Talen Energy Corp (TLN) 2025 Q4 法說會逐字稿

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Talen Energy Corporation fourth quarter 2025 earnings call. (Operator Instructions) Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded.

女士們、先生們，感謝你們的耐心等待。歡迎參加 Talen Energy Corporation 2025 年第四季財報電話會議。（操作人員指示）請注意，今天的會議正在錄音。

I would now like to turn the conference over to Sergio Castro, Vice President and Treasurer. Please go ahead.

現在我將把會議交給副總裁兼財務主管塞爾吉奧·卡斯特羅。請繼續。

Thank you, Michelle, and welcome to Talen Energy's fourth quarter 2025 conference call. Speaking today our Chief Executive Officer, Mac McFarland; President, Terry Nutt; and Chief Financial Officer, Cole Muller. They are joined by other Talen senior executives to address questions during the second part of today's call as necessary. We issued our earnings release this afternoon, along with the presentation, all of which can be found in the Investor Relations section of Talen's website, talenenergy.com. Today, we are making some forward-looking statements based on current expectations and assumptions.

謝謝米歇爾，歡迎參加 Talen Energy 2025 年第四季電話會議。今天發言的有我們的執行長麥克·麥克法蘭、總裁特里·納特和財務長科爾·穆勒。如有需要，Talen 的其他高階主管將在今天電話會議的第二部分與他們會合，回答問題。今天下午我們發布了盈利報告和演示文稿，所有內容都可以在Talen公司網站talenenergy.com的投資者關係欄位中找到。今天，我們將根據目前的預期和假設做出一些前瞻性聲明。

Actual results could differ due to risk factors and other considerations described in our financial disclosures and other SEC filings. Today's discussion also includes references to certain non-GAAP financial measures. We have provided information reconciling our non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures in our earnings release and the appendix of our presentation.

實際結果可能因風險因素以及我們在財務揭露和其他提交給美國證券交易委員會的文件中所述的其他因素而有所不同。今天的討論也包括對某些非GAAP財務指標的提及。我們在獲利報告和簡報的附錄中提供了將我們的非GAAP指標與最直接可比較的GAAP指標進行調節的資訊。

And with that, I will now turn the call over to Mac.

接下來，我將把通話交給 Mac。

Great. Thanks, Sergio, and welcome, everyone, to today's call. As always, we appreciate your ongoing interest in Talen and participation in our calls. We closed out the full year 2025 with strong results in Q4, adding the Freedom and Guernsey assets and operating well during the early winter in December. And 2026 is starting off the same with overall strong performance by the fleet and the commercial teams during the cold winter months.

偉大的。謝謝塞爾吉奧，也歡迎各位參加今天的電話會議。一如既往，我們感謝您對 Talen 的持續關注和參與我們的電話會議。我們在 2025 年第四季取得了強勁的業績，新增了 Freedom 和 Guernsey 資產，並在 12 月初的冬季運作良好，為整個 2025 年畫上了圓滿的句號。2026 年開始，船隊和商業團隊在寒冷的冬季月份也表現出色，整體表現強勁。

And I'd mentioned that PJM and other operators also performed well, maintaining grid reliability during some of the highest day after day loads we have seen. We saw a fair amount of elevated prices and volatility. And all in all, 2026 is off to a good start, and we are reaffirming our 2026 guidance range. Just recall that, that range does not include the recently announced Cornerstone acquisition that we anticipate closing this summer. As I reflect back on 2025, we said it was going to be an exciting year, and it was across the IPP space and at Talen we accomplished a lot.

我還提到過，PJM 和其他運營商也表現出色，在我們所見的連續幾天最高負載的情況下，保持了電網的可靠性。我們看到價格出現相當程度的上漲和波動。總而言之，2026 年開局良好，我們重申 2026 年的業績預期範圍。請記住，該範圍不包括我們預計將於今年夏天完成的、最近宣布的 Cornerstone 收購案。回望 2025 年，我們曾說過這將是令人興奮的一年，而我們在 IPP 領域和 Talen 公司都取得了許多成就。

We signed the reliability-must-run agreements. We signed a revamped and doubled front-of-the-meter PPA with Amazon at Susquehanna. We signed and closed Freedom and Guernsey and we delivered on the basics of being an IPP, which is safely, reliably and profitably delivering megawatts to the grid thanks to all the Talen employees that make this possible. Looking forward to 2026, we are optimistic about the continued long arc of the powering AI thesis and Talen's position in it. As I've been saying, 2025 was a year of option development, and 2026 will be the year of rationalization.

我們簽署了可靠性必須運行協議。我們與亞馬遜在薩斯奎哈納簽署了一份經過修訂且價格翻倍的電錶前購電協議。我們簽署並完成了 Freedom 和 Guernsey 專案的交割，並且履行了作為獨立發電商的基本義務，透過所有 Talen 員工的努力，安全、可靠且盈利地向電網輸送兆瓦電力。展望 2026 年，我們對人工智慧驅動理論的長期發展以及 Talen 在該理論中的地位持樂觀態度。正如我一直所說，2025 年是選擇權開發之年，而 2026 年將是合理化之年。

In 2025, as everyone in the space was racing to develop options for data center development, and the associated power, a bow wave of expectations built across the industry for deals and more deals, whether they were virtual purchase power agreements or behind-the-meter developments. Investors were anticipating the next big thing and the next big announcement. To some 2025 fell short, for others that grasps this long arc, they believe things will rationalize themselves out. Some projects will simply not make it in others will, some will be delayed and will need to be rationalized in 2027. But overall, we believe the long arc remains unchanged.

2025 年，當業內人士競相開發資料中心開發方案及相關電力時，整個產業都掀起了一股達成更多交易的浪潮，無論是虛擬採購協議還是表後開發項目。投資者們都在期待下一個重大事件和下一個重大公告。有些人認為 2025 年還不夠理想，而有些人則理解了這一長遠發展趨勢，他們相信事情最終會迎刃而解。有些項目注定無法完成，有些項目則會完成，有些項目將會延期，需要在 2027 年進行調整和完善。但總體而言，我們認為長期趨勢保持不變。

As the CEO of Anthropic wrote in his recent essay, and I quote, every few months public sentiment either becomes convinced that AI is hitting a wall or becomes excited about some new breakthrough that will fundamentally change the game. But the truth is that behind the volatility in public speculation, there has been a smooth unyielding increase in AI's cognitive capabilities. Again, that's a quote from the CEO of Anthropic. From my perspective, you could replace AI in that quote with IPPs or replace AI with Talen itself and the quote would keep its same meaning. And this is what I mean when I say a long arc, our capabilities to power data centers and AI have had a smooth unyielding increase.

正如 Anthropic 的執行長在他最近的一篇文章中所寫（我引用他的話），每隔幾個月，公眾輿論要么確信人工智慧遇到了瓶頸，要么對一些將從根本上改變遊戲規則的新突破感到興奮。但事實是，在公眾猜測的波動背後，人工智慧的認知能力一直在穩步提升。再次強調，這是 Anthropic 執行長的原話。在我看來，你可以把那句話裡的 AI 換成 IPPs，或是把 AI 換成 Talen 本身，這句話的意思也不會改變。這就是我所說的長期發展趨勢，我們為資料中心和人工智慧提供支援的能力一直在穩步增長。

That said, there has been a lot of near-term noise that can be conflated with the rational long arc view, reliability backstop auction, overbuild, resource adequacy, regulated new build behind-the-meter, front-of-the-meter, local zoning. They are each relevant in their own sense, interrelated in some sense. And when taken all together, culminate in a vastness of noise, noise that can be misunderstood or worse yet turned into something that it is not. But when taken in reality, they don't change the long arc, and we remain committed to our Talen flywheel strategy. For investors, please know that we managed this long arc and seek to maximize long-term value creation and not to short-term events.

也就是說，近期有許多噪音可能會與理性長遠觀點、可靠性保障拍賣、過度建設、資源充足性、受監管的新建錶後、表前、地方分區混淆。它們各自都有其意義，又在某種程度上相互關聯。而所有這些加在一起，最終會形成巨大的噪音，這種噪音可能會被誤解，更糟的是，還會被扭曲成它原本不是的東西。但從實際情況來看，它們並不會改變長遠發展趨勢，我們將繼續致力於我們的 Talen 飛輪策略。對投資人而言，請知悉我們著眼於長期發展，追求的是最大化長期價值創造，而不是短期事件。

We do not over rotate, nothing has changed our fundamental view that data centers are coming, coming at a rapid pace. We have the ability to contract with these entities across our fleet. We are building a further diversified fleet to support those contracts and we are building capabilities to contribute to the addition of new build. With respect to Montour, what is our plan B? That is and remains the question asked by many.

我們不會過度輪換，我們對資料中心即將到來、而且是以迅猛速度到來的基本看法從未改變。我們有能力與我們船隊中的這些實體簽訂合約。我們正在進一步打造多元化的船隊以支持這些合同，並且我們正在提升自身能力，為新船建造做出貢獻。關於蒙圖爾，我們的備選方案是什麼？這始終是許多人提出的問題。

I see this situation analogous to the ISA denial and the questions after the FERC decision about our initial plans at Susquehanna. But what did we do? We stay flexible, we retooled and ultimately pivoted to a better commercial solution. We remain confident that we can do the same in this instance, too. Short-term hurdles do not define long-term success, how you respond to them does.

我認為這種情況類似於 ISA 被否決以及 FERC 對我們在 Susquehanna 的最初計劃作出決定後提出的問題。但我們做了什麼？我們保持靈活，進行了調整，最終轉向了更好的商業解決方案。我們仍然相信，這次我們也能做到這一點。短期障礙並不能決定長期成功，你如何應對它們才能決定。

And so therefore, we press on. Of course, Montour is just one opportunity we have in our pipeline, albeit the most well-known, and that is likely my fault for talking about it too much. We have numerous other organic and inorganic sites we are developing across the PJM footprint, to further implement the Talen flywheel. This includes both powered land opportunities as well as new build opportunities. And I know many of you will want to dig into this pipeline of opportunities.

因此，我們繼續前進。當然，蒙圖爾只是我們正在規劃的項目之一，儘管它是最知名的，這可能是因為我談論它太多了。我們在 PJM 的業務範圍內正在開發許多其他有機和無機場土地，以進一步實施 Talen 飛輪效應。這包括已開發土地的機會以及新建土地的機會。我知道你們中的許多人都想深入了解這些機會。

But before you ask about them, let me say this, we will not discuss them at any level of detail, and we no longer plan to discuss development in the public forum and repeat the frenzied speculation that ensued around one decision by Montour County commissioners. But you can be rest assured knowing that we are working the pipeline every day and have options at our disposal. On the regulatory front, we are engaging with policymakers at both the state federal and RTO level to bring about the reliability backstop procurement, or RBP, formerly the RBA, in PJM that provides for a onetime solution to resource adequacy, which will minimize the cost on the system and allows time for real capacity market reform. And that is what our broad-based coalition of generators, hyperscalers and utilities recently proposed at a PJM workshop. We look forward to continuing the dialogue on this critical policy development.

但在你們詢問這些問題之前，我想先說明一點，我們不會就這些問題進行任何細節的討論，我們也不再計劃在公共論壇上討論發展問題，不再重蹈蒙圖爾縣專員一項決定引發的瘋狂猜測的覆轍。但您可以放心，我們每天都在努力推進管道建設，並且有很多方案可供選擇。在監管方面，我們正在與州、聯邦和區域輸電組織 (RTO) 層面的政策制定者進行溝通，以在 PJM 推行可靠性後備採購 (RBP)，即以前的 RBA，為資源充足性提供一次性解決方案，這將最大限度地降低系統成本，並為真正的容量市場改革爭取時間。而這正是我們由發電企業、超大規模資料中心營運商和公用事業公司組成的廣泛聯盟最近在 PJM 研討會上提出的建議。我們期待繼續就這項關鍵政策發展展開對話。

And in the meantime, we support the extension of the current floor and cap of the base residual auction in order to provide time to make these longer-term reforms. Before I turn the call over to Terry, let me conclude with this. Our strategy, and therefore, our investment thesis, is based on real assets on the ground today that can support data center buildout. In doing so, we are creating infrastructure assets out of what were previously merchant generation assets subject to commodity prices, and that, in turn, is driving lower capital costs and higher returns for our investors. While we have room to run on this current portfolio, we are also set up for the future.

同時，我們支持延長目前基礎剩餘拍賣的最低限額和最高限額，以便為進行這些長期改革爭取時間。在把電話轉給特里之前，我想最後補充一點。我們的策略，以及由此而來的，我們的投資理念，是基於目前能夠支援資料中心建設的現有實際資產。透過這種方式，我們將以前受商品價格影響的商業發電資產轉化為基礎設施資產，而這反過來又降低了資本成本，提高了投資者的回報。雖然我們目前的投資組合還有成長空間，但我們也為未來做好了準備。

In the future, we can augment our current assets with contracted new build and future inorganic powered land site, something that we started last year, by the way, creating a pipeline of opportunities, as I previously described. And we have dedicated part of our management team to go after this opportunity with the recent management changes announced last December. This is a durable and tangible model built on today's reality, but with an eye towards future growth. We look forward to your questions.

未來，我們可以透過承包新建專案和未來的無機能源用地來擴充我們現有的資產，順便說一句，我們去年就開始了這項工作，正如我之前描述的那樣，這創造了一系列機會。我們已安排部分管理團隊抓住這一機遇，這與去年 12 月宣布的最新管理層變動相呼應。這是一個立足於當今現實、著眼於未來發展的持久且切實可行的模式。我們期待您的提問。

And with that, I'll turn the call over to Terry.

那麼，我就把電話交給特里了。

Thank you, Mac, and good afternoon, everyone. Moving to slide 3 for a quick review of our strategic activity in 2025. During the year, we introduced the Talen's flywheel, a repeatable value creation strategy that leverages our reliable, scalable generation assets and commercial capabilities to deliver durable free cash flow per share growth for our shareholders. As part of this strategy, we executed on the contracting component of the flywheel through the Amazon 2.0 PPA that was executed in June, which moved the transaction to a front-of-the-meter arrangement and upsized the volumes to 1.9 gigawatts in total. Transactions such as this will provide cash flows to support other parts of our overall strategy.

謝謝你，麥克，大家下午好。接下來請看第 3 張投影片，快速回顧一下我們 2025 年的策略活動。今年，我們推出了 Talen 的飛輪效應，這是一種可重複的價值創造策略，利用我們可靠、可擴展的發電資產和商業能力，為我們的股東帶來持久的每股自由現金流成長。作為該策略的一部分，我們透過 6 月執行的 Amazon 2.0 PPA 實現了飛輪的合約部分，該協議將交易改為電錶前安排，並將交易量增加到總計 1.9 吉瓦。此類交易將提供現金流，以支持我們整體策略的其他部分。

In July, we executed on the acquisition component of our strategy by announcing the purchase of the Freedom and Guernsey plants, adding approximately 2.8 gigawatts of efficient CCGTs, including a significant foundational position in Ohio and subsequently brought those assets into the portfolio in late November. Throughout the year, we focused on continuing our balance sheet discipline with the ability to reduce our net leverage to below 3.5 times by the end of 2026, while also maintaining a clear focus on our shareholders by increasing our share repurchase program to $2 billion through 2028. In 2026, we will continue this path of maximizing value with a focus on creating the most adjusted free cash flow per share while selectively exploring inorganic and organic opportunities that support the Talen flywheel.

7 月，我們執行了策略中的收購部分，宣布收購 Freedom 和 Guernsey 電廠，新增約 2.8 吉瓦高效燃氣聯合循環發電裝置容量，其中包括在俄亥俄州的重要基礎地位，隨後在 11 月下旬將這些資產納入投資組合。在過去一年中，我們專注於繼續保持資產負債表紀律，力爭在 2026 年底前將淨槓桿率降至 3.5 倍以下，同時透過將股票回購計畫增加到 20 億美元（到 2028 年），繼續保持對股東的明確關注。2026 年，我們將繼續走這條價值最大化的道路，專注於創造最大的調整後每股自由現金流，同時有選擇地探索支持 Talen 飛輪效應的無機和有機成長機會。

Turning to slide 4. Let's talk about how we are continuing to grow the Talen fleet through acquisitions. As previously mentioned, we expanded our presence in Pennsylvania through the acquisition of Freedom and expanded our footprint into Western PJM with the acquisition of Guernsey. Shortly after closing those transactions, we entered into an agreement to acquire the three cornerstone generation assets located in Ohio and Indiana. Western PJM has significant data center tailwinds and accessibility to reliable, low-cost natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica shales. And Ohio is an active data center hub that continues to grow. Additionally, these acquisitions diversify Talen's generation portfolio by adding high capacity factor assets that have high free cash flow conversion rates.

翻到第4張投影片。讓我們來談談我們如何透過收購來不斷壯大 Talen 艦隊。如前所述，我們透過收購 Freedom 擴大了在賓州的業務，並透過收購 Guernsey 擴大了在西部 PJM 的業務範圍。完成這些交易後不久，我們就達成協議，收購位於俄亥俄州和印第安納州的三項核心發電資產。西部 PJM 擁有重要的資料中心發展優勢，並且可以從馬塞勒斯頁岩和尤蒂卡頁岩獲得可靠、低成本的天然氣。俄亥俄州是一個活躍的資料中心中心，並且還在不斷發展壯大。此外，這些收購透過增加高容量係數資產（具有高自由現金流轉換率）來使 Talen 的發電組合多樣化。

The assets will also enhance Talen's large load contracting opportunities. As a reminder, we underwrite acquisitions on a merchant basis using current forward market energy and capacity prices, combined with more normalized views in the out years. Executing offtake agreements on these assets creates additional upside potential. Turning to slide 5. The driving factors behind large load growth and overall power demand fundamentals continue to remain constructive.

這些資產也將增強 Talen 的大宗貨物運輸承包能力。再次提醒，我們採用當前遠期市場能源和容量價格，並結合未來幾年更正常的預期，以商業方式進行收購承銷。就這些資產簽訂承購協議將帶來額外的收益潛力。翻到第5張投影片。推動負載大幅成長和整體電力需求基本面持續向好。

One of the largest driving forces is the significant amount of capital that is being deployed by the most well-capitalized technology firms in the world. Recent CapEx forecast from the largest hyperscalers show significant increases in spending in 2026 and beyond, including over $650 billion of estimated spend in this year alone.

最大的驅動力之一是全球資金最雄厚的科技公司投入的大量資金。近期，最大的超大規模資料中心營運商發布的資本支出預測顯示，2026 年及以後的支出將大幅成長，光是今年的預計支出就將超過 6,500 億美元。

We see the resulting growth of data center capacity from that spend showing up in several states where we have or plan to have solid generation positions, including Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana. A deeper dive into the fundamentals through the most recent PJM peak load forecast for the primary regions that we operate in provides a view of the expected load growth over the next several years. This forecast, even after the recent modifications to put more rigor around proposed large loads, shows PPL zone increasing peak load by over 70% in the next 5 years, while AEP zone increases by over 30% in the same period.

我們看到，這些支出帶來的資料中心容量成長已體現在我們擁有或計劃擁有穩固發電地位的幾個州，包括賓州、俄亥俄州和印第安納州。透過對我們營運的主要區域最新的 PJM 尖峰負載預測進行更深入的基本分析，可以了解未來幾年預期的負載成長。即使在最近對擬議的大負載進行更嚴格的修改之後，該預測仍然顯示，PPL 區的峰值負荷在未來 5 年內將增加 70% 以上，而 AEP 區在同一時期將增加 30% 以上。

Earlier this month, AEP reported contracted load growth of 4 gigawatts in PJM in 2026, largely driven by load growth in Ohio. Approximately 90% of AEP's reported 15 gigawatts of incremental load growth through 2030 is supported by executed take-or-pay electric service agreements. Meanwhile, PPL also reported significant growth in its territory and expects to have 10 gigawatts of signed agreements by the end of the first quarter of 2026. So what does this all mean for Talen? Two primary results: First, demand growth means higher run times for our existing generation fleet, especially our intermediate dispatch and peaking units; second, increased demand will drive more attractive economics for spark spreads and potential offtake agreements.

本月初，AEP 報告稱，2026 年 PJM 地區的合約負載成長將達到 4 吉瓦，這主要是由俄亥俄州的負載成長推動的。AEP 報告稱，到 2030 年，其新增負載將達到 15 吉瓦，其中約 90% 的新增負載將由已執行的照付不議電力服務協議支持。同時，PPL 也報告稱其業務區域內實現了顯著增長，預計到 2026 年第一季末將簽署 10 吉瓦的協議。那麼，這一切對Talen意味著什麼？兩個主要結果：第一，需求成長意味著我們現有發電廠的運行時間更長，尤其是我們的中級調度和調峰機組；第二，需求增加將為火花價差和潛在的購電協議帶來更具吸引力的經濟效益。

Moving to slide 6 and to follow up on what Mac mentioned earlier. Nothing has changed in the outlook for basic market fundamentals. Talen's underlying value proposition remains the same and still points up and to the right. The PJM capacity markets have been reflective of these tightening fundamentals as well, with the last two base residual capacity auctions clearing up the price gap. This trend is expected to continue and PJM, with the support of the governors and other stakeholders has indicated it intends to seek an extension of the price collar for two additional base residual auctions.

接下來請看第 6 張投影片，並跟進 Mac 之前提到的內容。市場基本面前景沒有任何變化。Talen 的根本價值主張保持不變，仍然向上向右發展。PJM 容量市場也反映了這些趨緊的基本面，最近兩次基本剩餘容量拍賣消除了價格差距。預計這一趨勢將繼續下去，PJM 在各州州長和其他利益相關者的支持下表示，它打算尋求將價格區間延長兩次基礎剩餘資產拍賣。

In relation to energy and spark spreads, we have seen appreciation in the forward curves for 2026 to 2028 from the end of July to the end of the year, with growth in spark spreads and PJM increasing over 15% during that period. Turning to slide 7. I'd like to provide a brief update on our hedging activity this past quarter. As a reminder, we have a pragmatic, not programmatic hedging strategy. Our strategy is focused on maintaining appropriate risk tolerances and financial discipline to support cash flow stability while also leaving room to capture upside when opportunities arise.

就能源和火花價差而言，我們看到 2026 年至 2028 年的遠期曲線從 7 月底到年底有所上漲，火花價差和 PJM 在此期間增長超過 15%。翻到第7張投影片。我想簡要匯報一下我們上個季度的避險活動情況。再次提醒，我們採用的是務實的而非程序化的避險策略。我們的策略著重於維持適當的風險承受能力和財務紀律，以支持現金流穩定，同時留有空間在機會出現時抓住上漲空間。

This gives our team the flexibility to add hedges during higher pricing periods as detailed on the right-hand side. As you can see from the graph in the table on the slide, spark spreads for the PJM market for 2026 to 2028 experienced upward movements during the fourth quarter, which allowed our commercial team to layer in additional hedges for 2026 and 2027 as the opportunities present themselves.

這使得我們的團隊能夠靈活地在價格較高的時期增加對沖，詳情請參見右側。從投影片表格中的圖表可以看出，2026 年至 2028 年 PJM 市場的火花價差在第四季度出現了上升趨勢，這使得我們的商業團隊能夠在機會出現時為 2026 年和 2027 年增加額外的對沖。

I'll now turn the call over to Cole to discuss our financial and operating performance.

現在我將把電話交給科爾，讓他來討論我們的財務和營運表現。

Thanks, Terry, and good afternoon, everyone. As Mac mentioned earlier, for the year ended 2025, we are reporting $1.035 billion of adjusted EBITDA and $524 million of adjusted free cash flow. These results exceed the high end of our revised guidance ranges issued last quarter, primarily due to the closing of Freedom and Guernsey acquisitions in November 2025. We have more than $2 billion of liquidity available including $1.2 billion of cash and full availability of our $900 million revolving credit facility. Given that our net debt includes Freedom and Guernsey financing, but only 5 weeks of EBITDA contribution, our net leverage ratio using actual 2025 EBITDA is like comparing apples and oranges and therefore, is not a meaningful metric for 2025.

謝謝你，特里，大家下午好。正如 Mac 先前所提到的，截至 2025 年，我們報告的調整後 EBITDA 為 10.35 億美元，調整後自由現金流為 5.24 億美元。這些業績超過了我們上季度發布的修訂後指導範圍的上限，主要原因是 Freedom 和 Guernsey 的收購於 2025 年 11 月完成。我們擁有超過 20 億美元的可用流動資金，其中包括 12 億美元的現金以及 9 億美元的循環信貸額度。鑑於我們的淨債務包括 Freedom 和 Guernsey 的融資，但僅貢獻了 5 週的 EBITDA，因此，使用 2025 年實際 EBITDA 計算的淨槓桿率就像是蘋果和橘子之間的比較，因此，對於 2025 年而言，這是一個沒有意義的指標。

Turning to our operational metrics. Safety remains our top priority across the fleet and our team worked safely during a busy year. Our recordable incident rate was 0.55, which continues to be below the industry average. Our fleet ran well with a 4.7% equivalent forced outage factor, and we generated approximately 40 terawatt hours, about 10% more than in 2024. This was driven by a significant increase in dispatch opportunities across our fossil fleet driving higher generation and energy margin.

接下來我們來看看營運指標。安全始終是我們整個車隊的首要任務，我們的團隊在繁忙的一年中也始終安全作業。我們的可記錄事故率為 0.55，繼續低於行業平均。我們的機組運作良好，強制停機率相當於 4.7%，發電量約 40 太瓦時，比 2024 年增加了約 10%。這是由於我們化石燃料發電廠的調度機會大幅增加，從而提高了發電量和能源利潤率。

Turning to slide 9. Our full year 2025 financial results were significantly higher than 2024 due to a number of factors: higher capacity prices and RMR revenues that began in June 2025, the continued ramp of AWS revenues as the campus continues to progress, five weeks of Freedom and Guernsey operations as well as higher power prices net of hedges. Our results were partially offset by the impacts from the Susquehanna Unit 2 extended outage last spring and Susquehanna also not receiving the PTC in 2025.

翻到第9張投影片。由於以下幾個因素，我們 2025 年全年財務表現顯著高於 2024 年：更高的容量價格和從 2025 年 6 月開始的 RMR 收入，隨著園區的持續推進，AWS 收入的持續增長，Freedom 和 Guernsey 運營了五週，以及扣除對沖後的更高電力價格。去年春天 Susquehanna 2 號機組長時間停機以及 Susquehanna 在 2025 年未能獲得 PTC 的影響，部分抵消了我們的業績。

During the fourth quarter, we generated adjusted EBITDA of $382 million and adjusted free cash flow of $292 million. Note that our adjusted free cash flow in Q4 2025 alone was higher than all of 2024, demonstrating the free cash flow growth of the business, growth that we can -- expect will continue as we move forward into 2026 and beyond.

第四季度，我們實現了調整後的 EBITDA 3.82 億美元和調整後的自由現金流 2.92 億美元。請注意，僅 2025 年第四季的調整後自由現金流就高於 2024 年全年，這表明業務的自由現金流增長，我們可以預期，隨著我們進入 2026 年及以後，這種增長將繼續。

Speaking of 2026 on slide 10, we are reaffirming the previously announced 2026 guidance ranges. Our adjusted EBITDA range is $1.75 billion to $2.05 billion and our adjusted free cash flow range is $980 million to $1.18 billion. All of this remains consistent with our Investor Day guidance and does not include any contribution from the pending Cornerstone acquisition. As Mac mentioned earlier, while our fleet ran well during the recent winter weather, it's still early in the year, and it's not our practice to make any adjustments halfway through the first quarter. Slide 11 may look familiar to those who listened last month when we announced the Cornerstone transaction.

關於第 10 頁投影片中提到的 2026 年，我們重申先前公佈的 2026 年業績指引範圍。我們調整後的 EBITDA 範圍為 17.5 億美元至 20.5 億美元，調整後的自由現金流範圍為 9.8 億美元至 11.8 億美元。所有這些都與我們投資者日的預期一致，並且不包括待決的 Cornerstone 收購帶來的任何貢獻。正如 Mac 之前提到的，雖然我們的車隊在最近的冬季天氣中運作良好，但現在還是年初，我們通常不會在第一季中途進行任何調整。對於上個月我們宣布 Cornerstone 交易時聽過的人來說，第 11 頁幻燈片可能看起來很眼熟。

We project continued free cash flow per share growth with our 2026 forecast more than double our 2025 actual results. Further, we anticipate the Cornerstone acquisition to create more than $4 in incremental annual impact on adjusted free cash flow per share upon closing. While we illustrate this impact beginning in 2027, there's room for upside in 2026 as we anticipate closing the transaction as soon as this summer. And our base free cash flow per share continues to move higher, supported by increasingly contracted cash flows from our long-term AWS PPA ramp. We continue to see additional upside through the 4 growth levers we outlined at our Investor Day last September, with the uplift potential to further build on our increasing free cash flow per share.

我們預計每股自由現金流將持續成長，2026 年的預測結果將比 2025 年的實際結果翻倍以上。此外，我們預計 Cornerstone 的收購將在交易完成後為每股調整後自由現金流帶來超過 4 美元的年度增量影響。雖然我們預計這種影響將從 2027 年開始顯現，但由於我們預計最早將於今年夏天完成交易，因此 2026 年仍有上漲空間。我們的每股基本自由現金流持續走高，這得益於我們長期 AWS PPA 成長帶來的現金流不斷萎縮。我們繼續看到，透過我們在去年九月投資者日上概述的 4 個成長槓桿，還有進一步成長的空間，從而進一步提高我們不斷增長的每股自由現金流。

We illustrate this impact on the slide, noting that we already -- we are already executing on these levers as demonstrated through the Cornerstone acquisition. We are focused on building our track record of delivering on opportunities to create additional growth in the coming quarters and years. We remain committed to returning capital to our shareholders through our previously announced $2 billion share repurchase program and further data center contracting opportunities, including support for the AWS ramp and potential acceleration opportunities established in the existing PPA, and we're always evaluating accretive M&A opportunities. We will continue to maintain capital discipline and focus on the most accretive levers that meaningfully increase free cash flow per share available to investors while seeking compelling growth opportunities through the Talen flywheel. Now slide 12.

我們在幻燈片中展示了這種影響，並指出我們已經——我們已經在利用這些槓桿，正如 Cornerstone 收購所證明的那樣。我們致力於在未來幾季和幾年內抓住機遇，創造更多成長機會，從而不斷提升我們的業績記錄。我們仍然致力於透過先前宣布的 20 億美元股票回購計劃和進一步的資料中心合約機會（包括支援 AWS 的擴張和現有購電協議中規定的潛在加速機會）向股東返還資本，並且我們一直在評估增值併購機會。我們將繼續保持資本紀律，專注於能夠顯著增加投資者每股自由現金流的最有效槓桿，同時透過 Talen 飛輪尋求引人注目的成長機會。現在播放第12張投影片。

Our balance sheet strength is a strategic asset that gives us the flexibility to execute the flywheel and grow our free cash flow per share. We remain committed to maintaining sufficient liquidity and keeping our long-term net leverage ratio below our stated target of 3.5 times. As of February 20, our net leverage ratio using our current net debt level and 2026 EBITDA guidance midpoint is 3.0 times. Upon closing the Cornerstone transaction, we expect to maintain the ability to achieve below 3.5 times net leverage on a go-forward basis by year-end 2026.

我們強大的資產負債表是一項策略性資產，使我們能夠靈活地執行飛輪效應並提高每股自由現金流。我們將繼續致力於保持充足的流動性，並將長期淨槓桿率保持在3.5倍以下的目標水準。截至 2 月 20 日，根據我們目前的淨債務水準和 2026 年 EBITDA 指引中位數計算，我們的淨槓桿率為 3.0 倍。完成 Cornerstone 交易後，我們預計到 2026 年底，淨槓桿率將維持在 3.5 倍以下。

I'll turn it back to Mac.

我會把它改回Mac系統。

All right. Thanks, Cole. With that, Michelle, why don't we open the line for questions.

好的。謝謝你，科爾。那麼，米歇爾，我們現在開始接受提問吧。

(Operator Instructions)

（操作說明）

David Arcaro, Morgan Stanley.

大衛‧阿卡羅，摩根士丹利。

Maybe if I could ask for a little bit more color on how you're thinking about the backstop auction. Just generally with some of the policy uncertainty in PJM, is it still -- or how are your contract negotiations and discussions progressing? Is there still interest? And is it still possible to successfully reach contracts while some of this uncertainty is going on in PJM?

或許我可以問您能否更詳細地談談您對後備拍賣的看法。鑑於 PJM 目前存在一些政策上的不確定性，你們的合約談判和討論進展如何？還有興趣嗎？在PJM市場存在一些不確定因素的情況下，是否仍有可能成功達成合約？

David, it's Mac. I'll start and then anybody else can jump in. Look, first of all, with respect to the RBA, which is now being couched as the RBP is a procurement more than an auction, at least in our view because we think it should be done as pay as bid, and that's the distinction that's being made there. And I think that that's how it's starting to be referred to even at PJM. But look, I think that when you implement -- the concept of the backstop is to come in and use the existing tariff by which to procure and to fill a resource adequacy need for the out years, which would therefore relieve some of the tightness, if you will, in the market.

大衛，是Mac。我先開始，然後其他人可以加入。首先，關於 RBA（現在被包裝成 RBP），它更像是一次採購而不是拍賣，至少在我們看來是這樣，因為我們認為它應該按投標價格支付，這就是區別所在。而且我認為，即使在 PJM 內部，人們也開始這樣稱呼它了。但是，我認為，當你實施時——後備方案的概念是利用現有的關稅來採購，以滿足未來幾年的資源充足性需求，從而緩解市場的一些緊張。

But again, it's still keep -- if it's done at the same levels of whatever the load projections are, it wouldn't change the outcome. That's our view on that. So it's there to provide the supply to maintain the reserve margin because you know the last auction would have cleared over $500 if it had not been for the $330 cap that was imposed on that. But that backstop procurement in our mind, actually provides a relief valve and therefore, allows for contracts to continue to go forward. And it's one of the things -- it was one of the tenets of the NEDCs statement that came out, the National Energy Dominance Council in that group when they put that forth, said that in addition to it being onetime and limited and then there should be longer-term capacity reforms and then return to the outcome, but it should allow for continuation of existing contracts.

但話說回來，如果按照預期的負荷水準進行施工，結果也不會改變。這就是我們的看法。所以它的存在是為了提供供應以維持儲備金，因為你知道，如果不是因為對上次拍賣施加了 330 美元的上限，上次拍賣的價格本可以超過 500 美元。但我們認為，這種後備採購機制實際上起到了緩解作用，因此可以確保合約繼續進行。這也是國家能源主導委員會 (NEDC) 發表的聲明中的一項原則，該委員會在提出這項聲明時表示，除了應該採取一次性和有限的措施外，還應該進行更長期的產能改革，然後再根據結果進行調整，但應該允許繼續履行現有合約。

And I think that by gaining more certainty as we work our way through the process that obviously continues to support that. And so that is, as a practical matter, we view that as a relief valve to doing existing contracts. And as far as existing contracts and the discussions that are on going there across the fleet and across our pipeline of opportunities, those have not slowed down. I think that the regulatory uncertainty, who pays for this and how it gets paid for and how it gets allocated and how it gets procured and all of that, will work its way through. But data centers are coming and they're not slowing down.

我認為，隨著我們逐步推進這個過程，我們獲得的確定性也越來越多，這顯然會繼續支持這一點。因此，實際上，我們將其視為履行現有合約的一種緩解措施。至於現有的合約以及正在整個艦隊和我們潛在合作機會範圍內進行的討論，這些工作並沒有放緩。我認為監管方面的不確定性，例如誰來支付這筆費用、如何支付、如何分配、如何採購等等，都會逐步解決。但資料中心正在興起，發展勢頭絲毫沒有減弱的跡象。

And any time you talk to or hear any of the analyst calls, whether it be from the chip manufacturers to the hyperscalers themselves, they continue to talk about the race for creating data centers on the ground, powering them today, powering them in '28 and then soon '29 will become the new '28. And so I think that as we progress through that, it just further aids in the ability to continue those discussions. So we don't see any slowdown to it. And we think that the RBP will ultimately provide for -- will increase the level of those discussions.

無論你與分析師交談或收聽他們的電話會議，無論是晶片製造商還是超大規模資料中心營運商，他們都在不斷談論實地建設資料中心的競賽，為今天的資料中心提供動力，為 2028 年的資料中心提供動力，然後很快 2029 年就會成為新的 2028 年。所以我認為，隨著我們不斷推進這項工作，這將進一步幫助我們繼續進行這些討論。所以我們沒有看到任何放緩的跡象。我們認為，RBP最終將促進——將提升這些討論的水平。

Got it. Yeah. I appreciate that color. And then maybe when it comes to the procurement, do you have upgrades or new builds that you think might be opportunities to bid in to the procurement?

知道了。是的。我喜歡這個顏色。那麼，在採購方面，您是否有升級或新建項目，您認為這些項目可能是參與投標的機會？

We are working on a set of opportunities in the new build front. We do think that upgrades should count if you're asking that, if you're asking specifically if we have upgrades, most of the upgrades that we had at Susquehanna were put in about 10 years ago. So there's not a lot that goes there that you may hear from other producers. But there are opportunities we've been working on thinking across the spectrum of the form of generation, whether it be batteries, CTs or CCGTs in developing those opportunities. And look, with a 15-year contract at the right price, you can make the math work there. So obviously, we're gearing that up. And once the rules are more defined, we would look to see how we can participate.

我們正在努力把握新建專案的一系列機會。如果您問的是升級改造是否應該算在內，我們認為升級改造應該算在內。如果您具體問的是我們是否有升級改造，那麼我們在薩斯奎哈納的大部分升級改造都是大約 10 年前進行的。所以，這裡發生了很多你可能從其他製作人那裡聽到的事情。但是，我們一直在努力思考各種發電形式（無論是電池、CT 還是 CCGT）的各種機會，以開發這些機會。你看，只要簽一份 15 年的合同，價格合適，就能從中獲利。很顯然，我們正在為此做準備。一旦規則更加明確，我們將考慮如何參與。

Angie Storozynski, Seaport.

安吉·斯托羅津斯基，海港。

So I'm just trying to link the comments that we're hearing from PPL and AP to your generation contracting. So for example, the comment that you quoted yourself, right, in the slides that PPL expects 10 gigs of load under ESAs by the end of the first quarter, which sounds like one more month. How does that relate to you being the largest generation company in the PPL zone and the -- signing generation contracts to back this 10 gigs of load?

所以我只是想把我們從 PPL 和 AP 那裡聽到的評論與你們的發電合約聯繫起來。例如，您在幻燈片中引用的那句話，對吧，PPL 預計到第一季末，ESA 下的負載將達到 10 吉比特，這聽起來像是還有一個月的時間。這與貴公司是 PPL 區域內最大的發電公司，以及簽署發電合約來支持這 10 吉比特負載有何關係？

Well, I mean, first, we don't have that list just to be specific. I mean PPL does. So what's in that list specifically, you'd have to talk to them. But I do think that is a very supporting point to the question that was just asked that this is not slowing down and that PPL is signing up the ESAs. Now signing up ESAs, you don't necessarily need to procure your energy and capacity or -- but what you're doing is making a commitment to pay for the network upgrades and the rest of it.

嗯，我的意思是，首先，具體來說，我們沒有那份清單。我的意思是PPL確實會這樣做。所以具體清單上有什麼內容，你得跟他們談談。但我認為這有力地支持了剛才提出的問題，即這一進程並沒有放緩，PPL 正在簽署 ESA。現在簽署能源服務協議，你不一定需要採購能源和容量，但你實際上是承諾支付網路升級和其他相關費用。

That to me is just a -- that's a highly positive sign this -- that supports that nothing is slowing down. Now we don't have what the list is. But obviously, we're working a pipeline of opportunities ourselves and to participate on that front going forward.

對我來說，這絕對是一個非常積極的信號，表明一切都在加速發展。現在我們還不知道名單上的內容是什麼。但很顯然，我們自己也在積極尋找機會，並計劃未來參與這方面的工作。

So look, Angie, the ESA point, that's the first step. I mean without an ESA, data centers aren't going to contract for -- under a PPA, right? So I think that's just a good kind of leading indicator of PPAs coming. And just to be really clear, we obviously have announced 2 gigawatts roughly of tangible PPA in that zone. So I mean, again, leave it to PPL to break down their count, but that's 2 of the 10 right there.

所以你看，安吉，ESA 點，那是第一步。我的意思是，如果沒有環境服務協議 (ESA)，資料中心就不會簽訂購電協議 (PPA)，對吧？所以我認為這很好地預示著購電協議（PPA）即將達成。為了更清楚地說明，我們已經宣佈在該區域簽署了大約 2 吉瓦的實際購電協議。所以我的意思是，PPL 還是會詳細統計，但這裡列出的就是 10 個中的 2 個。

Okay. Okay. I mean we're waiting as you are aware. So maybe know about --

好的。好的。正如你所知，我們一直在等待。所以或許應該了解一下--

Angie, I just -- I would just further add that we have a model that we're doing it with hyperscalers, but there's other people that develop that are just, I'll call them, co-locators, which are your typical data center people, which is build and connect data centers and then lease those out. And that is where energy and capacity typically can be just -- or in the old paradigm was a pass-through. Okay. So to Cole's point, you get the ESA first even in our model and then get the energy and capacity. But in some models, it just takes from the grid and as energy is a pass-through.

安吉，我只想補充一點，我們目前採用的模式是與超大規模資料中心營運商合作，但也有其他一些開發商，我稱他們為託管營運商，也就是典型的資料中心營運商，他們負責建造和連接資料中心，然後將其出租。而能量和容量通常只能起到傳遞作用——或者在舊範式中，它們只是一個通道。好的。所以正如 Cole 所說，即使在我們的模型中，你也要先獲得 ESA，然後再獲得能量和容量。但在某些模型中，它只是從電網獲取電力，而能源則是一種過載。

And so it takes the lease -- the person that is signing the lease -- signing up for the lease to decide to contract for energy and capacity there. But again, hyperscalers and the like and the development model we have is powered land, get the ESA, get the energy capacity and then you put all that together and you have what we did at Susquehanna.

因此，需要透過租賃合約——也就是簽署租賃合約的人——來決定是否在那裡簽訂能源和容量合約。但是，超大規模資料中心之類的，以及我們所採用的發展模式，就是擁有動力土地，獲得歐洲太空總署 (ESA) 的許可，獲得能源容量，然後把所有這些結合起來，就得到了我們在薩斯奎哈納所做的一切。

Okay. So the -- my other question is about slide 11, and I know it's the same slide that you had in your Analyst Day presentation. So two things. One is the upside potential to the free cash flow per share, you're showing for 2028. So is this that there is no potential upside to, say, '27? So that's number one. And number two is, as you show us the new 1 gig of data center PPAs and then accelerated Susquehanna contract by 480. Is it just that metric, 480 here and 1 gig there? Is it just like a measurement? Or is it that this is basically what you would expect to happen as potential upside? So is it basically the cap of again, additional data center PPAs and additional ramp under the Susquehanna contract by '28?

好的。所以——我的另一個問題是關於第 11 張幻燈片的，我知道這和你分析師日演講中的幻燈片是一樣的。所以有兩件事。一是每股自由現金流的潛在成長空間，這是您展示的 2028 年數據。所以，這是否意味著像 2027 年這樣的年份沒有任何潛在的上漲空間？這是第一點。第二點是，正如你向我們展示的，新的 1 千兆資料中心 PPA，然後加速 Susquehanna 合約 480。難道只是這個指標的問題嗎？這裡480，那裡1GB？它就像一種測量方法嗎？或者說，這基本上就是你預期的潛在利多因素？所以，這基本上就是 2028 年 Susquehanna 合約下新增資料中心購電協議和新增產能上限嗎？

Yeah. Let me just provide some context on the slide overall, Angie, to answer your question, then Cole's going to take the 480. But when we did this slide at Investor Day, we ended with the 2028 outlook. And so we were showing levers that could pull, that would further increase free cash flow per share out there. Now the timing of them, they were all done off of a '28.

是的。安吉，讓我先提供一些關於這張幻燈片的整體背景信息，以回答你的問題，然後科爾將要乘坐 480 號飛機。但在投資者日上展示這張幻燈片時，我們最後展望的是 2028 年的情況。因此，我們展示了一些可以採取的措施，這些措施可以進一步提高每股自由現金流。至於它們的製作時間，它們都是在 28 年完成的。

Now the timing of them, if you look we pulled Cornerstone forward into 2027, and probably we can pull some of it into 2026 with the expected close here. So we're even -- there's more upside there to this guidance. But we were just showing it like if you looked at '28 as the terminal year that we were showing, we wanted to show that there's more levers to pull to create more value as we see the implementation of the flywheel. One of those was the -- and this is all without any repurchase built into it. And well, that's why we put the pluses at the top of this, but it didn't -- where it says $4 plus or $31.10 plus, $31.40 plus up at the top of the bars.

現在來看時間安排，如果你看一下，我們已經把 Cornerstone 專案提前到了 2027 年，而且隨著這裡預計的收盤，我們可能還可以把其中一部分提前到 2026 年。所以我們現在勢均力敵——這份指導還有更大的上升空間。但我們只是想說明，如果你把 28 年作為我們展示的終點年份，我們想表明，隨著飛輪效應的實施，還有更多可以發揮作用的槓桿來創造更多價值。其中之一是——而且這一切都沒有包含任何回購條款。所以，我們才把加號放在最上面，但它並沒有——在長條圖的頂部寫著 4 美元加、31.10 美元加、31.40 美元加。

But none of this is with share repurchases, right? And so we outlined that. We put the accretive M&A. We pulled that forward. Why don't we talk about the 480 and then maybe I can hit the last one on the chart.

但這都與股票回購無關，對吧？因此，我們概述了這一點。我們進行了增值併購。我們把這件事提了出來。我們先來聊聊480吧，然後也許我可以打進排行榜上的最後一個。

Yeah, the 480 and the 1 gigawatt, those were just to be representative. So folks can make their own assumptions and scale, right? So by 2028, the contract, as we've disclosed before, gets only up to the first 480 megawatts. So we just put out what it would take to get to the 960. We could have gone all the way to 1920, we didn't think that was necessarily helpful. We wanted to show the impact of every 480. And then on the data center -- the new data center PPA wasted a standard 1 gigawatt. Is it more potentially and you could scale from there.

是的，480瓦和1吉瓦只是舉個例子。所以大家可以自己做假設和規模估算，對吧？因此，正如我們之前所披露的那樣，到 2028 年，該合約只能達到最初的 480 兆瓦。所以我們公佈了達到 960 所需付出的努力。我們本來可以追溯到 1920 年，但我們認為那未必有用。我們想展示每480個單位的影響。然後是資料中心——新的資料中心購電協議浪費了標準的 1 吉瓦電力。它更有潛力，你可以以此為基礎來擴展。

But I think it's also an important part as to why that was the new 1 gigawatt data center. If you think about it, Angie, and you think about the ramp that's going on at Susquehanna, as Cole just described, any new data center PPA, and this maybe is going to feed into perhaps a little bit more of a discussion. I said we won't discuss Montour, but maybe we'll unpack it a little bit for you. And -- but the 1 gigawatt data center PPA is really more than likely post-2028 because when you think about when you've got to build data centers like it is going on at Susquehanna, there'd be a ramp rate and so that's why we showed that out there on '28. That one is probably the least likely to be pulled forward early because even if there was a signed contract today on the so-called Montour deal or some other virtual PPA across our pipelines of opportunity, the delivery of those megawatts is not going to be 2028.

但我認為這也是為什麼會選擇建造新的 1 吉瓦資料中心的重要原因之一。安吉，如果你仔細想想，想想科爾剛才描述的薩斯奎哈納正在發生的轉變，任何新的數據中心購電協議，這或許會引發更多討論。我說過我們不討論蒙圖爾，但或許我們可以稍微為你解讀。而且——但 1 吉瓦資料中心購電協議 (PPA) 很可能在 2028 年之後才會達成，因為當你考慮到像薩斯奎哈納 (Susquehanna) 那樣正在建設的資料中心時，就會有一個逐步增加的速度，所以這就是為什麼我們在 2028 年展示了這一點。那項協議最不可能提前執行，因為即使今天就所謂的蒙圖爾協議或其他一些我們潛在項目線上的虛擬購電協議簽署了合同，這些兆瓦電力的交付也不會在 2028 年完成。

And this is something that I find very interesting, going back to the Montour whether Montour happens today or happens 6 months from now, it really is irrelevant to win the megawatts would flow under that type of arrangement because they're not going to be delivered until '28 and they're going to ramp up from there more than likely. So this is why I said there was a lot of sort of short-term discussion and sort of frenzied outcome around the County Commission vote. But when you look at it in the delivery of the megawatts, we're still on that long arc, as I described. The long arc hasn't changed. It's a short-term hurdle.

我覺得這很有意思，回到蒙圖爾協議，無論蒙圖爾協議是今天生效還是6個月後生效，贏得該協議下兆瓦電力的輸送量其實都無關緊要，因為這些電力要到2028年才會交付，而且很可能會從那時開始逐步增加。所以這就是為什麼我說，圍繞縣委員會投票有很多短期討論，結果也有些混亂。但從兆瓦級電力傳輸的角度來看，我們仍然處於漫長的發展階段，正如我所描述的。長弧線沒有改變。這只是短期障礙。

Now would we -- rather the commission vote the other way? Absolutely, no doubt. But we are commercial, and we're going to figure that out. And we have a number of other opportunities in the pipeline that avail themselves to do the same thing. And so that's what we're looking at is adding another gigawatt data center contract, but the delivery won't start until '28, and it's almost irrelevant of when it's signed in 2026.

我們更希望委員會投下反對票嗎？當然，毫無疑問。但我們是商業公司，我們會解決這個問題。我們還有許多其他機會正在籌備中，這些機會也能發揮同樣的作用。所以，我們現在考慮的是再增加一份千兆瓦資料中心合同，但要到 2028 年才會開始交付，而 2026 年何時簽署幾乎無關緊要。

Can I ask just one follow-up on that one? Why is it at all linked to that Montour site? Because let's -- again, it's just assuming that it is potentially with AWS. I mean AWS has other sites in the PPL zone. And you have, as you said, existing assets in the PPL zone, your Susquehanna 2.0 contract supply, those other sites that are already -- data center sites that are being developed. So why couldn't I have a PPA that serves some of those other sites that are being developed and as such, the impact on the '28 EBITDA would actually be likely?

我可以再問一個後續問題嗎？為什麼它會和蒙圖爾的網站有關聯？因為我們——再次強調，這只是假設它可能與 AWS 有關。我的意思是，AWS 在 PPL 區域還有其他網站。正如您所說，您在 PPL 區域擁有現有資產，您的 Susquehanna 2.0 合約供應，以及其他已經建成的資料中心站點，以及正在開發的資料中心站點。那麼，為什麼我不能簽訂一份購電協議 (PPA) 來服務一些正在開發的其​​他站點，從而對 2028 年的 EBITDA 產生實際影響呢？

Excellent point, and you're making our point for us, which is that it is a virtual PPAs. And I'm going to come back and answer your question specifically. But if you go to the Susquehanna, when we moved it to the front-of-the-meter, remember, we said one of the attributes of that transaction was, is that we're obligated to deliver anywhere in Pennsylvania. So that goes back to this 480 acceleration, if there's other data centers, they can be -- they can take under that contract early, but then they're going to have -- if they build more than the 1920, they're going to have to add more megawatts in the back end, that's Amazon. That's just Amazon.

你說的很有道理，你剛好印證了我們的觀點，那就是它是一個虛擬的PPA（購買和付款協議）。我稍後會回來專門回答你的問題。但是，如果你去薩斯奎哈納河，當我們把它移到電錶前面時，請記住，我們說過，那次交易的特點之一是，我們有義務在賓夕法尼亞州的任何地方送貨。所以，這又回到了 480 加速的問題上，如果還有其他資料中心，他們可以——他們可以提前簽訂合同，但是如果他們建造的容量超過 1920 兆瓦，他們就必須在後端增加更多的兆瓦，這就是亞馬遜。這就是亞馬遜。

There's others out there other than just Amazon. But with respect to your question about does it need to be linked to Montour, not necessarily, okay? There's a 1,200 or 1,000 megawatt or 1,200 megawatt or 960 megawatts, whatever the right number is, here, we just do 1 gig. Does that contract need to tie specifically to a site? Not necessarily.

除了亞馬遜之外，還有其他選擇。但關於你問的是否需要與蒙圖爾連結起來，不一定，好嗎？無論是 1,200 兆瓦、1,000 兆瓦、1,200 兆瓦或 960 兆瓦，不管正確的數字是多少，在這裡，我們只做 1 吉瓦。該合約是否需要與特定地點掛鉤？未必。

Because, again, it's about the delivery point. But it is when you think about if you're a data center developer, whether it's Amazon, whether it's anybody else, you need to have sites with a line of sight to be able to construct the data center by which to direct the megawatts to, okay? So while they are somewhat interrelated, they're not necessarily discretely intertwined. They can be, but they don't have to be.

因為，歸根結底，關鍵在於交付點。但當你想到如果你是資料中心開發商，無論是亞馬遜還是其他任何公司，你都需要有視線通達的地點來建造資料中心，以便將兆瓦電力引導到那裡，明白嗎？因此，雖然它們之間存在某種關聯，但它們並非必然是完全交織在一起的。可以，但不一定。

Michael Sullivan, Wolfe.

麥可·沙利文，沃爾夫。

I wanted to maybe just unpack a little more of some of the cross currents within Pennsylvania, I guess, in light of latest commentary from Governor Shapiro and then with all this PPL load coming to the forward's here. I guess, where does existing generation versus new generation fit in? Can it all be served with the excess transmission capacity? And when do we need to start thinking about new build and how that ties to the political kind of rhetoric?

我想，鑑於州長夏皮羅的最新言論，以及即將運抵這裡的大量 PPL 貨物，或許可以更深入地探討賓州內部的一些複雜局勢。我想問的是，現有世代與新一代之間的關係該如何界定？剩餘的輸電容量能否滿足所有需求？我們何時需要開始考慮新項目以及這與政治言論有何關聯？

Yeah. I think the political rhetoric is focused on affordability, focused on resource adequacy. And again, we think the RBP is the way to solve that. And it does provide a relief valve. I think that in any of the proposals, it contemplates that there is a carve-out for existing contracts with respect to cost allocation.

是的。我認為政治言論的重點在於可負擔性，在於資源充足性。我們再次認為 RBP 是解決這個問題的方法。它確實起到了洩壓閥的作用。我認為，在所有提案中，都考慮到了現有合約在成本分攤方面的例外情況。

That's one of the things that's been talked about. Like when you go procure and the NEDC used $15 billion as a number, how do you allocate that? But it would not be allocated to new loads if they had an existing contract. That's somewhat standard across the different coalitions, our coalition, other coalitions, there's an exemption for existing contracts. So again, it allows us to continue.

這是大家討論過的事情之一。例如，當你進行採購時，如果NEDC使用了150億美元的預算，你該如何分配這筆錢？但如果新裝載的貨物已有合同，則不會分配這筆費用。這在不同的聯盟中都算是比較標準的，包括我們的聯盟和其他聯盟，但現有合約可以豁免。所以，這又讓我們得以繼續下去。

It's yet to be seen how that allocation and the rest of the RBP will pan out. But in the meantime, again, I go back to nothing stopping. And so people are in the process of lining things up and trying to figure out where they go from here with respect to the RBP. But let me turn it over to Cole and see if he's got anything to add here.

該撥款以及剩餘的 RBP 將如何實施，還有待觀察。但同時，我又回到了原點，一切都停滯不前。因此，人們正在安排好一切，並試圖弄清楚在 RBP 方面他們接下來該怎麼做。不過，我還是把麥克風交給科爾，看看他有沒有什麼補充。

Yeah. All I'd say, Michael, is I think everyone would agree that data centers are coming and the loads are going to continue to increase and ramp up in 2027, 2028 and 2029 and continue from there. I don't know too many -- too much new gen that can actually serve that load. So we are -- continue to focus on conversations around existing gen. Obviously, at some point, new generation needs to come online.

是的。邁克爾，我只想說，我認為大家都會同意，資料中心即將到來，而且在 2027 年、2028 年和 2029 年，負載將繼續增加並加速成長，並且以後還會繼續增長。我認識的不多——太多新一代的機器能夠真正勝任這份工作。所以，我們將繼續專注於圍繞現有世代的對話。顯然，在某個時候，新一代用戶需要連接到網路。

Those decisions need to be made soon. Obviously, the RBP is one angle, bilateral contract is another angle. And I think we've said fairly consistently that we think over time will start to shift to kind of hybrid models where there's existing gen powering the first three to five year build-out of the data centers across Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and so forth. And then eventually backed by a second either upscaling of a PPA or a second PPA that enables new generation to kind of fill the gap from there.

這些決定需要盡快做出。顯然，RBP 是一個角度，雙邊合約是另一個角度。而且我認為我們一直都認為，隨著時間的推移，我們將開始轉向混合模式，利用現有的發電技術為賓夕法尼亞州、俄亥俄州、印第安納州等地的資料中心在最初三到五年的建設提供電力。然後最終透過第二個購電協議 (PPA) 的升級或第二個購電協議 (PPA) 來支持，從而使新一代能夠填補缺口。

New generation is either bring your own power or new generation that's procured through the RBP. So that's why this is all still going on, but it's sort of you wane off of the existing and you come on to the new, and it's whether it comes through the RBP or whether people bring their own power, that's yet to be determined. But I think to Cole's point, that's where you're going to see things heading.

新一代電力要么來自自帶電力，要么來自透過 RBP 採購的新一代電力。所以這就是這一切仍在繼續的原因，但某種程度上來說，就是你逐漸從現有的事物中抽身，走向新的事物，至於這種轉變是透過 RBP 來實現，還是由人們自身的力量來實現，還有待確定。但我認為，正如科爾所說，事情的發展方向正是如此。

And Michael, maybe to add to those comments. Obviously, in the PJM discussions that are taking place around the RBP specifically to Governor Shapiro, his team is engaged in that. They're involved in the discussions. They've heard the proposals from the different coalition groups. They're an active participants. I think generally, obviously, the concept is going to get additional gen procured as it moves forward. And so I think they're supportive of that. And so they remain active and remain engaged, and they're right in the mix just with all the other stakeholders.

麥可或許也想補充一些意見。顯然，在圍繞 RBP 進行的 PJM 討論中，特別是針對州長夏皮羅的討論中，他的團隊也參與其中。他們參與了討論。他們已經聽取了不同聯盟團體的提議。他們是積極的參與者。我認為總的來說，很明顯，隨著專案的推進，這個概念將會獲得更多的發電量。所以我認為他們會支持這種做法。因此，他們保持活躍，保持參與，與其他利害關係人一樣，都處於其中。

Okay. Great. And then I just wanted to ask on -- you mentioned -- I know you don't want to get into individual opportunities, but just within your pipeline, the organic opportunities, the inorganic powered land, maybe just more color on how you weigh those economics, speed? Presumably, you have a lot of land already, but maybe just the value prop of the inorganic powered land angle.

好的。偉大的。然後我想問一下——您提到過——我知道您不想討論具體的機會，但就您的專案流程而言，包括有機成長機會和非有機成長機會，您能否更詳細地說明一下您是如何權衡這些經濟效益和速度的？想必您已經擁有很多土地，但或許您重視的是土地的非有機屬性價值。

Yeah. Look, Michael, it's a great question, and it's something that in a perfect world for just talking to investors, it's something we'd be excited to talk about. But every time we do, we're running a commercial trade in our face or we're creating an expectation about a certain outcome. And so that's why I made this opening remarks. It's not because there's not a frenzy level of activity going on here at Talen, there is.

是的。邁克爾，這是一個很好的問題，如果只是和投資者談論這個問題，在理想情況下，我們很樂意談論這個問題。但每次我們這樣做，要不是在進行一場與我們自身利益相悖的商業交易，就是在製造一種對某種結果的預期。這就是我發表這番開場白的原因。並不是說Talen這裡沒有發生什麼瘋狂的事情，恰恰相反，這裡非常忙碌。

And it's around our existing sites, and it's around sites that aren't existing that other people have that want to work with us to do things, but we're not going to get into the specifics of those and how we're doing it because, one, it's commercially sensitive; and two, it creates these expectations. And so look, we created those expectations around Montour, our fault. No doubt about it. And -- but we'll figure that out. There's Plan B.

這涉及到我們現有的網站，也涉及到其他人想要與我們合作開展一些事情但尚未存在的網站，但我們不會透露這些網站的具體細節以及我們是如何做的，因為，首先，這涉及商業機密；其次，這會造成一些誤解和期望。所以你看，我們給蒙圖爾製造了這些期望，這是我們的錯。這點毋庸置疑。——但我們會想辦法解決的。還有備選方案。

But there's other opportunities in our pipeline that give us more of this. I mean if we had done -- if Montour had gone, let's just kind of provide the hypothetical, if Montour had gone and there had been a deal announced on that, everybody would say, what's your next deal? Well, it's not as though we're getting one deal done and then focusing on the next deal. We're working on multiple fronts all the time, okay? And what we realized is that there was just this sort of concentration on one outcome there, which really isn't going to define that long arc that I was trying to describe, that long arc that is constantly growing.

但我們還有其他機會，可以提供我們更多這樣的機會。我的意思是，如果我們當時那樣做了——如果蒙圖爾走了，我們不妨假設一下，如果蒙圖爾走了，並且宣布了一項協議，那麼每個人都會問，你們的下一個協議是什麼？嗯，我們並不是完成一筆交易後就專注於下一筆交易。我們一直在多條戰線上同時開展工作，懂嗎？我們意識到，人們過於專注於某個結果，而這並不能真正定義我試圖描述的那個不斷發展的長弧。

That long arc that's constantly growing with AI capabilities and also our commercial abilities to get these things done. Our commercial abilities to build new build, our commercial abilities to contract new build, our commercial abilities to contract existing as Cole just said or a hybrid of the two. And so we're working on sort of all of the above. We're working on getting prepared for bidding into the RBP if we can find the right pricing mechanisms and if the world works out the way that we think it should with respect to the RBP, we're going to contribute to all of that and it just becomes where do we allocate things. But we did get ourselves, quite frankly, caught in a little bit of this binary view that Montour was going to define what Talen is going to be.

這條漫長的弧線隨著人工智慧能力的提升以及我們實現這些目標的商業能力的增強而不斷擴展。正如科爾剛才所說，我們有能力建造新建築，有能力承包新建築，有能力承包現有建築，或兩者兼而有之。所以，我們正在努力實現以上所有目標。我們正在努力做好準備，爭取參與 RBP 的競標。如果我們能找到合適的定價機制，而 RBP 的發展方向也如我們所想的那樣，我們將為 RBP 做出貢獻，剩下的問題就是如何分配資源。但坦白說，我們確實陷入了一種二元對立的觀點，認為蒙圖爾將定義塔倫的未來走向。

And we're just not going to get down that because of that one issue, but because also it impedes our ability to develop other things. And we're just steering away from that going forward. So probably doesn't satisfy your question, and -- but unfortunately, that's the path we're going down.

我們不會因為這一個問題就放棄它，而且它還會阻礙我們開發其他事物的能力。而我們今後正努力避免這種情況。所以這可能無法解答你的問題，而且——但不幸的是，這就是我們要走的路。

Jeremy Tonet, JPMorgan Securities.

Jeremy Tonet，摩根大通證券。

Just want to build, I guess, on some of your comments right here. And as the hyperscaler is head to DC next week. Just wondering what do you see, I guess, could be possible coming out of this? When those discussions of bringing their own generation, what does this mean in Talen's view? And how do you think this could impact market architecture?

我想就您剛才的一些評論補充一些內容。這家超大規模資料中心營運商下週將前往華盛頓特區。我只是想知道，你覺得這件事可能會帶來什麼結果？在塔倫看來，關於引入他們自己這一代的討論意味著什麼？你認為這會對市場架構產生什麼樣的影響？

Jeremy, Mac, I'll go first here. We don't know what they're going to commit to. There's been speculation as to what they're going to commit to. I think what you've seen is a commitment publicly by all of them to pay their fair share. The definition of what is fair share is interesting.

傑瑞米，麥克，我先來。我們不知道他們會做出怎樣的承諾。外界一直在猜測他們會做出怎樣的承諾。我認為你們看到的是他們所有人公開承諾支付自己應盡的份額。對「公平份額」的定義很有趣。

From my perspective, and we've said this in many of forum, you don't -- PJM is an RTO that is based off of not this concept that the next incremental megawatt pays for the next -- of load pays for the next incremental megawatt of generation. It's never been that case. You have states that are deficit in generation that have paid for transmission and are using it. You have LSEs that are incredibly short. We happen to be in an LSE that's long in Pennsylvania and PPL and long transmission that has the ability to absorb these things.

從我的角度來看，我們也在許多論壇上說過，PJM 是一個區域輸電組織，它並非基於「下一個新增兆瓦的電力負載可以支付下一個新增兆瓦的發電量」這種概念。事實並非如此。有些州發電能力不足，但它們已經支付了輸電費用並正在使用輸電設施。你們的倫敦政經學院考試時間非常短。我們恰好位於一個擁有賓夕法尼亞州和PPL長輸電線路的倫敦證券交易所，該線路有能力吸收這些電力。

So it's all going to get around to the definition of what are they committed to in terms of what is fair share or pay for it in that definition, I don't know what they're going to commit to, Jeremy.

所以，最終還是要回到他們承諾要如何定義公平份額或為此付出的代價的問題。傑里米，我不知道他們會做出怎樣的承諾。

Got it. Fair enough there. We'll see what happens. And just wondering if we could pivot the conversation more towards, I guess, contracting as it relates to gas contracting, maybe the evolution of those discussions over time? And any comments you might be able to provide around hyperscaler appetite around absorbing the gas risk? Or could there be fixed capacity plus heat rate type of arrangements? Just wondering what you might -- how those conversations have evolved over time, where you see them going?

知道了。說得有道理。我們拭目以待。我想知道我們是否可以將討論的重點更多地轉向，例如與天然氣合約相關的合約問題，以及這些討論隨著時間的推移而發生的演變？您能否就超大規模資料中心營運商承擔天然氣風險的意願提供一些看法？或者是否存在固定容量加熱率類型的方案？我只是好奇您怎麼看——隨著時間的推移，這些對話是如何演變的，您認為它們會朝著哪個方向發展？

Jeremy, it's Cole. Look, I think we've talked about this a few times. I think -- not to be affluent, but the answer depends on the counterparty, right? So some hyperscalers may have more appetite to take on the cost variability of gas and some less. So you mentioned a couple of different variations of contracting.

傑里米，我是科爾。我覺得我們已經討論過好幾次這個問題了。我認為——並非一定要富有，但答案取決於交易對手，對嗎？因此，一些超大規模資料中心可能更願意承擔 gas 成本的波動，而有些則不太願意。你提到了幾種不同的合約形式。

I think it's suffice to say, we've explored a lot of different structures internally and with counterparties. And I think there's a number of different avenues to ultimately contract and protect ourselves in any structure here. And we've got a commercial desk that Chris leads that can also manage that position. And if we contracted in that manner, we would obviously have a different premium structure in the PPA to kind of accommodate that aspect. So I think there's a variety of different structures. And obviously, when we have a deal announced, we'll probably talk about that a little bit more.

我認為可以肯定地說，我們已經在內部和與交易對手之間探索了許多不同的結構。我認為，在任何組織架構下，都有許多不同的途徑可以最終約束和保護我們自己。我們還有一個由克里斯領導的商業部門，也可以勝任這個職位。如果我們以這種方式簽訂合同，那麼購電協議中顯然會採用不同的保費結構來適應這一方面。所以我認為存在多種不同的結構。顯然，當我們宣布達成協議時，我們可能會對此進行更詳細的討論。

I would just add on to -- Cole is exactly right. It's going to be dependent upon what somebody wants. But if I was advising somebody who is buying this, I would say that you want somebody who manages the commodity risk to take the commodity risk and to pay for somebody to do that unless you're going to warehouse that risk yourself. And we are set up to do that. And that's what we've talked about being able to provide credit support to be able to do that, to be able to manage the gas risk, to be able to manage the physical gas delivery to our plants and the rest of it, even if it's just financial, manage that financial risk associated with the gas. And so that's the service that we're trying to provide that full suite. Now someone to Cole's point, people can pick and choose across that, but that would be what we would advise.

我只想補充一點——科爾說得完全正確。這取決於個人的意願。但如果我給購買該產品的人建議，我會說，除非你自己打算承擔這種風險，否則你應該找人來管理商品風險，並為此付費。我們已做好充分準備。這就是我們一直在討論的，即提供信貸支持，以便能夠管理天然氣風險，管理向工廠的實際天然氣交付以及其他方面，即使只是財務方面，也要管理與天然氣相關的財務風險。所以，這就是我們努力提供的全套服務。現在有人同意科爾的觀點，人們可以根據自己的喜好進行選擇，但這正是我們建議的做法。

Nicholas Campanella, Barclays.

尼古拉斯·坎帕內拉，巴克萊銀行。

I just -- a lot of good answers in the commentary. But just I just wanted to follow up on how you guys are really trying to frame what's going on around RBA, ratepayer protection pledge, some of the comments that you responded to Michael, just do you still feel that you have the ability to sign gas with incumbent generation in a front-of-meter framework? And just trying to understand if you're really just trying to say that this would only now come with additionality and new build commitment? Maybe you can just kind of clarify just very clearly the expectations there.

我只是——評論裡有很多很好的答案。但我只是想跟進一下，你們究竟是如何試圖圍繞RBA、用戶保護承諾以及你們對Michael的一些評論來構建當前局勢的，你們是否仍然認為你們有能力在電錶前端框架下與現有發電企業簽署天然氣協議？我只是想弄清楚，你是不是真的想說，這只有在新增成本和新的建設承諾的情況下才會發生？或許你可以把這方面的期望明確地表達出來。

Let me be very clear. Yes. We think you can continue to contract with the existing assets.

讓我把話說清楚。是的。我們認為您可以繼續利用現有資產進行合約簽訂。

Others (inaudible).

其他的（聽不清楚）

It's yes. Do we think that there will be some farm that may -- we may build in the future? Yes. I mean I'm not trying to be flippant about it. It's just that the answer is, yes. We believe that there's the capacity to do so. We believe that there's a desire and appetite to do so, and we're working on it.

是的。我們認為將來可能會有一些農場——我們可能會建造農場嗎？是的。我並不是想對這件事輕率對待。答案是肯定的。我們相信有能力做到這一點。我們相信人們有這樣的願望和需求，我們正在努力實現這一目標。

And then just -- I know that in Montour hearing specifically, it was brought up by Amazon that this would not be kind of an additionality deal and that they talked about the current state of the supply chain. And I'm cognizant that some of your peers on their calls have been kind of talking about that they may have new build gas and utilizing turbines or bridge power that others have procured or don't have a spot for. So maybe could you just kind of talk to what your existing kind of EPC relationships would be or your ability to maybe do something either internal via a partnership or inorganic to secure the supply chain further to kind of be able to deliver on that?

然後——我知道在蒙圖爾聽證會上，亞馬遜特別提到，這不會是一項額外交易，他們也談到了供應鏈的現狀。我知道你們的一些同行在電話會議上一直在討論，他們可能新建了燃氣發電廠，並利用了其他人已經採購或沒有地方使用的渦輪機或橋樑電力。所以，您能否談談您現有的EPC合作關係，或者您是否有能力透過內部合作或外部收購來進一步保障供應鏈，從而實現這一目標？

Sure. Happy to do so. And just so you understand, I was just trying to be clear that we think that there's the ability to do so. I wasn't trying to be sharp edge there. But with respect to turbines and EPC relationships and the rest of it, our view and the reason why we've built up and invested in its existing assets is very much to the point, which we think that there's still the capability to use existing assets to contract.

當然。我很樂意這樣做。為了讓你們明白，我只是想明確地表明我們認為我們有能力做到這一點。我當時並不是故意要顯得尖銳。但就渦輪機和EPC關係以及其他方面而言，我們的觀點以及我們建立和投資其現有資產的原因非常明確，那就是我們認為仍然有能力利用現有資產來簽訂合約。

There's a lot of data centers that are out there right now that are looking at whether they contract for a longer period of time, existing ones, right? You saw that in a recent PPA announcement with the existing data center load. I think that when it comes to new build and there's a fair amount of discussion around new build, we view new build very simply. New build is going to require either winning in the RBP and having a 15-year contract that allows for a -- taking the merchant risk of the capacity off, thereby allowing financing or new build is going to require a contract. And so if you have either one of those, okay, and a slight difference with the RBP versus sort of bring your own power or new build generation, as Cole described in the hybrid.

目前有許多資料中心正在考慮是否要延長現有資料中心的租期，對吧？您在最近的PPA公告中已經看到了現有資料中心負載的情況。我認為，當談到新建房屋時（關於新建房屋有很多討論），我們對新建房屋的看法非常簡單。新建專案要麼需要贏得 RBP 並簽訂一份 15 年的合同，從而——將容量的商家風險轉移出去，從而實現融資；要麼新建專案需要簽訂一份合約。所以，如果你有其中任何一個，好的，RBP 與自帶電源或新的構建方式略有不同，正如 Cole 在混合動力中所描述的那樣。

You're going to need the offtake agreement. It is the offtake agreement that defines this, in our opinion, not necessarily the turbine orders or the EPC. And the first group that has an offtake agreement will find all sorts of people that want to invest in it, all sorts of turbines that want to be part of it and all sorts of EPC providers that will want to be part of it because it is a live project once you have either that contract or the RBP award. So hopefully, that answers the question. I think that -- I hear your point, we have relationships with those.

你需要一份承購協議。我們認為，決定這一點的是承購協議，而不是渦輪機訂單或EPC合約。第一個獲得承購協議的集團將會發現各種各樣的人都想投資，各種各樣的渦輪機都想參與其中，各種各樣的EPC供應商都想參與其中，因為一旦你獲得了該合約或RBP獎勵，它就變成了一個實際的項目。希望這能解答你的疑問。我覺得──我明白你的意思，我們和他們有關係。

We put Dale in the spot in the Chief Asset Development Officer role, specifically to focus on technology, costing, EPC work, et cetera. That's very important, but it is the offtake that is most important.

我們讓戴爾擔任首席資產開發長一職，專門負責技術、成本計算、EPC 工作等。這固然重要，但最重要的還是出貨量。

Nick Amicucci, Evercore.

Nick Amicucci，Evercore。

Mac, I'm not going to ask you if you think that you could sign contracts currently. But I did want to ask on -- just as we kind of think about the hedge book kind of looking through 2027, so a lot of upside optionality there, how should we expect that to continue to creep up over time? Or can we -- are we going to -- are we comfortable kind of leaving that open to just given that the forward curve still aren't fully reflective of kind of the tightness?

麥克，我不會問你現在是否認為自己可以簽合約。但我確實想問一下——就像我們展望 2027 年的對沖策略一樣，其中有很多上漲期權，我們應該如何預期它會隨著時間的推移繼續增長？或者，我們能否——我們是否打算——我們是否願意保持這種開放態度，因為遠期曲線仍然無法完全反映出市場的緊張程度？

Thanks, Nick. I'm going to get our Chief Commercial Officer to jump in here. But look, I think in macro and then Chris fill in the spot, but like we saw an opportunity in December of last year, as Terry walked through in his opening remarks, when prices went up to take some '27 off the table or to lock it in through the hedges, okay? We do that not necessarily, as we said, it's a pragmatic, not a programmatic. We don't like set limits like by this date, we got to be this hedge.

謝謝你，尼克。我這就請我們的首席商務官來談談這件事。但你看，我認為從宏觀角度來看，然後克里斯會補充說明，但就像我們在去年 12 月看到的機會一樣，正如特里在開場白中提到的那樣，當時價格上漲，可以把一些 27 年到期的債券賣掉，或者通過對沖鎖定價格，好嗎？我們這樣做並不一定，正如我們所說，這是一種務實的做法，而不是程序化的做法。我們不喜歡設定諸如「到某個日期前，我們必須採取這種對沖措施」之類的限制。

And so when we look at it, we've been saying this for quarters that we haven't seen necessarily the forward market responding, but we saw the forward market responded and we lagged into that (inaudible). Now I can't tell you we see this, and we're sitting here today and sparks have moved up since our Investor Day presentation, they moved up dramatically versus it at some point and then came back down, they're moving all over the place. The good news is the general direction is up and to the right, and we believe that, that's consistent with our fundamental view, but we don't feel the need necessarily to go out and hedge. So it's hard to answer your question specifically, but let me throw that over to Chris.

所以，當我們審視這個問題時，我們已經連續幾個季度強調，我們並沒有看到遠期市場做出相應的反應，但實際上遠期市場確實做出了反應，而我們卻落後了。（聽不清楚）現在我不能告訴你我們看到了這一點，我們今天坐在這裡，自從我們的投資者日演講以來，火花股價已經上漲，在某個時候大幅上漲，然後又回落，它們波動很大。好消息是，大方向是上漲和向右，我們認為這與我們的基本觀點一致，但我們並不覺得有必要出去進行對沖。所以很難具體回答你的問題，我把這個問題交給克里斯來解答吧。

Yeah, you said it. I think we've been leaning in previous quarters on our intentional length in some of the outer periods, waiting for these instances of volatility seemingly happening with more frequency. And so has happened with this winter, as we expect it to continue to happen through the year, the tightening supply and demand will provide real-time opportunities for us to continue to lay off hedges. So we have stated targets. We have ranges. We've been on the lower end of those intentionally so, and we will continue to add to those as the market presents us with compelling opportunities.

是的，你說得對。我認為，在前幾個季度，我們一直依賴在一些外部週期中有意延長持倉時間，等待這種波動似乎越來越頻繁地發生。今年冬天的情況也是如此，我們預計這種情況會持續到年底，供需收緊將為我們繼續平倉提供即時機會。所以我們已經訂定了目標。我們有多種規格。我們有意將持股比例控制在較低水平，隨著市場出現令人信服的機會，我們將繼續增加持股比例。

Yeah. I think that's an important part, which is when we came out of -- it's kind of a trip down memory lane here, but when we came out of (inaudible), people were saying, how are you going to hedge this in and things of that nature, we put out stated targets of 60 to 80 and 40 to 60 prompts and prompt plus 1. And those are guidelines. And so -- but Chris manages the position. We have discussions with Terry, the risk management, Cole, Chris, get together.

是的。我認為這是一個重要的部分，那就是當我們走出——這有點像是一次回憶之旅，但當我們走出（聽不清）時，人們都在問，你們打算如何應對這種情況等等，我們提出了60到80個和40到60個提示以及提示加1個的明確目標。這些只是指導原則。所以——但克里斯負責管理這個職位。我們和風險管理負責人 Terry、Cole、Chris 聚在一起討論。

We talk about this. But when you're managing a big book, you can't just like eventually get to '27, long 10,000 megawatts. And that's what we're starting to become with the addition of Cornerstone, with the addition of Freedom and Guernsey. So you have to take some of these opportunities to some, but then it's not like a forced take it off. We can decide how we want to tilt the book based off of our fundamental view.

我們討論過這個問題。但是，當你管理一本大書時，你不可能最終達到 '27'，長期 10,000 兆瓦。隨著 Cornerstone、Freedom 和 Guernsey 的加入，我們正逐漸變成這樣。所以你必須抓住一些這樣的機會，但這並不意味著你必須脫掉它。我們可以根據自己的基本觀點來決定如何看待這本書。

Yeah. And Nick, maybe to add to that, too, as we get more and more contracted margin in the overall portfolio, right, when we think about just the support to the cash flows that we need, you have less and less need to sort of lock those in. And so once again, when we take a look at our hedging program, we're taking a look at both, what's our contracted margin or contracted cash flows to support the business, be able to make our P&I payments, be able to make sure that we take care of sort of the basic needs. But as we get more and more of the contracted margin from the AWS deal, hedging is -- becomes a little bit more opportunistic. So we'll continue to have that view as we move forward. And I think that's a benefit that we really like having.

是的。尼克，或許還要補充一點，隨著我們整體投資組合的保證金越來越少，對吧，當我們考慮我們需要的現金流支持時，我們就越來越不需要鎖定這些現金流了。因此，當我們再次審視我們的對沖計劃時，我們會同時考慮兩方面：一是我們的合約保證金或合約現金流，以支援業務運營，支付本息，確保我們能夠滿足基本需求。但隨著我們從 AWS 交易中獲得越來越多的合約保證金，對沖操作也變得更有機會主義。所以，我們將繼續秉持這種觀點。我認為這是我們非常喜歡的優勢。

Yeah. No, makes sense. And Cole, just really quickly, just on kind of a cleanup question, I guess, just with regards to the Cornerstone. Now obviously, it's going to depend on the timing, but of the closing of the acquisition. But is it fair to kind of take that $500 million in EBITDA and just kind of allocate that over the -- from the closing date across 2026? Or is there some growth embedded in there in 2027?

是的。沒錯，有道理。科爾，我只想快速問一個關於 Cornerstone 的收尾問題。當然，這取決於收購完成的時間。但是，將這 5 億美元的 EBITDA 從交割日開始，一直分配到 2026 年，這樣做公平嗎？或者說，2027 年是否蘊含著一定的成長潛力？

Nick. Look, I think that's a good run rate number. So we pick your assumption on a close date and I think 12 months forward from there, it's a good round number.

缺口。你看，我覺得這個運行率還挺不錯的。所以我們選擇你假設的截止日期，我認為從那時起 12 個月，這是一個比較合適的整數。

And if you wanted to get just a tad more precise, you got to think about, there's more value in July, August, December winter time frame too across that, but it's good round number.

如果要更精確一些，你還得考慮，7 月、8 月、12 月的冬季時段也更有價值，但這仍然是一個不錯的整數。

Well, you guys know I'm not that precise. So fine.

你們也知道我做事沒那麼精確。很好。

Craig Shere, Tuohy Brothers.

克雷格·謝爾，圖伊兄弟。

A year ago, if we talked about new build, I think that was not really a part of the discussion of Talen. And now it sounds like this is at least something quite plausible that we might have something by year-end, especially through the auction. And I'm wondering how you're thinking about capital and balance sheet management decisions over the next two, three quarters, given the fact you might have some -- obviously, you would only do it if you're incentivized, but you might be incentivized towards some chunky new build. How do you think about maybe being -- would you be less aggressive with the balance sheet or if opportunities arise with the shares down or an acquisition, you're not going to change what you've done in the last year or 1.5 years?

一年前，如果我們談論新建項目，我認為這並不是 Talen 項目討論的重點。現在看來，這至少很有可能在年底前有所進展，特別是透過拍賣。我想知道在接下來的兩到三個季度裡，您是如何考慮資本和資產負債表管理決策的，因為您可能會有一些——顯然，只有在有激勵措施的情況下您才會這樣做，但您可能會有動力去進行一些大型的新建設。你會如何考慮——你會不會在資產負債表方面採取不那麼激進的策略，或者如果股價下跌或出現收購機會，你會不會改變過去一年或一年半以來的做法？

Craig, it's Terry. Maybe one little sort of nuance to your comment. We've always said -- and this really dovetails with Mac's comment a few minutes ago. We've always said, if we've got the right certainty, whether it's through an offtake agreement or a very clear sort of underwriting case with an off-taker, we would be more than happy to do new builds, right? I think we've always had that as one of the talking points we've talked upon.

克雷格，我是特里。或許你的評論可以稍作補充。我們一直都這麼說——這與麥克幾分鐘前的評論不謀而合。我們一直都說，如果我們有足夠的確定性，無論是透過承購協議還是與承購者達成非常明確的承保協議，我們都非常樂意進行新的建設，對吧？我認為這是我們一直以來討論的重點之一。

That being said, I think the RBA is potentially gives you that clarity, right? If we end up in a procurement process where you can get a 15-year commitment, that's very -- that's what you need to underwrite and effectively finance the new build of an asset. That's a challenge that this market has had for the past several years. It's not the question of whether or not you can build something. It's whether or not you can finance it, in PJM in particular.

也就是說，我認為澳儲行或許能讓你更清楚了解狀況，對嗎？如果我們最終進入採購流程，可以獲得 15 年的承諾，那將是非常——這正是你為新建資產提供承銷和有效融資所需要的。這是過去幾年該市場一直面臨的挑戰。這不是你能不能建造任何東西的問題。關鍵在於你是否能夠籌集到資金，尤其是在 PJM 地區。

Now back to your second part of that question, we are always balancing and looking for the highest and best use of our capital, whether that's buying the shares back, whether that's doing M&A, whether that's doing new build, and we're always looking at high teens returns, right? I mean we want to make sure that we stay disciplined in doing that. And so that's why you've seen us toggle through -- I mean, even for the last several years, we've toggled through a number of those different strategies and each time we're looking at returns that are significantly high. I mean just to give you two or three of those examples, we've done a significant amount of share repurchase over the last 2.5 years. I mean we bought back over $2 billion worth of stock, close to like 24% of the total float of the business at an average price of $149 a share.

現在回到你問題的第二部分，我們一直在權衡並尋求資本的最高和最佳用途，無論是回購股票、進行併購還是進行新建項目，我們始終追求兩位數以上的回報率，對吧？我的意思是，我們要確保在這方面保持自律。所以這就是為什麼你們看到我們不斷切換策略——我的意思是，即使在過去幾年裡，我們也一直在切換各種不同的策略，而且每次我們都看到了非常高的回報。舉兩三個例子來說，在過去的兩年半裡，我們進行了大量的股票回購。我的意思是，我們回購了價值超過 20 億美元的股票，約占公司總流通股的 24%，平均價格為每股 149 美元。

And those were really good strategic moves and a great use of our balance sheet and our capital. Take a look at the Freedom and Guernsey transaction, greater than 40% accretive free cash flow per share growth from those acquisitions, right? So we're always going to direct the capital and the use of our balance sheet to whatever the highest returns are. And we talk about it all the time. We sit around the table and as we think about what is the best use for that marginal dollar, we're going through all that entire list. I mean, very similar to the list that's on slide 11 of how we think about growing the business and growing the free cash flow.

這些都是非常好的策略性舉措，也是對我們資產負債表和資本的絕佳運用。看看 Freedom 和 Guernsey 的交易，這些收購帶來了超過 40% 的每股自由現金流成長，對吧？因此，我們將始終把資金和資產負債表的使用導向回報最高的領域。我們經常談論這件事。我們圍坐在桌旁，思考如何最好地利用那額外的一美元，然後把清單上的所有內容都過了一遍。我的意思是，這和第 11 頁幻燈片上列出的關於我們如何思考發展業務和增加自由現金流的清單非常相似。

(inaudible)

（聽不清楚）

Go ahead.

前進。

You go ahead.

你先請。

No, go ahead, Craig.

不，你繼續，克雷格。

I was just going through another twist in there because you got the buybacks, you got the acquisitions and you've got kind of the new build organic growth which it seems like maybe there's more clarity -- potential clarity where that could be more real and incentivized by the end of this year than previously. But then you've got this whole discussion that's been brought up in this call about managing fuel/commodity risks on long-term gas-fired PPAs. And that requires balance sheet capacity as well, especially if you're -- look, if you're cash flowing really hard, it doesn't matter what you do to your balance sheet in two, three years, it's going to be dry, right? But if you sign a PPA where you're delivering next year, maybe you need that capacity. And I'm just thinking that between the new build between managing the fuel risk, maybe there's more to think about the balance sheet today than there was a year ago.

我剛才還在琢磨這其中的另一個轉折點，因為你們有股票回購，有收購，還有新建的有機增長，看起來或許會更加清晰——潛在的清晰性在於，到今年年底，這種增長可能會比以前更加真實，更有動力。但是，在這次通話中，我們討論瞭如何管理長期燃氣購電協議中的燃料/商品風險。這也需要資產負債表的容量，尤其是如果你——你看，如果你的現金流非常困難，那麼無論你在兩三年內對你的資產負債表做什麼，它都會變得很空虛，對吧？但如果你簽了一份明年要交付電力的購電協議，你可能就需要那部分產能。我只是在想，在新的建設和管理燃料風險之間，或許今天需要考慮的資產負債表問題比一年前更多了。

Look, Craig, I think it's a good question. And let me just -- when you frame this question, you said a year ago, you weren't thinking about new build. I think a year ago, we said we would consider new build, we were thinking about it, but it's like a 2030, '32 time frame issue. Well, we're another year down and '29 is the new '28 when it comes to data center power and that we're a year closer to that and then the RBP has put this in further life. I think that it really is dependent upon what structure you go after because depending upon what the PPAs look like, with respect to the RBP, for example, you own the energy, and it just goes into the book like Chris, it's really -- you're receiving a capacity payment is how you think about bidding in there, which covers your cost and that allows for the financing, that could be actually in a project finance structure, which we haven't done.

克雷格，我覺得這是個好問題。還有一點——你提出這個問題的時候，你說一年前你並沒有考慮新建房屋。我想大約一年前，我們說過我們會考慮新建房屋，我們當時也在考慮，但這大概是 2030 年或 2032 年的時間問題。又過了一年，就資料中心功率而言，2029 年相當於 2028 年，我們離目標又近了一年，而 RBP 又進一步推動了這一目標的實現。我認為這真的取決於你選擇的結構，因為根據購電協議 (PPA) 的形式，例如，就 RBP 而言，你擁有能源，它就像克里斯一樣記入賬簿，實際上——你收到的是容量費，你可以這樣理解競標，這可以覆蓋你的成本，從而允許融資，這實際上可能是一個項目融資結構，但我們還沒有這樣做。

So it may require less balance sheet than you actually think in that system. If we're doing PPAs that are longer term and it requires credit support, we work through that. We think about, is there the ability to post an LC, do things first lien, et cetera. So there's not an easy answer to your question. I get it. But I think what we've always said is that we -- this is why we toggle things. We have the SRP. We have the net leverage of 3.5 times. We've shown the ability to toggle back and forth between those. As Terry said, do share repurchase when we need to, push up the balance sheet with a clear view to bring it back down within space in order to do M&A.

因此，在該體系下，它實際需要的資產負債表規模可能比你想像的要小。如果我們簽訂的是長期購電協議，並且需要信用支持，我們會想辦法解決這個問題。我們會考慮，是否有可能發布信用狀、進行第一留置權等事宜。所以你的問題沒有簡單的答案。我得到它。但我認為我們一直強調的是——這就是我們切換設定的原因。我們有建議零售價。我們的淨槓桿率為 3.5 倍。我們已經展示了在這兩種模式之間來回切換的能力。正如 Terry 所說，在需要的時候進行股票回購，以改善資產負債表，並明確地將其降至可進行併購的空間內。

And so it really depends on when we get there and what the opportunity looks like. But I think we would just view that as how do we toggle the different aspects that we have in order to make things work if the right returns are there with the right contract. So I think we're about out of time. Do we have -- two more? What were you saying?

所以，這真的取決於我們何時到達那裡以及機會如何。但我認為我們應該把這看作是如何調整我們擁有的不同方面，以便在合適的合約帶來合適的回報的情況下，使事情能夠順利進行。所以我覺得我們時間差不多不夠了。我們還有──兩個嗎？你剛才說什麼？

Yeah, we are past time.

是的，我們早就過了那個時間了。

So I think we're going to end there. I apologize. I know there's a couple of people in the queue that we didn't get to, and we're happy to take follow-up questions to Sergio and the rest of us here. Appreciate everybody's interest in Talen and have a good evening.

所以我想我們今天就到此為止吧。我道歉。我知道還有幾個排隊的人我們沒能接待，我們很樂意將後續問題轉交給塞爾吉奧和我們其他人。感謝大家對Talen的關注，祝大家晚安。

This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating, and you may now disconnect.

今天的電話會議到此結束。感謝您的參與，您現在可以斷開連接了。