[Operator Instructions] The first question today comes from Michael Lonegan with Barclays.

Just wondering if you could talk about the interaction of the Invitium JV with the bilateral process and RBA (sic) [ RBP ] procurement. Would you have to wait for procurement to happen? Or could you announce at any time? And if you announce a deal, would it be included in the procurement?

Yes. So we are actively negotiating bilaterally, and we've been doing that way before the PJM RBP process, Michael. So our ability to get to closure on bilateral contracts is irrespective of the PJM process. We did submit proposals into that process just to maximize our customer contacts, but the 2 are not necessarily related given the activity we've been doing before the PJM process.

Great. And then sticking with the JV, you said you could reach one or more agreements by year-end. Anything you could say about the size of the near-term ones in terms of gigawatts and investment opportunity? And could the announcement come when the agreements are reached? Or would that be potentially a Q4 update?

Yes, sure. So not able to give a size at this point depending on which ones happen first. So we'll defer that until we actually make the announcements. I would say timing of the announcements, again, materiality will really dictate that, Michael. So anything material, we would certainly not wait for an earnings call to announce. We would do that, I would say, in concert with signing of those agreements. Maybe just broadly on timing, I'll make a few comments where in terms of announcement timing. I would say the PJM RBP process is likely affecting the timing for some of our counterparties, but our customer engagement really, I would say, remains very strong, and we're continuing to see a clear path to the bilateral commercial agreements that support all this new generation. I would say, even with the PJM proposal and the rules in their FERC filing, right, they are really pushing towards bilateral contracting, and we continue to believe that bilateral contracting will likely be the predominant path for getting new generation development in PJM at least. Given the progress that we've made to date and what I've said on the call, again, with the discussions we're having with our customers, but all of the other development work around site readiness, the turbine access, the interconnection activity that we've done with PJM, and I'd even add fuel supply to that. That's why we're expecting that we would have one or more announcements by year-end. I will say it could happen sooner. But I wouldn't want to speculate on exact timing just because these are complex, they're long-term agreements. And of course, it takes 2 parties to finalize them. So I think the key for us is we're not waiting for those ESSAs to begin that development work that we've talked about on the call today. We're running those in parallel. And so we're ready to respond very quickly in concert with the customer negotiation.

The next question comes from Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan.

Just wanted to maybe follow up a little bit on the last point there. Just when do you expect to see the first results from the PJM capacity matching process? And how do you view this process versus bidding into the actual RBP auction?

Yes. So we have not committed yet into bidding into the RBP auction. We did provide a proposal for the matchmaking part of the process, right? Ultimately, PJM is looking to come out at the end of September with all of that. We'll ultimately see how that plays out. Just the caps that we're seeing in the PJM auction part of it, those are well below CONE on certainly some of the assets that we're talking about, Jeremy. So more to come on how aggressively we're participating in that process. I will say, just like last quarter, our focus continues to be on the bilateral contracting process directly with our customer base.

Got it. That makes sense. Just wondering maybe a little bit on timing. If the assets you bid into the matching process were selected, will we know by the end of September? Or how should we think about next steps?

I'm not exactly sure of the timing on when we would know that, Jeremy. Certainly, something we'll continue to think through as we progress through that process. I'm not exactly sure of the timing on when we'll hear back from them.

Got it. Fair enough. And maybe going over to Kentucky, everything you talked about there, a lot of upsizing opportunities -- and just wondering, I guess, is there a milestone for -- that you need to hit before you could do the additional CPCN filing that could be filed by year-end?

Yes, you cut out on us there, but I think you were asking about what are maybe some triggers for the CPCN filing?

Yes.

Do I have that right? Okay. Yes. So look, I think we are seeing some of those triggers already as we're seeing, right, the continued increase in the pipeline. We are signing various agreements for new load with data center developers and also with non-data center customers. So all of that continues to move in the right direction. And that's really what's driving our new probability weighted load of 3.7 gigawatts. That's twice what we had in the last CPCN. So I would say, the one area that we would want to see in addition to the commission is the conversion from the data center developer to an actual hyperscaler contract. And those -- I will say, those activities are happening as we speak. And I would say once we have one of those, that would be a pretty big trigger to prompt us to make that filing before year-end.

The next question comes from Paul Zimbardo with Jefferies.

I just wanted to dive a little bit more, of course, into the joint venture. So I know you've been consistent that we shouldn't expect to see material earnings before 2030. Just how would you envision articulating what the earnings contribution is? Would you do like a separate joint venture earnings separate from kind of the base business, more long-duration CAGR beyond 2030? Just if you could help on kind of what kind of disclosures we should expect?

Yes. Paul, it's Joe. Yes, we would give something separate from the base utility business. So you can see the earnings and the growth and the trajectory of earnings coming out of the JV. And then obviously, we would provide an update on its impact on the CAGR that we have currently. So yes, I think you're right. You're thinking about it correctly on both of those.

Yes. And Paul, this is equity method for accounting purposes, so right, single line items on the financials. So we'll clearly break all that out in additional disclosure for this part of the business once it starts to materialize.

Okay. Great. I understand there. And then shifting to Kentucky for a second. I saw the governor's executive order around data centers and kind of focus on emissions, water and some of those things. Does that shift what you could procure to support the data centers? Like I know you mentioned the pumped storage, but just any thoughts on the executive order would be helpful.

Yes. No, it was good to see the order come out. We view it as fully consistent with the ratepayer protection principles that we've been championing and even the Ratepayer Protection Pledge that we signed recently, where new large-load customers should be supporting and paying for the infrastructure and the resources that are needed to serve them. So importantly, right, the order did not prohibit or put a moratorium on data center development. It simply is reinforcing that we need to have customer protections built into the process, which, of course, we have built into our approach. So I would say that LG&E and KU, with our tariff structure that we've gotten approved in the state, we're well positioned within that tariff structure to align very nicely with our governor's executive order. So not concerned at all. We don't think it will slow down the development that we're seeing in Kentucky or our ability to serve it.

The next question comes from Shar Pourreza with Wells Fargo.

Actually, it's Andrew Kadavy on for Shar. So with the longer-dated opportunities kind of on your plate, could we see maybe a longer planning window next time you guys update guidance? And what are some of the considerations that go into that decision?

Yes. I think that's certainly possible, right, given the timing that we're talking about as to when we see earnings contributions from these agreements and given the logistics and timing around getting CCGTs into service. So that's certainly a consideration.

And then just circling back to PJM. Can you share how potential Invitium customers are viewing the connect and manage and ERIS rulings in PJM? And has the clarity around that helped progress some of your commercial discussions?

Well, so right, the ERIS framework was not included in -- what was in the letter, at least was not included in the filing last week. We are expecting that imminently, perhaps even today. So I'll reserve judgment on that until I see the actual filing. But I would say coming from the letter that PJM put out with their guiding principles, I think what you're starting to see is some clarity on what large loads will need to procure during the ramp phases, right? So there was a lot of early questions on do you need to just have BYONG online when you hit your max load? Or do you need to follow your ramp? Or can you do it in chunks? Obviously, the load comes on in different megawatt chunks than you're able to bring generation on if you're using certain types of generation. So I think you'll see, certainly, as we think about following ramps so that the hyperscalers are not in that connect and manage or interruptible phase, they'll want to try to match that ramp the best they can. And that, I think, will prompt batteries and other types of smaller generation that can come online quickly and at smaller amounts. And then you're kind of anchored with some of the larger asset types that we're talking about. But all of those are part of our discussions with the hyperscalers, all of those types of technologies and following ramp curves for sure.

The next question comes from Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research.

So a couple of questions on the joint venture. Just going back to the shorter-term potential projects, you mentioned batteries. What other technologies are you likely to be using for shorter term? Is it mainly just like recips or aeros or anything else?

Yes. I would say those are the main, right? The CTs are still -- I would say the CTs are quicker than the CCGTs, but probably outside of our '29, right, which is our current plan period, Steve. So CTs could be probably in the '30, '31 range with the CCGTs in the '31, '32 range. And then, yes, you mentioned the types of technologies that could get in more in that '29, '30 time frame.

Fuel cells?

We are engaged with the fuel cell manufacturers. So it is on the list of technologies ultimately will depend on what the hyperscalers would like us to procure and operate, but we are open to those as well, yes.

And then just in thinking about the -- how should we think about funding the joint venture and the projects? And just how much is likely to be equity from PPL? And are you looking at kind of alternative financing structures? And even just the economics, are you just going to do a straight 50-50 or sometimes you can -- when you have a financial partner, you can kind of manage the path of cash flow and earnings? So just any thoughts on all that?

Yes, sure. So first on the financing question, during the construction period, we'll use construction period type financing structures that will keep that off balance sheet to limit any near-term dilution. And then once those projects go COD, we'll put in place a permanent financing structure. As far as the cap structure, I mean, we've talked about utility-like risk profile and returns, but we obviously have some flexibility in and around where that cap structure could be, but we'll keep that in mind as we think about longer-term credit implications. And we obviously want to maintain our strong credit position. So we'll have to take that into consideration with discussions with the rating agencies as they think about it as well.

The next question comes from Angie Storozynski with Seaport.

I wanted to ask about Pennsylvania, how you -- on the regulatory side. So you have concluded your rate case. You are not allowed to have another one until, what, middle of 2028, at least, yes. And then just wondering, I mean, are you hoping to maybe rely more on the DSIC mechanism, any ways to maybe reduce costs so that you don't have to file that rate case anywhere near that '28, '29 time frame?

Yes, Angie, you're exactly right on the settlement provisions. There's a 2-year stay-out agreement that we will not increase base rates during that period, which extends through July 1, 2028. We always look to maximize the time between rate cases, and we've done that very effectively across all jurisdictions. And as you know, in Pennsylvania, it was 10 years since our last rate case prior to this one. I don't know that we can go another 10 years, but we'll certainly use that same discipline that we have. We've utilized the DSIC extremely effectively over that time period, and we'll look to continue to do so. We've also managed our costs very, very well, and we continue to focus on that in that area as we've been and we'll continue to be focused on affordability for customers. Our current LTIP plan, which is the capital that is eligible for the DSIC, runs through 2027. So we'll be looking to file an updated 5-year LTIP plan next year. Again, looking to maximize that and maximizing the use of the DSIC mechanism. So I think too early to tell as to what our next rate case would be, but we are always looking to, as I said, maximize the time between cases.

Yes. And I would just add to that, Angie. You've heard from our Chair and our commission that they want to take a look at the DSIC mechanism where maybe have more formula-based ROE setting in the mechanism, maybe provide some performance band around that base ROE. But the goal is really to provide a mechanism for the utilities to be able to stay out of base rate cases longer. And so we will certainly be engaging with our commission, obviously, the other EDCs in the state and other stakeholders as we go through that process with the PUC. But I think that could be encouraging as well. And so depending on how that plays out, we'll have to factor that into our rate case timing. But I think all of that is boding well for our likely being able to stay out beyond just the 2 years that are in the settlement.

Great. And then changing topics to the data centers in the PPL zone. So the projects that you have already supported by ESAs are well above the current excess generation in the PPL zone. And I know that we're still waiting for the connect and manage filing. But I'm just wondering if there were to be forced curtailment in the future, I suppose that will be in your zone, that would be pretty much least likely, again, given excess generation capacity. But again, it will be depleted. So how do you see it? Do you think that the connect and manage could potentially actually give you a competitive advantage versus other zones in PJM simply because, again, the forced curtailment will be probably least likely in your zone?

You cut out on us a little bit there, but I think what you were saying was just with the generation length that we currently have and then that being depleted by the ESAs, the 11 gigs of ESAs. And of course, that continues to grow. Yes, I mean, I think it's one of the reasons why we have so much interest in the sites that we have in our joint venture, and we've been very strategic in accumulating the sites that we have. So in order to qualify for BYONG now with the end, even under the new proposed rules, right, you don't have to be co-located to the load. But the fact that we are very near the load creates a very competitive position for us as you think about PJM planning, interconnection studies, all of that where the generation and the load are very tightly situated. So that all bodes well, I would say, for our territory and where we're siting or proposing to site all of this new generation. It really helps to strengthen the reliability of the grid overall and then get back to that long position for generation coming from Pennsylvania, which, as you know, us in West Virginia are the 2 power generation sources for PJM. So I think that -- again, you cut out on me, but I think that's what you were asking. And I agree that our position within the state provides that advantage -- a competitive advantage.

The next question comes from Nick Amicucci with Evercore ISI.

So it's Amicucci, but vowels -- we know how it goes. I wanted to ask quickly just kind of piggybacking on Steve's question before. Just when we think about kind of those shorter-lead-time technologies as early as 2029 or 2030, are those going to require a separate ESSA? Or could they -- are they going to be typically riding on the CCGT contracts?

Yes. No, the ESSA contract is for generation to supply a data center. So it does not need to be limited to the CCGT. It will be whatever suite of assets that we ultimately agree with the hyperscaler for or the third-party data center developers, which are also now getting involved in the BYONG and then providing that full rack service to hyperscalers as one package. So we're now seeing other entrants into the interest into the product offering. I will say, though, while the batteries are certainly the fastest to market, they're also the easiest for the hyperscalers to embed in their designs and just make it part of the data center construction projects. So part of the issue that we have with predicting how much will show up through '29 is I'm convinced there'll be batteries that are coming on system by 2029, but some of that could be owned directly by the hyperscalers as opposed to third-party generators like Invitium, if that makes sense.

Got it. Yes. No, that makes perfect sense. And then just really quickly, too, on the 2 data centers that began taking service within Pennsylvania in 2Q. So has the LP-6 minimum demand billing started? Or is there kind of like a ramp schedule associated with that, too, as those continue to come online?

Yes. So that 2 gig is not until -- that's the ramp through 2031. So it's the -- yes, it's the smaller ramp that's kicking in now under the tariff, yes.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates.

Just one question left here. With Pennsylvania, I know we're on resets and stuff, but any thoughts or outlook about what we might see legislatively with respect to some of the legislation that's passed or anything perhaps on the -- I mean, all the stuff that was happening this spring, I'm just wondering, have you heard anything over the summer here about what might happen in the next few months in Harrisburg?

Yes. So there was quite a bit of activity prior to the budget being approved, as you're alluding to. Look, I would just say, overall, as you can see from our pipeline alone, right, that there's tremendous data center interest in Pennsylvania and in particular, our zone. And look, for some of our local communities, right, these projects represent very material investments, right, which is good, but it also can overwhelm these local communities. And so I think what we're seeing, Paul, is just at the local level with the support of their elected officials, right, just this move to slow down a little bit. So that they can effectively review the projects, update their zoning requirements as needed, but really just take some time to make sure that they're doing this the right way. And that seems very reasonable to us. And I think that's what you're seeing with some of the proposed legislation coming from some of our elected officials. And while there was some legislation advanced in the House, I would say that the state continues to remain supportive of this type of development in the sector as long as our customers and our communities are protected. And so you're starting to see some of that legislation designed to ensure that those protections happen. I will say I'm seeing a shift in the developers and how they're engaging with the local communities and putting together differentiated community benefit packages, right, what one community might think is a benefit, another may not. So doing that kind of community by community, engaging earlier, more transparently, I think all of that, while we wish it had happened from day 1, we're starting to see the shifts in that. And I know the folks are appreciating that level of transparency and really willingness to work and come up with a win-win for both the data center and for the community. And it's the same areas that you're hearing, right? It's the water, it's the land, it's the noise. It's power prices and power reliability, both of which we have well at hand, and we will be I would say, pushing that even further as we can build new generation under Invitium and just take some pressure off the supply-demand curve at the wholesale level. But all of these things, I think, are moving us in a consistent direction with where some of this legislation or at least the ideas behind some of this legislation were coming from. Again, I don't think it's misplaced. I don't think you're going to see moratoriums or we just can't add data centers in Pennsylvania. We just need to make sure that our customers and our communities are protected as we do it. And again, I think all that is reasonable.

Okay. So when you look at that sort of on the wholesale side, do you think that sort of transfers this sort of constructive way of sort of putting some relief on the wholesale prices that sort of translates to some of this regulated generation legislation, related generation -- excuse me, regulated utility legislation. Do you see that -- how do you see that impacting that? Does that -- do you think that's pretty much sort of on ice as a result of what you're doing on the wholesale side, if you follow what I'm saying? Does it make sense?

Yes, yes. No, I do think -- I don't know if it's totally on ice. It is still part of the discussion, but I would say with all of the moving parts that we've been seeing at PJM and at FERC, the legislature is certainly, I would say, keyed into all of those moving parts and seeing if, in fact, they will help address the resource adequacy concerns that we've been talking about. Again, we have -- we're a bit skeptical that the PJM FERC filing will, in fact, resolve that long term. And we think the bilat process is probably going to be the predominant way to get things built in PJM. But I think the legislature needs to see that play out. Our governor needs to see that play out a little bit. So while regulated generation, I wouldn't say that it's totally off the table. I think they want to see how some of these other things progress to see if they need to pull that lever or not. And of course, we continue to have regular discussions with them. And this will play out as those bills are debated in their respective committees, and we'll see whether they come out of committee or not. But there's been so much activity, as you know, at both FERC and PJM that, that legislation, I don't think, has been the highest priority for obvious reasons.

This concludes our question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Vince Sorgi for any closing remarks.

Great. Thank you, operator. So look, as we wrap up, the key takeaway from today is our investment case continues to get stronger. We're executing a strong base plan today while building additional strong growth opportunities for tomorrow. And with continued regulatory execution, accelerating demand growth and the progress that we're making at Invitium Energy, we believe the upside is increasingly visible and remains incremental to the outlook that we've reaffirmed today. Thanks for joining us, and we look forward to seeing you soon.

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