Talen Energy Corporation (TLN) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Welcome to Talen Energy's Investor Day. We're so glad that all of you can make it. Wow, what a crowd. And a big hello to everyone who is listening in virtually in the webcast as well. I'm Ellen Liu, Head of Investor Relations and the emcee of the event today. And to my right are the stars of the show. So CEO, Mac McFarland; our CFO, Terry Nutt; Chief Commercial Officer, Chris Morice; and our Head of Cumulus Growth, Cole Muller. After management's remarks today, all attendees will have the opportunity to ask questions, whether you're in person or virtual, and that will be moderated by yours truly. But first, a safe harbor statement. So we've posted a link to this webcast and the presentation on our website, talenenergy.com. And we are making some forward-looking statements that are based on current expectations and assumptions. Actual results could differ due to risk factors and other considerations described in our disclosures. And we've provided information reconciling our non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures in the appendix of our presentation. So thanks again for joining. And with that, I will turn the event over to Mac McFarland.

Great. Welcome, everyone. Fantastic. I appreciate everybody coming [indiscernible] and, I think, we had over 110 respond-ees for being in person more than 100 on the phone. So it's quite a turnout. I appreciate everybody's interest in Talen. As we were getting ready for this yesterday, and we're doing a little bit of run-of-show running through this, it reminded me that I've been in this room before. First time it was about 10 years ago with Terry during the EFH bankruptcy. We were getting, I think, interrogated by the U.S. Trustee and the UCC, right. Is that right? And then over there -- and I'm looking at you, Phil, over there, I spent about two hours getting yelled at by the creditors of [indiscernible]. I sat there stoically. You were one of them. That's okay. We're still friends. But -- so we've got a, I guess, either warm memory of this place or a scar tissue. So later if you want to make us feel really comfortable, you can yell your questions at us. It'd be like being in distress again. But what a -- I'm trying to walk around a little bit because this room is so big. What a difference 15, 16 months makes. And I'm glad to be back in a regular way company here at Talen. I spent 15, 16 months since we exited, and I think there's been a lot accomplished over that time frame. And it's nice to be part of an ongoing operating company as opposed to restructuring. So with that, okay, IT glitch, that's a good start. So why Talen? So first slide in the deck, if you want to look at it. It should be memorized. So we are an IPP, let's focus on being an IPP. We're a long IPP, principally in PJM, which is where most of our operations are, okay? We like PJM because of the increasing demand, declining reserve margins, therefore, leading to increasing capacity and energy prices, right? Chris is going to talk about PJM in the market, and our position is a long generator in that market, right? Terry is going to talk you through how the increasing capacity and energy prices are manifesting themselves in our forward look, both in '25 and '26 and where we think things might go from there. So an IPP is focused on being an IPP. Second, our AWS deal, I think, was a -- I wouldn't call it a watershed transaction but it was an inflection point in the industry, okay? It signaled the coming of the AI economy and the need to power it. And I think our first mover position signing that deal gives us a strategic advantage. It gives us intellectual property that was developed over years and months of contracting and things that Cole is going to take you through. So with respect to the AWS contract, we're doing two things. The first is, and many of you have heard me say this, we're looking to perfect and accelerate that first 960. When we look at how people have risk adjusted, what they think is in our equity or in our value, most people risk-adjust that full 960 campus down, okay? So we're looking to perfect and accelerate that. Cole is going to talk about the ISA, okay, and how we see things and the outcome of that. But we're also excited about the opportunity to leverage what we learned in the intellectual property, if you will, gained during that contracting experience with AWS to other sites and how we might expand upon that. Disciplined track record of safe, reliable and cost-effective operations. To me, this is table stakes as an IPP. You have to do things well. We operate big, heavy rotating machines, okay, that are energized, pressure steam, electrified. This is table stakes for us. We do it 24/7, 365. It's what our 1,900 employees do. Now oftentimes, we come to investor meetings like this, we sort of skip over this because everybody wants to know about the transactions. They want to know what's going on at FERC. But without our employees, none of this is possible. And so this is table stakes. We have to do that to deliver the financial outcomes that come through. And then lastly, focused on unlocking value and returning capital to shareholders. So many -- obviously, you saw the 8-K and press release this morning, we're re-upping the share repurchase program by $1.25 billion of dry powder from here. And we can do that on the strength of our cash flows that Terry is going to walk you through. But we're doing that on the heels of $900 million plus of our -- of repurchases that have already been done. So if you look at that and think about that, when you put the 2 together, we will have nearly repurchased all of the equity that we had upon emergence 16 months ago. Finally, with respect to that in our capital allocation program, Terry is going to take you through how we see that going forward from our cash flows. Where's the clicker? Okay. We got a human doing it now as opposed to me. Our focus -- you heard me say this, our focus as an IPP is to deliver the highest value for every megawatt we have in every megawatt hour we generate. And we think the financial metric that people should look at, in our opinion, is free cash flow per share and free cash flow per share growth over time frame, okay? I've already heard some comments about this slide about why we don't incorporate our repurchases in this, but let me just give you 2 numbers that I'd like you to think about as you look at this slide, 3, 10 and 3, okay? First off, over the next 2 years, we're going to increase our free cash flow threefold. Free cash flow per share, threefold. When you get to 2026, that has a 10% free cash flow yield. If you look at the midpoint here. That's $14 per share, over $140 share price. I don't know exactly where we are right now but let's just go with it, right? 10% free cash flow share. And if we were to execute the $1.25 billion of share repurchases at today's price, $140 per share, this range would move by $3. Now obviously, if we pay more than today's $140, that range won't move as much but I think those are the important metrics here. This is all done at constant shares at $51 million. We do not incorporate them there. You can do the math. But again, threefold increase in free cash flow per share, 10% free cash flow yield, $3 of upside if we were to execute all the buybacks at today's stock price. I'll make one other mention on this slide. When you look at this and we -- when we talk about adjusted free cash flow, when Terry talks about adjusted free cash flow, that's after tax, that's all in, okay? It's not free cash flow per share or free cash flow BG, before growth. We don't use that metric. There's cash on the barrelhead, cash that can be distributed, can be used for returns to shareholders. So that's different when you look at other free cash flow. If you do all of that and you add -- and by the way, the midpoint here, many people are asking, the midpoint for '26-'27 uses the auction clear at $270. All we did was roll the $274, the '25, '26 clear in the '26-'27, $270 a megawatt day. We did that. It's just a practice. We're going to provide you a sensitivity. Later on EBITDA, Terry will walk you through that, okay? We also did it without the perfect and accelerate. We did it at the ramp schedule of AWS, right? If you thought those things are going to move forward or move higher, that would take you further up in the range in addition to the share buybacks, okay? Last thing, if you take the share buybacks, if you take some acceleration, put those in there, that free cash flow, that second number, that 10% that I was talking about, the 10% free cash flow yield is greater than 11% free cash flow yield on a '26 metric. And as we're going to show you later today, that's off a growing, stable, constant revenue streams, AWS, et cetera. We think that as we move to more of a contracted view or a stable view of revenues and operating margin, that, that lends itself to a lower cost of capital, therefore, a lower free cash flow yield necessary to run the business. So we're excited about the opportunity as we see it in front of us. Lastly, couple of things. The share repurchase program, the $1.25 billion, heard some comments from people. It's authorized through 2026, okay? What I would say to you on that is, look, that's generally how things are done when you get the approval of the Board. And so therefore, that's obviously, what we disclosed. We also -- I think -- when was it, earlier this year? March? April? I forget, of the share repurchase program from the original $300 million of October of last year, up to $1 billion, and we executed $900 million of that within 6 months. So don't read anything into that. It's just that you have to have the flexibility over time and we can use that over time. We've done it faster this time. Who knows how fast we'd do it the next time. Next slide. Track record of unlocking value. So if you're going to say something like that, you better back it up with the slides. So that's why this slide's in here, okay? Look, when you come -- if you've done restructurings like I've done in the past, I prefer to be doing what I'm doing now, quite frankly, after 10 years of bare-knuckle fighting. When you exit from bankruptcy, I think a lot of times, you have the capital R, the restructuring done. You restructure the balance sheet but you have the little r, reorg and optimization that haven't been done, okay? Now when I talk about capital R and little r, our GC gets a little scared, Terry gets a little scared because those have a different meaning, when it comes to restatements in the SEC world. But that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about optimizing the portfolio. So when we came out, we've been focused on, really, 2 different types of unlocking value, transactions and managing the balance sheet/capital activities, okay? From a transaction perspective, we've done the Cumulus deal. We sold the assets in ERCOT for $785 million. We've done another -- a number of other minor transactions. On the balance sheet, we've taken out our JV partners. We've simplified debt at lower project levels, and we fortified our balance sheet. And that positions us for further growth and the further opportunities we have, okay? Why are we positioned in a strong position? It's because of our financial position in free cash flow and liquidity, our capital discipline with the cash that we're generating, okay, and we view our balance sheet as a strategic asset. When I say that, Terry always reminds me, please be balanced about when you say that because the first question, Angie is going to ask is "Why don't you lever up and use it for a cash buyback?" So now you got to get a new question, Angie. But the reality is we don't need to lever up to do our $1.25 billion for the buyback. We generate that in cash over time, okay? And we can use our balance sheet as a strategic asset. It doesn't necessarily need to be for buybacks. It can be if we want to. It can be for growth opportunities, right? As of this date, we've basically done a lot of growth opportunities through the AWS contract through the rest of it, either managing by cash through sales, cash generated or basically being very capital-light. So when we looked at the AWS transaction, we said we don't want to invest capital in data centers, we want to sell power at better prices than we can get in the wholesale market. That didn't require any extra capital that just required a lot of intellectual capital, okay? So we can use that balance sheet as a strategic asset in many different ways. But we're not going to commit to using it for buybacks today. You didn't even find that funny, Angie.

Warming up.

Okay. Good. That's good to hear. Next slide. So I used the version of the slide during the second quarter earnings and I heard one feedback that I was using it to run for Secretary of Energy or something like that. But the reality is, is that there is a tremendous opportunity -- can you remind them back here. Thank you. The kitchen's right behind me, so it gets a little disturbing when they -- there is a tremendous opportunity for the sector to step up where we are today to power the AI economy. And as I said, it's a great time to be in the IPP space. It's times that I haven't seen -- we were talking -- Greg and I were talking about cycles in this industry. And you see these boom-bust cycles and they come and go. But this time, it feels different. It feels structurally different. And that's why I say it's a great time. So we're seeing significant growth from electrification and demand. We're seeing queues that are almost entirely renewable. Now, I think, we'll see a gas response, all right? But that's driving higher capacity prices, higher energy prices and higher spark spreads. And that's led to a number of knee-jerk responses in my opinion. One of those, and most of them are false narratives, if you ask me. One of those false narratives is that PJM is not working. And the result through this most recent BRA, base residual auction signals that, the $270 a megawatt clear. I would argue or contend it's just the opposite. PJM is a market that works and it is sending a price signal. And the next auction that clears in the fall will continue to do so and probably the one in June of next year. I think it's June of next year, we'll do the same given the supply-demand response. That is a working, functioning market. And by the way, over the past 2 decades, PJM has brought to bear more than 60 gigs of new gen, okay? Now it's been offset by retirements. So one of the other false narratives is that you hear from NGOs, consumer advocates, policymakers, is that same argument that it's not working and it's driving up higher prices. By the way, they're the same organizations that their policy decisions have pushed all that off the grid. So they push everything off the grid, want to go to renewables and then say, well, the prices should remain low. That's not how it works. They've opposed pipelines, new build generation, transmission, et cetera. So we're at an inflection point where gas is going to have to solve the problem, gas generation and the new queues and I think it will, okay? Some of those policy decisions have also been exacerbated by price capping and the price mechanisms by which the IMM is implemented, all right, all of which is leading to this confluence of why current generation is of high value. And that's leading us, by the way, to look at how do we reinvest in our current plans. It wasn't about 15 months ago, 16 months ago that when we emerged from bankruptcy, people said to me, "The gas fleet is worth 0," okay? And when I looked at the economics, when we looked at the economics on a pro forma basis, it's close to right on some of the assets. They were marginal on some of the assets. We always thought they were of value. But now we're looking at reinvesting in those assets, not a lot of capital, but you got to put capital back in because we've gone from running our fleet and doubling the capacity factors, particularly in the second quarter of this year on the gas fleet. All right, so knee jerk reactions, false narratives. How should we respond as a sector? I think we should look at the economic development opportunity by which this all brings. You heard me talk about data centers bringing huge economic development to regions. It is a win-win for everybody. I just think we're losing sight of that. It's a win-win for generators, T&D companies, load-serving entities, local communities, basically all the stakeholders, because it's billions of dollars of investment. That's -- every time you turn on and listen to CNBC or read something on the journal, it's about the big 4 and the hyperscalers going to spend $0.25 trillion a year to go after this. Well, that all needs power. And that's what our AWS deal does. So we're well-positioned because we feel as though we're at the intersection. We've done the first deal. We get to capture upside in capacity and spark spreads. And then we have protection through some of our long-term contracts, the PTC, et cetera. Lastly, before I turn it over to Terry. For those of you that are new to the story or semi-new to the story, I'm not going to bore you with going through all of our assets. You can go in the back in the appendix, and there's a cut sheet for every one of our assets. It walks you through what they are as well as some additional modeling detail. But our portfolio, which is principally in PJM, as I mentioned earlier, just by the numbers, we're 10.7 gigs of generation across 12 facilities and 1,900 employees, 50% of that generation is carbon-free, coming off of our Susquehanna Nuclear Plant. One of the numbers is not here, but I'll leave you with before turning this over to Terry is this. When we exited, emerged from bankruptcy, May 17, 2023, our enterprise value was roughly $4.5 billion. Our enterprise value today is roughly double that, $9 billion. So where do we go from there, right? It's a question. You've doubled the enterprise value. Well, I think if you go back to the original discussion of free cash flow per share, we're tripling free cash flow per share. And that does not include all the upside of the AWS contract on the come. It has midpoints using the '25-'26 clear, does not incorporate our share repurchase program, et cetera. So I think that there's a tremendous opportunity in the value of Talen. And that's why we continue to think the highest and best use of our cash flow generation, and Terry is going to get into the capital allocation, is to buy back shares. And as I mentioned earlier, we have the strategic asset of our balance sheet that we've grown into and we will further grow into as we add further contracted revenue streams and implement the AWS contract, which should be highly leverageable given that it is a AA credit on the opposite side of that revenue stream. And I think we have the opportunity to add more to it by leveraging what we did in that first contract against more. Many of you have heard me say, "I hope somebody else in the industry announces a deal. I just hope we announced our second before anybody else announces their first." So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Terry.

Thanks, Mac, and good afternoon, everyone. Turning to Slide 10 in the deck. I want to do a couple of things today. First, provide adjusted EBITDA and adjusted free cash flow guidance for 2025. And then secondly, provide a preliminary outlook on our 2026 metrics. As you see here on the chart, our 2025 guidance has an adjusted EBITDA range of $925 million to $1.175 billion or a midpoint of $1.50 billion, and our adjusted free cash flow is $395 million to $595 million or a midpoint of $495 million. Our 2026 outlook has an even higher adjusted EBITDA range of $1.13 billion to $1.53 billion or a midpoint of $1.33 billion and adjusted free cash flow of $535 million to $895 million or a midpoint of $715 million. As you can see by the arrows on both sides of the chart here, our adjusted EBITDA or our earnings potential grows at a significant compounded annual growth rate, well in excess of 30% over the next few years. What's even more interesting and to add on to Mac's comment earlier is our adjusted free cash flow almost doubles that growth rate. We think that's really led by a few things. Number one, it's just our ability to convert a significant amount of our incremental earnings into cash due to very limited growth CapEx. As Mac alluded to earlier, a number of other peer groups will talk about free cash flow before growth. But then they'll come back in and they'll say, "Well, I may have $700 million or $1 billion of growth CapEx, which you guys should just ignore." We don't do that. That's not our approach. We believe that these growth rates, along with other potential catalysts, provide a compelling investment opportunity with a strong growth profile. So the size of our ranges are dependent on several factors. First and foremost, the sensitivity of power prices and spark spreads. However, the good thing is our commercial hedging program does provide risk protection around that. We're nearly fully hedged for 2024, about 2/3 hedged for 2025 and just over 30% hedged for 2026. Chris will talk more about our commercial hedging program in a bit. Second, and Mac noted this earlier as well, the '26-'27 PJM capacity auction is also a variable when you have to -- when you're looking at our '26 outlook number. We've made a very simplifying assumption and just taken the last capacity auction clear of approximately $270 a megawatt day and extended that forward for the '26-'27 outlook. There's a potential for this to be higher. You've seen a number of people write about it, discuss it. We're not going to go into too much detail on that. Chris will talk about it a little bit shortly. But the other thing we've done here is we've given you a sensitivity or a rule of thumb that you can sort of toggle those results by. So a $50 per megawatt day change in the '26-'27 planning year results impacts our fiscal year '26 adjusted EBITDA by approximately $50 million. And so you can lever it up and down with that simple rule of thumb. So turning to Slide 11. The strong growth profile that I previously discussed around our earnings and cash flow provides the opportunity to continue to execute on our capital allocation plan. Since announcing our repurchasing plan back in October of last year, I'm pleased to say that we've returned over $930 million of capital back to shareholders. This has reduced our share count by approximately 14%. Continuing our commitment to shareholders, earlier today, we announced the reloading of the share repurchase program to $1.25 billion through the end of 2026. We continue to believe that buying back our stock is the best -- highest and best use of our capital. Our current share repurchase program is supported by unrestricted cash of approximately $700 million on the balance sheet at the end of August as well as an excess of $1.2 billion of adjusted free cash flow generated over the next 2 years. As part of our go-forward capital allocation strategy, we've also provided a targeted allocation on this slide. You can see here, we plan to distribute approximately 70% of our adjusted free cash flow to shareholders as we move forward. Moving to Slide 12. We've got significant margin growth over the next several years with increasing stability across the board. Our projected gross margin increases from 2024 to 2026, and more of it will come by stable sources backed by large creditworthy entities. That percentage is expected to continue to increase past 2026 as we continue to ramp up the power that we serve at our AWS data center. These stable sources of earnings and cash primarily come from the revenues associated with the AWS contract, capacity payments from PJM and earnings backed by the Nuclear PTC. This should reduce our liquidity needs, increase our hedging flexibility, which both in turn lead or lend themselves to a lower required free cash flow yield for the enterprise. As we think about demand for our equity, following our uplisting to NASDAQ in July, Talen is now more accessible to a broader number of investors and a broader investor base. We have or hope to become eligible for various stock indices as we move forward. We expect Talen to be incorporated into various indices run by S&P, CRSP, MSCI and the Russell as soon as the second half of September. And we also anticipate this will drive significant incremental demand for passive index funds. Talen has a versatile value proposition, and could qualify for additional value growth and -- under industry-specific indices as we move forward. With that, I'll turn the presentation over to Chris and he'll talk about several market tailwinds and our hedging strategy.

Thanks, Terry. Thank you all for coming. I'll start macro, get a little more granular on PJM and then double-click into Talen more specifically. In my nearly 20 years in the power space, I have not seen the structural demand growth like we're witnessing today. That's across the U.S. but more acute within the PJM footprint, primarily driven by the 3 key factors you'll see here at the bottom of the slide. Data centers, we all know and love that story. The return of domestic industry and manufacturing, we're seeing -- on the heels of the data center play, the chip plants, the processing plants, there's a reshoring initiative. So business is back on that front. And then lastly, this general trend towards more electrification, EVs, chips, home heating, PSEG put out a fully digitized kind of port in New Jersey that's out there. So more of that across all sectors driving large electrification. Looking at the chart to the right, specifically at PJM and the related demand growth expected to materialize there, largely driven by the 3 factors we just mentioned, data, business and electrification. PJM's own low-growth model has increased nearly 20 gigawatts from just a couple of years ago. So massive growth relative to history, a dramatic increase relative to their own studies just a few years ago. Moving the slide, looking at some market dynamics. The supply and demand fundamentals are increasingly getting tight. We previously discussed the demand side of the equation and the robust growth we're experiencing on that front. But similarly, supply has its own set of headwinds to deal with. Increased retirements, lack of new build kind of the primary drivers driving that tightness in the supply. PJM reserve margins are falling and looking to the left here, declining reserves create a trend line that is directionally going 1 way, downward. This makes existing resources increasingly valuable with an accelerated focus on grid reliability. Through RMRs and historically clear auction prices, PJM is sending a very clear signal. They need generation. The latest BRA clear is indicative of just how tight things are getting, add to it continued expansion of spark spreads in the East, and Talen is well positioned to benefit from these externalities. And we touched on it, we weren't going to guide you without getting more specific but the '26-'27 capacity parameters have been released. Of note, the '26-'27 load forecast and internal reserve margins are both increasing relative to '25 and '26. Unknown, however, are the supply changes, right? I think new supply can come in the form of a few things. New build, right? There's the 1 gas plant that's kind of been out there, Trumbull, 900 megawatts out West, potential for announced retirements to potentially come back. It's a small list, but that does exist. Demand response is a bit of a wild card, while we can potentially see more demand response get offered into the grid or change on their bidding behavior itself. And then lastly, upgrades. So we think in the aggregate of all those things potentially only bring back 2 to 3 gigs of additional supply. So basically, while the sphere of unknowns has shrunk, given the steepness of that demand curve, these small changes in supply could have a dramatic sort of range on the potential outcomes for the auction. Lastly, looking at our commercial hedging philosophy. You'll see on the left here, a diagram depicting the numerous variables contemplated in determining the most appropriate and, more importantly, the most effective hedge. We do have established hedge targets, and they are just that, targets, which do provide direction on the amount of volume we aim to de-risk during different periods of time. About 12-months, 60% to 80%; the following year, 40% to 60%. Beyond that, we're constantly monitoring, evaluating and balancing some combination of our views on markets, market liquidity, geopolitical factors, regulatory risk, credit risk just to name a few. Our commercial hedging strategy is pragmatic, not programmatic. In saying that we can be opportunistic in our buying and our selling. Given what we own our natural position is along with Spark or Dark or Quark. We own the power and we're short the fuel, right? So this gives them the -- gives us the freedom to be a little less formulaic when initiating some of those hedges. In times of extreme market volatility, it may make sense to do more or less outside hedging activity. Looking now at the bottom right of the slide, you can see our commercial hedging program at work in a table with sensitivities assuming various power price changes. The implication of the Nuclear PTC, some other strategies -- proprietary strategies that we implement help us achieve some asymmetric results with more favorable upside SKU while also providing adequate downside protection. For example, you'll see in 2025, a $10 per megawatt increase could lead to nearly $200 million of gross margin increase, while a $10 price decrease result in only a potential $50 million margin decrease. In summary, our hedging strategy preserves margin, provides cash flow stability and generates upside in a variety of market conditions as evidenced by our outsized commercial contributions since starting this journey almost 1.5 years ago. I'll now turn it over to Cole to talk all things data.

Thanks, Chris, and good afternoon, everyone. All right, so I thought we'd start this section kind of doing a bit of a recap of the deal we did back in March with Amazon, especially for folks who are may be newer to the story. So the deal with -- or the transaction with AWS was really we sold our campus, our data center campus for $650 million. But importantly, it's not just the sale of the asset, but it's also the long-term PPA that we contracted with Amazon along the way for power from our Susquehanna nuclear facility for the life of the plant. And that goes through 2042 currently. And there's options to extend that as the nuclear license is extended beyond that by the NRC out to 2062. The Susquehanna PPA has up to 960 megawatts of direct connect carbon-free power available to the data campus. And Amazon has the ability to access this 960 megawatts immediately or at least as fast as they can develop the campus. And then there's a backstop for Susquehanna on minimum contractual ramp obligations for Amazon to upsize the PPA by -- or their payments by at least 120 megawatts starting in 2025 and increasing it to 125 -- 120-megawatt increments from there. Each of these increments or these 120-megawatt tranches, as we call them, are fixed price over a 10-year period. And after that rolls off, they're repriced at a market-based mechanism that has an embedded premium still in it. There's also another contract for additional revenue streams from the carbon-free energy sales for separate power that Amazon's also paying under this agreement here. And then turning to the campus itself. We did this transaction in March. That was what, 6 months ago now. Amazon has publicly stated through various processes up on site or up in the township, that their stated goal is to develop the campus fully within 5 years, right? So a lot faster than the 120-megawatt contractual ramps that they've committed to. And I think the evidence so far has been very overwhelmingly positive to us on site. So there's been a couple of milestones met already. I'll just go through the ones up here on the screen. So in May, the township approved some zoning changes, which enabled no -- which enabled data center use by right, which effectively means no more conditional-use permits and discretionary permits for every building going forward. In June, they got -- Amazon received the first building permit to fit out the existing data center shell that you can see in the picture there. It's the shell that we built and then ultimately sold to Amazon. Then in July, Amazon received approval for the master site plan, which was 14 to 16 buildings, the entire infrastructure for the site that unlocks the full campus development. And then just last month, Amazon released the $300 million of the $650 million of the initial purchase price, which was held in escrow pending milestone development -- or development milestones that were achieved. And so we're looking forward to continue to partner and support Amazon here as they continue to develop the campus at pace. So let's turn to the financial impacts. And for folks who are checking and doing a red line, this is the exact same slide that you saw back in March. So we thought it was best to show -- it's the same deal in March as it was -- as it is today, right? And so we don't want to confuse folks by looking at different ways to compare. We'll talk through some sensitivity on that in a second but it is the same slide. And really, just to reiterate for folks who maybe weren't around the story in March, what you're seeing here is the EBITDA growth or the EBITDA impact relative to the base nuclear plant selling into the markets. And so really, it's the -- the Amazon deal left some kind of reference price. And the reference price we used in March and we're showing here still is the PTC floor. And so for every dollar that you want to increase that reference price per megawatt hour, for every 120-megawatt tranche, you're going to see a $1 million decrease in the net impact. And so the bar -- again the top line stays the same as you fluctuate market price or capacity price, obviously, those have changed a bit, and that goes up and down just the incremental delta may shift here. And we think it's helpful to look at the top end of this range or top end of the bar here because we're looking at 120-megawatt tranches built out to the 960 over a period of time. That shows you that -- that gets you to the top end of the range here. As Mac said earlier, we're looking to perfect and accelerate. And so on that acceleration, if we meet that Amazon time line of 5 years, you can meaningfully move that right-hand bar to the end of this decade versus middle of the 2030s, right? And so that creates huge value upon accelerating there. So hopefully, that's helpful for you all to see. We think it's a really exciting deal. I think many of you also agree with us on that, and it's why we're going to continue to work hard to leverage this in other assets, and I'll come back to that in a second. But first, as Mac said, we'd like to talk a little bit about the ISA and FERC process ongoing. I'm sure most of you are tracking that at this point. Again, just maybe level set with everybody in the room, what an ISA is, it's just -- it stands for interconnection service agreement, and it's a 3-way agreement between parties that every generator, by the way, has to have, right? It's the generator having a deal with the system operator and the transmission and all 3 of them. And so in this case, it's Susquehanna, PJM and PPL. And we need to amend this ISA to support the generator, in this case, Susquehanna, providing power directly to the data campus without using the grid, and that's important. And for folks kind of newer to the story, when we talk about serving the data campus, in the context of the ISA, they call it co-located load, right? So you'll see the term co-located load a lot. I think it's helpful to first start with currently what's in place. We already have amended this ISA to allow for 300 megawatts to support co-located load. We did this 2 years ago. PJM and PPL both reviewed the reliability aspects, signed off on it. And yes, FERC approved it, right? What we did as we were going through this process over the last 2 years, upsizing the campus to 960 megawatts, we submitted this into PJM per review. And what they do is a necessary study, which is effectively analysis of the entire grid, the network in the area to make sure there's no stability concerns or reliability concerns. And then, along with PPL who reviewed the results concluded that we can go up to 480 megawatts directly to the co-located load immediately with no stability or reliability issues. And if we address 1 minor stability issue that was noted elsewhere in the region, we can then go up to 960 megawatts. And that concern was basically alleviated with a less than $3 million capital upgrade that we've already paid to do, and that work's ongoing. And when that's complete, we will be able to upsize that 480 to the 960. What -- so PJM submitted that to FERC, that amendment of the ISA to FERC early in June, and they submitted it with 1 additional inclusion that both PPL and PJM thought was helpful to include, and we agreed, which are additional enhancements to the reliability to safeguard the system, to make sure we weren't inadvertently touching the grid, pulling power from the grid, et cetera. And that's what this Schedule F, that folks maybe have read about, really outlines. And once we submitted the ISA, as folks know, there are a few folks that protested, a few fairly large folks that protested our ISA. They're folks that are not related to this agreement or, really, anything in our jurisdiction here. FERC -- and that obviously created a lot of, I won't say noise, but a lot of discussion, a lot of dialogue that I would say has probably reached the national level, right? Our ISA was reviewed by FERC and ultimately, in early August, they issued what's called a deficiency letter, which might sound like a negative thing but all that really was, was a request for more information. And what they said is we want more information regarding these reliability safeguards that you put in place and please explain that a little bit more. And so what PJM did, working with PPL and us, this past Tuesday, filed a response, gave a pretty fulsome outline of why those safeguards were helpful. Why it protects the grid even more and why this is actually reliability enhancing versus maybe some -- the other way, which is some of the plans from the protesters here. So that leaves FERC with now a 60-day window to review and ultimately opine. That 60-day window expires on a weekend. So go to the next Monday, we're looking forward towards March -- or excuse me, November 4 for a response from FERC on this issue. And we're optimistic. We continue to be optimistic that once FERC reads PJM's response, goes through it fully and understands the setup we have, the unique characteristics here, that they will move forward and approve the ISA. Separately, FERC also issued what's called a technical conference or set up a technical conference to discuss the broader issues that have clearly been bubbling up since we've announced this, since the protest happened and the industry is really engaging about how does this look for different situations. And each transmission owner, each generator, everyone is going to have unique circumstances. And so how do you put a broad framework around that. And so that's really what we expect FERC to be talking about at this technical conference. Notably, it's not involving our ISA. They actually bifurcated from our ISA and they actually can't talk about any specific proceedings in this conference. We will get more on the agenda here probably in the next couple of weeks as to exactly what FERC wants to talk about, and how they talk about it. But we are going to participate in that as we expect a lot of the main players and parties of interest to do so. And we -- and Mac said this on the earnings call but we really think that a rapid resolution here is key. If they don't and this kind of waffling continues out there, it's going to chill investment. It's going to chill growth. And ultimately, our deal might not be the deal for everyone or every generator out there, but we do think it is 1 solution of many that can ultimately solve the problem. The data load is coming. It's already here. It's already moving at scale. It's already expanding. And we think our deal and others like this will continue to maintain reliability for the grid, and will continue to have no adverse impact to ratepayers. And so ultimately, we're very -- we're looking forward to the outcome of this technical conference as well. All right, so I'm going to end here with just a quick discussion on the Talen platform and what we think is the first mover advantage, as Mac alluded to in the entry there. And really, this has developed over 4 years of time and kind of go through the different elements there. And just to cut to the chase, we're not announcing any data center deal here today. That's maybe for another day but I'm sure the question is going to come up, but I just wanted to kind of get that out. But really, I think we've built a valuable platform, really, around 2 different themes here. One is we understand what's important to hyperscalers. That might sound pretty obvious when I go through the pieces here. But as we've contracted with AWS and as we've discussed and had dialogue with numerous other parties through the process here, it's really about the speed to power and the speed to market. That's first and foremost. But it's not just about the time to get into that. It's also, too, about the scale. Can you get to a gigawatt, can you get to something more, how fast, how big is really the question. And hyperscalers aren't wasting their time on -- it used to be 50 megawatts and 100 megawatts and then 250, 500 megawatts. Now we're really talking giga-scale for these campuses and where the focus is starting to shift for these AI compute loads. Third thing is just 24/7 reliable power. I think that's pretty intuitive as well. Low carbon or no carbon in the case of Susquehanna. I think an underappreciated aspect is having long-term PPAs for the hyperscaler to have both attractive prices but also price certainty. I think that is very key as I think about investments, this $250 billion of investments these hyperscalers are making per year into AI infrastructure and compute. They need to have line of sight that the power is there and what that price is. The other thing, as I mentioned earlier, is we've built the IP as an organization. So we've done all the technical development. We figured out how to connect the infrastructure directly into a nuclear facility and all the complexities around that. We've dealt with all the zoning. We've dealt with all of the necessary study, all of this, the technical analysis to make sure we're on sure footing and we know how to do that and replicate that faster and faster now that we know kind of which way to pivot depending on the circumstances of each asset. We also have engaged with a numerous number of stakeholders, PJM, PPL, NERC, FERC, state officials, local township supervisors. We understand how to navigate that system pretty well at this point. And as Mac mentioned, commercial contracting, right? So we obviously got to a deal with Amazon. That took quarters, not weeks and months. It took us quarters to get there but we also were dancing with a number of other parties, and we understand what similarities each of them had and what differences each of them have. And so how are different constructs, potentially, how would they work for different assets, I think we have an advantage on that. So bottom line is based on our learnings through this process, at least at Susquehanna, we believe that we're able to now leverage that across our asset base. Maybe it's a little bit different, and it's unique for each asset. But we do think there are future opportunities, and we're certainly working through that and I think more to follow here in the coming period of time. So with that, I'm going to stop and turn it back to Mac.

Thanks, Cole. I got this vision of you dancing with counter parties. It's a little awkward. You might want to not use that one next time. In any event, Cole has done a great job. One of the things that, I think, gets underestimated with this, there is a lot of technical capability, but there's a commercial aspect of this. Cole and I have been on calls just this week with parties that are interested in trying to develop data centers with power. And it's become very evident to us that the old -- and we're at an inflection point in power, trying to solve this need of the growing demand in this AI economy. But I also think, for those that keep track and look at the data center space and look at the NVIDIA space and the derivatives of NVIDIA, that it's at an inflection point too, because the old data center model is evolving rapidly, very rapidly. It used to be plopped down in Northern Virginia, sell 40 megawatts, plopping -- recycle the capital and plop down another box. You heard Cole talk about it's moving to these gig centers or multi-gig centers, and that's where it's going. But there's also a difference, which is data center operators and hyperscalers are also getting smarter because it's that old location, location model is, power, power, power, model now, and that you got to get real smart on power. And so we learned a couple of things going through the commercial activities, which were data center operators want 5 9s of reliability, 99.999% of reliability. And when you ask why, there's no answer. Because -- well, there is an answer. It's because that's what we've always got, okay? But what's your business interruption cost? The old model was, I plop down a 40-megawatt shell and I take 20 megawatts. The utility is on the hook for keeping the other 20 megawatts. I don't pay for that, okay? Maybe the demand charge but not the energy charge. Well, that's very inefficient, as you can imagine, for those that are in the power sector, like, having to reserve 40 megawatts at all periods of time, but only using 20 megawatts and you pay for it on energy, you're burdening. So you're going to see a significant change in the way that data centers have to move to integrate power. And I think that's one of the things that we understand and can bring to the table when we talk about either co-located deals, front of the meter, behind the meter, however the next evolution is, okay? We understand that. And I think that, that -- that's -- we describe that as IP. I don't know that it's IP. I don't know that it's IP 5 years from now as the market evolves. But having that understanding, I think, gives us a first-mover advantage to be able to leverage that. We like to think Talen's powering the future and we're uniquely positioned to do so. You heard me talk about it, strong cash flow allows us to do the $1.25 billion, the fleet, first mover AWS growth, that disciplined track record. We continue to say that, that's table stakes. And as I mentioned, we've got a balance sheet that we're going into that is a strategic asset. I think that sets us off on a good platform on the heels of everything that's been done. And so with that, I'm going to stop and get some more energy in the room with questions.

Okay. Thank you, Mac and team. Now it's everyone's favorite time, time for Q&A, also time for snacks. So there are snacks and drinks on either side. If you'd like to stop and grab some or you can wait until the end of Q&A. But most of you have received a laminated number for those of you in the room. The numbers don't mean anything aside from enabling me to call on you without needing to awkwardly try to describe you. So for those of you who are virtual, it'll be a bit easier. [Operator Instructions] All right. Let's see kicking things off. Let's kick things off with #19 over there.

Nick Campanella, Barclays. So how does the recent capacity auction being elevated? And then what we're seeing in terms of December, potentially clearing higher. How does that change your discussions on price and how you're thinking about new data center signings? And how does it also change customer motivation?

Well, I'll start. I think from a -- I'm going to go in reverse. From a customer motivation, I don't think anything is going to stop the insatiable appetite of the AI data center demand. I don't know that it's exactly the forecast that you see out there because there's going to be changes. It looks like queues, right? People used to get in the LNG queue at FERC. People get in the queues at PJM to build new stuff. And so some of that will go away because this is just on the demand side. There will be cooling improvements, which will reduce demand. There will be improvements that happen in chips. And right now, the improvement that's happening at chips is more power, but more cooling per square foot. So there's a lot of dynamics that go into that. So I don't think the demand side of things changes. I just don't know that all the forecast will become realized. So I don't think the demand side of thing changes. I just don't know that all the forecast will become realized. But it doesn't matter because if you have 50% of what's forecast, you still have reserve margins in the mid-section -- in the out part of this decade that Chris showed. With respect to pricing, it's really interesting. It's a little bit of a self-fulfilling. I don't like using words like we had this milestone deal with AWS. It's more like an inflection point where everything started to rationalize within. But recall that all the forward curves and everything started to respond after doing the deal. So -- and then it was unique because we were at a sell-side thing and someone said, "Well, what does this look like mark-to-market now that all the prices went up?" And I said, "I don't -- it's not as much in the money." But we've got 1,300 more megawatts of nuke and another 9,000 -- 8,000 megs of other stuff. So what will it do going forward? Obviously, when we did the first contract, it was priced off of a view of market capacity and energy at the time with certain parameters that are somewhat confidential and private, but that there was a basis. The basis is just now higher. And I think you'll see deals get done at higher. And then eventually, once this demand starts to get solved, now I'm talking a decade from now, the prices will come down probably. But that's not going to happen for a while. I hope that answers your question, Nick.

Yes. And then just you're highlighting a lot of demand for the stock with the index additions. And obviously, we have this December '24 catalyst with the auction gross cleared pretty high. With the buyback being through 2026, why wouldn't that be more accelerated to be as soon as possible?

Because I don't want to let you know when it's going to happen. I didn't mean to be smart about it. Go ahead. It's a truthful answer, but there's truth in the sarcasm, but yes.

All options are on the table for the buyback?

Correct.

Maybe the other thing, maybe going back to the first question, you have to keep in mind that these data centers are long-term assets, right? They're real estate investments. So even though you may have 1 or 2 high-capacity clears, this is a 20-plus year investment for these folks. And so they've got to look on the horizon and think about what that cost means for the life of the asset.

Can I make one other comment though. Just so everybody is aware, we had $1 billion authorization back in -- when was it again? You're younger. April. And -- but there was periods in time by which we couldn't necessarily -- at that point in time, we were in the process of signing documents with CPS to sell the $785 million ERCOT assets. So we had MNPI. And then you get into the quarter and you got the blackout period where you can't do things. So there's some constraints on things. We would have executed -- because people say, "Well, why didn't you execute that 900 earlier?" Well, the tender and then the bilateral. We would have, if we could have. So maybe just another data point.

All right. Let's go with #110, Angie, since you got some mentions from Mac.

Exactly. So first, I mean, just like taking a step back. You seem to have a lot of very conservative assumptions across basically all of the metrics, which strikes me as strange for a company that, as you mentioned, repeatedly comes out of restructuring. That usually means you will try to talk up your story. So maybe just your style, but again, you seem to be overly conservative versus your peers. So that's number one.

It's the CFO's fault.

That's Terry's. Okay.

Okay. I'll let you -- you want us to answer the question? Look, there's a -- I think it's a model at Franklin & Marshall that Ben Franklin once said, "Well done is better than well said." We'd rather do stuff and then tell you about it, and you heard us do that. And I'd rather put out something that is based and grounded so that you can then make your own assumptions from there. That's why we provide all the sensitivities, and you can look at it and do those types of things. I appreciate that you think that they're conservative and that you view us that way, but we like to set bars and meet them or beat them. And not -- there's no need to talk our book. And he's conservative. [ A&M ]. People don't know what that means.

Okay. So then maybe a bit more about this potential accelerated build-out of the Cumulus site. So we obviously saw the statements from AWS. I'm just wondering if there's any constraints. So if we want to think about the -- how fast the site can be developed, is there like a technical limitation, for example, how many megawatts per year can be absorbed?

I wouldn't say there's a technical development. And first of all, I should put the caveat. We're not going to speak for AWS, and ultimately, they drive the development schedule. But look, we built that shell that you can see in the picture that was on the previous slide and sold that to Amazon. And as I said earlier, they're obviously looking to fit that out but also accelerate and build out the campus. And that means they have to buy equipment. So I do think there is a physical limitation in the near term. Let's call that a year or 2 for all the equipment to -- long lead equipment to be bought additional transformers, additional substations, et cetera. So I think in the near term, a year or 2, there's probably a structural limit. But beyond that, it's really up to Amazon, how fast do they want to buy 3 substations worth of transformers or 6, 4 buildings or 8 or 10 or 12 at once and have that come in the next year or 2, and then ultimately, do they have the labor to build all that concurrently.

And then just one last one. You didn't mention anything about the coin, the coin business. So I was just wondering if you could comment about potential conversion of that business into a data center.

Yes. I think we're going to stay kind of on the line that we were at, at the Q2 earnings, which is we're working on different options there. I appreciate we've probably been saying that for a bit of time, but I think -- more to come on that, but not today.

Yes. I think, Angie, the simple answer is we remain committed that it's not part of -- and as we said, it's not a strategic asset for us. It's just -- until we decide what to do with it, there's not a lot to say.

All right. I'll do 111 and then 113.

I know you touched on it a little bit, but can you just maybe put a little more color around the other 30% of the free cash flow allocation? I think on the last call, you mentioned maybe some things to do with the RMR units. But is there anything else there in terms of growth CapEx or -- yes, just non-buyback capital allocation?

Maybe a couple of things on that, Michael. I appreciate the question. So the 70% is a target. It's not a hard and fast rule. It can be above that. It can be below that, right? When it comes to the excess cash that we generate, and it comes to like inorganic opportunities, I think the one thing that I'd be cautious on is this team up here has been through cycles. We know what cycles look like. If there was a value proposition out there that we thought had deep value in it and it was a strategic fit for us, we would go out and take a hard look. But the good thing is the balance sheet and liquidity that we have and the ability to have excess capacity gives us options to do that. It's not like we're going out there and looking to buy anything and everything. We would never do that. That's ultimately not in the cards for us. We get dinged. I mean I'll be honest. Like I talked to the rating agencies last week, and they had nothing but good things to say about the results but then bad things to say about, well, you guys are too small. You're not diversified. Why don't you go out and buy this and buy that?" I said -- I told all 3 agencies, "We're not going to go out and do a transaction just because there's a transaction that we had. It's got to mean a lot of value for us to deal with that. So that's how I would sort of characterize that remaining 30%. And it gives us dry powder. It gives us the opportunity to do things with maybe it's on the equity side, maybe it's elsewhere.

The other thing is we have $690-some-odd million, $700 million of cash on the balance sheet. We're generating over $1 billion. We have this balance sheet that allows us to do a number of things. So -- but people always ask us, what's the capital allocation policy, give us a number. It's like giving you -- a hedge number. And that's why Terry was very careful to say it's a target because we can flex that up or down. If you look at the position that we're in, we're in no better position than we've been in a long time. We have revolver capacity. We have first lien capacity to be trading and hedging, okay? We manage that, look at that daily, weekly. We get together as a team. We manage it on a daily basis. And we don't need to hedge as much because we get the production tax credit to the downside, and we're having this growing stable revenue stream from AWS. And so when we look at all of those things, we have a lot of flexibility to do right now. But as you look out into the market, the M&A market, by the way, when I'm talking M&A, I'm talking to assets or what we might do for small amounts of growth. It's kind of locked up right now. Everybody thinks their stuff is worth a lot of money, and everybody else says it was one auction cleared. And not -- so we're out there. We always constantly evaluate, and we look at whether or not we're going to sell assets or maybe add something that provides a growth opportunity. But we like where we are because we have something that other people don't have. We have the ability to perfect and accelerate the AWS contract, pull that forward, and that is growth. There's real cash flow growth over time that is seeable, and all we got to do is working. Other people are looking at it and basically, when you buy an asset, you're speccing the market, right? You're taking a view on the market, and the market is going to be better from here. We don't have to do that. All we've got to do is convert megawatts from going to market to going to AWS and then figure out how to do that again at more locations. That's something that others don't offer. And that's with an AA credit on the other side. There's a whole bunch of other things. And so that gives Chris more flexibility in doing what he's doing, but it also gives us more flexibility to go look at what other alternatives could we figure out to add on or cut off. We did so with the ERCOT assets, right? We're looking at what we do with coin.

Great. And then my second one was just around maybe risks around the PJM auction. So I know you used the 270. That's kind of a roll forward, but you gave some drivers. So what gives you confidence that you're using that as a marker now? And you guys have been around a long time. You cleared at an all-time high. These things can be unpredictable. And then on the flip side, the risk -- if price is materially higher, the political ball flow back around that.

You talk about bilateral?

Sure. Yes. So a lot of debate on -- given the historically high clear, is it prudent to carry that forward as expectations of clearing cap is if you conservatively. Anecdotally, I'll tell you, there are some bilateral trades that have gone through. The capacity bilateral market is pretty opaque, pretty thin to be frank. So those are being priced north of the clear, right? The 300s, 330s or a couple of bilateral trades that I've seen. Again, just giving us confidence that the 270 was a safe number given the last clear. And again, the sensitivities provided can allow for some toggling above or below that. But you're right, there's a ton of risk to the downside, a ton of risk to the upside. It's PJM capacity. It's a bit of a beast in and of itself. So yes, the 270 was well defended, I'd say.

Yes. And maybe just to add to Chris' comments, too, this upcoming auction is going to be given the parameters, the steepness in the curve is a very unique situation with stuff coming auction. I mean I don't think we've ever seen a curve that looks like this, right? Higher demand requirements, higher reserve margin requirement. Very limited. Actually, a reduction in some of the import capacity to several zones, right? That makes for a very, very steep curve. And so ultimately, and Chris alluded to this earlier, when you think about the main variable, it's really going to be on the supply side. What happens with supply? Does DR come back in the market? PJM doesn't have a massive demand response market like maybe ERCOT does. And so there's some limitation there. But supply is going to be the variable that I think we'll have to see when the December auction comes, and quite frankly, even the auction in June of next year.

I think, Michael, to answer maybe your political question is maybe -- I don't want to go down the history lane here, but how we ended up here is because of battling over what these rules should look like, and that's not PJM's fault. PJM has been trying to get these auctions and get them on a 3-year forward look, which is what they're supposed to be, right, so that you have a signal. I think PJM has put forth -- we don't always agree with PJM, but they put forth at FERC, some of which we're opposed by the IMM and ultimately the FERC agreed with the IMM and shut down some of those rules, okay? And they've been trying to run these auctions, and they're doing -- like I said, they've brought on 60 gigs over the last couple of decades and made a functioning market. That's a good thing. But the reason -- and I do think politically, you'll see the rhetoric heat up when the auction clear is high. And that's because you're going to hear more people like the letter that came out of the consumer advocates say people are paying higher prices. Well, that's because policies matter, right? If you have policies that push generation off the grid, I don't know what you think the response is going to be. I mean it's simple to -- it's like micro or macroeconomics. I'm an engineers.

That's macro.

Okay. So -- but it's like -- I don't know what people think the response is going to be. You push stuff off the grid, the demand keeps growing, and people have been able to survive that or the grid has been able to survive that by -- and keep prices low because demand has been going away. And I think what's different now is that demand is coming. And if PJM doesn't get it right, if PJM doesn't get the cost sharing all of it right and the cost sharing is a bit on the local utilities, right, as well and that's some of the discussion that will happen at this 2 or 6 hearing, the economic development that's available to power data centers isn't going to come to PJM. And I think that's the problem. And I think that disadvantages states that are pro business like Pennsylvania. New Jersey, once. You saw that they have a -- Jersey put in place -- Governor Murphy put in a tax abatement, not a ton of money, but wants data centers to come. And you have other states that are huge electricity importers because they shut down all their generation and have leaned on states like Pennsylvania and Ohio that have had gas and gas-fired generation built in their supply. And so there is going to be a lot of rhetoric, but it goes back. I said where you stand depends on where you sit. I don't know. Where you stand, something like that. And your view of what it is, is consumer advocate should be advocating for lower prices. But the reality is you can't have all of these things, right? It eventually comes home to roost. And that's what we're saying. Yes, the political rhetoric is going to go up if this comes. You see people talking about all sorts of different responses. But I do think PJM has been a functioning market. I do think you'll get, over time, a supply response, and that supply response will be gas. And areas that are prolific gas don't need a lot of pipeline. They have space. That means if you want to kind of figure out the Venn diagram on that, that's like Pennsylvania, Ohio.

And to add to Mac's comments, too, I think the other thing is, unfortunately, the focus has been on the rhetoric from some of the consumer advocate groups. In the meantime, you've actually had market participants in PJM say, "Hey, we're looking at accelerating development," right? And so it's -- I mean let's be clear. PJM has 2 tools to really influence new construction. It's energy prices and capacity. They've given a capacity signal. PJM has done the job that they've done for 20-plus years. So that signal is out there, but you're just not getting as much press from our peers and some of the private companies that have said, "Hey, we're looking at development. We're going to look at expanding these things."

PJM just put out a release on fast tracking shovel-ready projects. I mean -- so I think this will have a supplier-sponsor. It's just it can't because these auctions are stacked right on top of each other. That's what Chris was saying. It's very hard to do that in the very...

It's a functioning market, right? To compress time lines, making hard for that price signal to be received in time to build new generation. But this is why and how the capacity markets function, build supply, some of the high price signal, get new build. Given the correct time lines, I think we're in a sweet spot window here where we can see that continue for a couple of years.

But I think maybe just one other thing. Sorry, this is -- yes, I feel like I'm on a soapbox. But you get a 270 clear, you get another some dollar clear. I'm not going to put a number on it, okay? That's 270 or above. And then you get a third one that's here. And if you look at the chart that Chris showed, last 8 years, $50 a megawatt day, RTO. So people who think that you're going to go back to that and have a functioning market, those are price-suppressing, those are price-capping activities that should not be allowed. It should allow the market to work in the capacity auction. I get the point why there should be energy caps in certain situations, but not on the capacity market.

Go ahead, Shahriar.

I think you just kind of touched on my question, but there's obviously a bit of a push/pull between the IPPs and the distribution companies, right, especially as you're thinking about resource adequacy in PJM. And some of the distribution companies are talking about reregulating a certain amount of peaking gas assets, right? Maybe Constellation and Exelon is a little bit too pronounced, the battle between the 2 of them. But some of the EDCs have floated maybe working with the IPPs, so around potentially restructuring a state mechanism where you guys can be incentivized to build through a PPA contract, and they can earn on the PPA contract and ROE, et cetera. Is this sort of a dialogue that you guys are having? Is it so black and white where it's going to be a battle between the 2 of you? Or can you guys actually strike a middle ground with the EDCs and structure a mechanism similar to the offshore wind markets that we've seen in the East Coast, right, because they're quasi regulated and deregulated?

Yes. Look, that's a great way to put it. It's quasi regulated. So first of all, just on load serving entities or in the local transmission owner that we are predominantly in PPL. And Vince has said like they explore doing stuff in rate base. If I had a rate base, I'd explore. I want to explore doing stuff in rate base. So I have no problem with them doing that. It's just like consumer advocates want to advocate for consumers. Okay. I don't know that that's necessarily the response it should have because again, I think that PJM is a working functioning market, okay? That said, there are other things going on. So everybody is familiar with the TEF. That's in ERCOT. Senator Yaw, I believe it is, a state senator, is putting forth basically a PEF, Pennsylvania Energy Fund. I think it's targeted $5.5 billion to $6.8 billion for 10,000 megawatts, loans up to 60. We got asked to opine. And my view on that is, yes, if that's a mechanism that can work, okay, the finer details matter here. But if it's a mechanism that can work and bring generation, I have no idea how it gets offered in capacity and any of that. But if it gets offered in the regular way, depending upon how -- what strengths come with the debt because it's supposed to be, I forget, less than 4% type debt up to 60% and if that can incentivize, I think that's constructive, okay? But the devil is in the detail, all right? That's different than rate base because I don't know how you put that in the capacity in the auction, the energy and the rest of it. So I do think that there will be a creative solution. I think the solutions are going to be -- you look at the balance sheet of -- I don't -- I can't keep -- NVIDIA lost like $300 million the other day, right, in market cap. But like billion. I said million, didn't I? Billion. Billion. I can't even contemplate it. But the -- if you look at their balance and what they're spending on data centers, they don't want to put power plants on their balance sheet, but they can effectively through power purchase agreements. So everybody can have their cake and eat it, too. T&D companies can build transmission and distribution and put it in rate base. Developers, we might be one under the right circumstances, can build power plants under PPAs that serve load and also source from the grid. And that's why I keep saying this. This opportunity set is so big for the sector, we should all just figure out how to solve it as opposed to argue over who gets to solve it before we even talk about what the solution is.

And then just lastly, obviously, no data center announcement today, right? But just some of the dialogues you guys are having with the hyperscalers, I'm curious, some of the ways you're seeing at FERC and at the state side and some of the pushbacks of Maryland, Connecticut. Is that causing some of these hyperscalers to balk around behind the meter and instead shift in front of the meter where it's less politically sensitive? Like how is that dialogue going as this is becoming sort of a general issue at this point, right?

I'm going to let Cole answer this because I'm out of words, but not really. The thing that I find interesting about that conversation is -- and I challenge everybody that starts the conversation with just pushing people towards front of the meter. Someone define for me what front of the meter solution is. I'm dead serious about this. We have a solution. We know exactly what it is. We know how we contract it for it. It's behind the meter direct power. But people talk about this front of the meter solution. The deal hasn't been designed yet. It hasn't been done yet. Unless we're talking about doing it the same way that it's been done in the past, which is Loudoun County -- I don't mean to pick on them, but it's the data center alley, right, in Virginia. Plopped down a data center, connect it, take the megawatts if you want them, don't take it, pay your demand charge, et cetera. If that's front of the meter, I don't think that's the solution. But no one said what is front of the meter yet.

Yes. I would say, as I said earlier in the prepared remarks, the -- I think we call it direct-connect solution. You said behind the meter. That's one of many solutions, I think. And it took a long time to figure out the technical on the direct-connect solution. So to your question around does the ISA give them pause, perhaps or perhaps not. I'm not going to opine, but I think they're still exploring it. And obviously, the ISA approval and ultimately the FERC technical conference may influence their ultimate decision down the range, but I don't think it's caused them from thinking about the auction and seeing kind of how this FERC situation plays out.

So to answer that question, we -- by the way, on the FERC technical 206 conference, we've worked with our colleagues in the IPP space by which to work together to proffer up an agenda and what we think who should be testifying and et cetera, and we're hopeful for that. I would leave you with one last thing. Paul and I and the whole team have been thinking about what that definition of front of the meter is, okay? And we're working on that. But it's not the current model. And I don't think anybody has come out with a solution as to what is front of the meter yet.

I'll do 63 and then 90.

Hamed Khorsand, BWS. Where do you see the company in 2 to 3 years as far as revenue composition goes? Do you think it's going to be more of a direct net? Do you see yourself being current size and just doing buybacks? How do you see yourself in the next 2 to 3 years?

Do you want me to go with the hard question? So look, I think we've got another -- as I said earlier, I think we've got a number of opportunities that sit in front of us that others don't sit. I mean -- so we don't have any retail load. So we move up and down with wholesale prices. We actually like that position for the next several years, okay, because of the things that we think in the market dynamics. And that's why we sold our ERCOT, concentrated in PJM, all right? But we have this AWS contract by which we can accelerate that. And I think what we're looking to do is how do we leverage that and leverage that across our fleet and create more opportunities. And so when I think about where the revenue is going, Terry showed sort of the slide, the Pac-Man-type slide. It gets to half. It's like Ms. Pac-Man in colors. But it gets to half of the revenues coming from contracted streams. I see us heading more in that direction over time. And as we try to expand and as, I think, Cole said, as we look to get our next data center arrangements, that they get the mix power arrangements. So I think that's the direction that we're going in. Now would we look to add by being part of the solution to build under the right circumstances, okay, which is the contracted circumstances that we've been talking about, would we look to add to the portfolio and expand this platform? Sure, not by building. I'm saying through acquisitions. Would we look to -- we continue to say that we are getting off of coal. There hasn't been -- that was sort of die. If you look at Colstrip, it's making a lot of money, and it's very important to the economy of Montana and where it is, okay? But we're looking to reshape the portfolio and continuously do that. So hopefully that's helpful to you.

Hamed, let me just add to Mac's comments, and first of all, good to see you in person. I think when we think about the contracted margin around the business, our ability to increase that contracted margin ultimately should give us a lower free cash flow yield, right? And we think the value proposition on that is helpful. As we do -- as we just ramp up the AWS transaction over the next several years, and you heard Cole talk about accelerating that and what that could mean. And then I think the other thing, and this sort of goes hand-in-hand with some of the questions earlier. Somebody going out there and building a merchant power plant like a merchant gas plant, like I don't know if we're going to see those days anymore, right? And so what the right solution is, and Mac alluded to this a long ago, is you've got to go back to the way development used to be done in this space about a decade ago. You would go out. You get an anchor PPA, something that made sense for a decent amount of time. You go find a financing around it. Just today, that finance -- or the PPA is likely going to come from somebody who's going to have a significant long-term commitment as opposed to in the past, those are maybe like 5- to 10-year commitments. And so we would look to do things like that, either with existing assets that we have today or anything else that we would potentially acquire or build.

But this isn't a new model you hit down. Isn't it 95 that goes out and goes through the Meadowlands, right, and the Linden Station? Or is that on some other -- it's on the way to Newark. I forget. It's somewhere out there. That Linden is a cogen plant. This is not a new concept. Building power plants attached to an industrial complex is not a new concept. It's been done. It's just it hasn't been done recently. It was done -- I like to say when I started as an engineer, I worked in a bunch of the refineries on the Delaware River. And all of them had what they called at the time a powerhouse. All that was, was a cogen facility. And it was because they wanted speed and access to electricity. It sounds a lot like the AI boom that's going on right now. And then over time, they became interconnected or they had a different tariff rate. And I think that's where people are arguing. This is something that happened in the '70s and '80s and started to disappear in the '90s, and it has almost entirely disappeared at this point. There's still cogens left. If you go to the ship channel in Texas, there's still cogens left that are connected but also serve load. They also provide steam, which is another thing. But -- and you don't need that for data center, okay, because you're trying to do just the opposite cool. But that's where you're going to -- I think you'll see this model with the 10-year PPAs, 20-year PPAs. So I mean that's effectively what we did with the nuclear, direct-connect AWS deal.

#90?

Gregg Orrill, UBS. Thank you for all the detailed guidance. And my question is similar to this slide, which is, can you comment on sort of the relative EBITDA of the fossil assets in PJM versus the nuclear AWS assets?

Yes, let me comment on it without giving you exact specifics, Gregg. So a majority of our revenues going forward are from Susquehanna and the AWS transaction on a combined basis. Now one thing to keep in mind is the capacity clears if you factor that in, right? We've got some fossil plants in the fleet that are very large assets. We've got 1,500 megawatts on one side. We've got 1,700 megawatts on one side. And so when you think about the capacity revenue component of that, wherever that capacity clear is, that's going to be a bigger piece of the pie. And so for example, in 2026, you have actually a little bit -- you have a little bit of expansion in that fossil portion, but you still have the majority of it coming from Susquehanna and the AWS transaction.

I think, Gregg, we still get -- from the gas fleet, we get the capacity revenues, which when the capacity was at the $50 a megawatt day, that's when -- and you weren't making a lot of energy margin, that's when -- going back to what I said earlier, when we emerged, people were saying, well, the gas fleets were 0. Now you have these prints that are going to be elevated. You've got CP penalties. So you actually have to invest a little bit more in those. And when I say a little bit more, making sure our Chief Fossil Officer, if he's listening, understands what I mean by a little bit more. But -- that's a joke. But the -- you have to invest in them, but we're also making energy margin on top of that. And so it depends on what we see as the energy curve out there, but we do receive -- we have 6,000-plus megawatts that clear in the capacity and only a couple of thousand of it's the nuke.

I'll take 2 more questions. It will be #127 and then 117. And then after that, we'll take a break, get up, get snacks and probably end the recorded portion of this event.

If there are more questions, we can take a few extra minutes. But...

It's Ian Zaffino from Oppenheimer. Can you maybe touch upon -- on the guidance slide? Are there any assumptions for the RMR in there? Or any updated thoughts as it relates to that item?

I'm going to go first on this, Mac, first and last one. The answer to your question is yes, there are assumptions in there. So all kidding aside, Ian, we do have assumptions in there for the RMR outcome. Obviously, that's an active settlement discussion that's going on today. I think we mentioned this in the second quarter call. An ALJ was assigned. We've had initial scheduling hearings. We're not going to give the details of what that is. I think we've -- there are other RMR contracts that are out there that you can go look at. NRG's Indian River asset was just put under an RMR contract this past year. And so that's something. But we're not going to give sort of specific details about what we have in the model around that.

It's within the range that's in there. And I would just add one other thing that we've asked -- and I think both PJM and FERC have acknowledged and been -- and appreciate our position on this, I think, and understanding that we've asked that, that be resolved by the end of this year. Indian River was resolved 2 years in arrears or basically 2 years arrears, and we've said we're not going to do that. But we need to have it resolved by the end of this year, and they've been very accommodating to that, in the schedules and things of that nature. Do I know if it gets exactly resolved by the end of this year, plus or minus? I don't know. But we provided a lot of information to them as part of the process. And the reason why it's important to get it resolved is because you can't -- it's no way to run a railroad to run right up until the time you're supposed to set the trains in motion and decide to go. You got to -- there's a lot of work. There's labor. We got a couple of hundred employees. We got fuel contracts. We've got to make arrangements for all of that. And so you don't just start operating 1 day later. And so we've asked that it been -- and again, like I said, they've been fairly accommodating to us, both PJM and FERC. And they're understanding of that request.

And then I know you guys have used the term perfect and accelerate several times. What does it exactly mean? I think we're under the understanding that AWS is basically driving this, but how do you guys fit into that role as you move towards 960?

Yes, I'll take that one first, and Mac can clean that one up. Look, so what we mean by perfect and accelerate simply put is perfect just means as you saw in the financial impact slide, there's an option out at the 480 off-ramp, right? And so there are some things that we are helping, but ultimately, Amazon is striving to ensure that the campus can get to 960 megawatts. That included a lot of the development milestones that we talked about. We obviously spent a lot of time over the last 3 years building the campus. And yes, we sold it to Amazon and it's theirs. But we have a lot of knowledge of the infrastructure, the power infrastructure that's going to be required for the eventual build-out. And so we are supporting from a knowledge base to help them accelerate and perfect. So perfect is the 960. Accelerate is do that on a time frame quicker than the 120 minimum ramp schedule that they've committed to.

I think, Ian, that's the project management aspect of it and it's the most valid. But if I convert it to sort of what I think would be most relevant for a set of investors is when you look at AWS, we've got some cash flow coming off of it. The contract has already started, okay? But it's effectively a noncash flowing asset, right? And so what people do is they look at these projections out here. Now there is cash flows in these projections, as we've described. But what people are looking out there is they're putting cash flow projections based off the slide that Cole said we didn't change just so we didn't fool anybody on the reference price, and they're putting an uplift on that. And so they're thinking, okay, well, how much of the future cash flows are going to get out there, and people are risk adjusting that. I don't know that people are fully valuing the 960, so they're risk adjusting it. So we want to perfect that people put the 960 in. And then if you do that, it's on a ramp schedule that goes out there. If you can accelerate that ramp schedule, that's worth a lot of DCF value. And I think that's how people are valuing it. It's what I hear a lot of feedback from investors are. They look at the base sort of operations and think about either multiples or free cash flow yield, et cetera, and then they're doing a DCF with respect to the AWS contracts. And so we wanted to perfect the 960 in people's minds, which we don't control, as Cole said. But we're doing everything we can, whether it be at the supervisor or township meetings, to make sure that things go through, working with AWS to help them to do that. And then they're 15 -- with 15 to 16 buildings, their 15- to 16-building statement by the '28, that would bring it earlier than what we put on those slides. So that's how I convert it to the financial metrics. Does that make sense?

[indiscernible]?

[indiscernible]. Maybe just, Mac, just your thoughts on construction time line of a gas-fired power plant. So your peers talk about multiple years. And I hear you and your peers kind of looking at this PJM price signal but not wanting to jump in. Just how do you marry that 2? How do you make sure that you have the equipment right in time, you have the permits right in time, so you can finally respond to those price signals?

The honest answer is that we've explored some of this. Cole's worked on this with Dale, our Chief Fossil Officer, and spoken with turbine manufacturers. And there's not a lot of turbines available before '28 delivery, okay? And the old model of putting a reservation down at like 10% or 20% and having a spot in line for the next turbine, et cetera, and then being able to sell that in necessary market, that doesn't exist. I mean GE Vernova or Vernova now is saying, you got to pay for it all to get a spot line. And most of these turbines are going -- now who knows? That's a negotiation. But a lot of these turbines are going to EMEA, if you will, Middle East, the most part. Now well, someone in the Middle East decide that crude's come down, maybe we'll just burn more crude, and we'll sell those turbines back to somebody else at a premium. Who knows? But I mean we have a lot of sites that we could redevelop that already have water and interconnection agreements, et cetera. But the supply chain is an issue. Earlier, I was speaking with somebody else, and just one thing that I think is very interesting is that people don't realize that the supply chain is getting a little bit clogged up, if you will, from a financing standpoint, both in thermal generation, right? No one's -- I mean no one's really financed a CCGT for years, right? So you got to get that unclogged. And then money flows that used to go into renewables, by the way, for wind and solar for some of these things that are in the queue, everybody knows that we rated about this time last year, right? When a company came out and said the renewables sort of [ cached in ] or whatever it's called [ patina ]. And so money flows have stopped there. Now there are people still building. I mean you've got relationships between like one of the big renewable developers and Microsoft to go do 10 gigs and things of that nature. But that system is starving for capital, right? I mean you all write on this. And so sort of another additive of why it's good to have existing generation on the ground in the right spots.

And maybe to add to Mac's comments, he talks about right engines, but the other part of this that you've got to sort of take into consideration is what about the transmission infrastructure, right? Because the demand on that is sort of across the board. It is not just the T&D guys are out there building more long-distance lines, putting more transmission in place. And I think when you talk to OEMs on the transmission side, that actually is a little bit of a longer pole in the tent than even the engines. Now in the engines, whether it's a CCGT or combustion turbine, I think there is a slight difference. You can find some combustion turbines and aero derivatives sooner than like a large-scale CCGT, but I think the real whole pack is ultimately get on the transmission side.

Look, I think these things will solve themselves over time. It just takes a little bit of time, I guess. As I was sitting here listening to that and listening to myself -- I was at Exelon, which is now the Constel part in 2002. And I was listening to a presentation by -- I won't name the market consultant that came in and said, SO2 rates are going to go like this. This is the Clean Air Act amendment, final trading SO2 allowances. And they came in and said, "You got to put scrubbers." This is actually on Keystone [indiscernible]. I can't get away from that thing. I love the guys at Keystone. But it seems like everywhere I go, we own a piece of Keystone [indiscernible]. We'll put scrubbers on it. You're going to need to put scrubbers. Ultimately, we did on one of the units. I can't remember. I think it was a Keystone unit, et cetera. But not all 4. And the reason -- the rationale was that the supply chain, you're not going to find enough welders. You're not going to find enough steel. You're not going to find enough engineers to design all this because everybody is going to be doing it, so you better go fast. And this feels a little bit like that. It will solve itself over time.

Time for a couple more, do you think? Maybe a few more?

Sure. 114, I think, was the -- okay. Go ahead.

Let me do 131 actually. Back there.

Paul [indiscernible]. I'm used to being last, so it's okay. One follow-up on just the M&A side of the conversation, like kind of a 2-part question. Like first is you have a lot of opportunity set, AWS ramping, the other sites. Like why entertain M&A at all? It's kind of a broad question. And then the second, like if you do entertain it, you've talked about like you exit Texas, really like PJM, would you want to stay in PJM? Or are your ambitions broader?

So Paul, I appreciate you asking that because I may not have been clear or precise with my prior answer with respect to M&A. We don't comment on M&A. What I was talking about was buying and selling assets and looking to add opportunities or to hive off opportunities. We made 0 comment on M&A. So if I wasn't clear on that, I'm not trying to -- well, I am trying to shut today because what I will give you is no comment.

Looks like Angie may want to sneak in one more.

So just one other thing. So -- and again, I think I made this point before. So remember, you mentioned that your target leverage is 3.5x net debt to EBITDA. You wish you had bought more stock at a lower price. You have -- you know what your EBITDA trajectory is. That would imply, again, using your numbers, that you have probably about $3 billion more of buyback capacity versus what you have just announced, again, using your own numbers and the leverage target. So is it just you're pacing yourself? Again, just explain to us why wouldn't you actually have a much bigger buyback. And yes, probably it's coming, but just trying to understand if that's basically the way you think about it.

But that's the way we think about it. And as I said -- and yes, we're pacing ourselves. And third, yes, we've set a target of 3.5x. I think your math is probably -- I'm sure your math is right. It depends on what you use in those ranges, et cetera. And that's why I think we described the balance sheet as a strategic asset that we can use. I think that at the second quarter, let me just -- there's time and place to talk about and to do things, okay? In the second quarter, people said, "Well, why didn't you up your share repurchase program at that point in time?" And so I go, well, first of all, that earnings call was in the middle of August. It was not this well attended, which we appreciate everybody being here. And second of all, we were just -- we had just rushed to do a whole bunch of other things, tenders, bilaterals, et cetera. And so today, we're up in the share repurchase program. And I think we've shown the discipline to look at that to manage our balance sheet to view it as a strategic asset. And if we -- and we do say and I think Terry said highest and best use is a share repurchase program. So I would tell you that all things are on the table. And we would have to completely just be clear on what we'd have to do. Terry often blames me because I was there on exit for the exit financing package. And for those of you who bought the debt, we appreciate you, but you also got a good package. And the bonds are trading at -- I forget what the trading one. 107, 108. They have a make-whole package. So there's costs associated with doing things with changing the balance sheet. And so we're just weighing all those different options. It's not as though we're not thinking about them, but it is a time in place, and we're contemplating it, Angie. I hope that answered -- it was insufficiently clear.

We'll sneak in one last one with Thomas Meric.

I wanted to come back to kind of commercial IP around data center deals and just think about the broader market in the context of a model knowledge bottleneck, whether it's from the data center understanding power or an IPP understanding data center economics and commercial realities. And the solution provider of the entities that kind of, "wins," how are you thinking about it? Does that manifest itself in speed to market or price? Just do you think it's a combination of both, obviously, but if you could just talk about this.

Yes. I mean I think ultimately, it's a combination. It's all-in package, right? I mean obviously, go back to the slide that we talked about. It's about the speed to market. It's about how much can you get, right? So if you can get 200 megawatts or you can get 1 gigawatt, that matters to folks because they're putting in hundreds of millions of dollars of fiber infrastructure. And so there's huge efficiencies doing it all at one site versus doing it piecemeal and smaller blocks. Obviously, price matters. I think it's the number and whether it's fixed or floating and all that but also how long and giving them that certainty because it's not -- this isn't a 5- to 10-year PPA they look at it as. They look at this as just use Susquehanna as the example, life of the asset, right, 2040s, 2060s. And so I really think it's all of the above kind of go into...

And maybe just to build on what Cole said, it's -- I think the power side needs to get smarter about data centers, and I think the data center side needs to get smarter about power. It's that simple. That's why we're saying while we're at an inflection point trying to solve all this new demand, okay, we don't understand the demand. But the demand doesn't understand the supply either, okay? So take the 5 9s that I was talking about and take the -- well, it's easy to understand when you say reserve me 40 megawatts, but I only take 20 megawatts. That's an expensive solution, right, because then that 20 megawatts is just held in reserve and it's waste, okay? But take the 5 9s, for example, and take business interruption. Someone once told me that the reason why what I'm saying -- I'm about to say right now doesn't matter is because converting electrons to data is the most profitable business in the world, okay? Yes, that's a great way to look at it. But when the data center lights stay on and potentially other lights go out, that's not a good look, okay? So what would your business interruption cost look like from this demand side? And I actually think this is where there's a white knight opportunity from the data centers to say, look, we'll be willing to either lean on our diesels, right, that are our primary source of backup in most data centers, lean on our diesels or cut, right? A lot of this stuff is being used for learning AI. Now I don't -- I wouldn't profess to even know I know what it means, but that's it. Don't peel any one more layer. But a lot of those algorithms are written to where they run continuously. Well, why can't you run on batch? Or why can't you shut them down for 24 hours? If you could do that and then put the load back on the -- you put the megawatts back on the grid, you inherently have a DR response that is highly worthy -- highly worth a lot. I don't know, whatever. It's worth a lot of value to the grid. And you look -- yes. No. Okay. As I said, tax and English is my second language so -- English being the primary one, too. But the -- you get my point though, right? I think the people from the data side are going to have to get more educated about power and power is going to have to get more educated about data. I would say that we have a head start on that and have learned a ton, but there's more to go. And you're going to -- that's when we -- when Cole says we have one solution, who knows? Our solution may modify over time, right? We may have another solution at another site that looks totally different. But I think it's going to have to fit in with how do you think about these things. I did talk to one person off the record that was a data center person, and he said, 5 9s is not necessary. And by the way, it's a falsity. It's false because there's not a grid in the system that provides 5 9s in reliability. So if someone is selling you that, I don't know how they back it up. But -- so it's very interesting that we're at this inflection point. I think it will be talked about for the next several years. Thank you. Appreciate everybody's interest in Talen. This is a tremendous turnout. I know it's late in the afternoon and many of you were over at the Barclays Conference and doing that. So we appreciate your interest. And we do think we're uniquely positioned, and we're excited about the future of Talen and powering the future. Thank you.