Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Eversource Energy Q3 2025 Earnings Call. [Operator Instructions] Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your first speaker today, Rima Hyder, Vice President of Investor Relations.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us today on the third quarter 2025 earnings call. During this call, we'll be referencing slides that we posted this morning on our website. As you can see on Slide 1, some of the statements made during this investor call may be forward looking. These statements are based on management's current expectations and are subject to risk and uncertainty, which may cause the actual results to differ materially from forecasts and projections. We undertake no obligation to update or revise any of these statements. Additional information about the various factors that may cause actual results to differ and our explanation of non-GAAP measures and how they reconcile to GAAP results is contained within our news release, the slides we posted and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K. Speaking today will be Joe Nolan, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; and John Moreira, our Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer. Also joining us today is Jay Buth, our Vice President and Controller. I will now turn the call over to Joe.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us today. Starting on Slide 4. Over the past 10 months, our team's relentless focus on executing on our key strategic initiatives has driven strong results and consistent performance. We are well on our way to delivering against these initiatives and ending the year on a strong note. Our strong results have also greatly improved our standing among our peers. On a year-to-date basis, our share price has been a top performer among the EEI peer group. Today, I'll walk you through how we're capitalizing on our unique market position, fueling sustainable growth and strengthening the balance sheet to power our future outlook. Moving to Slide 5. In the last few months, we have gained more clarity on the Connecticut regulatory environment and the impact for our ongoing and future regulatory proceedings at PURA. Additionally, each day of construction that passes yields progress on the derisking of Revolution Wind. We're seeing a constructive shift in Connecticut's regulatory landscape. Last month, Governor, Lamont appointed 4 new commissioners at PURA, filling out the 5-member requirement under Connecticut law. With this new commission on the way, there is now a genuine opportunity to collaborate with all parties on regulatory initiatives and to achieve more balanced regulatory outcomes. This will enable us to better serve the needs of our customers in this state and to do so with a strong focus on safety, reliability and affordability. Critical needs exist for state and regional infrastructure investments to maintain a strong, reliable and resilient grid that can accommodate new sources of generation to meet the increasing levels of projected electric demand. A transparent and predictable regulatory process is going to benefit all stakeholders, including our customers, and we are looking forward to getting back to work on Connecticut's energy…

Thank you, Joe, and good morning, everyone. This morning, I will review third quarter earnings results, provide a regulatory update and discuss our recent financings and progress on credit metrics. I'll start with our third quarter results on Slide 9. As announced last month, during the third quarter, we recognized a net after-tax nonrecurring charge of $75 million, or $0.20 per share related to our offshore wind liability. This charge increased our estimated liability for future payments to GIP by approximately $285 million, which was offset by $210 million of tax benefits. These tax benefits were the result of a change to previously estimated tax attributes primarily associated with Revolution Wind. Our GAAP earnings for the third quarter of this year were $0.99 per share, including the impact of this recent offshore wind net charge. GAAP EPS for the third quarter of last year was a loss of $0.33 per share, reflecting the impact of the sale transaction of South Fork and Revolution. Excluding the after-tax losses from offshore wind in both years, non-GAAP recurring earnings for the third quarter of 2025 were $1.19 per share compared with $1.13 of non-GAAP recurring earnings per share last year. Now looking at the quarter results by segment, starting with transmission. Higher electric transmission earnings of $0.01 per share were due to increased revenues from continued investment in the transmission system. Next, we have higher electric distribution earnings of $0.03 per share that reflect distribution rate increases in New Hampshire and Massachusetts provided for cost recovery for infrastructure investments in our distribution system. These higher revenues were partially offset by higher interest, depreciation, property taxes and O&M. The improved results of $0.04 per share at Eversource's Natural Gas segment were due primarily to base distribution rate increases in both Massachusetts utilities and from…

[Operator Instructions] Our first question today comes from Shar Pourreza from Wells Fargo.

So just on Yankee Gas, obviously, everyone is watching this one. You've got this motion to adopt the alternative resolution out there. There's some stuff coming out now on it, I think. Is there anything you want to flag? And just remind us, what's kind of embedded in the plan around the outcome? Is it fair to assume that you're kind of conservative around what you're embedding there? And any sort of updates, I think we're starting to see some things come across. Appreciate it.

Sure. As you know, our call started at 9:00 and the commission went in and the order is out. We need to go through it. As you know, the devils are in the details. So we'll continue to take a good look at that, and I think we'll have some answers for folks on this call later today, I can promise you. John can talk to you a little bit about what's embedded in the plan.

Yes. No, Shar, I would say it's in line with our plan, and it appears that the decision is a little bit better than the draft decision, which is very encouraging for us. But as Joe mentioned, we have to go through it. It's -- the ink is not dry yet at this point. So -- but we will have much more information when we meet with you all at EEI.

Perfect. I'm just glad we're getting through this process. That's good. And then just on the NSTAR Gas PBR, right? I mean, you have a proposal for recovery of roughly $160 million. Just walking through what you did and didn't get. Why did the Massachusetts, DPU deny that? Is there kind of an opportunity to get it later? And does this mean you're filing a rate case? Obviously, the governor has been kind of warning around rates being too high, then guiding the DPU to scrutinize everything. So I just want to get a sense there. I appreciate it.

Good question, Shar. So the $160 million component, the piece is the 3 major items. One is a roll-in of GSEP, which is about $107 million. That really has no impact to customers. It's just going from the right hand to the left hand, the normal PBR adjustment, which was -- which did get approved of about $10 million. What we had proposed as a mitigation plan for the DPU was to allow us to roll in rate base similar to what we saw last year that the DPU approved for EGMA. That number is about $45 million. And we were very specific when we made that mitigation filing that if we did not receive the rate base role and then our alternative would be to file a general rate case. So as of yesterday, we filed a motion for reconsideration and we also filed our intent to file a rate case. There's been a lot of change, not only in the Connecticut PURA, but also in Massachusetts. The putting 2 new commissioners really have not been there that long. So we're hopeful that the efforts that we will work very closely with the DPU will move in the right direction.

Okay. Perfect. Big congrats, Joe, on sort of the traction. It seems like you guys are getting to a pretty good inflection point here. So congrats.

Thank you. Well, I'm very, very proud of the team. We've worked very, very hard at that, getting our message out there. We've been all over actually all the states talking about the issues and engaging key decision makers. So we're really, really proud of the team. It took a village [ job], but thank you, and I will see you at EEI. I'm looking forward to seeing you.

Our next question comes from Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs.

Maybe just to go back to Connecticut, I guess just as you think about the recent changes from a regulatory standpoint, are there any updates you can share from conversations with credit agencies in terms of their views, just given the focus on the regulatory environment and some of the credit rating changes that they've made recently?

Sure, sure. I would say, and I have -- I always have discussions with the credit rating agencies, but I'm sure you can appreciate. Right now, they're in a wait-and-see mode. They want to see some constructive regulatory outcomes to make the determination similar to what we expect and would like to see come out of PURA. But working collaboratively, we think that this new commission is focused on working collaboratively with all the utilities. So -- but I would overall, they're in a wait-and-see mode right now.

Got it. Okay. That makes a lot of sense. And then just one other one, I guess, on Connecticut as well. I know you guys have talked previously about kind of timing to file another rate case at CL&P. Just kind of curious how the recent shifts kind of impact your views on timing there?

Yes, sure. We had never really had any intention to filing prior to 2026. So we are looking at that, as you know, a filing of that nature is comprehensive. So we would need to get test year and that type of stuff. This would not be something that would happen until at least second, third quarter, if we were to file. Obviously, we're going through that now, and that's what we're looking at, at this point, Carly.

Our next question is from Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan Securities.

This is actually Aidan Kelly on for Jeremy.

You're breaking up.

Can you guys hear me now?

Yes, it's better now. Yes.

Upon on the equity...

But Jeremy, we're losing you again. Can you call in and we'll come back to you? We'll put you back in the queue?

Sounds good.

Our next question is from Andrew Weisel with Scotiabank.

First question, Joe, you talked about the land acquisition strategy. I know Mystic was a big one last year. Can you talk a little more how you're thinking about this? Is this kind of like a land grab where you're trying to get as much acreage as possible in strategic locations for your own stand-alone development? Or is it working with potential customers or partners like large load customers or data centers? And would it be right to assume that dollars are small, it's more about optionality?

Well, yes, a couple of things. This would be for our own use, for our own regulated business. It's in locations that are strategic in nature to allow the injection of energy, whatever energy that is. We are not in the data center business. We're not attracting data centers. As you know, we have a finite amount of generation in the region. What we're working on kind of the single and double strategy that I talked about is to be able to unlock the captive generation that might be in the New England market to allow it to fall freely also to allow anyone else to interconnect into our territory. So we did purchase the Mystic, and we'll have some news on another very strategic site that we're excited about that will position this company for decades to come.

Interesting. Looking forward to that. Okay, great. Then on equity, just a couple of fine-tuning questions maybe for John here. It looks like the 2025 outlook went up by about $200 million, and you removed the comment that the majority of the outlook will be issued in the back half of the forecast period. But John, I think I also heard you say that you're satisfied for the near term after the recent activity. I might have asked a similar question last quarter, but just wondering about the outlook. Maybe you can detail some of these changes, does that relate to kind of CapEx or the long term thinking of how to get to your targeted credit metrics?

Yes, yes. So I mean, as I said in my formal remarks, for the near term, I believe we're done, right? Although we took that off the slide, it wasn't an indication that we're going to continue to issue equity. Still the majority is we may have issued like 37%, 38% thus far. So I still stick to my position that the majority of that will be issued towards the latter half of next year. With the approval of Aquarion, once we get that decision, that's going to bring in net cash at $1.6 billion. And then with the securitization of Connecticut storm costs likely coming in the door in '27, I think we're primarily covered for those years. So my position still stands. So as I said in my formal remarks, the near term, we're good for now. I have the appropriate level of liquidity. I'm very happy with that, given the financings that we did in the last 2 months.

Okay. That's very clear, and it sounds like you're in a good position. Thank you so much.

Our next question is from Anthony Crowdell of Mizuho.

I guess JPMorgan did an update of phone system in a new building there. Just, I guess, quickly on Revolution. I think it was reported from Orsted this morning, it's 85% complete, Revolution. Just if you could talk about what are maybe the critical parts left bringing the project to completion, that's end and is it second half '26 when you believe it's all finished?

Yes, Anthony. Yes, Revolution is going very, very well. And right now, we're -- Orsted announced this morning that 52 of the 65 turbines are installed, I will tell you that the work that we're doing in Rhode Island is pretty close to being finished. We've got great job at that onshore substation, we're going to begin to see some power there at the substation very, very soon. So right now, I know that Orsted is talking about a second half of 2026. But I will tell you that we've made significant progress. We've brought the dates in by 4 to 5 months. So we're hoping that we can see that improve. But I will tell you that I feel very, very good about the project and the work that's been done down there. So I think we'll see that project schedule improve.

When is the first megawatt, first power expected to come online from the project?

Yes. That's an issue that -- for Orsted to discuss. We are basically a partner that's building the onshore piece. They are the conductor of this particular train. So let them -- they can tell you what's going on.

Got it. And then just flipping to the storm cost securitization in Connecticut. I know it's with PURA. Any -- and I know the recent change there and it -- only recently has changed. But any update on maybe the timing of getting resolution on the storm cost securitization?

Yes. So a couple of things. I mean, our focus has been on the Yankee case. It has been on the Aquarion sale. So when we start to sequence these items, those are the things that were top of the list for us. We now shift our focus onto storms. I think the team has done an extraordinary job of documenting everything. We've had tremendous success in both Massachusetts, New Hampshire. And I don't think it will be any different in Connecticut. We have been asked that we pulled that ahead right now. It's a second quarter event, second, third quarter that we'll see a decision. But we think given that the decks have been clear that PURA we're hoping that, that can improve. We can get a decision that will allow us to go forward with securitization and get that money in the door for us. So yes, and the other issue is the interest cost, which -- that will provide us a great opportunity there to stop the interest cost.

Our next question is from Julien Dumoulin-Smith from Jefferies.

Look forward to see you guys next week. Look, I wanted to just follow up on the Massachusetts backdrop. I know Shar asked it, but just how would you frame expectations here from gas onto the electric PBR? Just with respect to the backdrop here, anything to read -- again, I get that the gas PBR had very specific metrics but anything that you'd read into the backdrop here on the electric or EGMA?

Well, the -- similar to what we have on the electric side, we have the same composition on the gas side. We have to perform. And on the gas side, this was the first touch point being under the PBR structure for Yankee -- for NSTAR Gas. So there's several performance metrics. There's really 3 criteria that you have to meet. One of them is you have to meet the performance measures that have been approved by DPU. We -- there were 18 actually. We performed very well in 15. So 3, we did not perform. And those 3 are very, let's call it, very subjective opinion surveys like J.D. Powers and surveys that we do, which are very driven by how the customers perceive us. The history of the precedent in front of the DPU as it relates to these performance measures is always viewed as while the company didn't have control. Okay, the company couldn't have done anything. And obviously, in a high-cost environment, it's very challenging. So that was the reason that the DPU took the action and did not allow us to roll the $45 million into rate base. And as I mentioned earlier, yesterday, we did file for a motion for reconsideration. So we will continue to work with the DPU. Obviously, as I mentioned, it's -- we have some new players sitting at the table, and we look forward to working with them very closely as we progress on this motion.

Right. But the PBR metrics on the electric side kind of have that same composition, though?

And we performed well. We have performed well. It's not an annual assessment with NSTAR Electric, it's a 10-year deal, you have a 5-year. So the fifth year happens in 2028.

Excellent. No, indeed. And then just if I can -- I mean, obviously, you guys roll forward typically with 4Q. But any early indications, especially as it pertains to transmission and long lead time right time investments where you perhaps had some visibility here already? And any indications from ISO New England's planning process this year?

Well, as you've seen in the last 5-year plan that we rolled out, the latter years are no longer a dip. And I expect that trend to continue where the outer periods will be more increasing versus what we've seen historically. So that's the reason -- that is the primary driver, that's because we have the clarity, and we have the projects that are in the queue to allow us to roll that into our plan.

I appreciate the disclosures on the credit side, and we'll talk to you soon.

Operator, I would like to correct a statement that I made earlier to Andrew Weisel's question. I think I may have spoken I just want to get that on the record. The equity, I said that our equity needs in the near term are taken care of. And I stay with my statement that I had made previously that the majority of the equity needs will be towards the tail end of our forecast period. I think in my former -- in my answering Andrew's question, I may have said next year. That is not the case.

Thank you for that clarification. Our next question is from Paul Patterson from Glenrock Associates.

So just on -- I'm having a little trouble with this. How should we think about your tax rate on an adjusted basis for the quarter and how you see it going forward?

Paul, this is John. So as I've said previously, over the past several years, we have taken advantage of some very attractive tax benefits last year, and I may have said this previously, we were in the high teens. The expectation is this year, it's probably be in the low 20 -- 20%. But I think next year in 2026, we probably would get to more of a normal sustainable level. But we've taken full advantage of some nice tax benefits for the past several years and we will continue to harvest any and all tax benefits that we can actually achieve.

Okay. Because when I look at the after-tax benefit or the -- excuse me, the hit on the offshore wind that was offset by the tax benefits, should we -- are all of those tax benefits reflected in the non-adjusted number? In other words, they seem to be allocated. When you talk about the write-off, it seems like that's being allocated to the write-off. And that isn't leaking into the -- correct?

That is not the case. So let me -- the percentages that I just mentioned only relates to our normal recurring results. The $210 million that we harvested to offset the tax liability is directly related to offshore wind. And it's primarily the final change in estimate from where we were at the end of the year of 2024. And the characterization of that benefit is really we were able to deem the loss on wind as more ordinary versus capital. So we changed the percentage that we had used in '24 versus that tax split of capital at ordinary increased in this year when we file our tax return in the third quarter. So we were able to allocate more as ordinary versus capital and ordinary, we can carry forward for 15-plus years. So that's really what changed in our tax position as it relates to offshore wind.

Okay. And there's -- and so okay, that answers the question, that's kind of what I thought. So okay, I appreciate the clarity.

Our next question is from Sophie Karp with KBCM.

I don't know if you guys know this on top of your head, but I'm curious what legally constitutes kind of the end of the Revolution project as far as your agreement with Orsted? Like at what point are you no longer on the hook for anything there? Like is that first power? Is that something of other milestones? Any color would be helpful here.

Sure. So it's similar to the protocol we're using on the South Fork project. It would be COD. At COD, we will hand that over and that is when we are off the hook.

And what is COD specifically?

Full operation, turning over of all of the documents all -- anything associated with the work that we have done and the PPA is in full force.

I'm showing no other questions at this time. So I would now like to turn it back to Joe Nolan for closing remarks.

Thank you once again for taking the time to join us today. We know many of you have been patient investors over a long time, and we will continue to execute our key strategic initiatives that create value for our customers and shareholders. We look forward to seeing many of you at EEI next week, safe travels. Operator, this ends our call today.

Thank you. This does conclude the program, and you may disconnect.