Exelon Corporation (EXC) Q3 2026 Earnings Report, Transcript and Summary

Hello, and welcome to Exelon's Third Quarter Earnings Call. My name is Michelle, and I will be your event specialist today. [Operator Instructions] Please note that today's webcast is being recorded. [Operator Instructions] It is now my pleasure to turn today's program over to Ryan Brown, Vice President of Investor Relations. The floor is yours.

Great. Thank you, Michelle. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us for the 2026 third quarter earnings call. Leading the call today are Calvin Butler, Exelon's President and Chief Executive Officer; and Rob Kleczynski, Exelon's Chief Financial Officer. Other members of Exelon's senior management team are also with us today and will be available to answer your questions following our prepared remarks. Today's presentation, along with our earnings release and other financial information can be found in the Investor Relations section of Exelon's website. We would also like to remind you that today's presentation and the associated earnings release materials contain forward-looking statements, which are subject to risks and uncertainties. You can find the cautionary statements on these risks on Slide 2 of today's presentation or in our SEC filings. In addition, today's presentation includes references to adjusted operating earnings and other non-GAAP measures. Reconciliations between these measures and the nearest equivalent GAAP measures can be found in the appendix of the presentation and in our earnings release. It's now my pleasure to turn the call over to Calvin Butler, Exelon's President and CEO.

Thank you, Ryan, and good morning, everyone. It's great to be with you all again. Through the first 9 months of the year, Exelon continues the strong execution you've come to expect of this organization. This morning, we reported adjusted operating earnings of $0.87 per share, ahead of expectations and narrowed our full year guidance to $2.85 to $2.91 per share. It starts with our most fundamental responsibility, providing the safe, reliable energy our customers and communities count on, while keeping bills as low as possible. The final 2025 reliability benchmarking results reinforce that point. Our utilities continue to lead the sector. Our four operating companies now rank first, second, fifth and sixth for electric reliability among their U.S. utility peers. That consistency comes from years of disciplined investment and the expertise and commitment of our more than 20,000 employees. And importantly, we deliver that industry-leading reliability while keeping customer bills below the national average, despite significant increases in PJM-driven supply costs, which are outside of our control. The rankings are important, but the proof is in how our system and our people perform when customers need us most. We saw that during one of the most active storm seasons in recent memory. Year-to-date, our teams have responded to approximately 31 significant weather events across our jurisdictions, including three major storms in ComEd's territory this summer that each impacted more than 400,000 customers. Across those events, we faced 57 confirmed tornadoes and 2 derechos. Even in those most extreme conditions, our grid investment help prevent an estimated 6.6 million customer outages, and we were able to restore service to 94% of our customers in less than 48 hours. Those results mean fewer disrupted workdays and school days and more time with power for the businesses and public services our communities rely on. And what makes that performance even more meaningful is that being on for every challenge doesn't come at the expense of affordability. Last year, our customer rates were 19% below those in the largest U.S. cities, while bills as in percentage of median income were 20% below the national average. That combination of reliability and affordability is a real point of distinction for Exelon. And it's at the heart of the Exelon promise, our comprehensive plan to deliver exceptional service while keeping bills as low as possible. We recognize our responsibility to invest before the system is strained and customers feel the consequences. Delaying needed investment doesn't make the need go away. It leads to more outages, greater disruption, lost economic opportunity and higher costs in the future. That's why our focus is clear: Invest responsibly, operate efficiently and deliver on our commitments. We're in a great position, but you know us well, we're always looking for ways to improve, and the organizational changes we made in August reflect that mindset. We made these changes with a clear goal, get closer to our customers, execute capital more effectively and make decisions faster. We brought technology and customer operations together, centralized engineering, design and project management and aligned our utility CEOs directly to me. That gives us clear accountability and a more direct line of sight into execution across the company. Many of you have had the opportunity to meet Rob Kleczynski and know what a strong accomplished leader he is. Rob has stepped into the CFO role, and I'm excited for you to hear from him shortly. With this transition, Jeanne, in her expanded role, leading finance and strategy, is sharpening our focus on where we see the greatest opportunities to create long-term value for our customers, communities and shareholders. I'll say it plainly, I'm energized by this team, and I've never been more confident in our people, our platform or our ability to execute. We also continue to make strong regulatory progress across our jurisdictions. We've closed out several key dockets, while our remaining rate cases and proceedings continue to move forward as expected. In Pennsylvania, our discussions with the Governor's office, legislators and the commission remain active and constructive. We look forward to participating in the ratemaking working group and helping advance a framework that supports affordability, reliability and continued investment. Rob will cover these developments in more detail, but the takeaway is straightforward, we're making progress on the regulatory outcomes needed to support our investment plan and deliver for our customers. Our $41.7 billion investment plan remains diversified, durable and defensive with no single project greater than 3% of the total. That plan drives 7.9% rate base growth, underpinned by 16% growth in transmission as we invest to strengthen reliability and resiliency, serve new customers and address growing constraints across the grid. And we see a significant runway beyond the current plan with $12 billion to $17 billion of identified transmission opportunities and another $3 billion to $7 billion of potential regulated storage investment. Importantly, these investment opportunities directly address the challenges our customers are facing. The biggest challenge of our -- for our customers' face is in the supply, and candidly, our progress on regional solutions remains too slow. The reliability backstop auction has been delayed as PJM works through FERC's concerns around cost allocation, credit requirements and customer protections. Similarly, PJM's IRAS proposal was rejected based on jurisdictional grounds. Neither proposal would have solved the reliability and affordability challenges facing our customers, but both represented important steps forward. We're at a point where our customers simply can't afford continued delays. So we're not waiting for a single regional solution. We're advancing practical solutions that states and utilities can pursue today, where policy supports them and customers are appropriately protected. Our proposed 500-megawatt project in New Jersey is a good example of what's possible with more than $700 million in expected net customer benefits and no customer bill impact during its first 5 years of operation. These are investments tied to real customer needs, and we'll pursue them with the same disciplined risk-adjusted approach our customers and investors expect. With that, I'll turn it over to Rob.

Thank you, Calvin, and good morning, everyone. I appreciate the comments, and I'm excited to step into this role. I also want to thank Jeanne for her partnership through the transition and for the strong foundation she has built. I look forward to continuing to work closely with her and to engaging with many of you at EEI next month. Today, I'll cover the third quarter financial results and outlook, provide an update on our regulatory agenda and the opportunities Calvin just discussed and finish with our balance sheet and financing progress. Starting on Slide 5, we present our quarter-over-quarter adjusted operating earnings walk. Exelon earned $0.87 per share in the third quarter of 2026 compared to $0.86 per share in the third quarter of 2025. Including rounding, the $0.01 increase was primarily driven by $0.06 from approved distribution and transmission rates net of depreciation, $0.01 of AFUDC, $0.01 of weather and $0.03 attributable to lower costs in the quarter. This is largely offset by $0.07 related to storm activity and $0.04 in interest and tax expenses. These results are ahead of our expectations outlined in the second quarter call. Primarily due to favorable weather and the timing of O&M spend, we continue to deliver customer-focused investments that support top quartile reliability while managing costs and timing within our full year plan. Based on our performance through the third quarter, we are narrowing our full year operating earnings to $2.85 to $2.91 per share with the goal of delivering at the midpoint or better. Our fourth quarter outlook assumes approved distribution and transmission rates, the absence of onetime items from 2025, fair and reasonable outcomes in our proceedings and normal weather and storm activity along with the reversal of timing. Finally, we reaffirm our expectation of annualized adjusted operating earnings growth near the top end of our 5% to 7% range from 2025 through 2029. That outlook is supported by our $41.7 billion capital plan, 7.9% rate base growth, disciplined cost management and a balanced financing plan to maintain strong investment-grade credit metrics. Turning to Slide 6. We continue to make solid progress across our regulatory agenda. Our approach remains focused on recovering prudent investments that support safe and reliable service while being responsive to customer affordability and the priorities of our jurisdictions. Starting in Maryland, the Public Service Commission issued a final order in Pepco's electric base rate case in August, approving a $50.9 million revenue requirement increase based on a 9.4% ROE and a 50.5% equity ratio with new rates effective August 10. Also in Maryland, the commission issued its final order in the Lessons Learned proceeding at the start of October, recognizing a continued role for forward-looking ratemaking with greater transparency and customer protections. We look forward to participating in the upcoming forward test year study alongside the commission and stakeholders to help shape the approach that supports affordability and reliability for customers across the state. BGE's electric distribution rate case continues to progress on schedule. On October 16, BGE filed rebuttal testimony, and we look forward to continue to support the prudency of the investments made to maintain a safe and reliable grid for our customers. Evidentiary hearings are scheduled for November ahead of the final order expected in January 2027. In Delaware, Delmarva Power's electric base rate case remains on track with the final order expected in the third quarter of 2027. As permitted by Delaware law, DPL expects to implement interim rates at 75% of its request in December, subject to refund. Finally, ComEd reached a settlement with all parties in its annual reconciliation proceeding at a delivery adjustment amount of $205 million and agreed-upon draft order was filed on October 1. A final order is expected by December 20. The grid plan also remains on track with administrative law judge filing of a proposed order this month, recommending an approval of the plan with modification, and order is expected by December 15. As filed, the plan is expected to deliver $51.5 billion of customer benefits, more than 3x its approximately $15.3 billion cost while supporting reliability, accommodating significant load growth and advancing Illinois energy policy objectives. Across these proceedings, our approach remains consistent. We are investing to support reliability, resiliency and customer needs while remaining focused on affordability and cost discipline. Turning to Slide 7. Let me provide some additional detail on the transmission and storage opportunities Calvin outlined. Importantly, these opportunities are incremental to our current plan, and we will pursue them with the same disciplined risk-adjusted approach we apply across the business. Starting with transmission. As we discussed on our fourth quarter call, we see an additional $12 billion to $17 billion of investment opportunity over the next decade beyond our plan. That opportunity is driven by increasing the reliability and resiliency of aging infrastructure and evolving generation mix, growing demand and the need for more flexible grid. We have also had success in competitive transmission, including approximately $1.2 billion of Exelon investment approved in PJM's RTEP window last year. We will continue to compete in open windows in PJM and other RTOs, and we expect more of those opportunities ahead. Storage is also a growing opportunity that is unique and practical solution to the current supply crisis. With regulated storage, we have certainty that projects get built and control over how -- when and how they're deployed. Customers benefit as well through lower capacity prices and the flow-through of tax benefits to smooth rate impacts. We currently see 1.5 to 3.5 gigawatts or approximately $3 billion to $7 billion of potential storage investment beyond our plan. Across several of our jurisdictions, competitive markets have not delivered the level of new supply that states are seeking. We are well positioned to help close that gap as states evaluate how best to meet their storage and resource adequacy goals. The opportunity we have identified represents only a portion of what states are targeting, leaving room for a range of solutions. We view utility-owned storage as one option alongside competitive development, not a replacement for it. Today, three of our states, New Jersey, Maryland and Delaware, allow for utility ownership of storage as a resiliency asset. And our project in New Jersey is a good example of the value these solutions can provide. The 500-megawatt project at Atlantic City Electric developed with Invenergy will represent the single largest battery storage installation in PJM and is expected to deliver more than $700 million in net benefits to customers. The New Jersey BPU is moving forward with its review, and we expect a final order late in the first quarter of 2027. Taken together, transmission and storage represent practical solutions to address the needs we see across our jurisdictions and meaningful potential upside to our current plan. We'll pursue those opportunities where the customer need is clear, the economics are attractive and the appropriate approvals and recovery mechanisms are in place. Finally, turning to Slide 8. I'll conclude with an update on our balance sheet, which remains core to our strategy and essential to funding the investments our customers need on cost-effective terms. We have now completed 100% of our planned 2026 debt financing, mitigating our exposure to interest rate volatility for the year. Looking ahead, we continue to take steps to derisk our plan, leveraging our pre-issuance hedging strategy to help reduce our exposure to future rate volatility, limiting the earnings impact of a 50 basis point increase in rates to approximately $0.01 a share. On equity, we have priced approximately 30% of our $3.4 billion of planned equity needs through 2029 via four contracts under our ATM program, including all $850 million of our 2026 needs, which we expect to settle by December 15. Our credit metric outlook remains strong with average metrics of approximately 14% through 2029, roughly 200 basis points above Moody's downgrade threshold and about 100 basis points above S&P's providing the financial flexibility to fund our capital plan and pursue future opportunities. We remain confident in our ability to deliver value for our customers and shareholders through disciplined execution, a strong balance sheet and investments that support reliable, resilient and affordable energy. Thank you. I'll now turn the call back to Calvin for closing remarks.

Thank you, Rob. Let me close with why we remain confident in what lies ahead. Exelon sits at the center of the economic growth taking place across our jurisdictions. Reliable, affordable energy infrastructure is essential to serving growing demand, attracting investment, creating jobs and supporting our customers. We bring a diversified platform, a durable $41.7 billion capital plan and a proven record of execution. We're on track for 2026 and continue to expect earnings growth near the top end of our 5% to 7% range through 2029, supported by nearly 8% rate base growth and a strong balance sheet. Importantly, our base plan does not depend on speculative upside. Reliability, resilience and grid modernization support the outlook. Transmission and storage extend the runway, and we'll add those investments only as approvals and cost recovery are secured. That is the Exelon investment proposition, a durable and diversified base plan, proven execution and meaningful upside all grounded in disciplined investment and customer affordability. Discipline makes growth credible. We invest when the need is clear, the scope is defined and the recovery path is in place. We have the people, the platform and the discipline to execute today and create lasting value for customers and shareholders. With that, we're ready to take your questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question will come from the line of Shar Pourreza with Wells Fargo.

So just, I know, obviously, you guys have highlighted some pretty healthy upside to the plan. You talked about the $12 billion to $17 billion for transmission, which I think we've known about, but you put actual numbers on the storage side at $2 billion to $7 billion. I guess at what point does the opportunity start to kind of accrete to the growth rate? I mean, I know, Calvin, at the end, you mentioned that it extends the runway, but you're, kind of, already at the top end. I guess, can you help frame the inflection point here?

Thank you, Shar. And part of this is we've been on this race now for a couple -- 1.5 years or so. I'm looking at Carim Khouzami, who we've put into this role. And we did this, anticipating the need and seeing the opportunity. So I'm going to ask Carim to kind of lean into this discussion with you because the numbers that we put forward our direct example. As they come forward, we put them on paper for you and really lay out the runway. So Carim?

Yes. Thanks, Calvin. And good morning, Shar. What I would tell you is I echo what Calvin said and say, the pipelines you see here to, kind of, illustrate what we see as the upside. On the transmission front, these are the awards that we expect to see over the next few years. When it rolls into our plan, it will obviously be when these are constructive and accrete to earnings once they are operational. So for transmission, there's a time line of, call it, 3 to 5 to 7 years depending on what type of project it is in terms of when it rolls into our plan. On the battery front, it's much shorter duration in terms of when we announced to when we actually have it up and operational. The New Jersey battery, for example, we expect that we will be able to get that once we get approval up and running in just under three years. So that will be when it starts to go into rate base and be accretive to earnings. So hopefully, that answers your question.

It does, it does. That's helpful, Carim. And then just on the 1.5 to 3.5 gigawatts of storage opportunity, I guess, how much of that sits in jurisdictions where you already own storage as a reliability or resilient asset? Or how much needs, kind of, legislative change first? And I guess, where is the gigawatts actually concentrated? Is this mostly New Jersey and Maryland or Delaware and Illinois are in there, too?

So that pipeline is across all of our states, but I would say a large portion is in those states where we have the ability to own battery storage. One of the things that we're doing, and I think we've said this before is that we obviously see storage as a necessary tool in our space to help address the affordability and reliability crisis that we're facing here, one of the tools. And what we're doing is we're obviously pushing those forward in those states where we are able to own it today, and that's Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, so you can expect to see projects in those states. In our other states, we are obviously advocating for changes in legislation and the ability to own them there as well. But we're not waiting until we get legislation there. We're out there actively talking with developers, looking and evaluating land, talking -- and assessing where we could put these projects because what we do know is, we need to move as fast as possible because our customers need it. So one of the things we want to do is make sure that we are ready that once we get the necessary legislation in those states, we'll be prepared with real projects to move forward. It also helps us make -- helps us have those discussions with stakeholders to talk about real projects, what they would look like, what the impacts would be. So I would say the 1.5 to 3.5 gigawatts is across all of our states, but obviously, you'll start to see some sooner in some states than others.

Yes. Sure. Go ahead, please. Jeanne?

To reiterate what Carim said is, it's across our states. But if you look at -- but it's based on what the state is saying they would like to procure in that state. And so we just took 25% to 50% of that. Just to say, if we capture 25% to 50% of that, to Rob's point, we don't need to do it all. We think all solutions should be on the table. If some of that is still by competitive, that's great. We just need more done, and we're ready to step in. And so wanted to take, kind of, across our states, what are our states looking for, give you a percentage of what might be done by us and just to give you a range of how we are thinking about the potential opportunity here to add to the growth. But importantly, that growth solves the supply crisis that we're facing as well.

And Shar, what I wanted to do is just, kind of, make the finer point that it's not an either/or. It's part of that Exelon promise. We talk about these are the things that we can do right now, and we're going out and doing it. And you will see in all of our jurisdictions, we're advocating continually for utility-owned generation. Again, not to replace the competitive market, but to supplement it, and we can't wait for others to do it. So we're stepping up to the plate and keeping the pressure on and the momentum going because we know customers are suffering and the bills are getting too high. And we just can't say it's not our problem. We're stepping up to be a solution-oriented company.

Our next question is going to come from the line of Paul Zimbardo with Jefferies.

Congrats on the new roles, and especially Mike on the retirement.

Thanks, Paul.

The first, I wanted to ask just more -- I don't know if a new Jeanne question, but just on strategy. I mean, you mentioned really the lack of progress at PJM and the important FERC proceedings. Just how are you thinking about the May PJM auction? Just -- are you advocating for a price cap, price for or other, kind of, more extensive changes to protect your customers?

Yes, Paul. So first, let me just say, I wanted to pause here and then I'm going to look to Colette and Jeanne, but I may just say, for PJM, I want to give the new leadership and that Board some credit. They continue to try to work to find solutions and be responsive to FERC. I even think last night, what came out later in the afternoon or early evening was an example of how they're looking to respond in real time to provide solutions. And as I said in my prepared remarks, it's progress, but it's still slow. And we continue to try to make progress to move this needle forward. So I'll look to Colette and Jeanne if they have anything to add directly to your point.

Thank you, and good morning. As Calvin referenced yesterday, PJM put forward a revised reliability backstop procurement proposal. We are continuing to lean in as we focus on short-, medium- and long-term solutions because it goes to affordability and reliability for our customers. Why did PJM put forward this proposal? PJM sees as we do, and you heard Jeanne talk about this in our earnings calls, the need to focus on getting more capacity online because PJM could face approximately an 11.5 gigawatt shortfall by 2030. You know that PJM put forward a proposal, FERC sent them back to the drawing board. And last night, PJM came forward with this proposal focused on three key areas. One is with regard to cost allocation and making sure that the costs associated with large load follows where the costs are, if you will. So more directly tying the cost allocation to large load growth. Second, PJM in this most recent proposal reduced the collateral requirement from 50% to 40%. And then finally, the other key element in that proposal was ensuring that exit fees apply to large -- excuse me, load serving entities rather than to TOs. So we see PJM working here. What I would say is that we need more work. We appreciate all that they're doing. We need more work, and you're seeing FERC help really refine our focus collectively on getting more infrastructure online. We can all agree on that. And then moving more quickly, we need to work with more of a sense of urgency. And then finally, I would say, helping empower the state to continue leading here, getting states more involved in ensuring resource adequacy and creating processes and supporting processes where states can ensure that the necessary generation that we need is coming online. I'll turn it over to Jeanne to see if she has anything further.

So Paul, did that answer your question?

And just to add on expectations on like the cap and floor extending, not so much the RBP but kind of the base auction.

Thank you. We continue to support the use of the cap until such time as we have better processes in place to bring the cost down. What we're seeing for our customers is the costs are too high. The markets are telling us we need more capacity online. So we continue to support the use of the cap in the short term and medium term.

Okay. Awesome. And then one other if I could sneak it in. Just on the -- you have a lot of large load and concentrated, I know, of course. Are you seeing the hyperscalers, the customers, kind of, being willing to put up more upfront capital. I know that's been a pretty big trend. You had some of the stronger TSAs. Just curious if you're seeing that, kind of, shifting in a favorable way to reduce equity needs prospectively.

In every conversation that we've had with our large -- our developers, they are willing to step up and to meet the need and to continue the development. As a matter of fact, the largest developers lean into our transmission security agreements and appreciate them because it removes a lot of the noise within the system. And that is -- and they understand that they want to be good community partners. And when you look at our TSAs across, the collateral that we've received has actually increased with a number of projects, and that's exactly what they were intended to do, to take out the speculative load, show up as good community partners and protect our existing customers from any rate increases because of large load development. So we haven't heard any pushback from it, matter of fact, just the opposite.

Our next question will come from the line of Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs.

Maybe to start, just wanted to, kind of, get a sense as you specifically continue to engage with stakeholders in Pennsylvania, if there's any incremental precision that you can provide on when you might be thinking about going in for another PECO rate case? And just, kind of, what the key considerations are as you think about formulating that filing?

Yes, thank you. I'll start, Carly, but then Mike Innocenzo, who is serving as CEO of PECO, I would ask Mike to lean into that discussion. First off, from a PECO rate case. We have been in active discussions with all Pennsylvania stakeholders, that's the governor's office, the commission as well as our customers and communities on the what and the why. Everyone understands that we will be coming in for another rate case within the planning period, but we are being very responsive to the governor's letter and the outlines that he's put in place on what he's looking for utilities to do and how we step up. There's not a question that a strong utilities are needed within Pennsylvania to continue the economic development and workforce job creation within that state. And Mike is on the ground every day and having those discussions. And I'll turn it over to Mike.

I think you said it well -- thanks. I think you said it well, Calvin. The only thing I would just add is I think in our conversations everybody really recognizes the value that PECO has created through their investments, the value that it's creating in the communities that we serve. The importance of investment in the infrastructure for improving reliability. So there's that acknowledgment that we see. And just recommending that when we come in, we're going to make sure that we come in, and they're showing investments that are adding values to the community. In terms of how and when, we're still working through that process as part of our key stakeholder engagement addressing each of the points that the governor -- not only the governor has made in this letter, but also working closely with the commission, the ratemaking working group. I think all of those will help provide additional clarity and a clearer path as we move forward.

And Carly, what's key about that is that ratemaking working group is in its early stages, and I think it's indicative of how the commission is showing up and really taking feedback and making sure this is a collaborative stakeholder process and getting all inputs to continue moving Pennsylvania forward. Pennsylvania has always been a very strong jurisdiction from a regulatory standpoint, and we intend for it to stay that way by partnering with all the stakeholders in this process.

Got it. Okay. I appreciate all that context, super helpful. And then maybe just one on the large load outlook. Nice to see the TSA share moving higher this quarter. It looks like a slight reduction in the overall large load pipeline versus last quarter. Anything that you would highlight there as a driver? I'm just curious if any inflections in conversations with large load customers that you'd highlight as we near sort of the elections here.

Hi, Carly, this is Rob. What I would say is that the reduction is in the cluster study from 25 to 23 gigawatts. It's our process working. It's continuing to see as we work with the developers and looking at the cluster studies, it's just that things fall out for a variety of reasons, whether it's communities, they don't have an end customer. But what we would say is that it's not indicative of anything particular other than our process of going through and seeing -- going through the studies and seeing this work through our process.

Our last question will come from the line of Nick Amicucci with Evercore ISI.

I just wanted to just actually, kind of, clarify too, just on the 11 gigawatts of high probability loads, is any of that reflected in the current plan? And kind of -- what kind of energization schedule underpins that?

Yes. I would say a small amount is reflected in the current plan at this point. And as we've always said, until that we know it's high probability, and it's -- we've secured then it will ultimately get factored in.

Yes. In terms of the time line, I think that we've said about 10% or so by '28. And then as you look out through 2034, I think about 3/4 of that 11 gigawatts will come online. So that sort of speaks to why there's only a portion of the CapEx as you think about limits when the load ramps up. And then in the $12 billion to $17 billion, I think we've been pretty conservative in the sense that we've only ascribed about $1 billion of continued upside related to high-density load growth. So again, you know us, we're going to give you what's real, what's durable, what's defensible with some bias to the upside. And I think that, that is indicative of what we've shared here too.

Perfect. That makes sense. And then just as we think of the financial flexibility, I mean, obviously, some big numbers on the upside opportunities there. Just how we should be thinking about the financing path going forward?

So from a financing standpoint, the way we look at it is we're going to continue to take a balanced approach. And as we've disclosed for the $41.7 billion we have in our plan, some of it is covered with cash from operations, debt, but then as we've always said, for incremental capital opportunities about approximately 40% will be equity.

And one thing I would add. This is Carim. I would just add one thing that on the battery storage projects, the large batteries, we're also pursuing them under build-own-transfer type arrangements. So much of the capital comes near the back end of the construction period. And so that helps us with, kind of, shortening the gap between capital being outlaid and before it rolls into rate base.

And one moment for our next question, which will come from the line of Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan Securities.

Just one last one, I guess. We're thinking about capital allocation of plan as we head into the refresh here, just wondering how you think about, I guess, the different states, different backdrops there, where you see more opportunities maybe to shift capital in that direction. And I was wondering, I guess, maybe on ComEd, it seems like there's a little bit of room between yourself and staff and the ALJ recommendations out there. So just wondering how you think about capital allocation at this point?

Jeremy, this is Rob. What I would say is that, as you've seen historically, our capital has gone up from 8% to 10% over the last roll forwards. And a majority of that has been in the transmission area. In fact, transmission is growing at 16%. And so I think we would expect that trend to continue going forward. And so -- and then with obviously additional upside potentially on the storage as we've talked about.

And Jeremy, I would tell you, where it's going. What I think one of the distinguishing factors about Exelon is the power of our platform, where our ability to shift capital where it's needed and to invest where it's adding the greatest value. We work very closely with all of our stakeholders to understand what they need and where they need it and really work to lean in to how we get that invested. And I use -- Rob, you talked about ComEd, but I would even talk about their efforts around their CEJA law, and you think about Carim, what we're doing now in Jersey with the battery. What we're bringing in, we're investing capital and not impacting our customer bills for 5 years until it's up and running. That's what we're looking to do in each and every step along when we're investing in capital across our jurisdictions.

At this time, I would like to turn the conference back over to Calvin Butler for closing remarks.

Thank you, Michelle. Let me just begin by saying to everyone, thank you for joining us today. We're delivering on our commitments and building momentum for what's next. I'd be remiss if I didn't thank you for your continued interest in Exelon and look forward to seeing many of you, as Rob stated, later at EEI next month. And with that, Michelle, that concludes our call.

Thanks to all of our participants for joining us today. This concludes our presentation. You may now disconnect. Have a great day.