Almost $20 trillion in revenue—and a record-breaking $1.87 trillion in profits. Introducing the 2025 Fortune 500, the definitive list of the biggest companies in America.

Fortune 500

Industries included in the sector are mining, oil and gas exploration and services, pipelines, refining, and utilities.

Fortune Sector Leaders: Energy

The Fortune 500, in its 70th year in 2024, ranks the biggest U.S. companies by revenue.

The Fortune 500, in its 69th year in 2023, ranks the biggest U.S. companies by revenue.

This year’s Fortune 500 marks the 68th running of the list.

This year’s Fortune 500 marks the 67th running of the list.

F500-2021-318-PSEG

The diversified energy company provides electricity and gas to more than 5 million customers in New Jersey and New York.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 66th running of the list.

F500 2020 317 Public Service Enterprise Group

The New Jersey-based energy company provides electricity and gas to portions of New Jersey and New York and is one of the 10 largest electric companies in the U.S.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 65th running of the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 64th running of the list.

Here are the World's Most Admired Companies for 2017 as ranked in their industries. See who made the list.

World's Most Admired Companies

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 63rd running of the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 62nd running of the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 61st running of the list. Wal-Mart claims the top spot again. See who made the list.

Wal-Mart stayed on top as its sales crept closer to half-a-trillion dollars. Apple moved into the top five. And UnitedHealth Group continued its steady climb. 

Fortune Global 500

Company Info

Industry

Location

Industry Rank

Website

Overall Score

Key Attributes Of Reputation

Innovation

People Management

Use of Corporate Assets

Social Responsibility

Quality of Management

Financial Soundness

Long-Term Investment Value

Quality of Products/Services

Global Competitiveness

Key Financials (last Fiscal Year)

Revenues ($M)

Profits ($M)

Assets ($M)

Total Stockholder Equity ($M)

Profit Ratios

Profit as % of Revenues

Profits as % of Assets

Profits as % of Stockholder Equity

Earnings Per Share (last Fiscal Year)

Earnings Per Share ($)

EPS % Change (from prior fiscal year)

EPS % Change (5 year annual rate)

EPS % Change (10 year annual rate)

Total Return

Total Return to Investors (last year)

Total Return to Investors (5 year, annualized)

Total Return to Investors (10 year, annualized)

Q2 2025

Q1 2025

Q4 2024

Q3 2024

Get insights into Public Service Enterprise Group including business profile, stock information, news, and rankings from Fortune.

Public Service Enterprise Group (PEG): Company Profile, Stock Price, News, Rankings

legacy

Public Service Enterprise Group

public service enterprise group

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. My name is Rob, and I'm your event operator today. I would like to welcome everyone to today's conference, Public Service Enterprise Group's Fourth Quarter and Full Year Results twenty twenty four Earnings Conference Call and Webcast. At this time, all participants are in a listen only mode. Later, we will conduct a question and answer session for members of the financial community.

As a reminder, this conference is being recorded today, 02/25/2025, and will be available for replay as an audio webcast on PSEG's Investor Relations website at https:investor.pseg.com. I would now like to turn the conference over to Carlotta Chan. Please go ahead.

Good morning, and welcome to PSEG's fourth quarter and full year twenty twenty four earnings presentation. On today's call are Raul LaRosa, Chair, President and CEO and Dan Craig, Executive Vice President and CFO. The press release, attachments and slides for today's discussion are posted on our IR website at investor.pseg.com and our 10 K will be filed later today. PSEG's earnings release and other matters discussed during today's call contain forward looking statements and estimates that are subject to various risks and uncertainties. We will also discuss non GAAP operating earnings, which differs from net income as reported in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or GAAP in The United States.

We include reconciliations of our non GAAP financial measures and a disclaimer regarding forward looking statements on our IR website and in today's materials. Following our prepared remarks, we will conduct a thirty minute question and answer session. I will now turn the call over to Ralph LaRosa.

Thank you, Carlotta, and thank you everyone for joining us this morning to review PSEG's twenty twenty four results and our outlook for the business going forward. Let's start with our strong results. PSEG reported net income of $0.57 per share for the fourth quarter of twenty twenty four and $3.54 per share for the full year. For non GAAP operating earnings, PSEG reported results of $0.84 per share for the fourth quarter and $3.68 per share for the full year, which was at the top of our 2024 guidance range. Our reported results for 2024 also marked the twentieth consecutive year that we have met or exceeded management's non GAAP operating earnings guidance to investors.

We are proud of this track record and confident that our team will continue to build on it. We were also successful in achieving our strategic and regulatory objectives for 2024. First, we settled PSE and G's first electric and gas distribution rate case in six years, all with a balanced outcome that recovers prudent investments, maintains our favorable affordability profile and mitigates variability for our customers. Second, PSE and G received approval to invest $2,900,000,000 in its Clean Energy Future Energy Efficiency II program over the upcoming six year period. This second phase of the BPU's statewide energy efficiency framework has resulted in a meaningful increase to the program, which will enable us to make investments at more customer premises to reduce energy usage, improve affordability and reduce carbon emissions.

Third, we efficiently executed the utilities planned $3,600,000,000 capital spending program and notably completed the advanced metering infrastructure program on time and on budget, installing approximately 2,200,000 smart meters in customers' homes and businesses. And fourth, and I'm very happy to say, we implemented new deferral mechanisms for pension and storm expense coming out of the rate case. This increases the predictability of PSE and G's future financial results and stabilizes rates for customers. Speaking of customer rates, the new base rates that were placed into effect last October represented an annual increase of about 1% per year since our last rate case in 2018. Also, last October, PSE and G lowered its gas commodity charge to $0.33 per therm for the winter of twenty twenty five.

The third supply charge reduction since January of twenty twenty three. All of these steps will serve to moderate the recent outcome of the BGS auction results, which will increase customer electric bills this June 1. PSE and G's record of reliability, affordability and customer satisfaction continues to be a valuable combination. We were recently named number one in customer satisfaction with residential electric and gas service in the East among large utilities by J. D.

Power in 2024. The utility also received the PA Consulting twenty twenty four Reliability one Award for the Mid Atlantic Region for the twenty third consecutive year. I want to take a moment to recognize and thank all of our over 13,000 employees for the incredible teamwork and individual efforts that delivered 2024 strategic objectives and financial results. So let's turn to our outlook for 2025 starting with slides five and six. For the current year, we have initiated PSEG's non GAAP operating earnings guidance at $3.94 to $4.06 per share, which is up by 9% at the midpoint over our 2024 reported results.

Our 2025 guidance midpoint is the new base year for PSEG's five percent to 7% non GAAP operating earnings CAGR at the nuclear production tax credit threshold for the twenty twenty five to twenty twenty nine period. I would also note this CAGR, while unchanged as we pursue incremental revenue opportunities at PSEG nuclear, starts from a $4 midpoint of 2025 guidance that is 9% higher than our 2024 non GAAP results. For 2025, we plan to invest $4,000,000,000 across enterprise, driven by regulated investments. We also raised PSEG's twenty twenty five to twenty twenty nine capital spending plan to $22,500,000,000 to $26,000,000,000 which is up by $3,500,000,000 from the prior plan. This increase is largely comprised of incremental investments at PSE and G that will meet growing customer demand, modernize infrastructure and further execute on the previously mentioned energy efficiency programs.

Please see Slides fourteen and fifteen for the updated regulated capital spending plan and rate based projections for the twenty twenty five to twenty twenty nine period. This updated five year capital spending program is expected to support a PSE and G rate base CAGR that continues at 6% to 7.5% over the upcoming five year period, which grows from a starting point of approximately $34,000,000,000 which is notably 12% higher than the year end 2023 balance. Something new for PSE and G this year has been a significant increase in inquiries from large load and data center customers. Last year at this time, these totaled under 400 megawatts. Today, the interest has grown to 4,700 megawatts, which includes both mature leads and initial inquiries.

This pipeline represents an over 12 fold increase over the last year. The average size of these project leads is in the 100 megawatt range, which can often fit within PSE and G's existing robust utility transmission infrastructure. We are responding to these inquiries in under four months on average. Approximately 25% of the 4,700 megawatts of new business leads have been incorporated into PGM's twenty twenty five system peak load forecast. As I mentioned earlier, the basic generation service auction results will raise the residential electric bill starting June 1.

This increase is being driven by the significant rise in the capacity prices coming out of PJM's latest RPM auction conducted last July, which reflects growing energy demand combined with the need for new power generation. As a reminder, electric supplies are pass through cost that PSE and G does not earn a profit on. Even with this upcoming BGS increase, our combined bill still compares favorably to all other utilities in New Jersey and we remain a leader across the nation on our low share of wallet comparison. PSE and G's bill remains at about 3% of total income for medium income customers and even lower still approximately 2% for our low to moderate income customers that take advantage of payment assistant programs. Turning to PSEG Power and Other, while the PTC threshold provides sufficient support to meet PSEG's five percent to 7% long term growth outlook, we continue to pursue nuclear revenue growth opportunities at PSEG nuclear that would be incremental.

These opportunities to contract portions of our nuclear output under long term contracts can also benefit the economic development interests of the state in helping to attract AI hubs to New Jersey. We had an exceptional year in 2024, continuing to execute visible. These benefits will enhance our ability to drive our future performance that prioritizes maintaining our financial strength, making disciplined investments and delivering operational excellence. Another key PSEG distinction that we are proud to extend our ability to continue supporting another robust five year capital program without the need to issue new equity or sell assets through 2029, even with the latest $3,500,000,000 increase over the prior plan. Before I conclude, I want to highlight that our Board of Directors recently announced a $0.12 per share increase in PSEG's annual common dividend to indicative annual rate of $2.52 per share for 2025.

This is PSEG's fourteenth consecutive annual increase made possible by a longstanding commitment to financial discipline that has enabled us to pay a common dividend to our shareholders

118 consecutive years. I'll now turn the call over to Dan to walk you through the results for the quarter and our outlook for 2025 through 2029 period and then rejoin the call for Q and A.

Thank you, Ralph, and good morning, everybody. As Ralph mentioned earlier, PSEG reported net income of $3.54 per share for the full year of 2024 compared with net income of $5.13 per share for 2023 and non GAAP operating earnings for the full year of 2024 were $3.68 per share compared to $3.48 per share for 2023. For the fourth quarter of twenty twenty four, net income was $0.57 per share compared to $1.1 per share in 2023 and non GAAP operating earnings were $0.84 per share in the fourth quarter of twenty twenty four compared to $0.54 per share in 2023. Slides eight and ten detail the contribution to non GAAP operating earnings per share, five business segments for the fourth quarter and full year of 2024. And slides nine and eleven contain waterfall charts that take you through the net changes for the quarter over quarter and full year periods in non GAAP operating earnings per share by major business.

Starting with PSE and G, which reported fourth quarter twenty twenty four net income of $0.75 per share compared to $0.58 per share in 2023. PSE and G had non GAAP operating earnings of $0.75 per share for the fourth quarter of twenty twenty four compared to $0.59 per share in 2023. Utilities results were driven by the implementation of new electric and gas based distribution rates. The new rates went into effect on October 15, and the fourth quarter results reflect the impact of seasonality of gas revenues during winter months. 2025 comparisons will benefit from a full year of new rates for both gas and electric revenues.

Compared to the fourth quarter of twenty twenty three, transmission margin was a benefit of $0.02 per share due to higher recovery of investment. Distribution margin increased by $0.16 per share and reflects the impacts of the rate case on gas revenues in the fourth quarter. Distribution O and M expense was $0.01 per share favorable compared to the fourth quarter of twenty twenty three, primarily due to the timing of spending. Depreciation and interest expense rose by $0.01 per share and $0.02 per share respectively compared to the fourth quarter of twenty twenty three, reflecting continued growth in investment and higher interest expense. Lower pension and OCAV income resulting from the cessation of OCAV related credits, which ended in 2023, resulted in a $0.02 per share unfavorable comparison to the year earlier quarter.

And lastly, the timing of taxes recorded through an annual effective tax rate, which nets to zero over the full year, and other taxes had a net favorable impact of $0.02 per share in the fourth quarter compared to 2023. And for the full year, PSE and G results reflect higher earnings from increased investment in infrastructure replacement and energy efficiency as well as the rate case, partially offset by higher interest and depreciation expense from higher investment balances. Weather during the fourth quarter, as measured by heating degree days, was 12% warmer than normal, but 3% cooler than the fourth quarter of twenty twenty three. And as I'm sure you know, weather variations have a minimal impact on PSE and G's utility margin because of the conservation incentive program or SIP mechanism. This decoupling mechanism limits the impact of weather and other sales variances, positive or negative, on electric and gas margins, while helping PSE and G promote the widespread adoption of its energy efficiency program.

Under the SIP, the number of electric and gas customers is what drives margin and each segment grew by approximately 1% in 2024. On capital spending, as Ralph mentioned, PSE and G invested approximately $900,000,000 or $900,000,000 during the fourth quarter. And for the full year 2024, our capital spending totaled $3,600,000,000 slightly higher than our original plan of $3,400,000,000 based on the continued execution of our electric system reliability programs, including energy strong and last mile spend in the IAP, our ongoing gas infrastructure replacement spending as well as our energy efficiency programs. For 2025, we plan to invest approximately $3,800,000,000 in regulated investments focused on infrastructure modernization, energy efficiency and meeting growing demand and electrification initiatives. We've rolled forward our five year regulated capital investment plan through 2029 amounting to $21,000,000,000 to $24,000,000,000 compared to our prior plan of $18,000,000,000 to $21,000,000,000 The 3,000,000,000 increase in regulated investments is driven by incremental reliability and resiliency investments under PSE and G's existing infrastructure programs and the CESEE2 program.

Our twenty twenty five to twenty twenty nine regulated capital investment plan is expected to produce compound annual growth in rate base of 6% to 7.5% starting from a year end 2024 rate base of approximately $34,000,000,000 including construction work in progress and as Ralph mentioned is an increase of approximately 12% over the same number for year end 2023. Moving to PSEG Power and Other. For the fourth quarter of twenty twenty four, PSEG Power and Other reported a net loss of $0.18 per share compared to net income of $0.52 per share in the fourth quarter of twenty twenty three. Non GAAP operating earnings were $0.09 per share for the fourth quarter compared to a non GAAP operating earnings loss of $0.05 per share in the fourth quarter of twenty twenty three. For the fourth quarter of twenty twenty four, net energy margin rose by $0.18 per share, driven by higher recontracting prices at nuclear, which includes the net impact of the nuclear PTC that took effect 01/01/2024.

As anticipated, we realized a significant portion of the increase in the 2024 gross margin over twenty twenty three's gross margin during the second half of the year based upon the shape of our underlying hedges. O and M was $0.01 per share unfavorable. Interest expense was $0.02 per share higher, reflecting incremental debt at higher rates. And lower pension income and OPEB credits were $0.01 per share unfavorable versus the fourth quarter of twenty twenty three. Taxes and other were $0.01 per share favorable compared to the year earlier quarter.

On the operating side, the nuclear fleet produced approximately 7.3 terawatt hours during the fourth quarter and approximately 31 terawatt hours for the full year, running at a capacity factor of approximately 8690% for the quarter and full year respectively. Touching on some recent financing activity. As of the December, PSEG had total available liquidity of $2,600,000,000 including approximately $100,000,000 of cash on hand. Through December 2024, cash from operations was strong, though well below the 2023 level, which is substantially helped by the return of cash collateral. Our cash collateral balance was approximately $250,000,000 as of December 31, which supported our strong liquidity position.

Last November, PSE and G repaid its $250,000,000 3 point 0 5 percent secured medium term notes or MTNs upon maturity. And in December of 'twenty four, PSEG Power entered into a new three sixty four day variable rate term loan for $400,000,000 supported by the strength of its cash flow. And also in December, PSEG Power amended its existing $1,250,000,000 variable rate three year term loan agreement to extend the maturity from March to June of twenty twenty five, which just helps manage our cash position during the upcoming year. At the end of twenty twenty four, Power had $1,650,000,000 of debt outstanding with $1,250,000,000 swapped to a fixed rate, mitigating fluctuations in interest rates through March of twenty twenty five. And given our swaps, we continue to have a low level of variable rate debt, approximately just 7% of total debt at year end.

Looking ahead, our solid balance sheet supports the execution of PSEG's five year capital spending plan dominated by regulated CapEx without the need to sell new equity or assets and provides for the opportunity for consistent and sustainable dividend growth. Now, before I conclude my remarks, let's review some earnings drivers for 2025 and those are outlined on slide five. The most impactful driver will be the implementation of new distribution base rates in effect for the full year. Recall that the fourth quarter of twenty twenty four is a seasonal peak for gas, which comes into play in a projection of the new base rates over a full year. Also note electric seasonality will produce a similar impact in the third quarter of this year.

In addition, clause based recoveries for investments in GSMP, the Infrastructure Enhancement Program or IAP and the CEF Energy Efficiency II program will also add the 2025 utility margin. Partly offsetting these positives are higher O and M interest and depreciation expense, reflecting higher investment balances at PSE and G as well as higher interest expense at PSEG Power and Parent related to refinancing maturities at higher current interest costs. At PSEG Nuclear, our 100% owned Hope Creek nuclear unit has a scheduled refueling set for the fall of twenty twenty five that will include the fuel cycle extension work to extend its next scheduled refueling in twenty four months for the fall of twenty twenty seven. And as a reminder, the zero emission certificate amounts earned by our New Jersey nuclear units will conclude in May of twenty twenty five. In closing, we delivered our twentieth year in a row of meeting or exceeding our guidance, and we carry that confidence forward to our full year 2025 non GAAP operating earnings guidance of 3.94 to $4.06 per share, approximately 9% higher at the midpoint over 2024 results.

We also extended our 5% to 7% non GAAP operating earnings CAGR through 2029, starting with 2025 as the base year. As Ralph mentioned, we're continuing to pursue incremental revenue opportunities at PCG nuclear, which could enhance that long term growth CAGR relative to the range that we've provided based off of PTC. That concludes our formal remarks and we are ready to begin the question and answer session.

The first question comes from the line of Shar Pourreza with Guggenheim Partners.

Good morning, well. Good morning Dan. So just Ralph, starting off on the nuclear side with artificial island, do you see sort of commercial discussions being delayed with the recent actions at FERC? Does the complexity of like behind the meter deals change the deal structure to potential opportunities around side of the meter? And any sense on timing, especially given the Governor's ambitions?

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

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

Yes. I think, sure, our messaging there is really fairly consistent. I think, we've continued to see interest. We continue to have discussions with multiple parties for various elements of what we're talking about and that interest remains strong. So, I think you touched on FERC as well.

I think that while it would have been great to have complete answers throughout everything from what FERC said, I don't know that we necessarily expected that and we got to wait for some. But I think directionally what they said was favorable for the flexibility to do what you want to do and those details have yet to be written. So we'll continue to see what happens there. But I think our messaging is really consistent with respect to what's going on related to nuclear.

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

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

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

I think there's two takeaways though that we want to make sure. First of all, from a data center standpoint, there's interest from the industry in New Jersey when you see a 4,700 megawatt showing up. That's a request that is, that is showing up. So that's part one. And part two is, the state's marketing in this area has been working.

They've got a helix that they've announced in New Brunswick. There are a number of Nokia Bell Labs just announced that they're going to be in New Brunswick. So there's a number of the efforts that are taking place or taking hold and we just look forward to the momentum continuing.

Fantastic. Thank you guys so much. Appreciate it and great execution.

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

Let me see. I guess, the PGM auction has been getting a lot of attention recently. FERC is going to be relooking at auction structures and a number of changes are underway now. I was wondering if you could comment on how you're thinking about the outlook for the PJM market. What could change?

Are there possibilities of structural changes here? And how do you navigate that, maybe both from a customer impact and for your nuclear fleet?

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

We will continue to advocate on that behalf. I just don't know whether or not the premise of the question of the PJM market is valid because I don't know if there is a PJM market anymore and we've been talking to that for quite some time. So, my concern there is mostly from a reliability standpoint. Are we going to be able in this construct to attract generation to the PJM region as a whole? And if so, is it going to be in a timely enough fashion for everything that we have going on in the region?

So those are the questions at hand that's really focused on reliability and affordability for us. And, we're going to keep advocating on customers' behalf in both of those areas.

Yes. I think just to add on to that a little bit David, I think those are the longer term elements that are going to be really important for resource adequacy and it's vital to get that right. And I think there's still work to be done there. I think for the nearer term to the extent that this collar and pricing ends up being put forward for a couple of years, it can give you a little bit more stability as to where things are going to turn out. But I go back again to Ralph's first comment that, what we're basically putting out from a financial standpoint is the PTC floor.

So to the extent that things move below that, that floor is there. If it moves above that, there could be some potential benefit for us. But I think job one is getting resource adequacy right.

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

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

Yes. Got it. That's fair. Great. I'll leave it there.

Our next question is from the line of Nick Campanella with Barclays. Please proceed with your questions.

Hey, good morning, everyone. Thanks for taking the time.

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

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

It's interesting. I do think that there was some expectation by some that we might see something more definitive come out of FERC. But I will say that they did highlight thirty days and another thirty days. They seem to have understood the urgency in what they said, even though we didn't get complete clarity in what they did. So I think that urgency will be helpful as we continue to go forward.

But it's not stopping anything, I think, from the standpoint of some final details as to how some things can be done and may add some flexibility.

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

Yes. Think about it in a couple of different ways, Nick. I would say that to the extent that there is a sale of what exists today, then something could happen quicker. To the extent that somebody needs to build a data center for that power to flow to, it's going to take a little bit longer. So I think depending upon the nature of where things go and there's a couple of things that we're working towards, that's going to dictate the timing as to when you might see some in the bottom line.

Okay. I appreciate that. And then just following up on the capacity auction commentary, just wanted to try to understand if we kind of continue to clear near the 2.7% level, how does that kind of impact your gross receipts calculation out to 27% and where you are in the range? Thanks.

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

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

But that upside is there to the extent that markets move up.

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

Absolutely. Absolutely. And I appreciate the commentary on the range. That's helpful. Thank you.

Our next question is from the line of Paul Fremont with Ladenburg Thalmann. Please proceed with your question.

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

Yes. Paul, what we have done and what we have said that we've done is try to balance the existing uncertainty of the definition of gross receipts in order to try to make sure that we're going forward in a way that minimizes our risk of results, understanding that we do have a PTC floor. What I would tell you directionally is, that has not resulted in kind of radical shifts from the standpoint of what those hedging percentages would have been back when we had more of a three year ratable. So to your point, if you want to think about being somewhere in the 90s and 25% and maybe two thirds in 26% and a third in 27% is what we would have told you based upon a more ratable approach. And while we've made some movements to that, don't think of that as being very radically different than the ratable approach.

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

It's just I think we made that change a year or two back, Paul, and we're comfortable with leaving it at the enterprise level. It's 90% utility. We've been pretty consistent about that. So, give or takes in that range, but we're comfortable discussing this at the enterprise level.

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

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

Yes. Think about that as an all in price that you would see for a megawatt hour. And yes, you'd have to variableize that fixed charge. But yes, that's right with me.

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

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

Public Service Enterprise Group Q4 2024 Earnings Call Transcript | Fortune

Companies

Emma Hinchliffe

Safra Catz’s move knocks a female CEO out of the Fortune 500—but she is leaving on top

/2025/09/23/safra-catz-oracle-ceo-exit-female-fortune-500/

Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez

Experts say Trump’s $100,000 fee for a talent visa is a handicap on the tech industry.  Here are the Fortune 500 companies most affected

/2025/09/22/fortune-500-companies-most-affected-trump-h1b-visa-fee-immigration/

Ashley Lutz

Mark Zuckerberg blames bad Wi-Fi after the live demo of his new $800 smart glasses goes horribly wrong

/2025/09/18/mark-zuckerberg-live-demo-smart-glasses-meta-ray-ban-display-flop/

John Kell

Honeywell Connected Enterprise CTO and President Suresh Venkatarayalu and Caterpillar CTO Jaime Mineart at Fortune Brainstorm Tech 2025.

Public Service Enterprise Group (PEG) Q4 2024 Earnings Call Transcript

Company Participants