained within our news release, the slides we posted last night, and on our most recent 10-Q and 10-K. Speaking today will be Joseph R. Nolan, our chairman, president, and chief executive officer, and John M.

Moreira, our executive vice president, chief financial officer, and treasurer. Also joining us today is Jay Booth, our vice president, controller, and chief accounting officer. I will now turn the call over to Joseph.

Thank you, Rima, and good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today for our first quarter 2026 earnings call. Beginning on Slide 4, we are starting the year on strong operational footing and with a clear plan for disciplined execution of our key strategic objectives of safety and reliability, strengthening the balance sheet, and derisking our business profile. As you can see on Slide 5, our team delivered excellent operational performance, especially during the powerful blizzard we experienced in February. With over 40 inches of snow and wind gusts over 70 miles per hour, this nor’easter was one of the most severe blizzards to impact the Northeast, particularly Massachusetts, in recent years.

We executed a large coordinated restoration effort, mobilizing thousands of line crews, leveraging mutual aid, and using remote switching and pre-staged materials to restore service quickly while keeping safety-critical facilities top of mind. Our team worked in tight coordination with local and state agencies to prioritize life safety, accelerate restorations, and support impacted communities. In total, we responded to over 2 thousand fire, police, and safety events and restored power to more than 500 thousand customers. These efforts and our successful restoration reflect the benefits of ongoing infrastructure investments for our electric grid and emergency preparedness.

We are very grateful for the support and positive feedback from numerous state and local policymakers, first responders, and our customers. A majority of the customers surveyed after the blizzard said they greatly appreciated how quickly service was restored. Moving on to Slide 6. As we look to the current year, we recognize that there are some remaining items that we need to resolve to further strengthen our balance sheet and derisk our business profile.

First, on the sale of Aquarion, we received final approval from PURA in March 2026. PURA denied an appeal from certain parties. We are now waiting for an additional appeal period to end in mid-June 2026 before we can close the transaction. Second, on Revolution Wind, as Ørsted recently reported, the project is about 95% complete. The commercial operation date is still expected to be in the second half of this year, and we look forward to this much needed source of generation for the New England region.

Given the latest construction updates and cost estimates, we believe that the current contingent liability balance due to GIP remains appropriate. Finally, the recent decisions from FERC on the New England transmission owners’ base ROE that was an attempt to address a 15-year-long complaint is flawed. We believe this decision by FERC departs from the statutory limitations imposed by the Federal Power Act and longstanding judicial precedent requiring FERC to set just and reasonable rates of return sufficient to attract the capital needed for essential utility investment. As priorities have changed over multiple administrations and commissioners at FERC, one thing has remained constant: New England’s need for new energy supply resources to address affordability, ensure reliability, and support economic development.

Achieving these goals requires a modern, more resilient transmission system, regardless of the energy source powering it. Our investments in transmission have delivered billions of dollars in savings for customers over the years by eliminating significant congestion costs for the region while making the grid more resilient. Funding these investments requires a stable, predictable regulatory environment to attract long-term capital at the lowest possible cost. For more than a decade, uncertainties stemming from FERC’s lack of action after a U.S.

Court of Appeals vacated FERC’s prior order in the case in April 2017 have challenged investor confidence. Unfortunately, this FERC decision further undermines utilities’ ability to secure the capital needed to support state and federal policies and mandates, to build and upgrade grid infrastructure, and maintain safe operations and top-tier reliability for customers. As you have seen from some of our recent actions, we have appealed this decision and filed a motion for stay in the courts. We have also submitted a section 205 filing following the exact FERC methodology used in their March 19, 2026 order, but with updated data.

The data FERC used to derive the 9.57% ROE is over a decade old. By updating the data for current market conditions, the ROE comes to 11.39%. A key procedure of this filing is the potential for settlement. We are hopeful that all parties in this proceeding can come together to reach an outcome that benefits customers while also providing reasonable financial support for New England transmission owners to continue to upgrade and build the much needed transmission system for future load growth.

On the back of the FERC ROE decision, which lowered our transmission base ROE to 9.57%, we did adjust our guidance for 2026, which John will reiterate in a few minutes. We are reaffirming our long-term earnings growth rate of 5% to 7% off the midpoint of our revised 2026 guidance. Let me now highlight a few key state policy developments across our territory. On Slide 7, in Massachusetts, in March 2026, Governor Healey signed an executive order to secure Massachusetts’ energy future, establishing a comprehensive strategy to strengthen the Commonwealth’s energy reliability, affordability, and independence.

The order responds to extremely adverse shifts in federal policy, rising electricity demand, volatile fossil fuel prices, and global energy supply disruptions by directing state agencies to rapidly expand energy resources and modernize the distribution and transmission systems. The executive order recognizes that Massachusetts’ energy supply needs are growing. It cites ISO New England projections that electricity consumption could rise by nearly 15% by 2035 and by nearly 50% by 2045, with peak demand increasing even faster. The order also emphasizes the need for immediate action to maximize federal tax credits for clean energy projects before they expire under accelerated timelines established by recent federal law.

We appreciate Governor Healey’s recognition that addressing regional supply constraints through an all-of-the-above approach is essential to achieving energy affordability. As an energy delivery company, we remain focused on maintaining and upgrading infrastructure to integrate new energy resources, enhance reliability, and control costs for customers. We look forward to continued collaboration with the administration, the legislature, and other stakeholders to advance solutions that deliver lasting reliability and affordability benefits. In Connecticut, as we mentioned last quarter, we are going to begin our first rate review for CL&P in about eight years.

We see that as an incredible opportunity to show how we vastly improved reliability and that those investments are valuable to customers. We expect to file a letter of intent with PURA for the CL&P rate case later this month. We recognize that this will be a big ask, and as we do in other jurisdictions, we will collaborate with PURA and other key stakeholders to submit a rate case filing that is constructive, responsible, and designed to protect the interests of customers. Our filing will address customers’ need for reliable electric service, affordability, and stable, predictable rates.

Another key item for us is the recovery of storm costs. We expect to receive a final decision from PURA on our Connecticut storm cost prudency review in July 2026, which would allow us to begin the legislative-backed securitization process. Importantly, securitization enables timely cash collection, improving our FFO-to-debt metrics while addressing affordability concerns for our customers. In New Hampshire, Governor Ayotte signed House Bill 1539, a bill allowing for the securitization of storm costs, which provides an affordable path for recovery of our outstanding storm costs, which are currently under review at the PUC.

We are grateful for the support of the Governor and the General Assembly for passing this important legislation. As we have stated before, 2026 will be a truly transformational year for us. As we operate within a changing regulatory landscape and navigate affordability concerns, we will maintain transparent communication with all our stakeholders and take decisive actions to mitigate potential risk. I will now turn the call over to John to discuss our financial results.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joseph, and good morning, everyone. This morning, I will review our first quarter 2026 earnings results, provide a regulatory update including the recent FERC ROE, and also discuss our balance sheet progress and financing plan. I will start with our first quarter results on Slide 9. Our GAAP earnings per share for the first quarter were $1.61 compared with GAAP earnings of $1.50 per share in 2025. GAAP results for the quarter include an after-tax charge of $43.9 million, or $0.12 per share, related to the FERC ROE decision, representing the refund for the first 15-month complaint period.

Excluding that charge, our non-GAAP earnings were $1.73 per share for the quarter as compared to GAAP as well as non-GAAP earnings of $1.50 per share in 2025. The $0.23 per share improvement over the prior year is primarily in the gas segment with a $0.18 per share improvement driven by rate base increases in Massachusetts and implementation of the Yankee Gas rate case in Connecticut. Electric transmission improved $0.06 per share, primarily driven by continued investment in the system. Electric and water distributions are both up as well, due primarily to rate increases and cost control. Offsetting these positive drivers were higher losses of $0.05 per share at Parent and Other, primarily due to a higher effective tax rate and higher interest costs.

Overall, the first quarter was in line with our expectations. Moving to Slide 10. The FERC decision that was issued on March 19, 2026 arbitrarily reduced the base transmission ROE from 10.57% to 9.57%. As you can see on this slide, this case has been ongoing for nearly 15 years since the first complaint was filed on October 1, 2011. The 10.57% rate was established on October 16, 2014, and Eversource Energy and the other New England transmission owners have continued billing at this rate even though the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.

Circuit vacated FERC’s order in April 2017, which would have otherwise allowed us to bill customers using the original 11.14% rate. Since 2011, FERC has gone through 22 separate commissioners and 13 different chairs, each nominated by one of five separate presidential administrations, before issuing this arbitrary and capricious decision on March 19, 2026. The decision was based on a record of evidence over a decade old for a refund period far beyond what is allowed in the Federal Power Act. Since the decision was issued, Eversource Energy and the other transmission owners have taken several actions to protect the right to a fair rate of return on invested capital.

On April 2, 2026, we filed a motion for a stay at FERC, seeking to pause the order refund obligations and ensure time for an appropriate legal review. This was followed by a similar filing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on April 14, 2026. Also on April 2, 2026, we filed a motion for an extension of the refund deadline.

Without this extension, FERC’s order would have required that we issue refunds within 30 days, ignoring the necessary process of working with ISO New England and load-serving entities throughout the region. This extension was granted by FERC, extending the deadline to May 2027. On April 20, 2026, we filed a request for rehearing at FERC, seeking to resolve the decision’s multiple legal deficiencies. And lastly, on April 30, 2026, we made a section 205 filing with FERC to establish a new base ROE using current market data, not market data that is over a decade old. Using FERC’s own methodology from its recent decision and current market data, we arrived at a just and reasonable base ROE for transmission of 11.39%.

We expect that this updated rate will be implemented towards the end of this year, subject to refund. This filing also includes a change to the ROE cap on transmission investments, raising the cap to 12.89%. We are disappointed with FERC’s actions in this proceeding, and while we will continue to protect our right to a fair rate of return on invested capital, we did make two disclosures during the quarter to reflect FERC’s March 19, 2026 decision. The first was an adjustment to our 2026 non-GAAP EPS guidance as disclosed in our 8-Ks filed on March 31, 2026. The change in the base ROE is expected to lower Eversource Energy’s future after-tax earnings in the aggregate by approximately $70 million for 2026, and we also adjusted for the potential Aquarion sale as a result of PURA’s approval.

These items together resulted in revised 2026 non-GAAP earnings guidance in the range of $4.57 to $4.72 per share. The second disclosure was the after-tax charge of $43.9 million, or $0.12 per share, related to the FERC decision that I discussed earlier. Moving on to some state regulatory updates. I will not cover everything that Joseph discussed, but I do want to touch on a few items.

First, on Aquarion. Should the transaction not close, we would proceed with the pending rate case as filed with PURA, seeking a distribution rate increase of $88 million. The rate case is expected to be completed towards the end of the year, and it would support Aquarion’s ability to continue investments in its infrastructure and to provide reliable service for customers. We are pleased with PURA’s decision approving the sale; however, should the transaction not close, we are prepared to replace the sale proceeds with other alternative financing solutions if necessary.

Also in Connecticut, I would like to acknowledge the RAM decision that was issued on April 22, 2026. The decision addresses two very important things. First, PURA authorized the funding of a $100 million reserve for storm restoration costs. The second is that the decision uses forecast data to set rates associated with TPAs. The use of forecast data is a change that we have long advocated.

It also allows for rates to be adjusted on a more timely basis, avoiding large over- or under-recoveries. Both of these changes result in more stable rates for customers and more stable and predictable operating cash flows for Eversource Energy. On top of that, PURA’s decision makes these changes while lowering rates for customers. We thank PURA for their thoughtful and constructive decision.

Lastly, in New Hampshire, Joseph mentioned the new storm cost securitization law. This means that now in Connecticut and New Hampshire together, Eversource Energy should recover approximately $2 billion in deferred storm costs and carrying charges through these securitization transactions within the next 12 to 18 months. Moving to Slide 11 for a financing update. We executed on one of the latest steps in our plan to continue building balance sheet stability when we issued our first junior subordinated notes in February 2026. We were very pleased that the offering was more than five times oversubscribed and continues to trade at or above par.

This gives us confidence that, should we decide to issue something similar in the future, the market supports our strategy. I will underscore that our financing strategy is unchanged since the update we provided during our fourth quarter earnings call. We continue to expect that our equity needs over the next five-year forecast period are in the range of $800 million to $1.1 billion. As communicated previously, this financing plan includes flexibility related to the Aquarion transaction outcome.

Next, on Slide 12, I would like to share the latest affirmation of our strategy, which is that our FFO-to-debt metrics remain strong. Our latest metrics are 14.2%–14.5% for S&P and Moody’s, respectively. Consistent with our guidance, these are each over 100 basis points above the downgrade thresholds. In addition, on April 10, 2026, following the FERC ROE decision, S&P reaffirmed its ratings and stable outlook for Eversource Energy and our subsidiaries.

These objective measures reflect the successful execution of our previously communicated strategy. Next, let me reaffirm our five-year capital plan of $26.5 billion as shown on Slide 13. This reflects our five-year utility infrastructure investments by segment through 2030, and we are off to a good start with CapEx of nearly $800 million through March 2026, as compared to our 2026 forecast of $5.1 billion. As you can see on this slide, Connecticut AMI is not included in our plan. We look forward to the next steps on this opportunity following the recent constructive hearings held by PURA earlier this year.

As we stated in the briefs we filed in March 2026, our goal is to deliver the highest benefit for customers at the lowest possible cost. Turning to Slide 14. We continue to look towards a meaningful inflection in our earnings growth driven by improved regulatory outcomes. That includes the recovery of storm costs through securitization in both Connecticut and New Hampshire. It includes the completion of alternative financing opportunities and distribution rate adjustments, including the result of our CL&P rate request in 2027. Lastly, on Slide 15, we remain confident in our ability to deliver earnings growth towards the upper half of our long-term target of 5% to 7% by 2028. And just to be clear, this would be off of the midpoint of our revised 2026 non-GAAP EPS range.

With that, I will turn the call back to the operator for Q&A.

Thank you. We will now open the call for questions. As a reminder, to ask a question, you will need to press 11 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press 11 again. We do ask that you please limit to one question and a follow-up. Our first question comes from the line of Carly Davenport of Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open.

Good morning. Thanks so much for taking the questions. Maybe just to start on Aquarion. As you mentioned, we are still about five weeks or so out from the new appeal window closing. Could you provide your latest thoughts on the potential for further appeals to be filed in that process and your temperature on this progressing to close?

Yes. We were pleased with the PURA decision. I think it was very clear, and I think that they spoke to the issues that the appeals were surrounding, and I felt very good about the decision. We continue to be watchful.

As you know, there were not just the parties that appealed; there are others involved, so we are vigilant. But as we have said in the past, we do not have a gun to our head anymore. We do intend to close the transaction, but if it were not to close, it is not going to be the end of the world.

Got it. That is helpful. And then just on the FERC ROE decision—you are attacking this from a few different angles—but on the 205 filing, you mentioned potential to reach settlement there. Could you talk about what that timing could look like in the case that settlement is on the table versus if it has to go a full length process?

Sure. As I said in my formal remarks, we feel that a new rate will be implemented towards the end of the year. To your exact question, Carly, the first procedure out of the gate, once we hear back from FERC within 60 days of the date of our filing, is appointing a settlement judge to the case to bring the parties to the table. Hopefully, we can settle on the rate prospectively as well as address the legal inefficiencies in the FERC order as part of that settlement conference.

That should happen later this year.

Great. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Carly.

Our next question comes from the line of Shahriar Pourreza of Wells Fargo. Your line is now open.

This is actually Marcella on for Shahriar. Thank you for taking our questions.

Hello, Marcella. Good morning.

Good morning. Also, on the FERC decision, what is your level of confidence on the 15-month refund period? And what milestones should investors be watching for clarity on whether that interpretation prevails in court? For example, should we be paying attention to the MISO proceeding as something that might read through? And how should we be thinking about timing on that case?

Sure. If we go the full process and are not able to settle with the parties, yes, I would agree the MISO decision is going to be a significant data point for us. On the 15-month window specifically, we recognize that we are subject to a 15-month refund period, and therefore, we accrued for that in the first quarter, as I mentioned. So the 15-month refund period is law, and we recognize that.

But arbitrarily picking a retroactive date for the refund is where we think FERC did not follow the letter of the law.

That is really helpful. And then shifting gears to New Hampshire storm cost securitization. How should we think about how much you will pursue, whether carrying costs are included, and timing on when we might expect to see that filing?

Sure. We are hoping the timing is soon so we can get to the table and work with the PUC and the Department of Energy in New Hampshire. I think the dollar amount is probably in the $400 million to $470 million range, and that would include the carrying charge that continues to accrue. It is really to customers’ benefit—the sooner we complete securitization, the better off our customers would be in lowering the ultimate cost that would be securitized.

We hope that we could complete that transaction in a reasonable timeframe, by late 2027.

Great. Thanks.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from the line of Steve Fleishman of Wolfe Research. Your line is now open.

Good morning. Hey, Joe, John. How are you doing?

Good morning, Steve. Wonderful.

On the FERC questions, when we think about the other parties that you might settle with, who are the parties in this case at FERC? Is it your state advocates? Is it transmission customers?

It is a broad range of stakeholders that would be involved. As you know, this is a New England tariff, so all six New England state transmission owners are impacted. You can expect that every consumer advocate from those states and the Attorneys General from the six New England states have a seat at the table, and we are prepared to have those discussions with everyone involved.

And it sounds like, as you said, you can implement subject to refund by a certain date. Is there a deadline where they actually have to rule by?

My understanding is that FERC has 60 days from the date of filing to let us know when the rate can be implemented, and FERC can suspend the rate up to five months. So if you take the 60 days plus the five months, within seven months from the filing date is where we would expect the rate to be implemented, as I have mentioned, on a subject-to-refund basis.

And then on Aquarion—what are we actually waiting for at this point to decide whether to close or not? They rejected the reconsideration, so what is left from here?

We are waiting for the appeal period to be exhausted. The second appeal period exhausts on June 14, 2026.

And that is at the commission or at the court?

At the commission.

Got it. Thank you.

Thank you, Steve.

Our next question comes from the line of Sophie Karp of KBCM. Your line is now open.

Good morning. Thank you for taking my questions. In light of the uncertainties with the FERC process and the Aquarion situation as you wait out the appeal window, how are you thinking about the timing of equity capital? Does it make sense to issue the amount that you need now, or would you wait and see these pieces fall into place before you right-size the offering? What is your thinking?

Sure, Sophie. Let me reiterate our guidance: between now and 2030, we expect to issue in a range of $800 million to $1.1 billion. That is a very nominal number over the next five-year period. Also, as a reminder, in February 2026, we did our first junior subordinated notes offering, which brought in $1.5 billion of cash.

Right now, we are watching how the other items play out. Within the next 12 to 18 months, we would expect around $2 billion of incremental cash coming in through the Connecticut and New Hampshire storm securitization proceeds. We will be very thoughtful and mindful of these significant interactions and transactions that could impact our equity needs. We have no urgency to go to market right now.

We will keep a close eye on how these transactions ultimately materialize.

Thank you. And then my other question: when we think about the energy supply situation in New England and Millstone recontracting potential, and the forward prices in New England given the situation in global oil and gas markets, what are you seeing in terms of a policy response across your territories to the potential impacts from higher energy pricing?

I have been very encouraged. We are injecting 2.6 thousand megawatts of new power into the region, which is going to help moderate the clearing price at ISO New England. ISO New England is not a very volatile market compared to PJM. Looking at Clean Energy Connect injecting 1.1 thousand megawatts into our system, Revolution Wind at 704 megawatts, and additional wind coming in at over 800 megawatts, that is having a significant impact on pricing in the region.

I feel very encouraged. Coupled with the fact that we are resisting large data center load—I am really not interested in data centers coming here; it is of no value to our residential customers and would only drive up the price of energy—those are some of the things we are focused on. In Massachusetts, the executive order is looking at all things we could possibly do. They approved a natural gas pipeline enhancement with Enbridge that we are going to partner with to bring in additional gas capacity into the region.

We also purchased a 26-acre site from Constellation that will allow us to inject upwards of 2.4 thousand megawatts of power into the region. I feel we are very well positioned to help our customers manage energy costs and drive the clearing price down while providing a stable, reliable network. I am encouraged by the number of requests to interconnect clean energy resources—whether hydro or offshore wind. Offshore wind has around a 50% capacity factor at a time when we really need it—the winter months.

I am not overly concerned. I would love more generation, including more combined-cycle plants, but we are well positioned and are not going to see the volatility that some other markets are seeing.

Thank you. Appreciate the response.

Thanks, Sophie.

Our next question comes from the line of Andrew Weisel of Scotiabank. Your line is now open.

Hi. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for taking my question. Another one on the transmission ROEs.

I understand what you are saying about the 205 process and how you can implement subject to refund. What would you be booking on a prospective basis in terms of earnings—say, 2027 and beyond? Will you assume the 11.39% up until FERC or a court indicates that you should not? Will future guidance be based on the 11.39% or the 9.57% base ROE?

First and foremost, the current guidance that we reiterated and updated with our 8-Ks on March 31, 2026 assumed the current rate of 9.57%. We will wait to see how the 205 ultimately shakes out later this year. Under the current procedure, we expect FERC to determine when we can implement the new proposed rate on a subject-to-refund basis. We will reflect whatever rate we can bill to customers when we provide our guidance on the fourth quarter call in February 2027, once we have solidified this issue.

Let us hope they stick to the schedule. Second question on the refunds of the ~$880 million or so. I know the refund period was extended through May 2027. From an accounting perspective, have you taken any reserves, or will you have to, or is that just looming while the challenges and appeals play out?

We will see how things progress, but based on the legal merits of our case that we have filed—with FERC counsel and our own internal counsel—we feel we have a strong legal position that supports us not booking anything additional until we have further determination and clarity on the retroactive piece going back to 2014. To be clear, we do agree that we are subject under the Federal Power Act to the 15-month refund period, and that is why we booked that this quarter. We were also pleased to see FERC dismiss complaints two, three, and four.

Very good. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from the line of Travis Miller of Morningstar Inc. Your line is now open.

Good morning. Thanks. Given the uncertainty at FERC over the next year, what flexibility do you have on your transmission investments and your CapEx? Is that an area where you could potentially move around some CapEx if there is a decision that goes against you, or is there even a need to move around CapEx?

We certainly will look at that. I do not want to get ahead of ourselves, but it is something we can evaluate. As we said in our formal remarks, we were taken aback by this harsh decision from FERC because, as Joseph mentioned, we need more supply, and transmission owners should be incentivized to explore investment opportunities that would reduce overall costs for customers. A decade ago, New England faced tremendous congestion pressure.

By eliminating that price differential through transmission investments, we achieved billions of dollars in savings for customers across New England.

That is all I had. Appreciate all the details.

Thanks for joining us today.

As a reminder, to ask a question, you need to press 11 on your telephone. One moment, please. Our last question comes from the line of Paul Patterson of Glenrock Associates LLC. Your line is now open.

Good morning. Most of my questions have been answered. On the Connecticut PBR, are we going to wait another ten years for something on that? I am joking, but what is the status?

Paul, as you know, we have been untangling a lot of things there. It is a very positive turnaround at PURA. We are getting very good, fair decisions. In the pecking order, PBR would be great to have, but at this point, we are trying to get an orderly regulatory environment to operate in and get some other priorities addressed before we poke the bear on PBR.

Okay, so a wait-and-see kind of thing?

Yes.

Do you know what triggered FERC, after all this time, to come out with this decision seemingly out of nowhere?

We can only suspect it was a tough decision lingering for many years. I think the message they have sent to New England transmission owners is to let the courts make the decision on this proceeding, and that is why we are taking the legal action we discussed today.

Understood. Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Thank you. I am showing no further questions at this time, so I would like to turn it back to Joseph Nolan for closing remarks.

Thank you again for joining us today. You still have time to get on David Campbell’s call—we gave you 15 minutes. Our teams have weathered a lot of storms this past year, and we delivered top-tier reliability for our customers. We are carrying tremendous momentum into 2026 with a clear focus on derisking our business profile, resolving key open items ahead of us, and positioning the company for sustainable long-term growth.

Thanks very much.

Thank you for your participation in today’s conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect.