And our first question comes from the line of Shahriar Pourreza with Wells Fargo.

So Brian, just on the West Virginia data center pipeline you highlighted. Obviously, there's 3.5 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. So do you have to build roughly one-for-one on the generation side for every megawatt of new demand you bring on? And then maybe just some quickly on timing and cadence of the builds.

In the near term, we have some capacity. So 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 and then the opportunity to build into the remaining 900 or 800 megawatts that we have. So there is existing capacity for people who are in that queue and we've contracted with. And then 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. And then, Brian, just in terms of the New Jersey rate case filing, I mean do you anticipate the BPU will implement any of the Executive Order 1 business review recommendations like capital spending scrutiny, especially if the state considers changes to the cost of capital in the near term with like PBRs and multiyear rates, kind of more of a longer-dated opportunity. I mean, I guess, New Jersey seems to be getting worse, not better. So just how are you thinking about that? And then why file now?

Yes. So. 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. And 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 II. And I just think that whether they do some form of market -- 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. And 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. And what we've done there since is working. So from '24 to '25, we increased reliability by 16%. And then year-to-date, '25 over '26, we've increased reliability by 38%. So the constructs that New Jersey has are working to deliver affordability and reliability, and we anticipate that, that will continue in this rate case. And 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 and to get recovery for that.

And our next question comes from the line of Nicholas Campanella with Barclays.

Good morning. Thanks for the updates. Maybe just -- it sounds like you're looking at different structures to -- you're exploring different structures to facilitate the West Virginia demand? And 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 kind of serving a Genco type structure for the next? How could that be different at the regulator.

Yes. Thanks for that, Nick. I think we could probably go around a large portion of the CPCN type filing. So if we created a Genco, that would obviously require, I think, FERC approval to sell at wholesale. But then the contract between the Genco and Mon Power, for instance, would need to be approved by the West Virginia Public Service Commission. But 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. And then just on the RFP for the next part of the generation, kind of a similar question, but just -- how long do you expect that process to take? And based on how that outcome looks like, how can your [ economics ] to serve this change, whether it's kind of behind the meter or otherwise?

Yes. So 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. So 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 the 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 needed new transmission. But we're working like crazy to get in front of this and to, again, have speed the 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.

And our next question comes from the line of Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan.

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

So Jeremy, I think of Phase 1 of the report is 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. But 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. And I think the important thing is we have the opportunity to comment on that. We've also seen what has 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. So the level of engagement and collaboration there has been high, I would say. Nobody is going to be surprised. They're going to be expecting when we come in the door. We've had our prefiling meetings and those things have been constructive and well received. So 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. And then maybe pivoting over to Slide 5 there, talking about the data center overview. And I 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 of that trajectory going forward?

Yes. So 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, 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. And that's kind of viewed as being a bottleneck for getting this load online as quickly as possible. So 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.

And our next question comes from the line of Carly Davenport from Goldman Sachs.

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 do you sort of characterize your confidence there on getting those approvals across the finish line in the second half of the year.

Yes. 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 state of the -- 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. But this plant isn't going to replace coal plants that we have in the state, it's going to be added to them. And I think that's more apparent than ever that we don't need to be retiring plants. We need to be adding plants. And 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. And then 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?

No. I think we're in the process of working through that right now. But remember, we've been very successful in the prior open windows, securing about $5 billion of the opportunities that have been presented there. And 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. And 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.

And our next question comes from the line of Andrew Weisel with Scotiabank.

First question, you've shown in the slide that you expect another 1.5 gigawatts of data centers to be contracted in the next 2 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?

Yes. So 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. I would have 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. So I wanted to give you some sense into what's just around corner. And 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. And it's going to be phased in over time to the degree that we have -- 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, but a small portion of that extending out to the 2035 period.

Okay. Great. Very helpful. And yes, I agree, you 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 and then 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. And then 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.

Yes. So a couple of things there. If the plant is approved as we expected, will be incremental to the CapEx plan. and that will be in the updated period that we'll be updating for. So that's new CapEx that's not in the current $36 billion plan. In regards to Pennsylvania. So today, we're operating in a rate -- base rate environment that went into place 1/1 25. So 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. And the Chair of the commission has suggested that utilities use the LTIP DISC program to the degree possible before coming in for rate cases and 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%, and that's been granted before. We would move capital out of Pennsylvania, if we start to see negative recovery there, but that has not been our experience to date, and we don't anticipate that will be our experience going Forward.

And our next question comes from the line of Sophie Karp with KeyBanc Capital Markets.

Yes, great updates, very exciting growth plans guys. I have a question on ROEs and 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 to higher following some great actions there or something.

Yes. Sophie, this is Jon. So yes, in all of our businesses, we see some ROE performance that's less than the allowed returns. And those are the business units that are either actively in rate cases like West Virginia or that we'll be filing rate cases in the third quarter, so New Jersey and Maryland. And so 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 3 years, and I think the plan allows us to do that as well.

Okay. And then I was wondering if I could get your, I guess, recent -- most recent thinking on the PJM proposals with respect to connect and manage various cost allocation initiatives as well as the September auction we plan to run and the cost allocations associated with it and the utility roles in that.

Yes. So we do welcome anything that speeds the process up for both approving transmission and generation interconnect. So 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 and then what FERC is going to ultimately approve. And that really is who pays for the auctions and who provides the credit support for the auctions. And I think that's really the crux of 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 have -- data center customers have signed the rate protection pledge. And I think that needs to be a significant component of who pays for the capacity from the auction and who provides 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 680 or 900 megawatts that's going to be allocated. So the most important part to us is, are our customers protected? Is their affordability and the fact that we're being allocated just 4% of that, I think, it is a really, really good outcome for our customers.

And our next question comes from the line of Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research.

Yes. So just -- I thought you made a pretty clear statement in your release of trends of the potential meaningfully increase 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 within -- potentially within the current 5-year period relative to -- is this something that kind of hits more in the -- in kind of your next 5 years 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.

Yes. So Steve, we traditionally update our 5-year plan in the autumn or early part of the new year. We'll be doing that and 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.

And 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. And so you'll see urgency from us in pursuing these opportunities. We're having conversations with customers almost weekly on these concepts and these structures. And so I have a sense that this is going to move fairly quickly.

Okay. And then one follow-up on funding fee 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?

Yes. So 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% to 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. So 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, but all of that is being worked out now.

And our next question comes from the line of Nicolas Woods with Bank of America.

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 gigawatt that's already contracted is currently outside the $36 billion plan?

Yes. There's probably about $400 million that's outside of the plan. So that's related to the 2.2 gigawatts that we contracted since Q1. Most of that will fall in the 30, 31 and 32 period.

Got it. And then a follow-up to that is you guys have been discussing about the urgency to contract demand so that you 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?

So 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. And we have to share those plans with PJM on a regular basis, which we do at their monthly TEAC meetings. And then 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 is required. Other times, it's within our footprint, and we can handle the upgrades ourselves. So it just depends on where it is, the nature of the capacity on the system, but it's a parallel process in terms of our contracting and keeping PJM well informed.

And our final question comes from the line of Anthony Crowdell with Mizuho.

Just a follow-up to one of the earlier 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. But when you think about the states, you have 2 states there that are PJM states, West Virginia guys could own generation. Just from the customer point of view, could you talk about maybe one of the differentiations 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, but yet you are seeing the demand in these PJM wire states.

Yes. So 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 and 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. And so that's clearly a competitive advantage for West Virginia over states that don't have that. And West Virginia is the state that is taking advantage of that. And so they have an executive in 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. And our transmission system sits in between the Northern Virginia data center hub. And so 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. And that -- as that grows out from that core, that touches our Ohio and Pennsylvania service territory. So there's competitive advantage in the state of West Virginia. There's also geographic advantage to where we're situated as a utility.

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