Sempra (SRE) 2026-08-07 Earnings Call Transcript

Good day and welcome to Sempra’s 2nd quarter earnings call. Today’s conference is being recorded. At this time, I’d like to turn the conference over to Luis Bick. Please go ahead.

Good morning and welcome to Sempra’s 2nd quarter 2026 earnings call. A live webcast of this teleconference and slide presentation are available on our website under the events and presentations section. We have several members of our management team with us today, including

Good day and welcome to Sempra’s 2nd quarter earnings call. Today’s conference is being recorded. At this time, I’d like to turn the conference over to Louise Bick. Please go ahead.

Good morning and welcome to Sempra’s 2nd quarter 2026 earnings call. A live webcast of this teleconference and slide presentation are available on our website under the events and presentations section. We have several members of our management team with us today, including Jeff Martin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; Karen Sedgwick, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Justin Bird, Executive Vice President of Sempra and Chief Executive Officer of Sempra Infrastructure; Caroline Wynn, Executive Vice President of Sempra Alan Nye, Chief Executive Officer of Encore, Diane Wold, Vice President, Controller, and Chief Accounting Officer, and other members of our senior management team. Before starting, I’d like to remind everyone that we’ll be discussing forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in any forward-looking statement we make today. The factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially are discussed in the company’s most recent 10-Q filed with the SEC. Earnings per common share amounts in our presentation are shown on a diluted basis, and we’ll be discussing certain non-GAAP financial measures. Please refer to the presentation slides that accompany this call for reconciliation to GAAP measures. We also encourage you to review our 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30th, 2026. I’d also like to mention that forward-looking statements contained in this presentation speak only as of today, August 6th, 2026, and it’s important to note that the company does not assume any obligation to update or revise any of these forward-looking statements in the future. Finally, we’ve established a new corporate updates page within the Sempra Investors website to post investor updates while complying with our disclosure obligations under SEC Regulation FD. We encourage you to subscribe to the email alerts so you remain informed of any developments. With that, please turn to slide 3 and let me hand the call over to Jeff.

Thank you for joining us today. Our operating businesses are executing well and our employees are aligned around our mission of building America’s leading utility growth business. The strength of our execution can be seen in year-to-date financial results with double-digit gains in adjusted EPS and positive contributions from all 3 growth segments. Karen will cover our financial results in more detail later in the call, but on this first slide, I thought it’d be helpful to cover our key priorities for the 3rd quarter. The first is the pending sale of a 45% equity stake in SI Partners. The transaction is expected to close later in the quarter and directly supports our corporate strategy by simplifying our business model, recycling capital into our regulated utilities, displacing the need for common equity in our current base capital plan, and deconsolidating close to $9 billion of debt from Sempra’s balance sheet. Second, our capital recycling program also extends to Mexico, where Sempra Infrastructure is making solid progress on the sale of Ecogas. They recently received a critical regulatory approval which puts the transaction on track to close later this month. Finally, in addition to the updates Sempra Infrastructure provided last week, they remain focused on the commissioning process at ECA LNG Phase 1, which remains a key priority as they continue to move that project toward full commercial operations. Sempra Infrastructure is also pleased with the continued progress at Port Arthur LNG Phase 1 and 2, which remain on time and on budget. Please turn to the next slide. Texas is continuing to experience unprecedented growth in electricity demand, as evidenced by ERCOT’s new all-time peak load of 91 gigawatts that was reached last month. Importantly, with forecasts of significant load growth in the future, Oncor is well positioned to participate in what we believe is a multi-decade investment opportunity focused on modernizing and extending the electric grid. Oncor’s current capital plan accounts for major investment drivers, such as new high-voltage transmission projects and other system upgrades. You recall that Oncor is executing on a 5-year base capital plan of $47.5 billion, with $10 billion of incremental capital opportunities through 2030. Through the first half of the year, Oncor’s made a lot of progress in firming up these incremental opportunities, specifically the $4 billion of North and Central Texas transmission upgrades that were recently endorsed by ERCOT. Oncor’s other incremental capital opportunities include an additional $3 billion of non-Pervian Basin reliability plan projects endorsed by ERCOT in 2025, and $3 billion of investment that forms a part of the System Resiliency Plan filing that Encore is expected to make next year. As we look ahead, we also expect a new set of capital opportunities. As an example, this slide highlights that any additional investments to serve load from the Batch Zero process fall outside of Encore’s $10 billion incremental capital opportunity. Please turn to the next slide where we’ll discuss preliminary expectations related to ERCOT’s Batch Zero process. The PUCT recently approved ERCOT’s Batch Zero process, which establishes a system-wide approach for selecting and sequencing large load customer interconnection requests. Although the timeline for the batch process is uncertain, 44 gigawatts of large load requests are expected to be eligible as base or studied load in Oncor’s transmission system. By classification, this includes 27 gigawatts of baseload, defined as not requiring additional interconnection studies or allocation, and 17 gigawatts of studied load, which will be evaluated and assigned through a new system-wide reliability analysis. To put the magnitude of these figures in context, 44 gigawatts of additional demand would represent a 140% increase to Encore’s current system peak load of 31 gigawatts. Importantly, this projected load meets all the PUCT eligibility requirements. Encore holds nearly $6 billion in collateral from large load customers, including over $2 billion for the 44 gigawatt of batch zero submissions shown here. Of the 44 gigawatts, it’s important to note that approximately 8 gigawatts is already connected to the system and continuing to ramp toward full utilization. This demonstrates that demand growth in Texas is not just a projection, but is actively occurring on Encore’s network. ERCOT will now study how the projects included in the Batch 0 process impact the existing transmission system and provide the initial results of that study. If ERCOT were to determine additional transmission is required to be built by Oncor, the capital expenditures for those projects would be incremental to Oncor’s base capital plan and incremental CAPEX opportunities. Looking ahead, Oncor expects to update its 5-year plan on our 4th quarter call. Because ERCOT’s current timeline for identifying additional transmission projects is expected to extend beyond February of next year, We don’t expect the roll-forward plan to include new capital investments associated with Batch 0. The key takeaway here is that we have growing confidence in Encore’s execution of its base capital plan and incremental capital opportunities, and believe there’s increasing momentum behind Encore’s long-term growth, separate and apart from how data center growth materializes in the state. Now please turn to the next slide where Karen will walk through our financial results.

Thanks, Jeff. Earlier today, Sempra reported 2nd quarter 2026 GAAP earnings of $796 million or $1.21 per share. This compares to 2nd quarter 2025 GAAP earnings of $461 million or $0.71 per share. On an adjusted basis, 2nd quarter earnings were $762 million or $1.16 per share. This is a notable increase compared to our 2nd quarter 2025 earnings of $583 million or $0.89 per share. As Jeff noted, we’re very pleased with our performance through the first half of the year and think we’re well positioned to deliver another year of strong financial results. Please turn to the next slide. Next, let’s go over the 2nd quarter of 2026 adjusted earnings variances compared to the same period last year. At Sempra Texas, we had $138 million of higher equity earnings from new base rates, including interim rates, the UTM, higher invested capital and customer growth, partially offset by higher depreciation, interest expense, and O&M. Due to the timing of Oncor’s comprehensive base rate settlement approved in April 2026, our 2nd quarter earnings includes a favorable impact of approximately $50 million related to the first quarter of 2026. This amount reflects the difference between the newly approved rates and the rates previously in effect during that period. Turning to Sempra California, we had $24 million of increased earnings, primarily from higher CPUC base operating margin net of operating expenses and higher electric transmission margin, partially offset by lower AFUDC equity. Sempra California also had $11 million of lower earnings from higher net interest expense and other, partially offset by higher income tax benefits. At Sempra Infrastructure, earnings increased by $26 million, primarily from lower depreciation due to assets held for sale, lower O&M and other, partially offset by higher income tax expense. At Sempra Parent, results were effectively in line with the prior period. Please turn to the next slide. With strong year-to-date results and progress against our key initiatives, we’re affirming our full-year 2026 adjusted EPS guidance range of $4.80 to $5.30 and 2027 EPS guidance range of $5.10 to $5.70. We’re also affirming our projected long-term EPS growth rate of 7% to 9%. As we look ahead, our focus remains on execution, including closing the SI Partners transaction, strengthening the balance sheet post-close, and continuing to advance our record $65 billion capital plan. This capital plan is centered on utility growth with investments increasingly directed towards Sempra Texas. The growth we see there is supported by robust economic activity, increasing electricity demand, and the need to modernize and expand the electricity network across the state. I’d also note that we’re considering our improving confidence in Oncor’s $10 billion of incremental capital opportunities. We see Texas continuing to become an even larger part of our business, with a goal for it to comprise over 60% of Sempra’s total rate base in 2030. Taken together, this investment outlook supports our confidence in Sempra’s long-term growth. With one of the highest projected long-term EPS growth rates in the sector, we think Sempra continues to offer investors a compelling mix of current yield, durable earnings growth, and long-term capital appreciation. Now let’s open it up for your questions.

Thank you. This concludes the prepared remarks. We will now open the line to take your questions. Please limit your questions to one question and one follow-up. If you would like to ask a question, please signal by pressing star 1 on your telephone keypad. Please make sure, sure your mute function is turned off. We will pause for just a moment to allow everyone to signal for questions. And our first question will come from Char Perez from Wells Fargo. Your line is open.

Hi, good morning, team. It’s actually Constantine here for Char. Really appreciate the time today. Hey, Jeff, thanks. Just starting off in Texas, the obvious question around the data center pause, rhetoric or not, do you see a threat of, you know, pushing generation or even behind-the-meter solutions instead of transmission builds. How does that impact timelines here, especially as you highlight the Batch Zero opportunities going into next year?

Thanks, Constantine. I’ll address the, the data center focus first. I think one of the key things that we wanted to approach this call was to send the message that our long-term view at Encore has improved over the last quarter, so we continue continue to think there’s a great opportunity here for our base capital plan to move forward as well as upside capital. And one of the key points in our prepared materials was that anything related to the batch process would really be upside beyond that. One of the things I think that we’re focused on in this environment is that public policy and a lot of the recent discussions have been focused on protecting Texas families from the new costs associated with expanding the grid to meet new load customers, as you indicated, and data centers. And I think in this area, the governor and the PUC both have shown a lot of leadership, and I think that’s important. I would also note, Constantine, that at Sempra, we’re signatories to the president’s Ratepayer Protection Plan, and together with Encore, we’re supportive of the framework that the PUCT is now moving forward with. And I think this is very important relative to your question, and that’s to ensure that data centers, number one, cover the full cost of interconnection, and And number 2, the lower residential bills by having a portion of their tariff allocated to ratepayer subsidies. And you’re seeing this model play out across other jurisdictions as well. So overall, I think broader stakeholder involvement in the process sets the foundation for a more durable framework. And I think this is a very important point for our stakeholders. The process is underway now in Austin. Receiving more input and more inclusivity of the process. That’s designed to create a more durable framework for participants in the market like Encore to deploy capital. And Constantine, when you put that together with the improving regulatory compact that we received through the UTM legislation last year and the improvements in the recent base rate review, that’s obviously key drivers in the improved financial performance performance you’re seeing at Encore.

Excellent. Thanks for that. Maybe there’s a quick follow-up there. So the quick return to normal helped the Encore CapEx update at year-end. Any way to think about that upside to the upside converting closer to plan by that timeframe?

I mean, I think one of the things that we’re kind of sending the message here is that there’s a lot of flexibility in that base capital plan around how Don Clevenger and Alan move capital around. And obviously, there’s been some positive steps to firm up the $10 billion of incremental opportunity. So I think that investors can take away from this call that we expect that the roll-forward capital plan at Encore will go up. And I would expect that there’s a fair amount of flexibility about how they sequence projects. I think the near-term focus of the team and Alan We want to make sure that we’re really engaged in the ongoing process, particularly at the PUCT. I think that will also be helpful to them firming up their plans this fall. And we expect to come back to you on the 4th quarter call with a robust discussion around Encore. And clearly, Karen made this point, this is becoming a much bigger part of Sempra. And I think as you think about the KKR transaction, Constantine, putting that in context, It’s all about our pivot to become a pure-play utility and allocate capital to the markets where we think investors will assign the highest value. And certainly, we believe that’s Texas. So I think the story in Texas continues to get better. Some of these near-term issues need to be dealt with, and that’s obviously going to be a priority for Alan’s team.

Excellent. And maybe just a quick housekeeping item on the earlier announced the ECA delays. How are you thinking about some of the near-term offsets going into year-end and any potential read-through to the SIB transaction, or are those 2 separate tracks?

Yeah, thank you for that question. And we put out, you know, a press release just over a week ago that gave kind of a comprehensive update on Sempra infrastructure. I think there’s a couple key points here to your question. First off, the 2 very large projects at Port Arthur both Phase 1 and Phase 2 are on time and on budget. They’re proceeding very well. Obviously, anytime you have a commissioning process like you have at ECA, there’s a fair amount of complexity to that. I continue to feel quite constructive about the work that’s underway to commission that project. But Justin, you recall Justin is the CEO of Sempra Infrastructure. Constantine, it would be helpful if you provide some additional details about what you found in the root cause analysis and how you think about the timeline going forward this fall?

Yeah, hi, Constantine. So as you recall, after we exported the first cargo out of ECA in July, we shut down the plant for planned maintenance and inspections. And during that time, we discovered damage to equipment connected to the plant’s mixed refrigerant compressors. And we are working with our EPC contractor and the OEM, the original equipment vendor, on the root cause and remediation plan. Given where we are, we expect the project to reach substantial completion in the 4th quarter of 2026, with sales under our long-term sale and purchase agreements commencing shortly thereafter. So we, we don’t anticipate additional delay after that at ECHA. And again, ECHA is not the Sorry, the substantial completion of ECA is not a condition precedent under the SI transaction.

Really appreciate that. Abundantly clear. Thank you very much.

Thanks a lot, Constantine.

Thank you. And as a reminder, we do ask that you please limit yourselves to one question and one follow-up. And our next question will come from Steve Fleischman from Wolfe. Your line is open.

Good afternoon, Steve.

Yeah. Hi, Jeff and team. The- maybe you could just talk to some of the recent, you know, political commentary on the 765 approval process and thoughts on, you know, any risk of that changing or just where does that- where do you think that goes from here? Any color on that?

Sure. Let me take a- make a couple points here. As I mentioned this to Constantine’s question, Steve, but we continue to think the long-term picture at Oncor is intact and improving. Obviously, to your point, there’s been some important recent developments, and I’ll make 2 quick points here. I think the theme is we remain constructive. The most important thing that we’re hearing out of Austin is to make sure that we’re spending enough time to fully integrate the voices and concerns from landowners. And we want to make sure obviously that that process is inclusive. That’s been a clear directive from the governor’s office. And I think that’s also something that the PUCT is working hard to ensure happens. The key theme that I think you’re hearing people focus on, Steve, is if it takes a little bit more time in the process stage to get to what we think is a durable framework that allows us to invest capital with more certainty. We think this process will be time well spent. I would also note at recent Senate hearings, it’s very clear that there’s 2 priorities being focused on. One is protecting landowner interests, and secondly, also making sure that Texas has the infrastructure needed to support its continued growth. And I think you saw some of that echoed by the Lieutenant Governor. And obviously we want to make sure that the PUCT process- and Alan and his team will participate I know it’s been a very high focus for Alan, is making sure that we’re being inclusive of all the different voices that have a stake in the outcome here. And if I could, Alan, maybe you could provide a little bit more commentary on where you see the 765 process going from here.

Yeah, sure, Jeff. Thanks, Steve. I think the way we’re thinking about the 765 issue right now is obviously there was a hearing on the 29th that lasted like 15 hours. Hours, followed by the statements issued by Chairman Shortner and Lieutenant Governor Patrick. And as Jeff said, overall, there’s kind of 2 key themes that we’re seeing. One, I think state leaders thoughtfully and appropriately responding to the landowner concerns. And, and 2, I believe clear affirmation that Texas needs a reliable grid and more investment. So that’s a balance that we’ve been working hard on to strike across all 4 of our Permian import projects. Just to give you some examples, we mailed notice to over 12,000 landowners, more than required by the PUC rules. We mailed notice to over 11- or I’m sorry, 1,000 elected officials. We filed 529 unique routes. We added 110 link segments in direct response to public feedback, and we had 16 days of hearings. At this point, the SOAH, State Office of Administrative Hearings, judges have have issued PFDs in 3 of our 4 dockets. We expect the 4th to come sometime in mid-August. Those PD- those proposed orders now go to the PUC. The PUC can accept them, they can deny them, they can modify them, or they can request more evidence. We’re hopeful that given the significant reliability needs in the Permian, the PUC can reach a timely resolution of those dockets. But whatever they decide, We’re committed to and we look forward to working collaboratively with our regulators, the impacted landowners, obviously our state officials, to advance a reliable grid that meets the needs of Texas and our customers while protecting landowner rights. So as Jeff said, we remain constructive.

Okay. And one follow-up, or I guess an unrelated follow-up. Just any sense on how things are developing on the California wildfire liability legislation and related, obviously, issues and just your confidence on something constructive getting done there?

Yeah, thanks for asking that question, Steve. I mean, I think one of the things that really resonates with me is the central focus for policymakers in the state. I think they’re focused on the right thing. The key theme here is livability. And I think people recognize, when you think about the white paper from the utilities, the feedback from the CPUC, the report that was provided by the Earthquake Authority, I think it really recognizes, Steve, that the status quo doesn’t work. And if we’re going to get at this issue of livability, you’ve got to be willing to address a larger ecosystem of related considerations. And I’ll offer a few to you, one of which is there’s a big focus in this legislative session on ensuring that housing is more accessible and more affordable, that we take steps to create a more vibrant insurance marketplace, that there are steps taken and active considerations to put new safeguards in place to mitigate risk to California families, and kind of addressing that entire ecosystem. I think there’s a lot of focus on making sure that providers of utility services remain financially strong. So the focus, Steve, here needs to be on good public policy for the state of California and getting at the heart of the livability issue. And if you look at some of the reports that come out from both Moody’s and S&P, they clearly are focused on making sure that some type of legislation comes out that avoids utilities moving to a higher rate environment and continues to allow California to be economically competitive. So I would conclude by saying I think Governor Newsom and the leadership of both houses deserve a ton of credit. They’re very much actively working on this issue. This is clearly, Steve, not an easy task, but I continue to believe that the right people are focused on the right set of issues, and I continue to believe that we’ll see solid progress during this legislative session. And I’ll stop there and see if you want to ask additional questions.

No, I appreciate that. I asked my, my 2, so I’ll let someone else. Thank you.

Okay, thanks, Steve.

Thank you. Our next question will come from David Arcaro from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.

Good afternoon, David.

Hey there. Thank you so much. Let me see, one thing I wanted to get a little bit of elaboration on was your large load pipeline in ERCOT. Let me see. So I guess as I’m just thinking about, you know, you’ve updated the overall interconnection queue here to 298 gigawatts at Encore. I think last quarter you had mentioned 127 gigawatts of advanced pipeline. And now you’ve got the- obviously drilling down further into the Batch 0 at 44 gigawatts. So I guess I’m Just looking for a little bit of help to understand the relationship there. You know, is there still a very big advanced pipeline of realistic data centers? You know, when could those come in, and how do you kind of frame that up in the context of the Batch Zero?

Yeah, thank you for the question. I’ll make a couple comments and pass it to Alan. But the way I would think about it is all across the United States, it doesn’t matter whether you’re in PJM or you’re in the CalISO or you’re in ERCOT. We as a nation are struggling with ways to address issues around being short or net short dispatchable generation. We’re addressing ways that we can see large load customers come onto the system and ways that we can meet that growth and make sure that we can allocate costs to protect the residential consumer. So frame this, David, as a starting point, as a national issue. What I think is exciting is there’s a clear signal that Texas is open for business. One of the things that there’s strong alignment on across the legislature and executive branch is they want to continue to advance the Texas Miracle. And that comes back to the batch process that’s being led by ERCOT. Think about a situation where you’ve got close to 500 gigawatts of generation on the sideline waiting to come on the system, and similarly over 400 gigawatts of large load customers. That batch process is intended to sequence generation with large loads. So over time, it will be a sequencing effect that’s intended to balance what we think is going to be remarkable load growth. Now here’s the issue: getting the process right is really important. It’s complex, and you’ve seen a lot of different voices participate in the process. I think the long-term story for Encore will continue to get better. This state is focused on the right issues, and I heard someone- I had a conversation recently with the CEO of the U.S. Chamber of who made a comment, David, that really resonated with me, is you may not be able to solve all the problems in this country with higher economic growth, but you can’t solve any problems without it. And I think Texas recognizes that, and I think there’s a lot of goodwill being spent making sure that we have the right framework to allow folks to invest the capital needed to meet the needs of stakeholders. If you could, Alan, do you mind walking through kind of where you’re at with your queue and how you see it unfolding?

Yeah, sure, Jeff. Thanks, David. Um, I think you got the numbers right. I mean, we got 44 gigawatts, uh, in our service territory that’s presently in the Batch Zero process. You referenced the 127.5, uh, from the last call. Uh, the relationship between those 2 numbers- the 127.5 was what we had in our RTP submission versus the 44 in the Batch Zero. The delta there is that the Batch Zero rules were finalized in June They’re a different set of rules than the RTP submission rules. Batch required things like finalization of studies, posting financial security of $50,000 a megawatt, attestations of site control and contracting resources, things like that. So that’s the difference between the 127.5 and the 44. Regarding your question about, uh, is there a lot still out there, obviously you also referenced the, the 298 Total overall queue. I think, I think we were at 283 last time. And then I will direct you to our- I think in our earnings release we talked about some of our growth numbers. But the answer to your question is yes, there’s more out there. Total active requests year to date for transmission POIs is up 15%. LC&I minus data centers, new requests are up 8%. Quarter over same quarter last year, and active are up about 22%, quarter ’26, second quarter ’26 versus second quarter ’25. So we continue to have really strong growth, really strong interest, and yes, there is more out there.

Excellent. Yeah, thanks for all that color. Appreciate that. And then relatedly, I just wanted to clarify the additional Batch Zero capital investment opportunities, in terms of when you could frame that up and quantify it, is that something that comes after April of 2027 next year? Is it something we could get mid-year in terms of the timing, just as ERCOT goes through the batch process?

Thank you, David. I think you’ve got the timeline correct. We obviously will look to update Sempra’s roll-forward 5-year plan as well as Oncor’s on the Q4 call. I think it prepared remarks, we talked about the fact that we think that visibility into additional capital that we require to support the batch process as it moves forward will be information we get after that. I think we’ll have to revisit how we can continue to be as transparent as possible following Q4, but we’re excited to bring those additional numbers to you at the right time.

Okay, great. Makes sense. Thank you.

Thank you for joining us.

Thank you. And our next question comes from Nicholas Campanella from Barclays. Your line is open.

Hey, good

Afternoon. Hey, how are you? Um,

Good. I

Just, I just wanted to ask if we could be a little bit more clear just on the, on the batch process, just the actual next steps. Um, to my understanding, there’s a good cause exception request at the PUCT, and do you guys think that that gets acknowledged and then we just kind of keep moving along? With the prior schedule, or are we kind of on pause until we get past November election? And any thoughts from Encore, if we could see additional legislation in the next session around this too, would be helpful. Thanks.

Yeah, I’ll make a couple comments, and Alan, I appreciate if you do as well. I think one of the things we’ve made clear on this call, and I know you’re on top of this, Nick, but is we’ve laid out a path here where we think we feel good about the base capital plan at Oncor. We’ve got improving confidence in the additional capital opportunities. And certainly we think there will be a big backlog of new capital opportunities that fall outside of both of those 2 first buckets. As this goes forward, I mean, we’re seeing strong leadership, I think, from Governor Abbott. The PUCT has obviously taken up the issue as well. And I think as it goes forward, we’ll have more visibility to it in the next months, but Alan, maybe talk about what your expectations are for the process being firmed up and whether you think there will be potential legislation would be helpful.

Yeah, you bet. Hey, Nick. I think the way we’re thinking about it is obviously Governor Abbott issued his letter on August 3rd calling for the comprehensive verification and audit of all the data centers before they can interconnect. The immediate impact is I think exactly the way you described it, Urquhart, previously. Was going to notify TDSPs on August 7th of the loads that could potentially be in Batch 0. And now ERCOT apparently intends to consult with the PUC on next steps and seek approval for a good cause exception related to the Batch 0 timeline and process at the August 20th PUC open meeting. So we’ve really been focused on August 20th as being the next big event where we may learn more more about what’s going to go on. The only other thing I would say is it’s also our perspective that, you know, these projects that were going to make it into Batch 0 were always subject to a validation process, you know, to ensure that they met the criteria of the new rules. And with the comprehensive audit moving to the front end and effectively reordering the prior process, we think it will benefit the process by allowing more participation on the front end and lead potentially to a more durable framework on the back end. That’s probably what we know right now.

Yeah, I think that’s a really good point too, is the way this is being structured, it’s almost like a reordering of the existing process. And I think it’s designed, I think thoughtfully by the governor, to make sure that there’s more input on the front end. So if we get to a more durable framework on the back end, Nick, I think that’s a win for everyone in the process.

That makes a lot of sense, and thanks for sharing, sharing those thoughts. And then I guess just coming back to the questions on California legislation, you know, I know that there’s been wide discussion that this is a, you know, a wider than- more than utilities type problem for the state, right? And everyone has to bring something to the table. Just how do we kind of think about where you guys are drawing the line on you know, maybe trading things like future contributions to Phase 2 funds?

Sure, I’ll make a comment, couple comments here, and then I’ll pass it to Caroline Wendnick, who you know, who runs California. But, you know, in my earlier remarks on today’s call, I think it was really important that for Sempra and other participants in the market to frame this correctly. And I think for us to see successful legislation, it really goes through making sure it’s focused primarily on public policy that improves livability, right? So as you think about the utility side of it, I think this is less about pushing for a quote-unquote utility bailout bill. This is more about making sure that everyone’s joined around the exercise of improving the environment for California families. And I think an output from that will be there’s a lot of benefit to California families when load-serving entities are financially healthy. So I think that will be important. In terms of the legislation itself, we have been active. We’re working through all the various constituencies. I’ve been very pleased with the leadership of the state. I really feel great about the role that Governor Newsom is playing. I think it’s a little bit premature for us to front-run the process without having the text of a bill, Nick, in front of us. So I think it’s important not to pass judgment there, and we’ll look at the totality of the bill and and the benefits to the entire list of stakeholders before we weigh in on any bright lines around what we might be expecting. But Caroline, I know you’ve done a lot of work in this area. Could you add some additional color for Nick’s benefit?

Sure, happy to. Hi, Nick. You know, we are encouraged by not only the ongoing dialogue, but importantly, the range of solutions that are being discussed. And I’m pleased with the broad recognition that California would benefit from a more durable wildfire framework. That said, I’ll agree with Jeff that it’s premature to assess any specific proposal until there’s actual bill language for us to evaluate and a clear understanding of how it would operate as part of the broader package. But count on us to continue to engage constructively over the last 3 weeks of session, but we don’t want to get ahead of the process. And I’ll just end with this, that, you know, our focus remains unchanged, that we’re going to operate the system system safely. We’ll execute on our wildfire mitigation plans, maintain financial discipline, and invest in the system in a way that supports customers, communities, and long-term shareholder value. We’ll evaluate any legislation against those principles, and we’ll be able to communicate our assessment at the appropriate time. Thanks,

Caroline. And Nick, I would just conclude- and I made this comment before- that, you know, a lot of people have sought us out and asked for their views on this, I think the thing I keep coming back to is, and I think I’ve been pretty clear, I’m constructive. I actually think we’re going to get some solid legislation this session, and I’m really pleased with the leadership that we’re hearing from key folks. I don’t want to get ahead of the process. Caroline’s absolutely right. There’s a long way to go. We want to see the text language. It’s a very complicated exercise, but the reason I’m constructive is I think it’s right thing for the state. I think it’s the right thing for livability. I think it’s the right thing to improve affordability. And when you line it up around what’s right from a public policy standpoint, then it becomes just a good old-fashioned leadership challenge. And I’m pleased with the people that are stepping forward to address it in Sacramento.

Thank you. And our next question will come from Julian DeMullen-Smith. From Jefferies, your line is open.

Hi, Julian. Hi. Hi, sorry to disappoint, but good afternoon. It’s Paul Zimbardo on for Julian today. Thanks for taking the time, team.

No worries. Thank you.

Uh, I don’t know. Of course, thank you very much. Uh, just to- I know a lot has been asked already. Just on the good old transmission side of the business, kind of the earlier-stage projects, um, any view on timing changes on some of these certificate of convenience and necessity approvals just related to what’s going on, or would you describe things as on track?

Yeah, I would try- I would describe things as on track, and I’ll pass it to Alan. But let me just make a quick point you may find helpful, Paul. Encore’s base capital plan is $47.5 billion. They only have about $5 billion of that base capital program that’s focused on 765 import pathways related to the Permian I think Alan and Don have enough flexibility in their capital program to adjust the timing and sequencing of those projects if they need to. We continue to feel good about Encore’s 5-year capital plan and look forward to looking- coming back in Q4 to update you on how we might grow that going forward. But Alan, on the specific issue of where you’re at with CCNs, you feel like things are on track and you want to add additional color for Paul’s benefit?

I don’t have much to add. I’ll simply say, you know, I take Chairman Schwartner and Lieutenant Governor Patrick’s statements very seriously. We intend to work with landowners and work through this process. Just right now, it’s so recent, I don’t have really a very good understanding or belief about what’s going to happen or what timelines could change or not. I think we’re just waiting to see.

Thank you.

Okay, no, understood. And then one, one follow-up on the the Batch 0, you mentioned the 8 gigawatts of kind of load that’s already in process. If you could elaborate that a little bit, does that require capital to go? Is that kind of in that upside to the upside capital bucket as well? If you could help on that 8 gigawatt scope. Thank you.

Yeah, I think when you think about that 44 gigawatts that we’ve identified in today’s call, the reason we called out that 8 gigawatts, is that’s projects that have moved forward and they’re already interconnected. So all it’s pointing to is the customers that have been interconnected, their overall utilization is not at the 8 gigawatt level. They’re already connected and their load is expected to increase over time to 8 gigawatts. And the reason that’s important, I think we called this out, it shows that that load growth is not just a prospective opportunity. It’s Nothing is coming on the Oncor system currently.

Okay. Well, that’s helpful. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Paul. Thank you for joining.

Thank you. And our next question will come from Richard Sunderland from Truist Securities. Your line is open.

Hi, Richard.

Hi. Good morning. Thanks for the time today. Sticking with some of these Oncor upside CapEx themes, you’re very clear on the Batch 0 sequencing relative to your 4Q update. Update. But can you speak to other opportunities that could fold into the upside bucket on that, you know, 4Q update? Presumably there’s things like the SRP that would remain in there, but just trying to think about other things that might translate into upside that aren’t currently being discussed right now.

Thank you for the question, Richard. We outlined, you know, how we thought about the upside opportunity for Oncor on our Q4 call. That might be something that you go back and reference. But in our current materials, if you look at slide 4, we’re talking about the $47.5 billion base capital plan that we announced 4 months ago. And you can see that we’ve articulated the 3 buckets that form what we’ve referred to as the $10 billion incremental capital opportunity. That’s $4 billion associated with these recent- recently endorsed DFW projects. $3 billion associated with non-Permian 765 projects. And then you referenced it correctly, they do expect to make a system resiliency plan filing next year. They’ve earmarked about $3 billion of capital for that. That number can move around a little bit. And to your point, there may be other opportunities that come to us before we announce this next February. But I think we’re quite constructive on those 2 buckets together. The $47.5 billion and also this $10 billion opportunity. And I think, Richard, one of the key things we’ve taken a lot of questions on since our last call was how this batch process fit into our current plan. And I think it’s been a real clear takeaway for us that the batch process is clearly an incremental opportunity beyond the $47.5 billion and beyond the $10 billion of upside. Capital they have. The challenge will be, as that process unfolds, we don’t think we’ll have a lot more definition on the batch-related capital until later in 2027.

Got it. Thanks for running through all that. But I’ll just, I guess, ask the question in a different way. So is the $10 billion that you currently call out as Encore upside kind of what you’re working with? And then some of that presumably translates into base on that 4Q update. And then the remainder stays as upside, or do you see other opportunities and programs that may backfill whatever moves into base?

Well, you know, I appreciate the clarification. Let me go back a little bit because I think that the past is prologue here. If you go back and look at, uh, where we were in February of 2025, at the 100% level, Encore had a $36 billion capital program, and they had about about $12 billion of upside opportunities. Through the year, they continued to work on that pipeline, and by the time they got to February of this year, they took the $36 and the $12 and announced a brand new base capital plan of $47.5 billion. And then, Richard, they re-upped that opportunity bucket back to $10 billion. And I think that is probably- something like that is what we expect. We expect to see all or portions of the $10 billion get rolled into the $47.5 billion. And I’m quite confident that Don and Al will come back with a very large upside bucket beyond that. That’s what we’ll cover on the February call.

All very clear. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Appreciate you joining.

Thank you. And our next question will come from Anthony Crodell from Mizuho. Your line is open.

Hey, good afternoon, Noon Team. Just, I guess, one high-level question on Texas and then one on the balance sheet. Just Steve had talked earlier about the 765 maybe delays and some of the news we’re hearing there. We’re talking about delays in the Batch 0 process. Is it the same issue there of NIMBYism? Just it seems the timing of both of them happening or the news we’ve seen in the last, you know, 3 weeks have just reached a peak. Is it the same issue that’s going on in ERCOT?

Look, I think I look at it, Anthony, like that. You know, all across this country, there’s a variety of elections taking place in November. There’s a big focus on affordability. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Republican or Democrat or an independent. We’re looking for ways to release pressure on American families. And I think Texas is not immune from that. Obviously, there’s a process going forward where we’re doing things at scale, Anthony, that have never been done before. And if it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen in the state of Texas. So I think there’s an uncommon electricity demand growth opportunity, and I think there’s an uncommon associated capital opportunity. I think a lot of people of goodwill are at the table in Austin trying to make sure that we’ve got a right process. And I think Alan has struck the right tone. We- what we want to do is make sure that we’re supportive of the process. We’re there to make sure that we can address some of the needs of stakeholders. And if the outcome is it takes a little bit longer to make the process better for everybody and we end up with a durable framework, I think it’s great for the state of Texas. I think in the long run we continue to have an increasingly bullish view for Oncor.

Great. And then if I could pivot, slide 11, you talk about Moody’s, your Baa2 with a negative outlook. If my memory serves me correct, they went to a negative outlook back in January of 2025. Just curious if there’s any timing on when they revisit it or any, you know, data points they’re looking for to change that negative outlook.

Yeah, thank you for that question. Obviously, the key issue for us at this point is working very closely with Justin and his team to close the KKR transaction, which is on schedule for this quarter. And Karen, perhaps you could talk about the value of that transaction also from a credit

Sure, and thanks, Anthony. Yeah, so the priority right now is getting the KKR transaction closed, and you’ll recall as part of our strategy we work closely with the rating agencies to improve the strength of our balance sheet. So it’s going to help us improve our funding capacity and really help us pay down some parent debt. So with the closing of the SI transaction later this quarter, we expect to deconsolidate over $9 billion worth of debt off the balance sheet and seen improvement in those outlooks. And specifically, you asked about Moody’s. For them, it’s not only closing the SI transaction and deconsolidating, but they also are tracking the progress at the SI projects. And in particular, they look for certain milestones. The one, you know, they- one of the ones they’ve chosen that’s important is the pipe installation, which again, Justin mentioned, we’re all track there. So we expect that to be where they want it close to the end of the year. So I think it’ll probably be early next year before they make the changes. But to be clear, we are meeting with the rating agencies regularly. We’re on track for what they expect us to do. And we’re excited about being able to shore up the balance sheet. And on top of that, Jeff and I have talked about, you know, having, having an opportunity to really improve the balance sheet going forward and having cushion there of at least 50 to 150 basis points on average above those thresholds with those thresholds improving. So excited where this will take us.

So I think that’s a great point. I mean, I think what you’re seeing us do here, Anthony, is we’re- we’ve got an improving equity story. We’re posting strong financial results both for the quarter and for the first half of the year. And we have definitely improving credit story and balance sheet story. So We’re looking to pull all that together in the second half of the year and obviously meet the expectations of our stakeholders on the credit side.

Great. Thanks for taking my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you. And we do have time for one last question today. And our last question will come from Carly Davenport from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.

Hi, Carly.

Hey, Jeff. How are you? Thanks for taking the questions. I just had one follow-up on some of the commentary earlier on the call on California. Just as you think about the potential outcomes here, if you don’t see any legislation move forward this session, is there anything that you could see changing about your GRC filing or any other parts of your investment strategy in California that we should be keeping in mind?

Yeah, you know, thank you, Carly. I would go back to some of the information we released in February, you recall that at the enterprise level, we’re growing our utility platform at the enterprise level at about 11% annually. If you folded in the additional upside at Oncor, that number would be closer to 13%. As part of that portfolio of growth, California is now growing a little bit slower. We’re growing rate base in California at about 5%. I think we’ve got the right approach there in terms of making sure we meet the needs of the state in terms of safety and reliability, and there’s a nod to affordability with that. I know this is a question that’s come up both for Edison and PG&E, who are in a little bit different situation than us. I think we’ve got the opportunity to continue to execute our current capital plan. In terms of legislation itself, I don’t want to start speaking to hypotheticals without having the text in front of us. I remain constructive on legislation in the state, and I think we’ve got our capital plan dialed in at about the appropriate level for the future.

Got it. Okay, very clear. Thank you very much for the color.

Thank you for joining the call, Carly.

Thank you. That concludes today’s question and answer session. At this time, I’d like to turn the conference back to Jeff Martin for any additional closing remarks.

Well, let me conclude by thanking everyone for joining today. We certainly appreciate you making the time to join Before signing off, I’d like to take a moment to congratulate Karen on her appointment as the incoming CEO of the Southern California Gas Company, and also Justin for his appointment as Sempra’s incoming Chief Financial Officer. These are important rotational moves that reflect Sempra’s long tradition of leadership development across our organization, and we expect these rotations to become effective around the close of the SI Partners transaction. Action, which we’re targeting later this quarter. Finally, we hope to see many of you next week at the upcoming Citi conference in Las Vegas. If there are any other follow-up items, please reach out to our IR team with your questions. This concludes our call.

Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.