Joseph (Joe) Nolan: This 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 CLMP in about eight years. We see that as an incredible opportunity to show how we've vastly improved reliability, and that those investments are valuable to customers. We expect to file a letter of intent with PURA for the CLMP 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, 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.
John Doe: Thank you, Joe, and good morning, everyone. This morning, I will review our first quarter 2026 earnings results, provide a regulatory update including the recent FERC ROE decision, and also discuss our balance sheet, progress, and financing plan. I'll start with our first quarter results on slide nine. Our GAAP earnings per share for the first quarter was $1.61. compared with GAAP earnings of $1.50 per share in the first quarter of 2025. GAAP results for the quarter include an after-tax charge of $43.9 million, or 12 cents 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 the first quarter of 2025. The 23 cent per share improvement over the prior years primarily in the gas segment with an 18 cent per share improvement driven by rate-based increases in Massachusetts and implementation of the Yankee Gas rate case in Connecticut. Electric transmission improved six cents 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 five cents per share at parent and other, primarily due to higher effective tax rate, and higher interest costs. Overall, the first quarter was in line with our expectations. Moving to slide 10, the first decision that was issued on March 19th 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 of 2011. The 10.57% rate was established on October 16 of 2014, and Eversource 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 of 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 19th. 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 and the other transmission owners have taken several actions to protect the right to a fair rate of return on invested capital. On April 2nd, we filed a motion for a stay at Furt. seeking to pause the order refund obligations and ensure time for an appropriate legal review. This was followed by a similar filing at the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on April 14th. Also on April 2nd, 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 of 2027. On April 20th, we filed a request for rehearing at FERC, seeking to resolve the decision's multiple legal deficiencies. And lastly, on April 30th, we made a Section 205 filing with FERC to establish a new base ROE using current market data, not market data that's 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 19th decision. The first was an adjustment to our 2026 non-GAAP EPS guidance as disclosed in our 8K filed on March 31st. The change in the base ROE is expected to lower Eversource'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 PURES 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 12 cents per share, related to the FERC decision that I discussed earlier. Moving on to some state regulatory updates. I won't cover everything that Joe 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 investing in its infrastructure and to provide reliable service for customers. We are pleased with Pura's decision approving the sale. However, to the transaction not closed, 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 22nd. The decision addresses two very important things. First, Pura authorized the funding of $100 million reserve for storm restoration costs. The second is that the decision uses forecast data to set rates associated with PPAs. 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. avoid enlarge 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. On top of that, Pure's decision makes these changes while lowering rates for customers. We thank Pure for their thoughtful and constructive decision. Lastly, in New Hampshire, Joe mentioned the new storm cost securitization law. This means that now, in Connecticut and New Hampshire together, Eversource 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. 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 Aquarium 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% and 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 10th, following the FERC ROE decision, S&P reaffirmed its ratings and stable outlook for Eversource 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, 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, our goal is to deliver the highest benefit for customers at the lowest possible cost. Turn it 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 in New Hampshire. It includes the completion of alternative financing opportunities and distribution rate adjustments, including the result of our CLNP 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 earnings VPS range. With that, I will turn the call back to the operator for Q&A.
Operator: Thank you. At this time, we will conduct the question and answer session. As a reminder, to ask a question, you will need to press star 11 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star 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.
Joseph (Joe) Nolan: Good morning, Carly. Good morning. Thanks so much for taking the questions. Maybe just to start on Aquarian, I guess, as you mentioned, we're still about five weeks or so out from the new appeal window sort of closing. So maybe could you just provide kind of your latest thoughts on the potential for further appeals to be filed in that process, and I guess your temperature on this progressing to close?
Joseph (Joe) Nolan: Yeah, you know, obviously we were pleased with the Pura decision. You know, I think it was very clear, and I think that they uh, spoke to the issues that, uh, that the appeals, you know, surrounding the appeal. And I felt very good about the decision. You know, we continue to be watchful down there. As you know, there are not just the parties that appealed, there are others involved. So we're vigilant, but you know, as we've said in the past that, you know, we don't have a gun to our head anymore. If, uh, you know, we do intend to close the transaction, but if it wasn't to close, it's not going to be the end of the world.
Joseph (Joe) Nolan: Got it. Okay, great. That's helpful. And then just on the FERC ROE decision on, you know, you're obviously attacking this from a few different angles, but just on the 205 filing, you did mention potential to reach settlement there. So just maybe could you talk a little bit about what that timing could look like in the case that settlement is on the table versus, you know, if it has to go sort of a full length?
John Doe: Sure, sure. As I said in my formal remarks, We feel that a new rate will be implemented towards the end of the year. I would say to your exact question, Carly, the first process or procedure out of the gate once we hear back from FERC within 60 days of the date of our filing is appointing of a settlement judge to the case to bring the parties to the table. So hopefully we can you know, settle on the rate prospectively as well as address the legal deficiencies in the FERC order as part of that settlement conference. So that should happen later this year.
Marcella Perez: Great. Thank you so much.
John Doe: Thank you, Colin.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Char Perez of Wells Fargo. Your line is now open.
Marcella Perez: Good morning. This is actually Marcella on for Char. Thanks for taking our question.
John Doe: Hello, Marcella. Good morning. Good morning.
Marcella Perez: Good morning. Also, kind of talking about the FERC decision, what's your level of confidence on the 15-month refund period, and what milestones should investors be watching for for clarity on whether that interpretation prevails in court? Maybe, 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?
John Doe: Sure. From a data point, if we go the full process and not be able to settle with the parties, yes, I would agree the MISO decision is going to be a significant data point for us. But I think the process that we put forth into your question specifically on the 15-month window, we do 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 Pura, I'm sorry, FERC did not follow the letter of the law.
Marcella Perez: That's really helpful. Maybe shifting gears to New Hampshire storm cost securitization, just how should we be thinking about how much you'll pursue, if there's any carrying costs included in that, and then timing on when we might expect to see that filing?
John Doe: Sure. So we're hoping the timing is soon that 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 $470 range. And that would include the carry-in charge that continues to accrue. So it's really to the customer's benefit. The sooner we complete the securitization, the better off our customers would be in lowering the ultimate cost that would, in fact, be securitized. So we hope that we could complete that transaction, I would say, in a reasonable time frame, late 2027. Great. Thanks.
Joseph (Joe) Nolan: Thank you. Thank you.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Steve Fleischman of Wolf Research. Your line is now open.
Steve Fleischman: Good morning, Steve. Morning. Hey, Joe, John. How are you doing? Wonderful. Great. On the FERC, just to follow up 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?
John Doe: advocates is it transmission customers or yeah uh it's a broad range of stakeholders that would be involved obviously as you very well know this is a new england tariff uh so um all six new england state transmission owners are impacted so you can expect that every consumer advocate from those states the ag's office from 60 to 60 new england states will have a seat at the table and we are prepared to uh to have those discussions with everyone involved.
Steve Fleischman: Okay. And is there like a mandate? It sounds like, as you said, you can implement subject to refund by a certain date. Is there a deadline, though, where they actually have to rule by?
John Doe: Sure. Yeah, good question. Our understanding is that FERC has 60 days from the date of filing to let us know when the rate can be implemented. And there's a, FERC can take up to five, suspend the rate up to five months. So I think we can all expect that if you take the 60 days plus the five months, so within seven months from the filing date is where we would expect the rate to be implemented, as I've mentioned on the subject to refund basis.
Steve Fleischman: Okay. And then just on the Aquarium, and I mean, What are we actually waiting for at this point to decide whether to close or not just for the, I mean, they rejected the reconsideration. So what is actually left from here?
Joseph (Joe) Nolan: Yeah, we're waiting for the appeal period to be exhausted. And so this is the second of the appeal period to exhaust on June 14th.
Steve Fleischman: And that's at the commission or at the courts? At the commission. Okay. Got it. All right. I'll leave it at that. Thank you.
David Campbell: Thank you, Steve. Thank you, Steve.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Sophie Karp of KVCM. Your line is now open.
Joseph (Joe) Nolan: Good morning, Sophie.
Sophie Karp: Good morning. Thank you for taking my question. So my question is, in light of all of the uncertainties you guys are facing with the FERC, right, process and kind of residual aquarium situation as you wait out the appeal window, how are you thinking about the timing of equity capital here? You know, does that make sense to just like issue the amount that you need and rip the Band-Aid off? Or would you wait and see these pieces kind of fall into place before you right-size the offering? What's your thinking process here?
John Doe: Sure, Sophie, this is John. So let me just reiterate, our guidance is between now and 2030 to issue in a range of $800 million to $1.1 billion. Clearly, that's a very nominal number over the next five-year period. Also, as another reminder, in February, we did do our first JSN offering, which I was very excited about. That brought in $1.5 billion of cash. So right now, we're seeing how this thing plays out. And also, as I highlighted in my formal comments, within the next 12 to 15 months, we would expect up to around $2 billion of incremental cash coming in through the Connecticut and New Hampshire storm securitization proceeds. So we will be very thoughtful and mindful of all of these significant transactions that could have an impact on our equity needs. So we really have no urgency to go to market right now. So we'll pay a close eye as to how these transactions ultimately materialize.
Sophie Karp: Right. Thank you. And then my other question is clearly not something that impacts your air resources, economics, but when we think about energy supply situation in New England and the millstone upcoming recontracting potential, right, and the forward prices in New England, given the situation and global oil and gas markets, clearly that impacts affordability. And so what are you seeing in terms of a policy response, maybe across these territories to this intending impact from higher energy pricing in your territory specifically?
Joseph (Joe) Nolan: Yeah, well, you know, I've been very encouraged. I mean, we're injecting 2,600 megawatts of new power into the region. So, you know, that is really going to help moderate the clearing price at ISO New England. I think that if you look at the volatility in ISO New England, it's really not a very volatile market compared to PJM. So, you know, I feel good about it. You know, when I look at, you know, Clean Energy Connect injecting 1,100 megawatts into our system, I look at Revolution Wind at 704 megawatts. And I look at Vineyard Wind coming in at over 800 megawatts. That's having a significant impact on pricing in the region, so I feel very encouraged. You know, couple that with the fact that, you know, we are resisting data centers. I'm really not interested in a data center coming here. It's of no value to our residential customers, actually any customer. It's only going to drive up the price of energy. And so those are some of the things. And then you take a state like Massachusetts where they had an executive order that's looking at all things that we could possibly do. I mean, they have approved a natural gas pipeline enhancement with Enbridge that we're going to partner with to bring in additional gas capacity into the region. As you know, we did purchase a 26-acre site from Joe Dominguez at Constellation that's going to allow us to inject upwards of 2,400 megawatts of power into the region. So I feel we're very well positioned to help our customers manage any energy costs and try to drive. We want to drive that clearing price down and and make sure that we provide a stable, reliable network for it to operate on. I mean, I continue to be encouraged by the number of requests that we're getting to inject into our system. You know, these clean energy resources, whether it's the hydro or the offshore wind, I mean, offshore wind's at a 50% capacity factor. It's very, very good. And it's at a time when we really need it. Those winter months, that's when it's really peaking. So, I'm not really that concerned. Obviously, I love more generation. I wish we had a dozen more combined cycle plants built here, but the fact of the matter is I think we're still very well positioned that we're not going to see the volatility that some of these other exchanges are seeing.
Sophie Karp: Thank you. Appreciate the response.
Joseph (Joe) Nolan: Thanks, Sophie.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Andrew Weisel of Scotiabank. Your line is now open.
Andrew Weisel: Good morning, Andrew. Hey, Andrew. Hi, good morning, everyone. Thanks for taking my question. Another one on the transmission ROEs. I understand what you're saying about the 205 process and how you can implement subject to refund. My question is, what will you be booking on a prospective basis in terms of earnings, say 2027 and beyond? Will you assume the 11.39% up and until the FERC or a court indicates that you shouldn't, will future guidance be based on the 1139 or the 9.57 as a base ROE?
John Doe: Well, first and foremost, the current guidance that we just reiterated and updated back when we issued the AK, which was March 31st, assumed the current rate, which is 957, okay? So we'll wait to see how this 205 ultimately shakes out later this year. We'll know that definitively. And we'll revise our guidance to reflect whatever rate we can bill to customers. But that will be done on the fourth quarter call in February once we've solidified this issue.
Andrew Weisel: Right, okay. So your assumption is that you'll get resolution before the fourth quarter call when you give guidance.
John Doe: Yes, yes. Yeah, under the current procedure under the Federal Power Act, we expect a decision from FERC to determine when we can implement this new proposed rate. And as I've said, on a subject to refund basis. So we will be billing customers, provided that we don't mutually reach a settlement agreement with the stakeholders. This rate will go live, and the process to review and decide the ultimate rate that's just and reasonable, FERC will have plenty of time to do that.
Andrew Weisel: Right. Okay. Let's hope they stick to the schedule. They don't always stay on time, but let's hope they do. And the second question, if I can, on the refunds of $880 million or so, I know the refund period was extended through May of 2027. From an accounting perspective, have you taken any sort of reserves or will you have to, or is that just sort of looming while the challenge and appeals play out.
John Doe: Well, we'll see how things progress, but our position 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 until we have further determination and clarity on the retroactive piece going back to 2014. So I want to be clear. but we do know that we have exposure and we are subject to the 15-month refund period as FERC just validated. We were also pleased and we feel it's the right thing for FERC to do to dismiss complaint two, three, and four. So we have that validated, but we do agree that we are subject under the Federal Power Act to the 15-month refund period. And that's why we booked that this quarter.
Andrew Weisel: Okay, very good. Thank you so much. Thank you.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Travis Miller of Morningstar Inc. Your line is now open.
David Campbell: Good morning, Travis. Good morning. Hey, thanks. Just one quick follow-up from me. I appreciate all the details here in the script. But on that first high level, given the uncertainty there, depending on what happens over the next year, what's the flexibility you have on your transmission investments and your CapEx? Is that an area where you could potentially move around some capex if there's a decision that goes against you or is there even a need to move around capex?
John Doe: We certainly will look at that. I don't want to get ahead of our skis here, but that's something that we can look at. But, you know, right now where we have, and we said that in our formal remarks, that we were a bit, you know, taken back by this harsh decision that was just issued by FERC because, you know, as Joe mentioned, we need more supply, right? And utilities transmission owners should be incentivized to to explore investment opportunities that would reduce the overall cost for customers if you recall back a decade ago where New England was under tremendous amount of congestion pressure and we unlocked that congestion and saving customers billions of dollars for eliminating that price differential so those investments have resulted in tremendous cost savings for our customers throughout New England.
David Campbell: Okay. I think that's all I had. I appreciate all the other details that you gave. Yep. Thanks for joining us today. Thank you.
Operator: As a reminder, to ask a question, you need to press star 1-1 on your telephone. One moment, please. Our last question comes from the line of Paul Patterson of Glen Rock Associates, LLC. Your line is now open.
Paul Patterson: Good morning, Paul. Good morning. So lots of questions answered. On the Connecticut PBR, is that – I don't know. Are we going to wait 10 years for something on that, or is that – I'm just joking around. I apologize. But I mean – What do you think is, I guess, what's the status of that?
Joseph (Joe) Nolan: You know, Paul, as you know, we've been untangling a lot of things down there. It's a very, very positive turnaround, I think, at Puro. We're getting very, very good decisions. We're getting fair decisions. You know, in the pecking order, yeah, PBR would be great to have, but at this point, we're just trying to sort through and get an orderly regulatory environment to operate in, so I'm not going to go poke the beer and start to talk about PBR right now. Let's get some other things or some other priorities that I have on my plate before I'm going to poke the beer on PBR.
Paul Patterson: Okay, so just wait and see kind of thing, I guess, right? Okay, and then I guess one of my questions is, do you know what triggered FERC after all this time to sort of come out with this sort of out of nowhere?
John Doe: Yeah, I mean, we can suspect that it was a tough decision, having this order linger out there for many, many years. I think the message that they've sent to New England transmission owners is we're going to let the courts make the decision on this proceeding, and that's why we're taking the legal action that we've discussed on this call today.
Paul Patterson: Okay. I mean, but do you know, I mean, okay. I appreciate it. Thanks so much.
John Doe: Thank you.
Paul Patterson: Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. I am showing no further questions at this time, so I would like to turn it back to Joe Nolan for closing remarks.
Joseph (Joe) Nolan: Thank you again for joining us today. You still have time to get on David Campbell's effigy call. We gave you 15 minutes, but 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 de-risking our business profile, resolving key open items ahead of us, and positioning the company for sustainable long-term growth. Thanks very much.
Operator: Thank you for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect.
