FirstEnergy Corp Q4 2025 Earnings Call Transcript

FirstEnergy Corp (NYSE: FE) Q4 2025 Earnings Call dated Feb. 18, 2026

Presentation

Operator

Hello, and welcome to FirstEnergy Corp.’s Fourth Quarter 2025 Earnings Call. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to turn the call over to Karen Sagot, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, Karen.

Karen Sagot — Vice President, Investor Relations

Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to FirstEnergy’s Year-End 2025 Earnings Review. Our earnings release, presentation slides and related financial information are available on our website at firstenergycorp.com/ir.

Today’s discussion will include the use of non-GAAP financial measures and forward-looking statements, which are subject to risks and uncertainties. Factors discussed in our earnings news release, during today’s conference call and in our SEC filings, could cause our actual results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements.

The appendix of today’s presentation includes supplemental information, along with the reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures. Please read our cautionary statement and discussion of non-GAAP financial measures on Slides 2 and 3 of the presentation. Our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Brian Tierney, will lead our call today. He is joined by Jon Taylor, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.

Now it’s my pleasure to turn the call over to Brian.

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

Thank you, Karen. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us today and for your interest in FirstEnergy. 2025 was a transformative year for our company. We executed on our plan, achieved several important milestones and positioned FirstEnergy for long-term success in one of the most dynamic periods in our industry’s history.

We delivered strong financial results across all of our key metrics. We advanced key regulatory strategies in Ohio, and we reinforced our foundation for sustainable financial growth resulting in a positive ratings action at S&P.

In addition, we are announcing a $36 billion 5-year capital investment program focused on improving customer reliability and grid resiliency. This positions the company to deliver a core earnings per share compounded annual growth rate near the top end of 6% to 8% from 2026 to 2030. We are also pursuing significant incremental investment opportunities over the planning horizon.

These include new generation investments that will provide meaningful benefits to customers in West Virginia and additional regional transmission investments that are critical to maintaining grid stability. Today, we are reporting 2025 GAAP earnings of $1.77 per share compared to $1.70 per share in 2024. Core earnings were $2.55 per share at the top end of our revised and increased guidance range for the year, and an increase of 7.6% compared to 2024.

We deployed $5.6 billion in customer-focused capital investments in 2025, an increase of nearly 25% versus last year and approximately 12% higher than our original plan for the year. Our distribution reliability metrics improved 10% across the system compared to 2024. Notably, this includes significant year-over-year improvement in our New Jersey and Pennsylvania service territories where we have commission-approved investment programs.

Finally, we declared quarterly dividends totaling $1.78 per share, a 5% increase from 2024. This growth is consistent with our plan of providing a solid dividend yield and an attractive total shareholder return. We are pleased with our performance in 2025, and we are committed to building on this success as we deliver on our long-term financial plan. Our $36 billion capital program represents a nearly 30% increase from our previous 5-year plan.

It requires only modest amounts of equity to fund growth, which Jon will talk about later. This capital program was designed through a coordinated approach that aligns enterprise strategy with insights from our 5 business units. It addresses state-mandated policies and local needs, and it reflects our commitment to affordability while meeting customer expectations for reliable service.

The updated plan includes $19 billion of total transmission investments across our stand-alone transmission and integrated segments, a 35% increase from our previous plan. Company-wide, we expect our updated investment plan to translate into 10% rate base growth over the planning period. Our strategy, focused on prioritizing investments for our customers and supported by constructive regulatory jurisdictions, positions us well to deliver a core earnings CAGR near the top end of 6% to 8% through 2030.

Turning to Slide 7. We see opportunities for incremental investments that will further support our customers in the region. This includes our planned generation investment in West Virginia. Last week, we filed our request for the 1.2 gigawatt combined cycle natural gas generating facility, which will be located in Maidsville, West Virginia. We ran the build-own-transfer RFP and considered that option against our self-build engineering, procurement and construction plan. From that analysis, we determined using an EPC approach is the most prudent and cost-effective solution for our West Virginia customers.

We anticipate receiving approval in the second half of the year, and we expect the new facility to be operational in 2031. Once approved by the West Virginia Public Service Commission, we will include this $2.5 billion investment in our financial plan.

This will increase our consolidated rate base CAGR from 10% to 11%. When we announced this investment last November, Governor Morrisey challenged us to do more. I accept that challenge. And with approval of this project, we will seek to add additional generation in the state to support growing data center activity.

Moving to Slide 8. We also see incremental opportunities in our transmission business. Our transmission operations are among the largest in PJM and encompass critical interconnections with strategic high-voltage corridors and will require ongoing investment to support load growth. We began our transmission investment program in 2014.

Over the last 12 years, we’ve deployed $17 billion to replace aging equipment and upgrade the health of the system. This work has addressed about one-third of our transmission lines and major substation assets. Substantial investment will be required as approximately 70% of the lines and 30% of substation assets are expected to reach end of life over the next decade.

Additionally, we have an ongoing opportunity for growth associated with the regulatory-required projects such as investments awarded to FirstEnergy as part of the most recent PJM open window process. Since 2022, our stand-alone transmission and integrated segments have been awarded approximately $5 billion in competitive transmission projects. Our ideally situated transmission system and our transmission planning expertise position us to continue our success with the competitive open window process.

We expect the upcoming 2026 open window solicitation will be similar in scope and scale to what we have seen in the past years. We expect the PJM Board to vote and approve the next round of projects in the first quarter of 2027. At that time, we will update our investment plan to include any awards.

Turning to Slide 9. As we make the necessary investments in the reliable and resilient grid that drives economic growth for our communities, we are actively addressing affordability. On average, we control just 32% of the total customer electric bill in our deregulated states. The generation component represents about 60% of the total bill.

Across these states, our customer bills are approximately 20% below the in-state peer average and remain at or below 2.5% of our customers’ share of wallet. In fact, with our capital plan, by the time we get to 2030, our bills are expected to remain below the current rates of our in-state peers.

We’re proud of the value we provide, and affordability is top of mind. We’re committed to doing what we can to manage customer bill impacts. This includes continued discipline in controllable costs, which is reflected in our baseline O&M savings of 15% or over $200 million since 2022.

We’re also working with state regulators and leaders to identify opportunities to mitigate bill increases. We are advocating for initiatives to ensure generation supply better aligns with customer demand, and we’re reviewing all programs that can provide relief to customers.

In Ohio, a recent legislative change reduces property tax assessments for our utilities by about $100 million in 2027, which will have a positive impact on customer bills in our upcoming 3-year rate plan. As we make critical investments to provide reliable and resilient service, we are committed to ensuring our rates remain affordable. I am confident in our plan, our management team and our ability to deliver on our commitments. Our execution in 2025 was strong, and we are focused on continuing that momentum.

Now I’ll turn the call over to Jon.

K. Jon Taylor — Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

Thanks, Brian, and good morning, everyone. Today, I will review our financial accomplishments and results for 2025 and planned regulatory proceedings for 2026, but spend most of my time reviewing the expectations and key assumptions in our 5-year plan.

As Brian mentioned, 2025 was a very important and successful year for FirstEnergy, where we delivered on key financial metrics, including core EPS, base O&M, capital investments and cash from operations. You can review more details about our results, including reconciliations for core earnings and business segment drivers and the strategic and financial highlights presentation that was posted to our IR website yesterday afternoon.

Core earnings for the year came in at $2.55 per share, which is close to 8% above our 2024 results and 2% above our original guidance midpoint of $2.50 per share. This was largely driven by new base rates and formula rate investments, residential customer demand that was 3% above 2024 levels, and strong financial discipline in our operating expenses that allowed us to execute on significant additional maintenance work that was originally scheduled for future years.

On a consolidated basis, our return on equity in 2025 was 9.8% on rate base of $27.8 billion versus 9.4% on $25.6 billion in 2024. Investments were $5.6 billion for the year, which are 25% above 2024 levels and 12% above plan. These include nearly 75% in formula rate investments, with 50% in FERC-regulated transmission investments, where total FE-owned transmission rate base increased 11% year-over-year.

Our financing plan included cash from operations of $3.7 billion, which was more than $800 million above 2024 levels, subsidiary debt issuances of $3.4 billion and a $2.5 billion convertible debt transaction in the second quarter. In November, we received constructive regulatory outcomes in Ohio, including in our 2024 base rate case, which paved the way for an upgrade from S&P to BBB flat at FE Corp on a senior unsecured basis. 2025 was a pivotal year for FirstEnergy in terms of delivering on our plan, and we remain focused on meeting our commitments to investors going forward.

Turning to our regulatory strategy. We plan to file traditional base rate cases later this year in both Maryland and West Virginia. In West Virginia, we plan to file in the second quarter to reflect a $1 billion increase in rate base since 2022. Our current rates are based on a rate base of $3.2 billion with an equity layer of 50% and an allowed ROE of 9.8%. In Maryland, we plan to file in the second half of the year to reflect the investments we’ve made since 2022. Our current rates include rate base of nearly $700 million with an equity layer of 53% and an allowed return of 9.5%.

In Ohio, we expect to file our 3-year rate plan early in the second quarter. While we appreciate getting to a conclusion in our 2024 base rate case, we are looking forward to filing under the 3-year rate plan with forward test years to ensure timely recovery of critical investments we need to make on behalf of our customers. In all 3 of these cases, we anticipate requested rate increases at or below annual inflation as compared to the current residential bill, where on average our monthly bills are approximately 20% below the in-state peer average.

Lastly, in West Virginia, our proposed cost recovery for the generation investment consists of 2 phases. First, during the construction phase, we’re proposing a generation surcharge based on precedent in the state designed to recover our total financing cost, with a requested equity return at our current authorized return of 9.8%. Then after the power plant is placed in service, we would look to transition the recovery from a surcharge to base rates at a future base rate case.

As part of the financing plan for this investment, we filed an application with the U.S. Department of Energy seeking a low-interest loan under the Energy Dominance Financing Program. We expect approval before the end of the year, which would save customers more than $200 million over the 30-year life of the loan versus traditional financing. Based on our forecast, once in service, this investment is expected to have minimal impact to customer bills.

Moving to our 5-year plan, our $36 billion capital investment plan is an increase of $8 billion or nearly 30% from our prior 5-year plan. As Brian discussed, this program results in expected rate base growth of 10% through 2030, led by transmission investments totaling $19 billion and customer-focused distribution investments to strengthen and modernize the grid. 100% of our capital plan is focused on improving customer reliability and resiliency of the system and only consists of awarded, approved and contracted projects. We increased transmission investments by $5 billion or 35% from our previous 5-year plan. This includes transmission investments in both our stand-alone transmission and integrated segments. The plan also includes regional transmission projects from the 2025 and prior PJM open windows totaling $4 billion.

Total distribution investments in our distribution and integrated segments are increasing 25% or $3 billion from the prior plan. This largely reflects increases for reliability investments in core infrastructure upgrades, with the largest increase in Pennsylvania, where we are accelerating investments under the LTIP program and are recovered through the existing distribution system improvement surcharge. This investment plan includes targeted customer benefits both on the transmission and distribution systems and excludes the significant incremental investments we’re planning in West Virginia and additional upside in transmission.

Moving to core earnings. We are well positioned to deliver compounded annual earnings growth near the top end of our 6% to 8% growth rate from ’26 to 2030. This sustainable long-term growth starts with our $36 billion capital investment plan with 75% in formula rate programs and 10% rate base growth targeting a consolidated ROE of 9.5% to 10% through the planning period.

Our load forecast includes active and contracted customers resulting in 2% customer demand growth, which is largely driven by a 5% increase from industrials that typically are on a demand-based, not volume-based charge. As our data center pipeline becomes contracted, this will be incremental to this forecast both from a customer demand and capital investment perspective.

As we demonstrated in the past, our plan includes financial discipline with our base O&M expenses with modest increases of 1% to 1.5% per year. Operating expenses will continue to be a focus of the management team as we look to deploy technology, artificial intelligence and continuous improvement initiatives to further help offset planned increases.

Finally, our financing plan targets strong investment-grade credit metrics through cash from operations, long-term debt issuances and modest levels of equity or equity-like securities that we have discussed previously. Our cash from operations funds 65% of our total investment plan and includes a modest impact from expected deductions from tax repairs on the corporate alternative minimum tax.

Because of our tax position, including existing AMT deductions, the expected impact of tax repairs on cash flow is less than 2% and does not change our overall plan. Our debt financing plan includes $16 billion in new long-term debt issuances with FE Corp debt as a percentage of total debt at 20% versus 25% at the end of last year.

And our equity needs are up to $2 billion, which includes our $100 million annual DRIP program, which has historically been in place. We will explore all options to fund our equity needs, including hybrid instruments, and anticipate any annual common equity issuances, including for the DRIP, to be approximately 1% of current market cap on average through the forecast period.

In closing, we believe we have a compelling story and value proposition. Our plan is strong, focused on critical investments with significant incremental opportunities. We have a proven track record of executing on regulatory strategies that are focused on the customer and provide solid returns to our investors.

And we have demonstrated our ability to be disciplined with our cost structure, not only to minimize regulatory lag, but to provide benefits to customers. We believe we provide a compelling low-risk value proposition to investors with a total shareholder return opportunity of approximately 12% with upside potential. We are committed to meeting our commitments for our customers, our communities and our investors and are excited about the future. Thank you for your time.

Now let’s open the call to Q&A.

Question & Answers

Operator

[Operator: Instructions] And our first question comes from the line of Nick Campanella with Barclays.

Nicholas Campanella

So appreciate the disclosure, 6% to 8% at the high end now. You mentioned West Virginia could be another $1.2 billion incremental to the plan and that would bring your RAB CAGR to 11%. Just what’s the incremental financing that would be associated with that? Given my understanding is there is kind of a proposal for cash CWIP. And would this kind of put you comfortably above the 6% to 8% range, say, by ’29 or how should we kind of think about that?

K. Jon Taylor — Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

Yes, Nick, this is Jon. I’ll take the financing piece of that. So obviously, the cash recovery will help pretty significantly. So I expect that to be 15% of the total investment. We’ll target 50% of the total investment with the Department of Energy loan, with the rest likely being new equity to fund the investment.

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

And then on the growth, Nick, as we get these incremental investment opportunities coming in, whether it’s generation or transmission, we’ll be updating what growth looks like as we put those in the plan.

Nicholas Campanella

Okay. Okay. So I’ll take 15% of that capex. And then maybe just — I guess there’s just been a bigger focus on Pennsylvania from investors given the various comments out of Governor Shapiro. And I know the distribution plan across the company is up. Pennsylvania, I think you’re doing $6.7 billion. I also understand your rates are below average there. But just how is the increased capex impacting your earned returns in the state just relative to that 10% that you show on the slides? And when do you think you’re going to be going back in for a case there?

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

So Nick, it’s not that long that we’ve come out of a rate case there, and the big part of that rate case was investment in the distribution system. And so the increases that we got were to fund that investment, and we’re actively doing that. We have a very targeted long-term investment program there that’s been approved as well.

So the focus for us in Pennsylvania has been incremental investment in the distribution system to drive improvements in reliability. And that’s what we’re seeing in the plan. So that’s what our focus has been. We’re going to go in when we need to again to reflect that increased rate base that we’ve been adding to since the last rate case.

But the focus in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey has always been we want to see the investment coming from the company in those states to drive reliability, and that’s what we’re doing. And that does leave us in a position where we have to keep going in for rate cases to update the rate base and our cost structure as well.

But whether it’s in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, all of our states, we’re keenly focused on affordability. And that has us focusing on things like our own O&M and then other bills, charges. We mentioned taxes in Ohio coming down that are flowing through the rates. But investment and affordability are the things that are top of mind for us in Pennsylvania and our other states.

K. Jon Taylor — Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

Yes, Nick, and I would just add on that, roughly 45% of the investment that we’re making in Pennsylvania is under the LTIP program, which is recovered through the DISC surcharge. So that provides for interim recovery of our investments and really helps us kind of with base rate case planning and that type of thing.

Operator

The next question comes from the line of Shar Pourreza with Wells Fargo.

Shahriar Pourreza

Brian, I just want to make sure we have the numbers correct here. So the capex numbers were obviously healthy. The rate base growth is likely a little bit closer to 10.4%, right? Just as you’re adding West Virginia, remind us, does that sort of get you to closer to 11.4%? Because I know we’re getting quoted on 11%, but I think West Virginia is probably 100 basis points accretive to that.

And then how do we sort of think about the delta between 11.4% when you add West Virginia in it and your EPS growth where you’re already at the higher end? So I guess another way to ask it is, what is the amount of lag between rate base growth and the newly guided, let’s just say, 11.4% rate base growth when you add West Virginia in there?

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

Yes. So Nick, as we’re looking at this, we’re trying to give transparency and insight into what’s in the plan today and then what are the things that could be added to the plan and what those additions would look like. Your math is about right on the 10.4% to 11.4%. And we’ve always said we’ll update the capex plan, we’ll update earnings as things like — and incremental transmission comes in.

But what we’re not going to do is put things in there that are speculative and not approved yet and then have to take them out of the plan. So our idea is, here’s what the plan is today, here’s what the incremental could be, and if we need to change what the earnings growth rate is as we add things to the plan, we’ll do that at that time.

Shahriar Pourreza

Got it. Okay. Because I know, Brian, there’s a lot of confusion out there with 10% versus 10.4%, and there’s a big difference between 10% and 10.4%. And then just lastly on West Virginia, can you just expand on the incremental opportunities post the current project? So what’s the potential timing there, the turbine supplies, where are the DC conversations, etc?

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

Yes. Thanks for that, Shar. So as we look at our states and we look at states that are wanting us to invest in regulated generation, West Virginia stands at the top of that. I mentioned the governor’s challenge to us to do more. He has a 50 gigawatts by 2050 goal that he is searching for.

And if we get constructive regulatory approval here, we’re going to be going back into West Virginia and looking at ways that we can add another 1,200 megawatts, hopefully dedicate that to data center load, talking with hyperscalers, with developers about doing that.

And the relationships that we’re beginning now with suppliers like Siemens on the turbine side in terms of what we’re doing with the first EPC that we’re going forward, we’ll leverage those relationships going forward for the incremental build.

But when we look at our universe of opportunity to invest in generation, West Virginia said to us, we’re open for business. We want you to invest here. And as a regulated, fully integrated utility there looking to drive economic development, we want to be a key part of that for our customers and the state of West Virginia.

Operator

Our next question comes from the line of David Arcaro with Morgan Stanley.

David Arcaro

I’m wondering if you could touch on New Jersey and the backdrop there, kind of expectations for timing of your next rate case and just overall your perspective, following the executive orders and some of the changes we could see ahead in the regulatory backdrop.

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

Yes. So obviously affordability is front and center for Governor Sherrill. We’ve been working with her and her staff to look at ways that we can address affordability in the states, what are items on the bill that we can either reduce or eliminate. But again, when we were in our last rate case there, the real focus of that was the worst-performing circuits that we had.

And the big point of that rate case was, are we going to make the incremental investment to drive increased reliability in those circuits? We’ve been doing that since the last rate case, and we’re seeing related improvement in reliability there, which is what New Jersey wanted from that case.

So we’re going to continue with that activity. We’re going to work constructively with the governor and her staff, with the BPU and others to address affordability. But ultimately, we’ll have to go back in for another rate case to keep that investment coming. Our rates in New Jersey are significantly below our in-state peers.

And even with the investment that we have planned there, we anticipate to still be below our in-state peers, but we have to improve reliability. We’re singularly focused on that and affordability at the same time. So we’re going to work constructively with everyone to time a next rate case and try and maintain that affordability as well.

David Arcaro

Got it. Okay. That’s helpful. And then could you touch on the outlook that’s embedded in your plan for ROEs? I guess it looks like you’re assuming basically flattish kind of holding ROEs steady throughout the plan. I wanted to confirm that if you’re around 9.8% now and you’re planning on just holding that essentially between 9.5% and 10% going forward, I guess. Could you touch on kind of the key levers there, key moving pieces as you’re sketching out the outlook for earned ROEs?

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

Yes. So thank you for that, David. We’re continuing to be in that target, in that 9.5% to 10% range. Our goal is to be as close to our authorized returns as possible. Given the amount that we’re investing, we’re going to be going in regularly for rate cases because of the magnitude and the investment that we’re making to drive reliability. But we’re confident that we’ll be able to stay in that 9.5% to 10% range with the flight of rate cases that we have and the investment that we’re making today.

Operator

Our next question is from the line of Ryan Levine with Citi.

Ryan Levine

I was hoping you’d be able to give some color around the execution ability of your $36 billion capex plan. Do you have sufficient internal engineering and project management capability to deliver on the step-up of capex, especially in transmission, given labor tightness? And how are you seeing in-house versus contractor labor relations to be able to deliver on this?

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

Yes. So thank you for the question, Ryan. We’re very confident in our ability to deliver against the plan, especially the transmission side of it, we’re having considerable growth. We’ve been investing in that side of the business significantly since 2014. We have the relationships with contractors, labor, suppliers to allow us to do that, and we’re ramping up those relationships as our investment is ramping up.

But project management, discipline, supplier relationships, all those things are key to us executing against our plan and Mark Mroczynski and his team on the transmission side are laser-like focused on our ability to deliver and things are going according to plan there. So it’s a heavy lift, no doubt, but we have the expertise and relationships to deliver. So we’re very confident in our ability to make it happen.

Ryan Levine

On that front, are there certain aspects that you’re most constrained on? And are there any external markers that we could track the progress around the execution?

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

I don’t think so. I mean we’re starting to see — on the distribution side, we’re starting to see the tightness in the supplier market is starting to ease. Suppliers are looking for people that they’ll view as strategic partners that they can look to be delivering significant volumes of demand to them going forward. And we’re obviously going to be one of those players.

We’ve done things like made orders out in time, things that are no regrets on the transmission and distribution side. And then we have Chris Beam who’s working very hard on the generation side, fostering relationships with Siemens as our OEM on the key components of the generation that we have. So it’s tight out there. It’s not as tight as it was during COVID, but we believe we have the relationships to get us through what we need to do to drive the growth that we have planned.

Ryan Levine

Okay. And then one last unrelated question. How are you assessing the potential impacts from the Maryland Lower Bills Act and/or similar affordability-driven legislation in that state?

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

Yes. So we’re seeing this across our system where people are very, very focused on affordability, and we are engaging all of our jurisdictions and legislatures in that discussion. We’re well positioned relative to our peers on that. We talked about on the call that our part of the bill in our deregulated states, it’s only about 32% of the bill with generation being about 60%. So there are some obvious places to focus on where the increases in the bill have come on, which is why we’re supportive of extending the capacity auction caps.

I think it would be beneficial to our customers to even lower those caps for existing generation, and we’ve been supportive of things like a second auction that would bring new generation to the fore, which is what’s needed. So we’ve been focused on affordability on our cost structure and looking for ways to engage with all stakeholders to make sure that electricity is affordable to our customers going forward.

Operator

The next question is from the line of Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research.

Steven Fleishman

So just to follow-up on the West Virginia. Maybe just a little more specifics on what do they actually need to approve in this order, just that the plan is needed and the cost levels and I guess, the CWIP rate making, are those the key items that need approval? And then the exact timing too, like any rough sense of when in the second half.

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

Yes. So what they’re going to approve is a certificate of need and public necessity. We’re asking for the interim financing in the plan where we get AFUDC. CWIP we’ve asked for. So what that will be during the plan. And we’ve also proposed what our financing plan will be for the plan both on an interim basis and the long-term basis.

And so that’s why we’re moving forward with the DOE approval there. I think the commission has up to a year to act on this. We’ve heard that they are interested in acting much quicker than that to get the plant online even sooner. And so we do anticipate that it will be — again, I can’t be more specific than the second half and we’re expecting a procedural schedule on the filing within the next month.

So they are — I’d say West Virginia is fast-tracking the investment because they know how important it is to the economic development in the state. And I think you’re seeing that everywhere from the governor’s interest in making sure that the investment’s made right down to the commission. I think they’re going to do things right. I think they’re going to make sure it’s needed and dot their Is and cross their Ts, but I think they’re going to be moving with dispatch.

Steven Fleishman

Okay, great. That’s helpful. Then one other question just on the equity plans. Any color on the $2 billion — up to $2 billion kind of the timing of that? Is it kind of ratable over the period roughly? Any color on that?

K. Jon Taylor — Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

Yes, Steve, it’s pretty much ratable over the 5-year period, beginning in ’26 with about 1% of our total market cap and that includes the DRIP program that has been in place historically. But I would plan on pretty ratable issuances over the 5-year planning period. And again, that $2 billion includes potential equity-like securities, so we’ll look at hybrids to kind of reduce the common equity issuance need, and we’ll look at that over this year.

Operator

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

Carly Davenport

Maybe just on the transmission capex piece of the plan, can you just talk a little bit about what portion of the near-term spend, so say ’26 to ’28, is tied to projects with right-of-way or siting and permitting that are in advanced stages versus still in earlier stages?

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

Yes. So everything that we have that’s in the plan, Carly, is either approved by a commission, doesn’t need approval, or we have clear line of sight to permitting to getting it done. So if it’s in the plan, there’s very high confidence that all of the approvals necessary are either received or in flight, and we anticipate getting them in the near term. So if there’s a long putt on something or we don’t have line of sight to that being in service in the dates that we’re talking about it, it’s not in the plan.

And we have a big enough portfolio of projects, so if something happens on one project in particular, we can advance another and do the like and have that flexibility over the planning period. But we’re extremely confident in what’s in the near-term part of that plan. And if we are still awaiting approvals or the like, what we talk about with the PJM open windows, then it’s not in the plan yet.

Carly Davenport

Great. Okay. That’s clear. And then just a follow-up on the affordability questions, I know in the slides you had mentioned that you expect bills to remain below in-state peers throughout the planning period. Is there anything specific that you can provide on a sort of percent bill inflation target that you’d expect over the planning period?

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

Yes. We anticipate it to be below inflation. So we anticipate that the share of wallet and the like will stay the same. But our affordability position is really one of our strengths. And it’s something we’re going to focus on. People are always concerned about, oh my bill’s going up X percent. We’re focused on making that as small as possible and keeping a very modest share of our customers’ wallet as we go forward. And that ranges significantly from places where we have wealthier customers to places where we have customers closer to or the mean average income.

But we’re very sensitive to that affordability and doing everything we can on our cost structure side and on the bill components that we’re working with the various commissions on to make sure that the impact to customers is as low as possible and certainly trying to keep that below inflation.

Operator

The next question is from the line of Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan.

Jeremy Tonet

Just want to clarify real quick on the CCGT financing as far as the components there. There’s 50% DOE loan and then the remaining 50%, what are the components there?

K. Jon Taylor — Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

Yes. So you’re right, the loan, we would target 50% of the total investment value. And then if we get the approval of cash recovery during the construction phase, that would fund about 15% of the overall investment, and then the rest, which would be about 35% would be new equity needs that we would have to put into the plan.

Jeremy Tonet

Got it. And then just want to pivot towards earned ROEs at this point. Just wondering, I guess, where you see the biggest gap versus allowed in, I guess, key focus going forward, which jurisdictions have the earned returns to low authorized.

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

So it’s all things you’d expect, Jeremy. The places where you see us going in for rate cases are the places where our investment has driven down the earned ROE, and that’s why — clearly why we’re going in. Jon talked about that in his remarks. And then we’ve also talked about the timing for when we might go in ultimately for New Jersey. But it’s the places where we’re making the incremental investments where we lag a little bit due to the incremental investment that we’re making, and we just have to refresh that by going in for new rate cases.

K. Jon Taylor — Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

The other thing I would say, Jeremy, if you look at our overall plan, I mean, we’re in jurisdictions that have formula rate recovery mechanisms. So 75% of our total investments are in formula rate programs. So if you think about the impact on growth with respect to that — those programs, it drives a healthy amount of the growth in the plan with base rate cases being less of a contributor in the overall scheme of things. So really, most of the growth in the plan is driven by the formula rate investment programs with a lesser extent from base rate cases.

Jeremy Tonet

Got it. And just a last quick one if I could. There obviously continues to be a lot of focus on the PJM auction and how this might evolve in the future. Just wondering any thoughts you might share there in FE’s potential role if regular generation or otherwise might become something that FE would look at more in the future.

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

So Jeremy, it’s still early days in the stakeholder process. I think it just began yesterday or the day before continuing today. The stakeholder process in PJM is a really, really difficult one. But the key things that we’re going to be focusing on is affordability for our customers. And so as you look at the key things that are going to play out in the stakeholder process, it’s going to be how much generation are they looking for, what the timing’s going to be, how it’s going to be paid for and who’s going to bear the cost, like all the basic things that you would look for.

So we are involved in the stakeholder process. We’re going to continue to be involved. And first and foremost, we’re going to be looking out for affordability for our customers as we work our way through that. In terms of FirstEnergy and our interest in regulated generation, look at our states and you have states where Ohio just passed legislation saying that the utility can’t own regulated generation.

And then I think it would be difficult for us to in places like New Jersey and Maryland. So that really leaves us then with West Virginia, where we’ve told you what our plans are. We want to get this one approved. And then if West Virginia would like, we’re interested in investing incrementally more in that state and that leaves you with Pennsylvania.

And again, we don’t have a path to seeing regulated generation in that state yet. But if they’d like us to consider it, we’d be willing to look at it. But our clearest path to helping with that issue is, one, what we’re doing in West Virginia, and then two, what we’re doing in the stakeholder process at PJM.

Operator

The next question is from the line of Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates.

Paul Patterson

Just on the transmission, when I look at Slide 7, how much of this, I guess, is demand driven? I mean is that part of the 20% or is this really pretty much just replacing the aging issue, the sort of the reliability issue. And also just in — with respect to New Jersey, is the offshore wind thing still going on there? Is that still part of the plan, that Tri-Collector project and stuff or how should we think of that?

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

Let me start with that last part. We’re working with New Jersey and PJM to modify what portions of that plan are no regrets and will be beneficial to New Jersey and PJM even without the offshore wind component of that. So we are working to make those modifications that are agreeable to both New Jersey and PJM to make sure that we’re investing in what they want us to invest in, and it’s no regrets regardless of the offshore wind. So that’s in process as we speak.

If you look at the rest of the transmission, a lot of it is demand driven, but a lot of it’s aging infrastructure as well. So if you look at the $5 billion that we’ve gotten from the open window process since 2022, I’d say that’s all demand driven. And so that’s what are data centers doing, what’s happening with just demand across the PJM system. And they’re responding to that, and that’s clearly $5 billion of what’s in the plan that we’ve been awarded.

And then if you look at the rest of what we’re doing, we’ve made significant investments since 2014 but have only addressed about 30% of the system and about 60% to 70% of the system is going to have the end of its useful life in the next 10 years. And so that’s a huge amount of what we’re spending on the transmission investment. And those are things that we have to do for reliability, we have to do for economic development and don’t require a lot of incremental approvals for us to make those investments.

K. Jon Taylor — Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

Yes. Paul, the other thing I would add is if you look at our data center pipeline, if you look at the 13 gigawatts that we have in the pipeline through 2035, obviously that’s not in our plan today. But each gigawatt that’s added to the contracted or active demand would probably drive $250 million or so of incremental capital investments on the transmission system.

Paul Patterson

Okay. And just in terms of the cost allocation, when it — I guess that’s determined basically by retail jurisdictions. Should we think of a lot of this capex being absorbed by the new demand — by the new data center demand growth or how should we think about the breakdown of, roughly speaking, obviously, it’s kind of early, but do you follow what I’m saying in terms of how people should sort of think about that?

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

I do, Paul. So anything that is directly for that specific customer is being borne by the customer. The regional upgrades are being handled the way PJM handled those with generally the region that’s benefiting from the investment is paying for the investment. So it’s a traditional PJM, user pays, the benefit owner pays most of the cost of what’s happening on a regional basis.

Paul Patterson

Okay. And then just in terms of the generation proposals that you guys have been making for a couple of years now, how would you characterize the overall reception because it’s changing how things are currently, this auction and what have you. I mean have you — do you get a feeling that there’s some momentum here in terms of your discussions with regulators in the service territories about just opening this thing up and just not relying completely on the capacity auction?

And when do you think we might see some tangible action in terms of maybe making some moves on this, which would lower rates potentially, not your rate, not what you could technically control, but would lower the wholesale price of power potentially?

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

Yes. So let me talk about that in regards to West Virginia in particular. I’ve been doing this a long time, and I’ve never had in my career a meeting or an announcement like what we had in November in West Virginia. The overall reception was overwhelmingly positive from the governor to legislators to employees to unions to executive members of the executive branch in West Virginia, just overwhelmingly positive.

And so I would just say that in the 5 states that we’re in, in terms of addressing resource adequacy and the generation issues, West Virginia is, given their integrated nature, is very, very well positioned to address it from an economic standpoint and very welcoming to the investment. And that’s why when we look at how we can help with economic development and resource adequacy, West Virginia is the place where, first and foremost, we have an opportunity to do that, and that’s why we’ve filed for the first unit that we’re talking about putting in there. And that’s why we would strongly consider and look forward to applying for a second unit and maybe a third and maybe a fourth if things continue the way they are in West Virginia.

Paul Patterson

Okay. But the other areas, it’s still up in the air?

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

I mean we — you know the issues, Paul. I mean states are deregulated. They thought the market would provide for it. The market isn’t providing for it. It’s really — it’s tough, and that’s why we find ourselves in this difficult PJM stakeholder process. But the issues are going to come down to how much do you want, when do you want it and who’s going to pay for it. And our main interest there is making sure there’s enough generation so the lights stay on and making sure it’s affordable to our customers.

Operator

Our next question is from the line of Anthony Crowdell with Mizuho Securities.

Anthony Crowdell

Just 2 quick housecleaning items. One is to Shar’s question earlier on the spread or the difference between rate base growth and earnings growth, your CAGRs. Just what would cause that to maybe contract or expand as we move out to the forecast period where it’s very unlikely, whether it’s 240 bps or more, what would cause that to change throughout the forecast period?

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

I think the things that we talked about, and it’s kind of the basic things that you would think of, how much incremental investment can we have? And then how quickly can we get that recovered in rates? And it’s just that simple, Anthony. And so that’s why we’re showing you what’s in the plan. We’re showing you what we think could be incremental, how big it is, when we think we might get approvals for that. And on the recovery side, you’re seeing us regularly go in for rate recovery when it’s not already in the 75% that’s covered in the formula rates the way Jon talked about.

Anthony Crowdell

Great. And then just a follow-up to David’s question, I just missed it. Did you guys state when you plan on filing your next New Jersey case?

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

We’ve not said, and we’re not being cagey about that. We just haven’t decided. And obviously, we’ll be in discussions with the governor’s office and the BPU about when is the right time for us to go in.

Operator

Our last question comes from the line of Andrew Weisel with Scotiabank.

Andrew Weisel

I can’t believe it’s the last question, but I want to ask about 2 topics that receive very little airtime today: data centers and Ohio regulations. First, on the data centers, I see more additions to the contracted demand and pipeline disclosure.

I appreciate the table with the detail by state. I could be wrong. I think that’s in the disclosure, very helpful. My question is relative to the latest updates and the recent trends, where are you seeing the most activity, in which state? And are the latest additions going to be within this 5-year plan, or are those mostly going to be more like the early 2030s by the time they ramp up?

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

Yes. So we’re seeing a lot of activity currently in our Maryland service territory associated with the data center outside of Frederick, Maryland. And then after that, we’re seeing significant activity in both Pennsylvania and Ohio.

And you’re seeing that sort of significant amount of activity between now and 2030, 2031, but then a huge amount of activity in terms of load and contracted load by that 2035 time frame. So between 2031 and 2035. So that’s — those are the locations. Those are the places where we’re seeing most of that data center activity.

Andrew Weisel

Great. In Ohio, obviously, 2025 was a super busy year for you and the company got through a lot of important proceedings and dockets. Looking forward, what are the priorities for 2026 and the next few years, whether that’s on the regulatory side or execution? And should we expect conference calls to go almost nearly the whole time with barely any talk about Ohio for a while, should it be quiet in that state?

Brian X. Tierney — Board Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

So thank you for that question. The one thing that we were monitoring in Ohio was the commission told us since I started here that the business as usual cases were going to go business as usual, and the legacy issues cases would be separate and not mingled with the business as usual cases.

The commission held very much true to that. And so we were thrilled to be able to get what we think was a constructive order in the base rate case. In the punishment phases, there was a significant penalty that was paid there, and we’re happy to settle that and get all forms of appeal of that behind us and just move on from that.

So what we see is business as usual going forward in Ohio with the legacy issues behind us. We’ll be going in, in the near term for a 3-year rate case to get that moving forward and get us firmly footed in that new regulatory regime that the new legislation has. And Ohio’s always been very supportive of wires investment in the state that drive economic development and improve reliability. And we anticipate that, that will continue going forward.

So it was a pivotal year for us, 2025, and we’ll be right back in for the 3-year rate case and anticipate constructive dialogue with the commission and intervenors and hope to be able to settle some issues going forward. But it’s nice to have Ohio firmly focused on the future and the new regulatory regime and being a constructive standpoint that’s been demonstrated with the company, and we hope Torrence and his team will keep that moving forward with the commission staff and all intervenors. Thank you for the question, Andrew.

Okay. That was the last question. I’d like to thank everyone for joining us today. We strengthened FirstEnergy in 2025 operationally, financially and strategically. We enter 2026 with momentum, a clear business model and a disciplined plan to work safely, improve reliability, maintain affordability and deliver sustainable growth. We look forward to updating you on our progress as we go forward throughout the year. Thank you, everyone, and have a good day.

Operator

[Operator Closing Remarks]