We will now open the call for questions. If you would like to ask a question, please press the star key followed by the one key on your touch-tone phone now. Our first question comes from Nick Campanella with Barclays. Your line is open.

Hey. Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions.

Good morning, Nick.

So I just wanted to ask on the HPE 896 that you brought up on the battery side. Can you just talk about what is embedded in the plan currently for battery storage, what your recovery mechanisms would be for this new opportunity, and then when you think about supply chain, labor, the company's own balance sheet capacity, what does that enable in terms of a gigawatt installation run rate? And what could we expect here if you have any thoughts? Thanks.

Yeah, Nick. Great question. So the $65 billion five-year capital plan, which we produced as part of the Q4 call in February, already includes about $2 billion, or about 3%, related to battery storage, subject to regulatory approval. And what the recent legislation means for us is that, in order to achieve the updated targets, we are going to need to work diligently to accelerate the ramp of that capital. Things to watch going forward: there is going to be a State Corporation Commission technical conference this year on the topic; we will, of course, update our IRP in the fall to reflect our most recent thinking on the ramping of the battery storage; and then we will update our capital plan in line with our normal cadence on the fourth quarter call. General rule of thumb, a gigawatt overnight installed, including transmission, network upgrades, etc., we put into the $2.5 billion to $3 billion per gigawatt range. Obviously, the increase to 20, which includes short and long term, represents a meaningful opportunity over a long period of time. So we are excited about the opportunity. We already are working on the pipeline for this. As mentioned, with the $2 billion in the plan, this gives us an opportunity to potentially accelerate that. We will provide those updates and would recommend folks pay attention to those public data points that will happen later this year.

Okay. Looking forward to it. And then maybe just moving to CVOW, two questions there. I just wanted to clarify, the PJM upgrade costs—are they included or not in the figures you are putting out there today, or is that still downward pressure? And then how are you thinking about the potential 232 steel tariffs? Thanks.

Yeah, Nick. Another really good question. Today's mark does not reflect the potential for certain transmission costs that were allocated to CVOW being potentially reallocated, and Bob mentioned the process whereby that occurs and why that might occur. So that would be something to watch as we move forward into the year. And then on tariffs, we are also taking a mark on that, which is we are awaiting some additional interpretive guidance from the agencies. We are evaluating with our partners, many of whom are the importer of record, to completely finalize that. We estimate that has the potential to be in the approximately $200 million range, which, as I mentioned, would have the potential of being offset by some of the reallocation of transmission costs. We do not have exact precision on how those two will balance; they seem to be generally in the same area. Those are the two things to watch going forward. Thank you.

We will take our next question from Shar Pourreza with Wells Fargo. Your line is open.

Hey, guys. Good morning.

Morning.

So just real quick on Millstone. Obviously, you highlighted Governor Lamont recently touted the savings generated for ratepayers by Millstone. How much headroom do you have to recontract at higher prices? Maybe just elaborate a little bit further on the alternative paths you may have outside of the DEEP process. This is obviously something we are all monitoring given the affordability rhetoric and Connecticut necessarily has not been very open to data centers. Are we talking about a virtual deal here? Thanks.

Hey, Shar. First of all, it is great that we can talk about Millstone with you again. You are right, we are very pleased with the Governor's comments. Commissioner Dykes also talked about the value of the existing PPA. Just as a reminder, we are currently contracted for a little more than half through August 2029. The process at Millstone today in Connecticut would be for procurement after the expiration of the existing PPA. There is not, in that process, a limit on how much could be potentially contracted with the state. As we have talked about in the past, other states in New England have also expressed an interest, and we are certainly happy to work with them as well, because they recognize the value of Millstone the same way that we do. As to data centers, we continue to have some interest from data centers to contract there, but I want to reiterate what we have said in the past, which is our view is any outcome there needs to have the support of stakeholders in Connecticut. We think that is the smart way to pursue it. What is in front of us right now is this RFP, and we will continue working on that.

Got it. Appreciate it. Thanks for that, Bob. I have been waiting years for you to answer my question. And then just on nuclear, on the topic, obviously Dominion in the past has really focused on SMRs, but there seems to be momentum building from a consortium of utilities looking to build new AP1000s with some cost inflation protections from the off-takers being the hyperscalers and maybe some backstop from the U.S. government. Would you be willing to participate in this consortium and an AP1000? What are the puts and takes on SMRs versus the AP1000s? You do have an early site permit with North Anna. Just curious there. Thanks.

Yeah, Shar, we do have an early site permit at North Anna, and we have also been exploring SMRs. Stepping back, as we have talked about before, we are in a very pro-nuclear state in Virginia—I think arguably the most nuclear-friendly state in the U.S.—and you can see that from the support of the Governor. Both Senators Kaine and Warner have expressed support for nuclear. The General Assembly a couple of years ago passed legislation allowing us to recover some costs for nuclear project development. We filed with the SCC and got an approval for that. We have a lot of the nuclear supply chain here, the nuclear Navy here, and the units at Surry and North Anna. As we think about nuclear development in any sense, we are going to continue to be guided by three principles that are resolute: first, any structure has to address first-of-a-kind risk—so if we are talking about SMRs, we need to address that; second, it has to address cost overrun risk so that our customers and our shareholders are not bearing that burden; and third, we need to protect our balance sheet and our business profile. We will continue to investigate and explore alternatives on the nuclear front, but we are going to be guided by those principles, and we will continue to work with policymakers.

Got it. Appreciate it, guys. Fantastic results. See you in a few days.

We will move next to Paul Zimbardo with Jefferies. Your line is open.

Hi. Good morning, team. Thanks for having me on.

Morning, Paul.

Thank you. First, on PJM—obviously, you have a unique position in PJM—just thoughts on the backstop procurement, the auction feature, and if there are any ways that you can accelerate generation or spread the cost more broadly across PJM? Overall thoughts on that process?

Yeah, Paul, thanks for that question. We support PJM's effort to develop a backstop auction or process to get additional capacity for load-serving entities that are not developing generation or lack a state-regulated framework to do that. We are different—we are vertically integrated—so it does not change our existing process. We do not expect a change to our plan. We have an integrated resource plan that is designed to meet policy goals in Virginia and the incredible demand growth that we are experiencing, and that includes, as you know, incremental generation. It is also important to note the difference between the DOM Zone, which we serve as a transmission operator, and our load-serving entity that we serve from a generation standpoint. We will take a look at the process that PJM ultimately finalizes, but the plan that we have is through our state-regulated utility, vertically integrated, and we are going to need to build generation to serve load in Virginia regardless of the outcome of the PJM process.

Very clear. And then if I could follow up on the battery bill, the successful one there. Any way to frame the cadence of that? Should we think about the megawatt deployment target as ratable or more back-end loaded or front-end loaded? Any shaping would be useful.

Yeah, Paul. We probably do not have great guidance on how to model exactly what that cadence will look like. We will take steps to start accelerating that spend, which we recover via a rider mechanism in Virginia, as quickly as we possibly can. So I think there will be some upward bias in our five-year capital plan associated with that. Then in the 2030s, you will likely see a higher run rate associated with that. I would say stay tuned for the IRP because that will show where the model selects those installations coming in.

We will move next to Steve DeBrissey with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open.

Hey, Bob and Steven. Thanks very much for taking my questions. Just had a quick one. You talked about—we have talked about the battery storage—but you added on slide 3 the line monitoring catalysts that could enhance or extend the growth rate. Can you talk a little bit about what that means and what the buckets are? Presumably, it is storage, Millstone, potentially an acceleration of data center activity, but which of those could either drive an enhancement or an extension, and how are you thinking about adding that language to the slides?

Thanks, Steve. I am glad you noticed that language. It was pretty deliberate. As we mentioned in the script, first and foremost, our growth is about meeting our customers' needs quickly, affordably, and reliably. We feel like we have positioned the company to be ideally situated to meet accelerating needs across generation, transmission, and distribution. That is why fortressing our balance sheet as part of the business review was so critical as we saw the need for incremental capital coming. You have seen this trend reflected in our most recent Q4 call update. The most recent was an increase of 30% over the five-year plan, and the one before that was about 15% higher than the prior. We continue to see opportunities to deploy regulated capital to serve our customers, and the battery storage legislation is just an example of that, but it definitely expands beyond that across other forms of generation, transmission opportunities, and broadly distribution. Certainly, battery storage is a potential catalyst. More generally, regulated capital across other applications is a catalyst that we see in the potential five-plus-year plan. And you correctly ascertained Millstone, which we view as a potential for another win-win for customers. We will be in a position to share more on that later this year. We feel like we have been appropriately conservative in our plan around Millstone, and to the extent that we are successful in finding a win-win for customers, that would have the dual benefit of continuing to hedge that exposure for Connecticut customers—much like the first contract has done—and also potentially recognize the increased value across nuclear capacity in the United States.

Great. That is helpful. And then on the Millstone point, I think previously we have the very visible DEEP process. Can you talk about potential interest from surrounding states and if there are any formal processes, and if you would be willing to contract more than the 50% that you have done historically?

Yeah. The answer to the second question is yes, we would be willing to contract more than the 55%. Other states do not have a formal process in place the way Connecticut does, but we have certainly been talking to them, and they have expressed interest.

Next question from Misty Galois Crowdell with Mizuho. Your line is open.

Hey, thanks for taking my questions. Just a couple here. On the CVOW installation cadence, you are averaging about two days per turbine on recent installations. What gives you confidence this pace is sustainable as you move through the project?

Great question, Anthony. Let us take a step back for a second. We have been building projects on time and on budget for a long time—whether it is Cove or the combined cycles we built in 2010 or big transmission projects. Building infrastructure well is one of our strengths. For CVOW, we got first power to the grid in March, which was in line with the original timeline. That was a big milestone. As for turbine installations, we noted upfront we have been able to ramp installation productivity meaningfully. If you think about some of the other parts of this project—transition pieces or monopiles—when we started off, those were modest. I think we did four monopiles in May 2024, the first month we were doing those; we did something like 13 transition pieces in January 2025, which was the first month we did those. Then by the time you got to the end, we were doing 21 monopiles in a month and 38 transition pieces. So a really dramatic improvement as we went along. We are seeing that same dynamic playing out here where we start with a measure-twice-cut-once approach that we have learned in doing big projects over the years. That rate is accelerating. We have a lot of opportunities to optimize that process more. We also started in the winter—the worst weather months. Now that we are in the summer, that will give us more opportunities to refine our process and improve cadence. Taking all that together—the productivity progression and improving weather windows—that is what gives us confidence in hitting the timeline. Most important, three things: one, it is the fastest source of new power for our customers; two, it is the most affordable option; and three, we have great confidence in our financial plan to be durable and resilient as we work through construction.

Great. And if I could just throw in a follow-up on the balance sheet. I believe the target is above 15%. As the CVOW construction winds down, I think rate base investment accelerates. Are there any key risks that you would highlight to maintaining above the 15%?

No, Anthony. We put out a financing plan as part of the Q4 call that is 100% supportive of maintaining that cushion, which we think is adequate in order to safeguard from unintended headwinds that we may face. I am really pleased with where the balance sheet is as a result of the business review. As I mentioned earlier, pleased with where we printed in 2025 over 15% and LTM above that as well. Take everything together, and we are in great shape on the balance sheet. We are already at that cushion level. It is not a situation where we are ramping over time to get there.

We will move next to Richard Sunderland with Truist Securities. Your line is open.

Hey. Good morning. Thanks for the time today. Circling back to that slide 3 commentary and the addition at the bottom—appreciate the buckets and what are some of the pieces there—and you have already expressed a bias on the growth rate. But thinking more about how these opportunities aggregate, is it still about working in the range of that 5% to 7% growth, or do you see the potential for structurally higher growth over time?

That is a very clever question, Rich. I think we have said it exactly as we want to say it, which is our plan is appropriately conservative—not unreasonably so—but we are focused on building a track record of successful high-quality execution quarter after quarter, year after year, with the strength of the balance sheet. We feel very well positioned with the tailwinds we have to be in a position to monitor catalysts that will enhance or extend our long-term growth rate range.

Very clear. Thank you. And then, on the battery side, I am curious on the long-duration component. How do you think you might address that? Any thoughts on technology and timing? Any opportunity there around long duration in the next five to ten years, or is that more going to be in the out years?

A little early on giving specificity on that. We have a couple of pilots on longer-duration storage underway right now evaluating technologies. As a result of this legislation, we will continue to ramp that up, explore more opportunities with more vendors, but we are not in a position to identify specifics on that today.

We will move next to Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.

Hey, good morning. Thank you for taking my questions. I just had a quick follow-up on Anthony’s question on the cadence of the turbine installation. I know you mentioned the pace has picked up as you have honed best practices. Should we think about that two days per turbine as the target, or are there identifiable items that could get you toward maybe that day to day-and-a-half range that has been quoted for some other projects?

We are always interested in getting that number down, and we will continue to push for that. The main message is the really impressive improvement that the team has made each time with the pace they have been able to install. There is obviously a limit on that curve, but we are going to continue to push our way down that curve. We will update on installation cadence on every call and will have an opportunity to talk about the ways that we have improved. I expect we are going to continue, like we did with monopiles and transition pieces, to get the pace faster as we go along.

Got it. That is super helpful. Thank you. And then just on the data center pipeline, I know you are uniquely positioned in PJM. Are you seeing any shifts in terms of the cadence of load development or progression through your pipeline due to some of the broader uncertainty on the constructs in PJM governing pricing of capacity and cost allocation?

No. We continue to see incredibly strong demand for new data centers in Virginia. We noted in our prepared remarks we have added commitments in all stages of contracting since December. That interest has not waned at all in recent months. So, short answer is no detectable change.

And one moment. I would now like to turn the call to Bob Blue for closing remarks.

Thanks, everyone, for taking the time to join the call today. Please enjoy the rest of your day.

Thank you. The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.