FirstEnergy Corp. Q2 2026 Earnings Call

Hello, welcome to FirstEnergy Corp's second quarter earnings call. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to turn the call over to Karen Sagot, Vice President of Investor Relations. Thank you. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to FirstEnergy's second quarter 2026 earnings review. Our earnings release presentation and related financial information are available on our website at firstenergycorp.com/ir. Today's discussion will include the use of non-GAAP financial measures and forward-looking statements, which are subject to risks and uncertainties. Factors discussed in our earnings news release, during today's conference call, and in our SEC filings could cause our actual results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements. The appendix of today's presentation includes supplemental information, along with the reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures. Please read our cautionary statements and discussion of non-GAAP financial measures on slides two and three of the presentation. Our Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, Brian Tierney, will lead our call today, and he will be joined by Jon Taylor, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.

It's my pleasure to turn the call over to Brian.

Thank you, Karen, and good morning, everyone. We have made significant progress in key strategic and regulatory priorities and are executing well against our 2026 plan. I'm excited to share with you today the strides we have made and the opportunities we are pursuing. We delivered another quarter of solid financial and operational performance. We are reaffirming our 2026 $6 billion capital investment plan and our Core EPS guidance range of $2.62 per share to $2.82. Jon will take you through the second quarter details later in the call. We are also reaffirming our $36 billion five-year capital investment plan and our Core EPS growth near the top end of 6%-8% through 2030, with meaningful upside opportunities that I'll describe later. Our performance reflects strong execution and financial discipline, a fundamental change in how we operate, how we adapt, how we invest, and how we serve our customers.

We're executing across every part of our business. We're advancing constructive regulatory outcomes within our footprint, deploying customer-focused capital at a record pace, and delivering the financial performance we expected through the first half of the year. This performance is important, not only because it demonstrates disciplined execution, but also positions us to capture future growth opportunities that can meaningfully expand FirstEnergy's long-term earnings growth. That's where the story becomes even more compelling. We're now focused on both executing today's plan and creating pathways that have the potential to strengthen it. Perhaps the clearest example is the demand we're seeing from data centers. Across our system, total forecasted data center demand has increased 30% since the first quarter to approximately 25 gigawatts. During the second quarter alone, we contracted an additional 2.1 gigawatts, bringing our total contracted demand to 6.4 gigawatts.

We expect an additional 1.5 gigawatts to enter into contracts in the next couple of weeks. For perspective, our contracted and pipelined demand now represents approximately 70% of our July system peak load of 34.8 gigawatts. That illustrates both the scale of the opportunity ahead and the confidence customers have in FirstEnergy as a long-term partner. We are seeing even more compelling opportunity emerge in West Virginia. We are making significant progress toward approval of the 1.2 gigawatt Moundsville Energy Center. What excites me most isn't simply one project, it's what that project represents. Today, we have 4.3 gigawatts of contracted and pipelined data center demand in West Virginia, and we expect that to increase by the end of the year.

As the demand continues to develop, we believe FirstEnergy is uniquely positioned to provide the generation needed to support that growth, creating significant opportunities for additional investment while supporting economic development across the state. We're evaluating the right structure to support that future growth, including the potential for structures that would allow Mon Power or Potomac Edison, West Virginia, to enter into a wholesale power agreement with an affiliated generation company. Whether in a regulated vehicle or gen co, our principles remain unchanged. We want to bring new generation online faster, protect and create value for existing customers, support economic growth, and deliver appropriate market-based returns for those investing in our company. We are in the process of developing an RFP for the major equipment needed to support the next generation plant, and we've started the site selection process.

We plan to give you more insight into the timing of the next generation plant later this year. We are making progress in other jurisdictions as well. Ohio's new regulatory framework is constructive, as demonstrated by a recent three-year rate plan settlement involving a peer utility. The framework enhances transparency for customers, regulators, and other stakeholders. It also gives us greater visibility into future financial performance through a three-year forward-looking test year with annual true-ups, enabling more effective planning and investment to address evolving system needs. Our three-year rate plan filing is on track with the staff report due by November 30th and hearings scheduled to begin March 1st, with an order anticipated on time in the second quarter of 2027. In New Jersey, we are working collaboratively with the governor's office, regulators, and local stakeholders and are encouraged by the ongoing engagement.

We plan on making a base rate case filing this quarter and have held pre-filing meetings with administration and BPU staff. We remain focused on making investments to enhance reliability and deliver long-term value for our customers and communities as they have demanded and we have committed. In West Virginia, the state understands the meaningful opportunity for the economic development in front of them, and they appreciate the importance of reliable energy to drive growth. We are committed to supporting the needs of the state and our customers and are excited about the incremental investments. Our transmission business represents a significant growth driver with a 16% compound annual growth rate through 2030 in the current plan. As a longstanding investment priority, it continues to offer meaningful expansion potential beyond the current plan through organic investment needs, competitive development projects, and data center demand.

You look across our portfolio, we have created a breadth of growth opportunities. We are building optionality into the business, creating avenues for growth that strengthen our current plan and position FirstEnergy to capitalize on the changing energy landscape. I'll now hand it over to Jon, who will walk us through our financial results and provide details on key regulatory updates.

Thank you, Brian. Good morning, everyone. We continue to make strong progress across key areas of the business, laying a solid foundation for long-term growth and value creation. We are pleased with our performance, which is in line with our plan for the second quarter and year-to-date periods. For the second quarter, we reported GAAP earnings of $0.50 per share, compared with $0.46 in the second quarter of 2025. Core earnings for Q2 were $0.50 per share, compared with $0.52 a year ago. In line with our plan and our communication on the Q1 call in terms of the timing of earnings growth for the year. Through the first six months of the year, we reported Core earnings of $1.22 per share, compared to $1.19 for the same period a year ago.

Our financial performance reflects execution of our regulated strategies with returns on our customer-focused formula rate investment programs, partially offset by the timing of operating expenses, which were planned to be slightly higher as compared to the same period of last year. Our capital investment program remains a significant driver of our financial performance and long-term growth. Of the $6 billion planned for 2026, the company deployed $2.9 billion through the first half of the year, representing a 19% increase versus 2025. On a trailing 12-month basis, our financial performance resulted in a consolidated return on equity of 9.5%, in line with our targeted returns.

Turning quickly to demand, total customer load increased approximately 2% in the quarter on a weather-adjusted basis, with industrial load increasing over 4%, with growth across most sectors, but especially in metals, oil and gas, and chemicals, reflecting strengthening order activity and tailwinds from the AI and data center infrastructure build-outs. The activity across our industrial customer base, combined with growing demand from data center customers, provides another encouraging indicator of the growth we're seeing throughout our service territory. We're also advancing key regulatory strategies. In West Virginia, we expect an order for new rates before month-end, which would result in a cumulative revenue increase of $76 million, with the first $38 million increase on August 1st and a second similar increase on June 1st of next year. Also in West Virginia, hearings on our CPCN application for the 1.2 gigawatt Moundsville Energy Center took place earlier this month.

Our team presented a strong case. We look forward to resolution, which we expect this fall. We anticipate a large portion, if not all the output of this facility, to support data center load and are working on a fully bundled service agreement for a data center customer that would be filed with the Public Service Commission of West Virginia. The agreement is expected to include significant protections and long-term benefit sharing for existing West Virginia customers. We're also making good progress on the contracts for the EPC, OEM equipment, and fuel lateral associated with the investment and expect to be in a position to sign those contracts as soon as we receive an order. Once the CPCN is approved, we will update our long-term plans and share that with the investment community. Importantly, we view Moundsville as the beginning of a broader generation investment opportunity in West Virginia.

The depth and continued growth of our data center pipeline and the types of discussions we're having with these customers give us increasing visibility into future investments to provide generation service to these customers. In Ohio, our application for a three-year rate plan was accepted. Recall that our plan included capital investments of $2.5 billion to strengthen reliability and resiliency. As Brian said, the staff report is due November 30th, with hearings scheduled to begin March 1st of next year. In Maryland and New Jersey, we expect to file base rate cases in the third quarter. We've maintained an open and constructive dialogue with Governor Sherrill's administration and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities regarding our planned filing. Our proposal will be consistent with the objectives of the Governor's Executive Order 1, including an approach designed to mitigate the initial impact on customer bills.

We believe this will be a beneficial outcome for our customers and for JCP&L. Taken together, these filings represent an important part of executing our regulated investment strategy and supporting the continued recovery of capital deployed across our diverse territories. We feel good about these upcoming proceedings, the preparation, the outreach, and our ability to execute. Turning to transmission, we continue to see incremental investment opportunities from data center demand. We plan to participate in the 2026 PJM open window process, which opened last week. The PJM board is scheduled to award projects in the first quarter of 2027. As we've demonstrated through our success in prior competitive solicitations, our scale, planning expertise, and strategic location within PJM position us well to compete for these opportunities, which we believe will expand in future open windows.

In closing, we are very pleased with the progress this year in terms of execution on our financial and regulatory plans. We continue to see opportunities to increase the investment and earnings trajectory of the company. As we've always believed, our diversity is a significant strength, giving us flexibility to adjust our capital deployment plans as regulatory environments and investment opportunities evolve. We remain focused on delivering sustainable value for our customers and shareholders. With that, I'll turn the call back over to Brian.

Thanks, Jon. Let me close by putting today's discussion into perspective. Several years ago, we made a series of deliberate choices about the company FirstEnergy needed to become. We put greater accountability into the business. We changed how we invest and operate, and we moved closer to our customers and the communities we serve. Today, we are seeing the results and building a stronger company. That is changing what's possible for FirstEnergy. Our existing plan already provides a compelling value proposition, with above industry average organic earnings growth, minimal equity requirements, and significant investment opportunities across our regulated businesses. We have avenues for growth today that simply didn't exist at this scale years ago. We're approaching them from a position of strength, with the capabilities to meet growing customer demand while planning for the investments needed to serve that growth.

We are executing on our plan, advancing key regulatory strategies, and we are capitalizing on investment opportunities to increase earnings growth. We're building a company that not only delivers the reliability our customers depend on, but also executes on the once-in-a-generation growth opportunities that are reshaping our region. I couldn't be more excited about the future we're creating. Thank you for your continued interest in FirstEnergy. I will now open the call to Q&A.

Thank you. With that, we will now be conducting a question and answer session. We ask that you please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. If you'd like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate that your line is in the question queue. You may press star two to remove yourself from the queue. For any participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up the handset before pressing the star keys. One moment while we poll for questions. Our first question comes from the line of Shar Parekh with Wells Fargo. Please proceed with your question.

Hey, guys. Good morning. Morning, Shar.

Morning, Brian. Brian, just on the West Virginia data center pipeline you highlighted, obviously there's three and a half gigs expected to be contracted between 2031 and 2035, which will likely grow over time. Can you just maybe talk about sort of the open capacity on the transmission system in West Virginia and what could be the incremental investment opportunity there? Do you have to build roughly one for one on the generation side for every megawatt of new demand you bring on? Then maybe just some quickly on timing and cadence of the builds. Thanks. Yeah, thank you for that, Shar.

In the near term, we have some capacity. If someone wants to add, say, a gigawatt of capacity, we have the opportunity for people early in the queue to add maybe 100 or 200 megawatts in the near term, then the opportunity to build into the remaining 9 or 800 megawatts that we have. There is existing capacity for people who are in that queue and we've contracted with. In the later years, we have the opportunity to build out to meet that need. As we talked about before, we think there's on average about $250 million of investment for each gigawatt of capacity that we add, and that's in play here as well.

Got it. Okay, that's perfect. Brian, just in terms of the New Jersey rate case filing, do you anticipate the BPU will implement any of the Executive Order 1 business review recommendations like capital spending scrutiny? Especially as the state considers changes to the cost of capital in the near term with PBRs and multi-year rates, kind of more of a longer-dated opportunity. I guess New Jersey seems to be getting worse, not better. Just how are you thinking about that, why file now? Thanks. Yeah. We don't anticipate trouble in New Jersey in this filing.

I think we found the commission there and the administration to be much more collaborative than prior rhetoric might have led people to believe. The first part of the study that came out in New Jersey was kind of a menu of things that are available to the commission, and they're asking for comments on that in phase two. I just think that whether they do some form of performance-based rate making or something like that, we don't view it's going to be not constructive in New Jersey. I think some of the important things to think about, particularly in New Jersey, in the last rate case that we had there, the big issue for us was reliability.

There was the demand by interveners in that case that we invest in reliability in the state, and we've been actively doing that, focused on the 18th worst performing circuits. What we've done there since is working. From 2024 to 2025, we increased reliability by 16%, and year to date, 2025 over 2026, we've increased reliability by 38%. The constructs that New Jersey has are working to deliver affordability and reliability, and we anticipate that that will continue in this rate case. The reason we're going back in is we've just invested so much in that reliability, again, which is working, that we need to go in to get recovery for that.

Got it. Perfect. Thank you, Brian. Very clear. Appreciate it. Thank you, Sean.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Nicholas Campanella with Barclays. Please proceed with your question.

Hey, good morning. Thanks for the updates.

Good morning, Nick. Hey, morning.

It sounds like you're looking at different structures to, or you're exploring different structures to facilitate the West Virginia demand. Can you talk about what the regulatory process would be, and how that could differ from the current CPCN process you're progressing to the first gigawatt, let's say, if you are serving a gen co type structure for the next. How could that be different at the regulator? Thanks. Thanks for that, Nick.

I think we could probably go around a large portion of the CPCN type filing. If we created a gen co, that would obviously require, I think, FERC approval to sell it wholesale. Then the contract between the gen co and Mon Power, for instance, would need to be approved by the West Virginia Public Service Commission. I think that process would be considerably faster than the traditional CPCN process, and that would be a benefit to getting speed to power quicker.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. Then just on the RFP for the next part of the generation, a similar question, but just how long do you expect that process to take? Based on how that outcome looks like, how can your economics to serve this change, whether it's behind the meter or otherwise? Thanks. Thanks for that, Nick.

Obviously, we're beginning that process before we've concluded the current process for the existing generation to try and get ahead of that, and we think that's prudent given the contracting load that we have in West Virginia and the fact that we're the certificated utility to serve that load. I think given what we've learned in the last process, we'll be able to move as quick or quicker on this RFP process, and that will benefit, again, speed to power and getting this done as quickly as we possibly can to get this load fired up as quickly as we can with new generation and to the degree we need it, new transmission.

We're working like crazy to get in front of this and to, again, have speed to power as quickly as possible for the data center load that we have and for the economic development that we're experiencing in West Virginia.

Okay. Thank you so much.

Thanks, Nick. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan.

Please proceed with your question.

Hi. Good morning. Good morning, Jeremy.

I just want to go into New Jersey in a little bit more, if possible. Just thinking about, what do you see as like the primary guardrails as far as the objectives for the state here, and I guess, to the extent you're able to comment on the depth of your conversations. Just looking through the report for the BPU, there's a lot on the menu, as you said, but there's items such as looking at what happened in Connecticut, taking down the ROE there, talking about that, just wondering how this all factors together as far as thinking about filing in the state right now.

Jeremy, I think of phase one of the report as kind of a menu. There were a lot of things laid out there, some of which are constructive and we agree with, others of which we think would not be conducive to a good regulatory outcome, and we're going to have the opportunity to comment on those. Really it's a menu of sort of all of the above, what's been looked at in other states, what's worked, what hasn't, I think the important thing is we have the opportunity to comment on that. We've also seen what have happened in other states and want to make darn sure we're not surprising an administration or a commission when we come out with a filing. The level of engagement and collaboration there has been high, I would say. Nobody's going to be surprised.

They're going to be expecting when we come in the door. We've had our pre-filing meetings, and those things have been constructive and well-received. I think at the end of the day, the big part is The last rate case, it was you need to invest more in New Jersey to improve reliability, and we've done that, and it's working.

Got it. Thank you. Then maybe pivoting over to slide five there, talking about the data center overview. Was just curious if you could talk a bit more, I guess, on the contracted portfolio stepping up a lot quarter-over-quarter. If you could talk a bit more, I guess, on the drivers as far as why now, the conversions, and how you see, I guess, that pace or that trajectory going forward.

Yeah. Jeremy, I think there's a sense of urgency on both the data centers developers and the hyperscalers, as well as the utilities, to get contracted as quickly as possible so that load comes into the PJM planning process from a transmission standpoint, and if necessary, can be included in the PJM RTEP process as needed. That's kind of viewed as being a bottleneck for getting this load online as quickly as possible. There's a sense of urgency by everyone to get contracted as quickly as possible, to get into that process as quickly as possible, and that's why you're seeing the number of conversions you are from pipeline to contracted.

Got it. That's helpful. I'll leave it there. Thank you. Thank you, Jeremy.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Carly Davenport, Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question.

Hey, good morning. Thanks so much for taking the questions.

Morning, Carly. Good morning. Maybe just to start on West Virginia, maybe could you talk a bit just about the CPCN process for the Maidsville Energy Center, just kind of how you thought the hearings went, particularly on sort of the debate between gas and coal, and just how you sort of characterize your confidence there on getting those approvals across the finish line in the second half of the year?

Yeah. I think the hearings went very well. I think our witnesses laid out very well the need for the plant. Remember, the expedited schedule that we requested was granted, so I think there's some urgency on the part of the commission to get this properly vetted, properly looked at, and properly ordered on. I think some of the opposition that we saw from the coal is not unexpected in the state of West Virginia. This plant isn't going to replace coal plants that we have in the state. It's going to be added to them. I think that's more apparent than ever that we don't need to be retiring plants, we need to be adding plants. I think that's understood in West Virginia. We have a very supportive executive in the state of West Virginia.

I think a commission that understands that new generation needs to be brought online to enable the economic development in the state, and I think we'll get a positive order on the CPCN in the near term.

That's great. Very clear. Thank you. On the PJM open window opportunity that you've highlighted, any visibility or sort of guardrails you could put around the magnitude of proposals that you might put forth by that September deadline?

I think we're in the process of working through that right now. Remember, we've been very successful in the prior open windows, securing about $5 billion of the opportunities that have been presented there. Given where we are, both geographically and what our experience and expertise in transmission is, I think we are well-positioned to get some success in this open window. I just see these open windows continuing for the foreseeable future, given the pipeline that we have and the contracted load that we have. I just think this process is going to be a significant opportunity for us going forward, as it has in the past.

Great. Thank you so much for the time.

Thank you, Carly. Thank you.

Our next question comes from the line of Andrew Weisel with Scotiabank. Please proceed with your question.

Hey, good morning, everyone. Good morning, Andrew.

First question. You show in the slide that you expect another 1.5 gigawatts of data centers to be contracted in the next two weeks. Can you elaborate? That's just very specific. Is that based on contract negotiations, and can you tell us in which state that would be, and if it's more 2031 or the 2035 bucket?

Yeah. We're just sensing where we are in the pace of a negotiation for getting some of these contracted. We have a sense that we're very close to getting them signed. Would've liked to have had them signed by this call, but we aren't going to set false deadlines and come to a deal that's less than ideal to meet a deadline like that. Wanted to give you some sense into what's just around the corner. That's like I said before, it's going to be across our states. We're having the most interest right now in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. It's going to be phased in over time to the degree that we have existing capacity on the transmission system.

Some of that load will come in in the near term, but it's going to phase in mostly between now and 2031, with a small portion of that extending out to the 2035 period.

Okay, great. Very helpful. Yes, I agree. Shouldn't make deals based on appeasing us. Next question is on CapEx. Obviously, you'll have a pretty interesting update later this year. Question is, there's likely going to be upside in West Virginia from the gas plant if you're successful, also on transmission. Should we think of that as being incremental to the plan and everything else you would typically do, or would you look to trim or reallocate CapEx out of other jurisdictions? I'm maybe specifically wondering about the outlook for CapEx in Pennsylvania relative to your plan. If you could maybe comment on the outlook there, given the regulatory and political uncertainty. Thank you. Yeah. A couple things there.

If the plan is approved as we expect, it will be incremental to the CapEx plan. That will be in the updated period that we'll be updating for. That's new CapEx that's not in the current $36 billion plan. In regards to Pennsylvania, today we're operating in a base rate environment that went into place 11/25. We've recently been in for a rate case there. We are spending 66% of our CapEx this year, is under the LTIP with DISC recovery for that. The chair of the commission has suggested that utilities use the LTIP DISC program to the degree possible before coming in for rate cases, we're going to do that. We might even seek a rise in the cap on the DISC from 5% of revenues to 7.5%, that's been granted before.

We would move capital out of Pennsylvania if we start to see negative recovery there. That has not been our experience to date, we don't anticipate that will be our experience going forward.

Okay. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Andrew. Thank you.

Our next question comes from the line of Sophie Karp with KeyBanc Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.

Hi. Good morning. Thank you for taking my questions.

Morning, Sophie. Yeah, great updates.

Very exciting growth plans, guys. I have a question on ROEs. The 9.5 is already a very respectable level, of course, to have as an earned ROE in the mix. I was wondering if there's any jurisdictions that you have that still have sort of enough room for improvement where we can reasonably see that ROE tick higher following some rate actions there or something.

Yeah, Sophie. Hey, this is Jon. Yeah, in all of our businesses, we see some ROE performance that's less than the allowed returns. Those are the- the business units that are either actively in rate cases like West Virginia or that will be filing rate cases in the third quarter.

New Jersey and Maryland. We see a little bit of that, and that's why you see us going in for rate relief in those jurisdictions. It's important for us on a consolidated basis to hit our targeted returns. We've been able to do that for the last couple of three years. I think this plan allows us to do that as well.

Okay. Thank you. Then I was wondering if I could get your, I guess, most recent thinking on the PJM proposals with respect to Connect and Manage in various cost allocation initiatives as well as the September auction they plan to run and the cost allocations associated with it and the utility roles in that.

Yeah. We do welcome anything that speeds the process up for both approving transmission and generation interconnect. We applaud any moves to make that happen quicker and think PJM has made some strides there. In regard to the reliability backstop procurement, not surprised that PJM went with their proposal rather than the joint utility proposal. The most important parts of that aspect are what PJM is likely to file on Friday, then what FERC is going to ultimately approve. That really is who pays for the auctions and who provides the credit support for the auctions. I think that's really the crux of what we don't know and the important part of what needs to happen. I think utilities have signed up for the Ratepayer Protection Pledge.

Our end-use AI customers, data center customers, have signed the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, I think that needs to be a significant component of who pays for the capacity from the auction and who provides the credit support. An interesting thing to note is that when you look at PJM's allocation for what zones the backstop auction is going to be allocated to, FirstEnergy gets less than 4% of the 68 or 900 megawatts that's going to be allocated. The most important part to us is, are our customers protected? Is there affordability? The fact that we're being allocated just 4% of that, I think is a really, really good outcome for our customers.

Terrific. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Sophie. Thank you.

Our next question comes from the line of Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research. Please proceed with your question.

Great. Thank you. Good morning.

Morning, Steve. I thought you made a pretty clear statement in your release on trends as the potential meaningfully increased long-term investment and earnings growth profile.

Just as you think about some of these upside opportunities you highlighted, could you maybe talk to the timing? Like how many of these hit potentially within the current 5-year period relative to, is this something that kind of hits more in kind of your next 5 year or the 5 year after that? Just some color on how to think about that from some of the things like West Virginia GENCO or transmission. Thanks. Steve, we traditionally update our 5-year plan in the autumn or early part of the new year.

We'll be doing that in a significant component of the upside that you see will be in the updated plan that we'll be releasing either later this year or early next year.

Steve, I could just tell you the types of conversations we're having with the customers in West Virginia are urgent, are focused on speed to power. You'll see urgency from us in pursuing these opportunities. We're having conversations with customers almost weekly on these concepts and these structures, I have a sense that this is going to move fairly quickly.

Okay. Then, one follow-up on funding the plan, both the current one and the upside one. Could you maybe just talk to where you are on equity for the current plan and how to think about funding upside CapEx?

There's been no change to the current financing plan on the $36 billion of CapEx. I think when we talk about layering in additional CapEx, we were targeting maybe 30%-40% of incremental equity on incremental CapEx. I will say it's an interesting dynamic we're in with new generation and what some of these customers are willing to do. We might be able to back that down a little bit with the next generation facility, in terms of having them pay or have more milestone payments during the construction period. All of that's being worked out now.

Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Steve.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Nicholas Woods with Bank of America. Please proceed with your question.

Morning, thanks for taking the question.

Morning, Nicholas. Hi. I guess I want to get an understanding on the data center capital opportunity.

Can you help me understand how much of the investment associated with the 6.4 GW that's already contracted is currently outside the $36 billion plan?

Yeah. There's probably about $400 million that's outside of the plan. That's related to the 2.2 GW that we contracted since Q1. Most of that will fall in the 2030, 2031 and 2032 period.

Then a follow-up to that is, you guys have been discussing about the urgency to contract demand so that it can enter the PJM's transmission planning process. Once that demand is contracted, what additional milestones need to be completed before that associated investment, whether it's transmission or other infrastructure investments, can be incorporated into the capital plan?

We move forward with our process in terms of what our relationship is with the customer in terms of contracting, planning, and all that, and we set up a timeline with the customer for how quickly we think we can get that load attached to the grid, energized and up and running. We have to share those plans with PJM on a regular basis, which we do at their monthly TAC meetings. PJM incorporates that into their planning process, and it becomes part of the annual RTEP process if a regional solution is required to hook that customer up. Sometimes a regional solution's required. Other times, it's within our footprint, and we can handle the upgrades ourselves. It just depends on where it is, the nature of the capacity on the system.

It's a parallel process in terms of our contracting and keeping PJM well-informed.

Got it. That makes sense. Appreciate the question. Thank you.

Thank you, Nicholas. Thank you.

Our final question comes from the line of Anthony Crowdell with Mizuho. Please proceed with your question.

Hey, good morning, team. Just a follow-up to one of the early questions. Brian, I think you talked about the data center demand is greatest in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, or that's what you're seeing. Yet when you think about the states, you have two states there that are PJM states, West Virginia guys could own generation. Just from the customer point of view, could you talk about maybe what are the differentiation or what's the competitive draw for one state versus the other? I would think maybe more inclined to be West Virginia than the other states because one-stop-shop, you own the generation, you build it, yet you are seeing a demand in these PJM wire states.

Yeah. A good question, Anthony, and a couple of things going on there. One is, West Virginia does have competitive advantage over states that have deregulated in that there is a one-stop-shop, and it's the utility, and we can enter into both the transmission agreement with them and provide the generation that they'll need. That's clearly competitive advantage for West Virginia over states that don't have that. West Virginia as a state is taking advantage of that. They have an executive and the Governor who views this as critical to the state's future. There's a Public Service Commission that I think is equally aware of the opportunity and the competitive advantage the state has, and they're looking to take advantage of that. At the same time, look at where we are geographically.

Our transmission system sits in between the Northern Virginia Data Center hub. As that grows out from its core in Northern Virginia, it's encompassing our Maryland service territory and our West Virginia service territory. On the other side of our system, there is a data center hub in New Albany, Ohio. As that grows out from that core, that touches our Ohio and Pennsylvania service territory. There's competitive advantage in the state of West Virginia. There's also geographic advantage to where we're situated as a utility.

Great. That's all I had. Thanks so much. Thank you, Anthony.

Thank you. With that, this does conclude the question and answer session, as well as today's teleconference. We thank you for your participation, you may disconnect your lines at this time, have a wonderful rest of your day.