Talen Energy Corp (TLN) 2026 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Talen Energy Corporation second quarter 2026 earnings call. (Operator Instructions) Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded.

各位好，感謝您稍候。歡迎參加 Talen Energy Corporation 2026 年第二季財報電話會議。(接線員指示) 請注意，今天的會議將被錄音。

I would now like to hand the conference over to your first speaker today, Sergio Castro, Vice President and Treasurer. Please go ahead.

現在我想把會議交給今天的第一位講者：副總裁兼財務主管 Sergio Castro。請開始。

Thank you, Amber, and welcome to Talen Energy's second quarter 2026 conference call. Speaking today our Chief Executive Officer, Mac McFarland President, Terry nuts; and Chief Financial Officer, Cole Muller. We are joined by other talent senior executives to address questions during the second part of today's call as necessary.

謝謝你，Amber，也歡迎各位參加 Talen Energy 2026 年第二季電話會議。今天出席發言的有我們的執行長 Mac McFarland、總裁 Terry nuts；以及財務長 Cole Muller。我們也有其他 Talen 的資深主管一同參與，並將在今天電話會議的第二部分視需要回答問題。

We issued our earnings release this afternoon, along with the presentation all of which can be found in the Investor Relations section of talent website, talenenergy.com. Today, we are making some forward-looking statements based on current expectations and assumptions. Actual results could differ due to risk factors and other considerations described in our financial disclosures and other SEC filings.

我們今天下午已發布財報新聞稿，並同步提供簡報，皆可在 Talen 網站 talenenergy.com 的投資人關係專區找到。今天我們將基於目前的預期與假設，提出若干前瞻性陳述。實際結果可能因風險因素及其他考量而有所不同，相關內容已在我們的財務揭露文件及其他 SEC 申報文件中說明。

Today's discussion also includes references to certain non-GAAP financial measures. We have provided information reconciling our non-GAAP measures to most directly comparable GAAP measures in our earnings release and the appendix of our presentation.

今天的討論也會提及若干非 GAAP 財務衡量指標。我們已在財報新聞稿以及簡報附錄中，提供非 GAAP 指標與最直接可比 GAAP 指標之調節資訊。

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

接下來，我把電話交給 Mac。

Thank you, Sergio, and good afternoon, everyone. We appreciate your interest in Talend, and we look forward to the discussion during our Q&A. Let me start by addressing our strategy and its intersection with the markets and the regulatory environment. At Talend, we remain committed to our flywheel strategy of owning low-cost existing baseload assets and entering into long-term contracts.

謝謝你，Sergio，各位下午好。感謝各位對 Talend 的關注，我們也期待在問答環節與各位交流。我先談談我們的策略，以及其與市場與監管環境的交會點。在 Talend，我們仍致力於我們的「飛輪」策略：持有低成本的既有基載資產，並簽訂長期合約。

And like any good strategy, the key is to build a solid foundation on a view that is directionally accurate, but not precise, accurate in that the direction of travel maximizes value in any future but not so precise in that the strategy can be constantly refreshed to take advantage of changes without creating wholesale change in the overall direction of travel.

如同任何好的策略，關鍵在於建立在一個方向上正確、但不必精確的觀點之上：所謂正確，是指前進方向能在任何未來情境下最大化價值；但不必過度精確，才能讓策略持續更新，以掌握變化，而不致於對整體前進方向造成全面性的改變。

Our direction of travel remains fundamentally the same. We believe we control our future in whatever form the future takes, and we have advantaged assets in advantaged locations, and we have built on those assets with our development pipeline of powered land and capacity additions. Our assets primarily sit in the PPL zone and in AEP Ohio.

我們的前進方向在根本上仍然相同。我們相信，無論未來以何種形式呈現，我們都能掌握自己的未來；我們擁有位於優勢地點的優勢資產，並以我們的開發管線（具備供電條件的土地與新增容量）在這些資產基礎上持續建構。我們的資產主要位於 PPL 區域以及 AEP Ohio。

PPL is a zone that has 2 times the generating capacity of current load and has excess transmission capacity within the zone. This means that large loads can be absorbed within the region, and that is why you see the AWS campus being built as well as many other large data centers being developed in the PPL region. And we are an AEP Ohio, a region that is business-friendly, data center-friendly and already a large health for data centers.

PPL 是一個發電容量為目前負載 2 倍的區域，且區域內仍有多餘的輸電容量。這表示大型負載可以在該區域內被吸收，這也是您看到 AWS 園區正在興建、以及許多其他大型資料中心在 PPL 區域開發的原因。而我們也位於 AEP Ohio——一個對企業友善、對資料中心友善，且已經是資料中心重要聚集地的區域。

We like our positioning of existing assets. We believe energy in these areas will be increasingly valuable in any future. A fact that is proving out as we speak, with energy prices rising and capacity continuing to clear at the caps. We continue to believe in this underlying value and the ability to contract for both energy and capacity of our existing assets.

我們喜歡我們既有資產的布局。我們相信，無論未來如何演變，這些地區的能源都將愈來愈有價值。這一點正在被驗證：能源價格上升，容量也持續以價格上限成交（clear at the caps）。我們仍然相信這項內在價值，以及我們既有資產在能源與容量兩方面的簽約能力。

Yes, despite the noise around regulatory rule making, it does not change the fact that our assets provide for the base energy and capacity for the region and again, in PPL more specifically. And if they are contracted stand-alone, contracted in the hybrid model contracted to C&I are simply taken to market, these assets are becoming more and more valuable in PJM.

是的，儘管監管規則制定的雜音不斷，但這並不改變我們的資產為該區域（尤其是 PPL）提供基礎能源與容量的事實。無論是以獨立資產方式簽約、以混合模式簽約、與工商業（C&I）客戶簽約，或是直接進入市場，這些資產在 PJM 正變得愈來愈有價值。

The PPL zone is constrained that it has more gen than load and transmission doesn't allow it to get out to the fullest extent. That will be fixed as transmission is built which has already been approved, and it will be fixed as more load is brought to the region. And again, that load is already in development. Terry and Cole will expand on both these aspects later. Advantaged assets and advantaged location.

PPL 區域目前受限於：發電量大於負載，但輸電條件使其無法在最大程度上外送。隨著已獲核准的輸電建設逐步完成，這個問題將會改善；同時，隨著更多負載導入該區域，也將獲得改善。而且再次強調，這些負載已在開發中。Terry 與 Cole 稍後會就這兩個面向進一步說明。優勢資產與優勢地點。

The same is true for our Ohio assets, but I won't belabor the point. That said, we, as well as some of our customers do recognize that new capacity will need to be brought online. That is why we are also supplementing these advantaged assets with our development pipeline, powered land and new capacity.

我們在俄亥俄州的資產也同樣如此，但我不再贅述。話雖如此，我們以及部分客戶也認知到，仍需要有新的容量上線。因此，我們也透過開發管線、具備供電條件的土地以及新增容量，來補強這些優勢資產。

Our powered land development is not because we are getting into the digital space, nor do we expect you to value us off of land development? That is not our business nor our value proposition. We exited that business when we sold the campus to AWS.

我們推動具備供電條件的土地開發，並不是因為我們要進入數位領域，我們也不期望各位以土地開發來評價我們。那不是我們的業務，也不是我們的價值主張。當我們把園區出售給 AWS 時，就已退出那項業務。

However, by working with local communities and the local utilities to power sites for late 2020s electrification, we are enabling front-of-the-meter solutions, solutions that provide the opportunity for long-term contracts of energy from our existing portfolio. Additionally, capacity for these contracts can come in two forms, from existing sites or from capacity additions.

然而，透過與地方社區及當地公用事業合作，為 2020 年代後期的電氣化需求提供場址供電，我們正在促成表前（front-of-the-meter）解決方案——這些方案為我們既有資產組合的能源提供長期合約機會。此外，這些合約所需的容量可來自兩種形式：既有場址或新增容量。

And that is why we have developed a pipeline of new capacity focusing on batteries, peakers and up REITs. We believe blending new capacity with existing energy on a front of the meter grid-connected site is more reliable and durable and in fact, less expensive than any behind-the-meter solution, and we think that is a winning proposition in the long run for our customers and is the basis for our strategy. In summary, we remain flexible, commercial and forward leaning, and we like the direction of travel with the talent flywheel.

這也是為什麼我們建立了以電池、尖峰機組（peakers）以及 up REITs 為重點的新容量開發管線。我們相信，在表前、併網的場址上，將新增容量與既有能源進行搭配，比任何表後（behind-the-meter）方案更可靠、更具持久性，而且事實上成本更低；我們認為，長期而言這對客戶是具勝算的主張，也是我們策略的基礎。總結來說，我們仍保持彈性、以商業為導向並前瞻布局，我們看好 Talen 飛輪的前進方向。

Now turning to the quarter. The fleet performed well, and we delivered $374 million of adjusted EBITDA and $212 million of adjusted free cash flow for the quarter demonstrating the value of our recent acquisitions. In June, we closed on the Waterford Darby and Lawrenceburg plants, bringing over 2.5 gigawatts of efficient natural gas-fired generation assets into our portfolio just in time for the peak summer demand.

接著談本季表現。機組群運轉良好，本季我們達成 3.74 億美元的調整後 EBITDA，以及 2.12 億美元的調整後自由現金流，展現我們近期收購案的價值。6 月，我們完成 Waterford Darby 與 Lawrenceburg 電廠的交割，將超過 2.5GW 的高效率天然氣發電資產納入我們的投資組合，正好趕上夏季尖峰需求。

I'd like to welcome the teams at these sites into the Talend family. We look forward to your safe and reliable operations for years to come. We executed on our share repurchase program by buying back 550,000 shares during the quarter, and we are committed to our target of returning 70% of adjusted free cash flow to shareholders through the SRP. Cole will discuss the power of our near-term cash flows and how that capital return impacts our '27 and '28 outlooks later in the presentation.

我也想歡迎這些場址的團隊加入 Talend 大家庭。我們期待各位在未來多年持續安全、可靠地營運。我們在本季執行股份回購計畫，回購了 55 萬股；我們也致力於透過 SRP，將調整後自由現金流的 70% 回饋給股東的目標。Cole 稍後將在簡報中說明我們短期現金流的力道，以及這些資本回饋如何影響我們對 2027 與 2028 年的展望。

PJM fundamentals continue to strengthen and we have seen a nearly 50% increase in West Hub Sparks since last year. It is interesting to note that just a short while ago, we were discussing transacting long-term PPAs with hyperscalers at prices in the $80 per megawatt hour range. And now the forward wholesale prices for capacity and energy are approaching those levels, if not exceeding them. Long-term forwards have finally caught a bid and as we like to joke internally, Chris was finally right.

PJM 的基本面持續轉強，自去年以來，我們看到 West Hub Sparks 幾乎上升了 50%。值得注意的是，不久之前我們還在討論以每兆瓦時 80 美元左右的價格，與超大規模雲端業者（hyperscalers）洽談長期 PPA 交易。而現在，容量與能源的遠期批發價格正接近這些水準，甚至可能高於這些水準。長期遠期價格終於有人出價（caught a bid）；而我們內部也喜歡開玩笑說，Chris 終於是對的。

And we are seeing the renewed interest in long-term contracts in the C&I space. And what is interesting here is that while broker quotes for capacity are in the mid- to upper 200s for the years post the cap auctions. In the bilateral market, we have seen bids at the cap level for the early 2030s and for tenure. A word of caution in that these are then we treated but one should also view this as a supportive sign of capacity pricing in the out years.

我們也看到在 C&I（商業與工業）領域，市場對長期合約的興趣再度升溫。有趣的是，雖然在容量拍賣之後年度的容量經紀報價落在每兆瓦日 200 多美元的中高區間。但在雙邊市場中，我們已看到針對 2030 年代初期以及較長合約年期的出價達到價格上限水準。需要提醒的是，這些之後仍需進一步處理，但也應將其視為遠期年度容量定價獲得支撐的正面訊號。

The near-term PJM capacity markets continue to reflect strengthening fundamentals as well. With the last three base residual capacity auctions clearing at the price cap and uncapped prices that would have settled in excess of $500 a megawatt day.

近期的 PJM 容量市場也持續反映基本面轉強。過去三次基準剩餘容量拍賣（Base Residual Capacity Auctions）皆以價格上限成交；若不設上限，結算價格本會超過每兆瓦日 500 美元。

As we discussed last quarter, now that the Cornerstone transaction is closed, we are updating and raising our 2026 guidance for the acquisition. Additionally, we are increasing our '27 and '28 adjusted free cash flow per share outlook. We'll provide '27 guidance and '28 and '29 outlooks during the third quarter earnings call, which you should expect as normal course going forward.

如同我們在上季所討論的，隨著 Cornerstone 交易完成交割，我們正在更新並上調該收購案的 2026 年指引。此外，我們也上調 2027 與 2028 年每股調整後自由現金流的展望。我們將在第三季財報電話會議中提供 2027 年指引，以及 2028 與 2029 年展望；未來你們可預期這將成為常態作法。

Our annual plan is to provide guidance for the upcoming year each fall, along with an outlook for the two following years. We did this a couple of additional times this year because of the uniqueness of adding a significant gas portfolio through M&A early in the year. However, you shouldn't expect that going forward. Well that is, unless we have other significant business changes that would warrant an update.

我們的年度規劃是每年秋季提供下一年度的指引，並同時給出其後兩年的展望。今年我們額外做了幾次更新，是因為年初透過併購（M&A）加入了一個規模可觀的天然氣資產組合，情況較為特殊。不過，未來你們不應預期會持續如此。除非我們出現其他重大業務變動，足以需要更新。

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

接下來，我把電話會議交給 Terry。

Thank you, Mac, and good afternoon, everyone. Turning to slide 3, which covers our year-to-date financial and operating results. Talend continued to build on its strong first quarter results, delivering $847 million of adjusted EBITDA and $562 million of adjusted free cash flow year-to-date.

謝謝你，Mac，各位下午好。請看第 3 頁投影片，內容涵蓋我們年初至今的財務與營運成果。Talend 延續第一季的強勁表現，年初至今交出 8.47 億美元的調整後 EBITDA，以及 5.62 億美元的調整後自由現金流。

This results in a free cash flow conversion rate in the mid-60% range, continuing our focus of generating strong cash flows for our shareholders. We currently have over $1.9 billion of liquidity, thanks to cash generated from operations. This gives us capital allocation flexibility and enables us to focus on shareholder returns.

這使得自由現金流轉換率落在 60% 中段區間，延續我們為股東創造強勁現金流的重點。目前我們擁有超過 19 億美元的流動性，主要來自營運所產生的現金。這讓我們在資本配置上更具彈性，並能專注於股東報酬。

Turning to our operational metrics. Safety remains our top priority across the fleet, and our team worked safely during a busy spring outage season. Our recordable incident rate was 0.27, which continues to be below the industry average. I would like to thank the men and women of Town who continue to demonstrate strong operational and safety performance while also integrating new generation assets into the fleet over the past several months.

接著看我們的營運指標。安全仍是我們全船隊的首要任務，而團隊在繁忙的春季歲修期間也維持安全作業。我們的可記錄事故率為 0.27，持續低於產業平均。我要感謝 Town 的所有同仁；過去幾個月在將新發電資產整合進船隊的同時，仍展現出強勁的營運與安全表現。

The commitment of the team to operate in a safe and reliable manner is an important part of Talend's value proposition. Our fleet ran well with a 3.9% equivalent forced outage factor and we generated approximately 30 terawatt hours of electricity, achieving a 51% fleet-wide capacity factor, which is 14 percentage points higher than the prior year as we added Freedom and Guernsey to the fleet, and our intermediate and peaking assets continue the trend of higher run times to support the grid.

團隊以安全且可靠的方式運轉，是 Talend 價值主張的重要一環。我們的機組運轉表現良好，等效強迫停機率為 3.9%；發電量約 30 太瓦時，整體船隊容量因子達 51%，較去年提高 14 個百分點，主要因我們將 Freedom 與 Guernsey 納入船隊，同時我們的中載與尖峰資產也延續更長運轉時數的趨勢，以支援電網。

Moving to slide 4, I would like to talk about the overall market fundamentals and load growth across the US and in PJM. Since the inception of the modern day PJM, 70% of the 10 highest peak load days have occurred over the last 15 months, which you can see in the green on the upper left graph. Five of these peak load days were just in the month of July.

接著看第 4 頁投影片，我想談談美國整體以及 PJM 的市場基本面與負載成長。自現代 PJM 成立以來，10 個最高尖峰負載日中有 70% 發生在過去 15 個月內，你們可在左上圖的綠色區域看到。其中有 5 個尖峰負載日就發生在 7 月。

For Talend, this means higher run times, which you can see as our total generation grew by 13% when compared to a pro forma amount from last year, which also includes the assets that we have acquired. In PJM, demand is forecasted to grow over 17% through the end of the decade, meaning higher run times for our existing generation fleet.

對 Talend 而言，這代表更高的運轉時數；你們可看到我們的總發電量相較去年按備考（pro forma）口徑（亦包含我們收購的資產）成長了 13%。在 PJM，預估需求在本十年末前將成長超過 17%，意味著我們既有發電船隊的運轉時數將更高。

To provide some color on what that means for Talend, a few years ago, our Montour plant was utilized as peaking assets with multiple start-ups and shutdowns and running only over the peak-demand hours during the day. However, the last two years have produced a very different run profile with the plant running at full capacity for 30 to 40 days at a time to meet the rising market demand.

為了更具體說明這對 Talend 的意義，幾年前我們的 Montour 電廠主要作為尖峰資產使用，頻繁啟停，且僅在每日尖峰用電時段運轉。然而，過去兩年的運轉型態已大不相同；為了滿足市場需求上升，該電廠曾連續 30 到 40 天以滿載運轉。

Turning to the upper right of the slide, total US power demand is forecasted to continue to grow by over 20% through the end of the decade. All of this helps validate one of our driving theses. Significant load growth is here and more is coming. It also means higher power prices and higher spark spreads, which you can see on slide 5.

再看投影片右上角，美國總用電需求預估在本十年末前將持續成長超過 20%。這些都進一步驗證我們的一項核心論點。顯著的負載成長已經到來，而且還會更多。這也意味著更高的電價與更高的火花價差（spark spreads），你們可在第 5 頁看到。

Power is up and sparks are widening, both as of March 31 of this year and continuing through today as compared to the July 2025 pricing that was used at our Investor Day. You can see from the graph on the bottom right hand of the slide, 2028 PPL spark spreads are up 28%, while 80 hub parks are up 27%. In the prior couple of years, forward power markets were showing limited reaction to the demand growth, but that has shifted over the past several months as load continues to verify in the PJM real-time market, and record peak demand events get factored into the forward curves.

電價上升、火花價差擴大；無論以今年 3 月 31 日為基準，或延續至今日，相較於我們在投資人日所採用的 2025 年 7 月定價皆是如此。從投影片右下角的圖表可見，2028 年 PPL 的火花價差上升 28%，而 80 Hub 的火花價差上升 27%。在前幾年，遠期電力市場對需求成長的反應有限，但過去幾個月已出現轉變，因為負載在 PJM 即時市場持續被驗證，且創紀錄的尖峰需求事件也被納入遠期曲線。

Turning to slide 6. Let me provide some color on the basis in PPL that we mentioned last quarter. Historically, the PPL power price discount compared to PJM West Hub was approximately $9 per megawatt hour. Over the last several months, we have seen the basis grow to approximately $20 per megawatt hour. This widening is driven by several factors, including a significant amount of recent transmission work that has been taking place over the spring and summer.

接著看第 6 頁投影片。我想補充一些我們上季提到的 PPL 基差（basis）情況。歷史上，PPL 電價相對於 PJM West Hub 的折價約為每兆瓦時 9 美元。過去幾個月，我們看到該基差擴大至約每兆瓦時 20 美元。這種擴大由多項因素所致，包括春夏期間進行的大量近期輸電工程。

The transmission outages related to this work have been taking place south of our generation as part of a broader system upgrade in between PPL zone and the load pockets of BG&E and Dominion. This transmission work will provide more reliable transmission into those southern zones. While the states work has been conducted during the spring and summer, it limits the power flow south, and that shows up as a larger discount in PPO pricing in the day ahead and real-time energy markets.

與該工程相關的輸電停運，發生在我們發電資產以南，屬於 PPL 區與 BG&E、Dominion 等負載口袋之間更大範圍系統升級的一部分。這些輸電工程將提升向南部區域輸電的可靠性。然而，雖然工程在春夏進行，但會限制向南的電力潮流，並在日前與即時能源市場中反映為 PPO 定價出現更大的折價。

The forward PPO zone curve has been impacted by the recent trend that has been seen in the cash market. Two main drivers will work to compress that basis as we move forward. First, completion of the transmission upgrade work between the North and South regions of PJM and second, further load growth within the PPL zone.

PPO 區的遠期曲線已受到現貨市場近期趨勢的影響。展望未來，有兩個主要驅動因素將促使該基差收斂。第一，是 PJM 南北區域之間輸電升級工程的完工；第二，是 PPL 區內負載進一步成長。

As you can see on the upper right, PPO is currently a net exporter of power but as load grows in the zone, assuming no further generation supply, the volumes exported should decline and that will have a positive impact on the PPL basis price. For Talend, this represents an opportunity to narrow the basis, which will result in higher pricing.

如右上圖所示，PPO 目前是電力淨出口區，但隨著區內負載成長，在假設沒有新增發電供給的情況下，外送電量應會下降，並對 PPL 的基差價格帶來正面影響。對 Talend 而言，這代表一個縮小基差的機會，進而帶來更高的定價。

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

我現在把電話交給 Cole，請他說明我們的財務表現。

Thanks, Gerry, and good afternoon, everyone. Now turning to the financial results for the quarter. we are reporting adjusted EBITDA of $374 million and adjusted free cash flow of $212 million. These results are substantially higher when compared to the same period last year and continue to be primarily driven by the contribution of Freedom and Guernsey, higher PJM capacity pricing, higher generation volumes from Susquehanna and the fossil fleet and the AWS contract, which continues to ramp.

謝謝你，Gerry，各位下午好。接著說明本季的財務結果。我們報告的調整後 EBITDA 為 3.74 億美元，調整後自由現金流為 2.12 億美元。與去年同期相比，這些結果大幅提升，且主要仍由 Freedom 與 Guernsey 的貢獻、更高的 PJM 容量價格、Susquehanna 與化石燃料機組帶來的更高發電量，以及持續爬坡的 AWS 合約所驅動。

Year-to-date, we are also seeing the benefits of higher realized market prices on our open generation portfolio. These strong results demonstrate the strengthening cash flow profile of the business. As Mac mentioned earlier, now that the Cornerstone acquisition has closed, we are raising our 2026 guidance ranges, as shown on slide 8.

年初至今，我們也看到在未對沖發電組合上實現的市場價格較高所帶來的效益。這些強勁結果展現了公司現金流輪廓的強化。如 Mac 先前提到的，隨著 Cornerstone 收購案已完成交割，我們上調 2026 年的指引區間，如投影片 8 所示。

Our adjusted EBITDA range for 2026 has increased to $2.025 billion to $2.225 billion, which includes the Cornerstone acquisition impacts, updated market conditions and an offset due to the pending sale of our interest in Keystone. We are also raising our adjusted free cash flow range to $1.2 billion to $1.35 billion, which also includes impacts from our financing activities earlier this year that have strengthened our balance sheet.

我們 2026 年調整後 EBITDA 指引區間上調至 20.25 億至 22.25 億美元，其中包含 Cornerstone 收購的影響、更新後的市場狀況，以及因待完成出售我們在 Keystone 的權益而產生的抵銷。我們也將調整後自由現金流指引區間上調至 12 億至 13.5 億美元，其中亦包含我們今年稍早融資活動的影響，該等活動已強化我們的資產負債表。

Turning to slide 9. When we announced the Cornerstone transaction back in January, we indicated a pro forma 2027 EBITDA of approximately $2.6 billion, and I'm pleased to say that we are exceeding that level with this update. We expect to provide formal 2027 guidance on our upcoming Q3 earnings call. But in the meantime, we are increasing our 2027 and 2028 outlooks. Our base case hold share count flat as of the end of Q2.

接著看投影片 9。當我們在今年 1 月宣布 Cornerstone 交易時，我們指出 2027 年備考 EBITDA 約為 26 億美元；我很高興地表示，這次更新後我們已超越該水準。我們預期在即將到來的第三季財報電話會議上提供正式的 2027 年指引。但在此之前，我們上調 2027 年與 2028 年展望。我們的基本情境假設截至第二季末的流通股數維持不變。

47.9 million shares. This is net of equity issuances to ECP in conjunction with the Cornerstone acquisition and share repurchases made during the quarter. For our 2027 base case, our free cash flow outlook remains $34 per share, increasing to $40 per share in 2028. We also anticipate generating approximately $4 billion of adjusted free cash flow between the balance of this year through the end of 2028 and forecast returning at least 70% of this cash, $2.8 billion to shareholders through share buybacks.

4,790 萬股。此數字已反映與 Cornerstone 收購案相關、向 ECP 發行的股權，以及本季進行的庫藏股回購之淨額影響。在 2027 年基本情境下，我們的自由現金流展望仍為每股 34 美元，並於 2028 年提高至每股 40 美元。我們亦預期自今年剩餘期間至 2028 年底可產生約 40 億美元的調整後自由現金流，並預估至少回饋其中 70%（即 28 億美元）予股東，方式為股票回購。

For context, that's almost 20% of our current market cap. Note that our authorized share repurchase program has $1.7 billion remaining. So in time, we will require board approval to fully execute. When accounting for buybacks, we forecast 2027 cash flow at approximately $37 a share and 2028 now at $48 a share or over 14% free cash flow yield on 2028 cash flows at current share price levels. This leaves more than $1.3 billion of excess cash to fund additional value creation opportunities.

作為參考，這幾乎相當於我們目前市值的 20%。請注意，我們已核准的股票回購計畫尚餘 17 億美元額度。因此，隨著時間推進，我們將需要董事會核准才能完全執行。在納入回購影響後，我們預估 2027 年每股現金流約為 37 美元，2028 年則上調至每股 48 美元；以目前股價水準計算，對應 2028 年現金流的自由現金流殖利率超過 14%。這將留下超過 13 億美元的超額現金，用以支持額外的價值創造機會。

For example, more buybacks at mid-teens free cash flow yields for selective growth investments. Whatever is the highest and best use of capital for our shareholders, all while continuing to target our net leverage ratio at 3.5 times. Additionally, we see significant upside opportunities through a variety of levers, accretive M&A, acceleration of our existing 2 gigawatt PPA and expanding our flywheel strategy with new data center PPAs, each of which could add 10% or more to our cash flow profile.

例如，在自由現金流殖利率約中十位數（mid-teens）的水準下進一步回購，或進行具選擇性的成長投資。無論何者是對股東而言最高且最佳的資本用途，同時我們仍將持續以淨槓桿比 3.5 倍為目標。此外，我們也透過多種槓桿看到顯著的上行機會，包括具增益性的併購（M&A）、加速我們既有 2GW 的 PPA，以及以新的資料中心 PPA 擴大我們的飛輪策略；上述每一項都可能使我們的現金流輪廓增加 10% 或更多。

Expanding spark spreads and normalization of zonal basis are also additional upside levers and ones that we are well positioned for given the market fundamentals that Terry discussed earlier. To be clear, our forecast include recent PPL marks that reflect the widened basis and a good rule of thumb is that for every $1 improvement in zonal basis across our portfolio equates to approximately $1 increase in adjusted free cash flow per share.

火花價差擴大與分區基差回歸常態亦是額外的上行槓桿；鑑於 Terry 先前討論的市場基本面，我們在這些方面具備良好布局。需要說明的是，我們的預測已納入近期 PPL 的估值標記（marks），其反映了基差擴大；一個簡單的經驗法則是：我們組合中分區基差每改善 1 美元，約等同於每股調整後自由現金流增加 1 美元。

Each of these levers provides meaningful opportunity that could see our adjusted free cash flow exceed $50 per share by 2028, continuing to widen the potential free cash flow yield into the high teens. I want to emphasize that we will continue to maintain capital discipline with a clear focus on accretive levers that meaningfully increased the free cash flow per share available to investors through the Talent flywheel. Speaking of the flywheel.

上述每一項槓桿都提供了重要機會，可能使我們在 2028 年前的每股調整後自由現金流超過 50 美元，並持續將潛在自由現金流殖利率擴大至高十位數（high teens）。我想強調，我們將持續維持資本紀律，清楚聚焦於具增益性的槓桿，透過 Talent 飛輪，實質提升可供投資人取得的每股自由現金流。說到飛輪。

As we discussed last quarter, we have several opportunities for long-term PPAs that support a range of customer solutions. This includes approximately 4 gigawatts of advantaged data center sites with utility load commitments that provide speed to market advantages. These opportunities include organic sites adjacent to our generation as well as sites that we have acquired and advanced development on over the past few months.

如同我們上季所討論的，我們有數個長期 PPA 的機會，可支援多元的客戶解決方案。其中包括約 4GW 具優勢的資料中心場址，並附帶公用事業負載承諾，可提供更快上市（speed-to-market）的優勢。這些機會包含位於我們發電資產旁的自有開發場址，以及我們在過去幾個月收購並推進開發的場址。

We have also advanced our two-plus gigawatts of new build capacity projects backed with interconnection positions and are in the process of additional developments related to both upgrades and new capacity projects. We are working on these developments to support the flywheel with our overall goal of contracting more of our baseload portfolio. We continue to focus on meeting the highest priority needs of our potential customers with two key areas of focus.

我們也推進了超過 2GW 的新建容量專案，這些專案具備併網（interconnection）位置支撐，並正進一步推動與升級及新容量專案相關的額外開發。我們推動這些開發以支援飛輪，整體目標是讓我們的基載組合有更多比例完成簽約。我們持續聚焦於滿足潛在客戶最高優先順序的需求，並鎖定兩個關鍵重點領域。

First, we continue to engage with counterparties on solutions that rely on our existing generation portfolio, i.e., leveraging both our existing energy and capacity and we see the customer universe expanding beyond hyperscalers to include co-locators, needle clouds and even large C&I customers. The exact structure of these deals will vary by counterparty, but it is clear to us that existing generation is going to be needed power data centers that are energized over the coming years.

第一，我們持續與交易對手就依賴我們既有發電組合的解決方案進行洽談，也就是同時運用我們既有的電能與容量；我們也看到客戶範圍正從超大規模業者（hyperscalers）擴展至共置業者（co-locators）、needle clouds，甚至大型商業與工業（C&I）客戶。這些交易的確切結構將因交易對手而異，但我們清楚看到：未來幾年將上電（energized）的資料中心需要電力，而既有發電資產將是不可或缺的一環。

And second, some customers are focused on solutions that will also provide some level of new capacity, and our hybrid structure fits this need well. Under this approach, we are pairing our existing energy from the baseload talent portfolio with our new capacity development projects to cover at least a percentage of the load needs. This percentage is likely to vary by circumstance and counterparts.

第二，有些客戶聚焦於同時提供一定程度新容量的解決方案，而我們的混合式架構非常符合此需求。在此作法下，我們將基載 Talent 組合的既有電能，與我們的新容量開發專案配對，以涵蓋至少一定比例的負載需求。此比例可能會因情境與交易對手而有所不同。

Our speed-to-market sites already provide access to Grey Power, which is the primary preference of our customers and where we remain focused as we target long-term PPAs supplied by our existing portfolio.

我們的快速上市場址已可取得灰電（Grey Power），這是客戶的主要偏好；因此，當我們以既有組合供應、鎖定長期 PPA 時，仍將持續聚焦於此。

On the next slide, we show the evolution of our contracted profile as our existing nearly 2 gigawatt contract ramps through 2030, alongside an illustrative view of what that portfolio could look like in 2030 and beyond. In our 2028 outlook, our margin composition is primarily driven by PJM energy and capacity revenues, which allows us to participate in widening PJM power pricing and smart spreads in the near term.

在下一張投影片中，我們展示隨著既有近 2GW 合約在 2030 年前逐步爬坡，我們的簽約輪廓如何演進，並同時提供一個示意圖，說明該組合在 2030 年及之後可能呈現的樣貌。在我們對 2028 年的展望中，我們的利潤結構主要由 PJM 的電能與容量收入所驅動，使我們能在短期內參與 PJM 電力價格與火花價差擴大的上行。

As the AWS Campus ramps a full build-out, projected to be sometime between 2028 and 2030, as shown in the middle chart, our long-term contracted margin increases from 10% to 35%. This makes contracted gross margin with a AA credit counterparty, our largest revenue stream, derisking longer-term exposure to PJM capacity and energy markets beyond 2030.

隨著 AWS 園區逐步爬坡至完整建置（full build-out），預計將發生在 2028 至 2030 年之間（如中間圖表所示），我們的長期簽約毛利占比將由 10% 提升至 35%。這使得與 AA 信用等級交易對手簽訂的合約毛利成為我們最大的收入來源，並降低 2030 年以後對 PJM 容量與電能市場的長期曝險風險。

Moving to the chart on the right, we show an illustrative portfolio margin mix beyond 2030 that reflects the impact of an additional approximately 2 gigawatts of long-term contracts as we continue to execute on the Talend flywheel. Assuming similar economics and structure of our existing PPA we could reach 60% of our gross margin mix under long-term contracts.

轉到右側的圖表，我們展示了一個2030年以後的示意性投資組合毛利結構組合，反映在我們持續推進 Talend 飛輪的同時，新增約2吉瓦長期合約所帶來的影響。假設我們現有 PPA 的經濟性與結構相近，我們的毛利結構中在長期合約下的占比可達到60%。

This potential mix would significantly reduce our reliance on the merchant PJM markets and continue shifting towards a more infrastructure-like cash flow profile. We believe this is a differentiated position with growing cash flows that are tied in the near term to favorable market dynamics with the potential to convert to increasingly durable cash flows under long-term contracts.

這種潛在的組合將大幅降低我們對 PJM 現貨市場的依賴，並持續朝向更類似基礎設施的現金流特徵轉移。我們認為這是一個具差異化的定位：現金流成長，短期與有利的市場動態相連結，並有機會在長期合約下轉化為愈加穩健、可持續的現金流。

I'll turn it back to Matt.

我把時間交回給 Matt。

Great. Thanks, Cole. And with that, I guess, we'll unpack what we just discussed in Q&A. So I'll turn it back to the operator and open the line.

很好。謝謝你，Cole。那麼，我想我們會在問答環節把剛才討論的內容再拆解一下。所以我把時間交回給接線員，開放電話線。

(Operator Instructions)

（接線員指示）

Carly Davenport, Goldman Sachs.

Carly Davenport，高盛。

Maybe to start, there's been a lot of news flow out of PJM over the last couple of weeks here. Just maybe you can give us your thoughts on anything that's out to you in PJM's FERC filing last week on the RBP framework? And are you able to share to what degree you plan to participate in either the central procurement or the bilateral process and how that might relate to the development pipeline that you've highlighted today?

也許先從這裡開始，過去幾週 PJM 有很多新聞動態。想請你談談，上週 PJM 向 FERC 提交的關於 RBP 架構的申報文件中，有沒有什麼特別引起你注意的地方？另外，你是否能分享你們計畫在多大程度上參與集中採購或雙邊流程，以及這與你們今天強調的開發管線可能有何關聯？

Yes. Carla, it's Mac. Well look, the RVP filing was a lot as expected. We've been supportive of the RVP. We do -- and we do plan to participate. We can't guarantee that we're going to. We plan to participate, and we're looking at that because we have a number of options that we think might fit. I think it came back with a lot of the components that we thought were valuable. We thought that the PJM yielding on the 205 part of the process to where FERC could modify it on sort of line item type changes was a good move there.

是的。Carla，我是 Mac。你看，RVP 的申報內容大致符合預期。我們一直支持 RVP。我們也——我們也計畫參與。我們無法保證一定會參與。我們計畫參與，也正在評估，因為我們有多個選項，我們認為可能適配。我認為它回來的內容包含了許多我們覺得有價值的組成要素。我們認為 PJM 在流程的第205條部分做出讓步，讓 FERC 能以逐項條款的方式進行修改，是一個好的做法。

There are certain things that we're working through. I mean I think 695 pages. We're still -- I mean, I know we've had three or four days. But digging through it and understanding each of the different aspects of it. We appreciated the preamble that basically said that existing contracts would be protected.

有些事項我們仍在消化中。我的意思是，我想有695頁。我們仍然——我是說，我知道我們才過了三、四天。但我們正在深入研讀並理解其中各個不同面向。我們也很欣賞前言基本上表示既有合約會受到保護。

And we're just going to have to see how the process plays out, but we're hopeful that the schedule will be met. It's looking for something to be finalized at FERC by September 29 and then executed on the 30th, which is a short time frame, but I do think it's imperative that we continue down that path as an RTO because it's been too long in the making, and we've got to get this run before the December auction.

接下來就得看流程如何推進，但我們希望時程能如期達成。目標是在9月29日前由 FERC 定案，並在30日執行，時間很緊，但我確實認為作為一個 RTO，我們必須沿著這條路繼續走下去，因為這件事醞釀太久了，而且我們必須在12月拍賣前把它跑完。

So a lot of the concepts that we thought were beneficial, the 555 cap, which is sort of a soft cap because it's the average. We think that that's a good aspect of things. It allows for the potential to solve more based off of where offers may come in. But overall, it's largely as expected, but with a few added touches in there.

因此，許多我們認為有利的概念都在其中，例如555上限——這算是一種軟上限，因為它是以平均值計算。我們認為這是一個好的設計。它讓我們有機會根據報價可能落點來解決更多問題。但整體而言，大致符合預期，只是多了一些額外的調整。

So we like it holistically, but we're still thinking about how we might comment or are there possible avenues to make it better, and we'll engage in that process. And then like I said, we've been developing and Dale sitting right here, we've been developing a number of projects, and we feel as though they may be viable candidates to participate in this, but we'll have to see how that all plays out over time.

所以整體上我們是喜歡的，但我們仍在思考要如何提出意見、是否有可能的途徑讓它更好，我們也會參與這個流程。另外，如我所說，我們一直在開發——Dale 就坐在我旁邊——我們一直在開發多個專案，我們覺得其中一些可能是參與此機制的可行候選，但仍需看後續如何隨時間推進。

Got it. Okay. I appreciate all those thoughts. That's really helpful. And then maybe just one clarification question the prepared remarks. On the updated '27 and '28 free cash flow per share outlook, can you just expand on the pricing assumptions that are embedded there? And then if there's any assumption on PPL basis narrowing to sort of bridge to that '28 figure?

了解。好的。謝謝你分享這些想法。非常有幫助。接著也許一個釐清問題，關於事先準備的發言。在更新後的2027年與2028年每股自由現金流展望中，你能否再說明其中隱含的價格假設？另外，是否也假設 PPL 基差收斂，以便銜接到2028年的數字？

Carl, it's Cole. Yes, happy to answer that. So what we use and what I said in the remarks is we use the PPL marks as is, as we said, our '27 and '28 and so the upside would be narrowing of that basis as discussed. So hopefully, that answers the question.

Carl，我是 Cole。是的，很樂意回答。我們採用的——以及我在發言中提到的——是直接使用 PPL 的市場標記價格（marks），用於我們2027年與2028年的假設；因此，上行空間將來自如先前討論的基差收斂。希望這回答了你的問題。

Moses Sutton, BNP Paribas.

Moses Sutton，法國巴黎銀行。

Great update. Can you discuss any changes being contemplated for the hedging strategy perhaps with the curves in PJM, the comments between zones all of it's truly in flux, and we could be in a position where 2028 to 2030 could have more stepwise moves? And then when you have your AWS contract, capacity auction support maybe from the 4 gigawatt opportunity stuff even more.

更新很棒。你能談談是否正在考慮調整避險策略嗎？尤其是 PJM 的曲線、各分區之間的評論/討論等都確實在變動中，我們可能會面臨2028到2030年出現更階梯式的變化。另外，當你們有 AWS 合約時，容量拍賣的支撐可能也會更多，甚至來自那個4吉瓦機會的部分。

So there's a lot of free cash flow support. So sorry for the long-winded question, but how are you thinking about maintaining upside potential under scenarios, whether that's a PPL comment, broader PJM where we get more stepwise moves and you can kind of capture that value, both through volume on running higher capacity factors, but of course, on Sparks potentially rising more?

所以自由現金流有很多支撐因素。抱歉問題有點冗長，但你們如何思考在不同情境下維持上行潛力？不論是 PPL 的評論/因素、或更廣泛的 PJM 出現更階梯式的變動，而你們能夠捕捉那個價值——一方面透過提高容量因子帶來的發電量，當然也包括 Sparks 可能進一步上升？

Moshe, this is Terry. Happy to dive in that question. I'll tell you, first of all, we always -- as we give those updates, you can see how we expressed our sort of point of view on the next few years as you look at the hedge profile. We have been I think, fairly consistent on how we think about some of those years, especially '28 and beyond.

Moshe，我是 Terry。很樂意深入回答這個問題。首先我想說，我們一向——在我們提供這些更新時，你可以從避險概況看出我們對未來幾年的觀點。我認為我們在如何看待某些年度上一直相當一致，特別是2028年及之後。

That being said, when we put the hedging strategy together, we do like to use some instruments that allow us to fence in outcomes to where maybe we're on the higher end of where we think it might come out, but we put a little sense around some outcomes in pricing to where we can still participate in the upside.

話雖如此，當我們制定避險策略時，我們確實喜歡使用一些工具，讓我們能把結果圈定在某個範圍內：也許落在我們預期區間的較高端，但同時對部分價格結果設下界線，讓我們仍能參與上行。

And so we do have some positions that are Delta positions, and you'll see the hedge percentage move around as prices move around. But yes, when we give our information every quarter, I mean, the best way for us to talk about is just seeing what our hedge profile is.

因此我們確實有一些部位是 Delta 部位，你也會看到避險比例會隨價格變動而上下調整。但沒錯，我們每季提供資訊時，我的意思是，我們談這件事最好的方式就是直接看我們的避險概況。

So let me pick up on that just to back up on back of what Terry said, you can see the hedge profile that's back on page 15 in the deck. And you'll notice that while we've increased hedges, I think, about 5% in '28 quarter-over-quarter, 25% to 30%. We are longer out on the back end of the curve, even with or this assumes sort of minds on the contract ramp associated with AWS.

我接著補充一下、呼應 Terry 剛才說的，你可以在簡報第15頁看到避險概況。你會注意到，雖然我們在2028年的避險比例較上季提高了約5%，從25%到30%。我們在曲線後端的部位拉得更長，即使——或說這裡的假設包含了與 AWS 相關的合約爬坡（ramp）因素。

So obviously, that would that would create a bit of a shorter position but it does influence how we think about just the overall hedging strategy. And I made a little bit of a joke at Chris' expense earlier, but we've been asked for, I don't know, several quarters when are the forwards going to start to reflect the tightness. And our answer was that it's coming, and we don't understand why the forwards are at their current spot. They have now started to reflect the tightness.

所以很明顯，那確實會形成一個稍短的部位，但它確實會影響我們對整體避險策略的思考。我先前拿 Chris 開了個小玩笑，但我們被問了——我不知道——好幾個季度：遠期合約什麼時候才會開始反映供應吃緊。而我們的回答一直是：快了，而且我們也不理解為什麼遠期價格會停在目前這個水準。它們現在已經開始反映供應吃緊了。

And to your point, will they reflect even further tightness as you get out beyond it's yet to be seen. The markets are pretty thin out there. The second point that I'd make is not only does it impact how we thought about hedges, it also impacted how we thought about acquisitions.

而就你說的，它們在更遠期是否會反映更進一步的緊俏，還有待觀察。那邊的市場流動性相當薄。我想補充的第二點是：它不只影響我們對避險的看法，也影響我們對併購的看法。

We purposely got longer baseload generation energy in the market, one, to supplement our ability to sell long-term contracts off of energy and capacity but also from the perspective of just that we felt as though energy and capacity was underpriced and it's going to be more valuable in the future. So not that you can -- that's not exactly how you underwrite it, but it's a perspective that went into what is the equity upside piece to those acquisitions.

我們刻意在市場上拉長了基載發電能源的部位：第一，是為了補強我們以能源與容量去銷售長期合約的能力；第二，也是因為我們認為能源與容量被低估了，未來會更有價值。所以你不能——這也不是你在承作評估時完全照這樣寫的，但這是一個觀點，會影響我們在那些併購案中「股權上行空間」那一塊的判斷。

Incredibly helpful from both of you. If I could just add one follow-up to Carl's comments on the base FCF going up $4 on your 2028 outlook. It's not buybacks. That's a different point there. Cornerstone is already in there. It curves were already up. So -- and maybe I just want to see if you could clarify a little more. Is there anything else because you're saying the narrowing of the zones would be upside there.

你們兩位的說明都非常有幫助。如果我可以再追問一點，延續 Carl 對你們 2028 年展望中基礎 FCF 上調 4 美元的評論。這不是庫藏股回購。那是另一個點。Cornerstone 已經包含在裡面了。曲線也已經上移了。所以——我可能只是想再確認你們能否多澄清一點。還有其他因素嗎？因為你們說分區價差收斂會帶來上行。

Anything like OpEx post acquisitions, maybe synergies there or volumes terawatt hours expected in there that's part of the increase in the base outlook for 2028. It's good to see, just trying to understand a little more on what's actually in there going from $36 to $40?

像是併購後的營運費用（OpEx），可能有協同效益，或是預期的發電量（太瓦時）也包含在內，這些是否構成 2028 年基礎展望上調的一部分？看到上調很不錯，只是想更了解從 36 到 40 之間，實際上包含了哪些內容？

So Cole can obviously recite and Terry, the numbers and the bowels of this much better than me. But look, when we go through and put an outlook together, we're looking at what our outages look like out there? What does our CapEx look like out there? What is our O&M out there, and it's a recent update and a bring down on all those factors.

Cole 當然可以把這些數字背得出來，Terry 也比我更清楚這些細節。但你看，當我們編製展望時，我們會看：未來的停機（outages）狀況如何？未來的資本支出（CapEx）如何？未來的營運與維護（O&M）如何？這次就是把所有這些因素做了近期更新與下修（bring down）。

So now the marks are the things that have moved the most. And these marks what we do is we market the end of each quarter as we've done here. It's gotten us into a little bit of a do-loop as we go through quarters because people are looking at what are the outlooks in the out years.

所以現在，變動最大的是估值調整（marks）。而這些 marks，我們做法是像這次一樣在每季季末做市值評價（mark）。這讓我們在季度之間有點陷入循環，因為大家都在看更遠年度的展望是什麼。

And that's why I made the point of saying we're not going to do this as frequently going forward. And I know there's a lot of people that are out there doing mark-to-market. But we are at this point, and hopefully, we'll come to finality of doing this too often as we gave guidance for '27 and then outlook for '28 and '29 with the third quarter.

這也是我提到未來不會這麼頻繁做的原因。我知道外面有很多人都在做按市價計量（mark-to-market）。但我們目前走到這一步，希望也能把「太常做」這件事告一段落——因為我們在第三季已經給了 2027 年指引，以及 2028、2029 年的展望。

But we put it all in there. we have a corporate model, if you want to call it that, which feeds our business plan, looks at all of that, it looks at the marks, but then looks at all of our operating characteristics, things that we're going through, and it's all in there.

但我們把所有東西都放進去了。我們有一個企業模型——如果你要這麼稱呼——它會餵入我們的營運計畫，檢視所有這些內容：它會看 marks，也會看我們所有的營運特性、我們正在推進的事項，全部都在裡面。

Yes. And Moses soon as Max said, it's a number of things. But on the Cornerstone piece, just to be clear, those cornerstone assets are in AV Hub and not PPOs you need to look at both PPL zone quarter-over-quarter and also ADH, which is obviously the large update was adding the Cornerstone assets into the calculation there.

是的。而且就像 Max 剛才說的，這是多個因素共同造成的。但就 Cornerstone 這一塊，為了釐清：那些 Cornerstone 資產是在 AV Hub，而不是 PPOs；你需要同時看 PPL 分區的季度對季度變化，以及 ADH——很明顯，最大的更新是把 Cornerstone 資產納入那邊的計算。

James West, Melius Research.

James West，Melius Research。

So I think so with the hybrid strategy that you guys have in place and it's all grid connected, you seem to be in a very enviable position here because we're hearing and we've heard us in the last 1.5 weeks from some of the hyperscalers that power is going to be a constraint. It's not -- it's not going to be a constraint. It is a constraint. It may actually caused them in some ways to moderate their CapEx growth because there's waiting for energy.

所以我想，依你們目前的混合策略，而且全部都是並網（grid connected），你們看起來處在一個非常令人稱羨的位置，因為我們在過去 1.5 週從一些超大規模業者（hyperscalers）那邊聽到、也一直聽到：電力會成為限制因素。它不是——它不是會成為限制。它已經是限制了。它甚至可能在某些方面迫使他們放緩資本支出（CapEx）成長，因為他們在等電力。

But you've got some of it now and you'll build some of it with this strategy. I mean when do you anticipate contracting on this? And is there some gating item, whether it's the auction or just figuring out all the regulations in finalizing those in PJM? Is there some gating item? Or is this coming down the pipe pretty quick?

但你們現在已經有一部分，而且也會用這個策略再建一部分。我的意思是，你們預期什麼時候會就此簽約（contracting）？是否有什麼關鍵門檻（gating item），不論是拍賣，或是在 PJM 把所有法規釐清並最終定案？有什麼關鍵門檻嗎？還是說這會很快就會推進？

So James, it's Mac. Look, I think there's a number of factors. Obviously, we're getting a lot -- we're getting to the endpoint on the RVP. We'll get the I guess, this week or next week -- this week, okay, that's what I thought this week. And that will help provide, I'll call it, some more clarity on things. I think that one of the things that needs some discussion here is, first of all, I appreciate your comments because what we're trying to build is a suite of options that solve a number of different customer needs were requirements.

James，我是 Mac。你看，我覺得有幾個因素。很明顯，我們在 RVP 上已經快到終點了。我們會在——我想是這週或下週——這週，好的，我也以為是這週。那會帶來——我稱之為——更多的清晰度。我認為這裡需要討論的一點是：首先，我很感謝你的評論，因為我們想打造的是一整套選項，去滿足多種不同客戶需求或要求。

The one we're not doing is behind the meter. I do think that there's solutions that will be behind the meter. There's no doubt about it. They've already been announced and will there be more announced maybe. But we don't think that, that's a long-term solution. We think the long-term solution is front of the meter grid connected with or without new capacity additions or and new energy, et cetera. And we do think that also having powered land as an addition to that, help that out, bringing those front-of-the-meter solutions to bear.

我們唯一不做的是表後（behind the meter）。我確實認為表後會有解決方案。這點毫無疑問。它們已經被宣布了，未來會不會再宣布更多，也許會。但我們不認為那是長期解方。我們認為長期解方是在表前（front of the meter）並網，搭配或不搭配新增容量，或新增能源等等。而我們也認為，把「具備電力的土地」（powered land）作為補充，能幫上忙，讓那些表前解決方案得以落地。

But we are approaching 2027 here. We're at the end of 2026. And in 2027, '29 becomes the new '28 and hyperscalers right now are all looking for something that can be done exactly in '28. We already did that, right? We -- and it's being built out at the Susquehanna campus. And so when you say what is any gating item? I don't know that there's any one particular gating item. I know people want to point to regulatory noise and say, that's regulatory neopolitical noise and say it's political noise. I think it's -- those things are a factor, but not necessarily the biggest factor.

但我們正在接近 2027 年了。我們已經在 2026 年底。而到了 2027 年，2029 就會成為新的 2028；而超大規模業者現在都在找能夠「正好在 2028 年」完成的方案。我們其實已經做到了，對吧？我們——而且正在 Susquehanna 園區建置中。所以你問有沒有什麼關鍵門檻？我不確定是否有任何單一、特定的關鍵門檻。我知道有人想把焦點放在監管雜音上，說那是監管的、地緣政治的雜音，或說那是政治雜音。我認為——那些確實是因素，但未必是最大的因素。

I think the biggest factor is these guys are all spending $50 billion a year, thinking about where they put their chips down and they're working on the very near term, like what are we doing to put those chips down '27, '28 and then they're going to start working on '29. And it's just -- it is how much cycles, how much time do they have to spend on all different factors.

我認為最大的因素是，這些人每年都在花 500 億美元，思考他們要把籌碼押在哪裡，而且他們在非常近的期限內運作，例如我們要在 '27、'28 把這些籌碼押下去做什麼，接著他們就會開始著手 '29。而這就是——他們要花多少個週期、多少時間，去處理所有不同的因素。

And so when you think about where each of them are, it's just -- it's an allocation of time. And I know everybody wants it to be built out quicker. But even they are struggling with getting it built out quicker. So I think it's a matter of when, not if is the real point here, and I don't know that the determinant on if there's any one factor.

所以當你思考他們每一家各自所處的位置時，這其實就是——時間的配置。我知道大家都希望建置能更快完成。但即便是他們，也在努力想把建置速度拉快。所以我認為重點在於何時發生，而不是會不會發生；而且我不確定是否有任何單一因素會是決定性因素。

Okay. That's very helpful, Mac, and that explains a lot. Just one quick follow-up for me on the backstop auction with the cap at I think $5.55 does that kind of change what you add into that -- or what you bid into that auction, does that shift towards more batteries? Because I would think new build gas would not pencil at that level. Maybe I'm wrong.

好的。這非常有幫助，Mac，也解釋了很多。我這邊再追問一個很快的問題：關於 backstop 拍賣，上限我記得是 5.55 美元，這是否會改變你們在那個——或你們在那場拍賣中出價的內容，會不會因此更偏向電池？因為我會認為在那個水準下，新建燃氣機組的經濟性算不出來。也許我錯了。

I don't think so. If you're talking CCGTs. But the way that, that 555 works is it's sort of a floating cap. So if you have and this is dangerous to try to do averages. But if you have something 1,000 or 3,000 megawatts at $455 and 3,000 megawatts at $6.55, that averages to $555 million that's how that works. So you can go above the cap. That's our understanding of how it works. We want to make sure we get clarity on that. So maybe there will be some things that clear up the stack in those numbers.

我不這麼認為。如果你指的是 CCGT（複循環燃氣渦輪）。但那個 555 的運作方式是，它有點像浮動上限。所以如果你有——而且用平均值來算其實有點危險。但如果你有 1,000 或 3,000 兆瓦以 4.55 美元，以及 3,000 兆瓦以 6.55 美元，那平均起來就是 5.55 百萬美元——它就是這樣運作的。所以你可以高於上限。這是我們對其運作方式的理解。我們希望能把這點釐清。所以也許在那些數字裡，會有一些項目把供給堆疊（stack）中的部分情況釐清。

But if you look at the -- what we think are the winning solution. It's up rate first, right? It's batteries and it's maybe peakers, even peakers are going to be up that stack, particularly as you try to either -- and it's going to depend, it depends on people how to look at it. If they're trying to amortize everything over the 15-year period or they're going to take a big sort of balloon merchant risk year 16 like people are going to have to make some of these decisions there. And so we'll see what goes on.

但如果你看——我們認為會勝出的解決方案，首先是升級增容（uprate），對吧？接著是電池，然後可能是尖峰機組（peakers）；即便是尖峰機組也會在那個堆疊的上方，特別是當你試圖要——而且這會取決於、也取決於人們怎麼看。他們是要把所有東西攤提在 15 年期間，還是要在第 16 年承擔一個很大的、類似氣球式的商業（merchant）風險——人們必須在那裡做出一些決策。所以我們就看看會怎麼發展。

We are hopeful that the RBP is headed in the right direction and that it will be successful in solving this what I consider a near-term sort of political problem, and then we can get on to the longer-term capacity reforms because we have a market that's working. And let me just say something on that for just a second. I think piece -- the first step in the right direction because it's procuring incremental generation, right? It's bringing new gen in to help solve the problem.

我們希望 RBP 正朝著正確方向前進，並且能成功解決我認為屬於短期的、某種政治性問題，然後我們就能推進更長期的容量改革，因為我們有一個運作中的市場。我再就這點說一下。我認為這是——朝正確方向的第一步，因為它是在採購增量發電資源，對吧？它是在引入新的發電資源來幫助解決問題。

I think the IRAs, which is going to come out and which is just connect and managed by another name, is talking about curtailing load during emergency, at least that's how it was originally proposed. We got to see what the rule looks like but we as an industry need to focus on not curtailing load, figuring out how to solve the load problem.

我認為 IRAs（即將推出的那個），本質上只是「Connect and managed」的另一個名稱、由另一個名目來連接與管理，談的是在緊急狀況期間削減負載，至少最初的提案是這樣。我們得看看規則長什麼樣，但我們作為產業需要把重點放在不要削減負載，而是想辦法解決負載問題。

This is like one of the greatest opportunities we've seen in this sector in a long time and we should focus on how to bring new generation to bear to solve the load requirements, not try to curtail load or stop load from being built, particularly given the economic developments and everything else that goes along with it. So I probably rambled more than you expected, but that's posing myself.

這是我們在這個產業很久以來看到的最大機會之一，我們應該專注於如何引入新的發電來滿足負載需求，而不是試圖削減負載或阻止負載建置，特別是在經濟發展以及其他伴隨因素的背景下。所以我可能比你預期的講得更散，但這就是我想表達的。

NG Sterno, Seaport.

NG Sterno，Seaport。

So first, on the Connect and managed. So I'm just wondering I know you guys have been waiting for regulatory priority. But given the sort of matching or potential matching of both existing capacity with new capacity, how important is Connect and managed to your strategy, again, given the new build portfolio that you've been working on and given the locational benefits that your existing assets have, especially in the PPL zone?

所以首先，關於 Connect and managed。我在想——我知道你們一直在等待監管上的優先排序。但考量到既有容量與新容量之間的配對、或潛在配對，你們的策略中 Connect and managed 有多重要？同樣地，考量到你們一直在推進的新建投資組合，以及你們既有資產的區位優勢，特別是在 PPL 區域？

Well, Angie, it's Mac. Let me try to take this and pull in the rest of the team here. First of all, the hybrid strategy and the rest of it, just to be like specific to answer that, we think, provides a safe harbor to connect to manage. Now that's assuming the Connected Manage and the rest of it gets implemented. And quite frankly, we think that there's all sorts of jurisdictional and discriminatory issues associated with it. I've always said that and continue to say that because IRAS is just connected manage.

嗯，Angie，我是 Mac。我試著回答這題，並把團隊其他人也拉進來。首先，混合策略以及其他安排——就具體回答而言——我們認為它為 connect to manage 提供了一個安全港（safe harbor）。當然這是以 Connected Manage 以及其他內容確實被落實為前提。坦白說，我們認為其中牽涉各種管轄權與歧視性問題。我一直這麼說，也會繼續這麼說，因為 IRAS 就只是 connected manage。

I'm glad you use that price in another name. But to answer your question with respect to like how impactful it is on the rest of our business and how we think about it, it's really hard to answer that question. I'm going to try, but it's really hard because you got to -- it's a hypothetical and I know you have to appreciate, and I appreciate why the relevance of the question, Angie, but you also have to appreciate.

我很高興你把它稱作「換個名字的同一套」。但要回答你關於它對我們其他業務的影響程度，以及我們如何看待它，這題真的很難回答。我會試著回答，但真的很難，因為你必須——這是一個假設性的問題；我知道你會理解、我也理解這個問題的相關性，Angie，但你也必須理解。

It's a bit of a hypothetical until we get proposal that comes out because there were some changes to the RVP that were filed in the 700 pages. We haven't seen whatever number of pages are going to come out with IRAS. But -- so even if we could and have those specific details, we'd have to then step forward with understanding and making a lot of assumptions to answer the question, including the FERC rejected not rejected because of the discriminatory nature does it withstand the judicial review, will PA implement it the same as Ohio we don't know.

在我們看到正式提案出來之前，這多少都還是假設，因為在那 700 頁文件裡，RVP 的確有一些變更被提交。我們還沒看到 IRAS 將會公布的——不管是多少頁。但是——所以即便我們能拿到那些具體細節，我們也還得在理解的基礎上往前推，並做出大量假設才能回答這題，包括：FERC 會不會因其歧視性而否決或不否決、它能否經得起司法審查、賓州（PA）是否會像俄亥俄州一樣實施——我們都不知道。

And oh, by the way, the rule as we read it is really about curtailment during emergency situations in the order of operations, which PJM already has that authority. It's just that they're changing the way that they're doing it a little bit and allocating it based off of like snapping a line at some time frame. So it's really hard to answer how it goes out, but we look forward to getting this Friday, understanding it and then working to see if it is a reasonable outcome and all we have to go on is what PJM released last Friday.

而且，順帶一提，依我們對規則的解讀，它其實主要是關於在緊急情況下、依照操作順序進行削減（curtailment），而 PJM 本來就已經有那個權限。只是他們稍微改變了執行方式，並且基於某個時間框架、像是把某條線在某個時間點「切斷」那樣來分配。所以很難回答最後會怎麼落地，但我們期待這週五拿到內容、理解它，然後再來推進，看看這是否是合理的結果；而我們目前能依據的只有 PJM 上週五發布的內容。

And Angie, let me add to Max's comment. I think another thing that we would mention, and I'm going to go back to a comment that Matt made in the script, we've got advantaged assets in advantaged locations -- and what I mean by that is, keep in mind that -- so let's talk about the interim resource adequacy service or IRAS. PPL zone does not have a resource adequacy problem. -- right?

Angie，我補充一下 Max 的評論。我想我們還會提到另一點，我要回到 Matt 在講稿裡提過的：我們有具優勢的資產、位於具優勢的地點——我的意思是，請記住——所以我們來談談臨時資源充足性服務（interim resource adequacy service，IRAS）。PPL 區域並沒有資源充足性問題——對吧？

It is oversupplied for generation, even take a look at the discussion that we've had around basis. The reason that we have this basis is there's ample generation in PPL zone. So when you take a look at the specific resource adequacy, our assets are situated where we're not in locations where you have an adequacy problem. And so I do think that our assets, in particular, are situated really well. To Matt's point, let's see what comes out on Friday, we'll see the details of it. but we think the portfolio is situated really well.

就發電而言目前是供給過剩，甚至你可以回頭看看我們先前圍繞基差所做的討論。我們之所以會有這個基差，是因為 PPL 區域的發電量相當充裕。因此，當你看特定的資源充裕度時，我們的資產所在的位置並不是那些會出現充裕度問題的地點。所以我確實認為，尤其是我們的資產，位置配置得非常好。呼應 Matt 的觀點，我們看看週五會公布什麼，再看其細節；但我們認為投資組合的配置非常到位。

Great. And just one follow-up. So you guys mentioned that the four curves plus capacity have basically caught up with the terms of your existing Susquehanna contract. And so I'm wondering if could maybe tell us what is the premium or what is the spread over those observable forwards that you could contract gas assets at. And I understand that it's a spark spread as opposed to the total price, but I'm hoping directionally if there's been sort of any compression of that premium as the forwards pick up or the market expectations continue to grow along with the forwards other hyperscaler or your expectations?

很好。再追問一個問題。你們提到四條曲線加上容量，基本上已經追上你們現有 Susquehanna 合約的條款。因此我想請教，你們在簽訂燃氣資產合約時，相對於那些可觀察到的遠期價格，大概能拿到多少溢價或利差？我理解這是火花價差（spark spread）而不是總價格，但我希望從方向性來看，隨著遠期價格走高、或市場預期隨著遠期與其他超大規模客戶（hyperscaler）或你們的預期持續上升，這個溢價是否有出現某種程度的壓縮？

Yes. It's a willing buyer and willing seller proposition for a long-term contract, Angie, as you know, I started to answer this with your favorite answer for me, which is I'm not going to say anything to you about it. But I didn't just -- so I'm on a little light humor, Angie. So the -- it's hard to say. I mean I think that the thing that I would tell you is that when we look at selling energy off of the existing portfolio and even with new capacity in the peakers form and the rest of it.

是的。Angie，長期合約本質上是「願買者、願賣者」的命題；如你所知，我本來要用你最愛聽我說的那句來回答，就是我不會跟你透露任何細節。不過我只是——開個小玩笑，Angie。所以——這很難說。我的意思是，我想我能告訴你的是，當我們看把既有投資組合的電力拿去出售，甚至再加上以尖峰機組（peakers）形式新增的容量以及其他部分時。

We think that we can blend that together over a long-term contract that creates value versus where we are. It creates a long-term contract, which lowers our cost of capital and it beats any new build CCGT and any behind-the-meter solution on a total cost. So we think that's a winning proposition. That's why we continue to develop both new capacity additions in the form of peakers and batteries and upgrades. And while we're putting the power land pieces together that helps it advance it. And all of that is positive.

我們認為可以把這些在一份長期合約中加以整合（blend），相較於我們目前的狀況能創造價值。它能形成一份長期合約，進而降低我們的資本成本，而且在總成本上優於任何新建 CCGT（複循環燃氣機組）以及任何表後（behind-the-meter）解決方案。所以我們認為這是個雙贏的命題。這也是為什麼我們持續開發新增容量，包括以尖峰機組與電池的形式，以及升級改造。同時，我們也在把電力與土地（power land）的各個拼圖組合起來，推動其進展。而這一切都是正面的。

If we get it done with our advantaged assets in the advantaged region of PPL as Terry and Cole we're talking about, when you think about the basis because nothing solves bases like low. And PPL can solve PPL can absorb that load, as I mentioned in the opening remarks. So we like where we are with all of this.

如果我們能在 Terry 和 Cole 所談到的 PPL 這個具優勢的區域、用我們具優勢的資產把它做成，當你想到基差時，因為沒有什麼比低負載更能解決基差。而且如我在開場致詞提到的，PPL 可以消化、PPL 也能吸收那樣的負載。所以我們很喜歡目前在這些事情上的位置。

David Arcaro, Morgan Stanley.

David Arcaro，摩根士丹利。

I guess just curious if you could maybe elaborate to the extent you can, just -- what's the interest level that you're seeing in new megawatts, bringing new capacity and just broader trend toward more and more need for getting new megawatts onto the grid. So I'm curious if there's more of a trend in your data center discussions toward hybrid newbuild solutions overall versus existing gene?

我想問的是，在你們能分享的範圍內，能否再多談一些——你們看到市場對新增兆瓦、導入新增容量的興趣程度如何？以及更廣泛來看，把更多新增兆瓦併入電網的需求是否正持續上升的趨勢。所以我也好奇，在你們與資料中心的討論中，是否整體上更偏向混合式的新建解決方案，而不是既有發電（existing gen）？

David, it's Cole. I'll start here. Look, as I outlined in the prepared remarks, we're seeing a variety of different types of data center customers interested in both types of products that we're really focused on, one, being to selling megawatts off of our existing portfolio. And those are the folks that would be willing to potentially accept curtailment under some kind of connected manage scenario if and when that comes into play.

David，我是 Cole。我先說。你看，正如我在事先準備的發言中所概述的，我們看到各式各樣的資料中心客戶，對我們真正聚焦的兩類產品都感興趣：第一，是從我們既有投資組合中出售兆瓦。而這些客戶可能願意在某種「連網管理」（connected manage）的情境下，在必要時接受限電（curtailment），如果/當那種機制啟動時。

But yes, we're seeing folks hyperscalers and others engaging on the hybrid model. Certainly, the bring your own new capacity or bring new capacity to the system is of interest. And I think that's a compelling offering that we have, and it's one of kind of the two main areas that we're looking at. And we obviously wouldn't be talking about so much. We didn't think that hyperscalers and others had significant interest.

但沒錯，我們也看到超大規模客戶（hyperscalers）以及其他客戶在混合模式上有所接觸。當然，「自帶新增容量」或「為系統帶來新增容量」是他們感興趣的方向。我認為這是我們具吸引力的方案之一，也是我們正在看的兩個主要領域之一。而且我們之所以會談這麼多，是因為我們確實認為超大規模客戶與其他客戶有相當大的興趣。

And Cole, just to add to that. And David, just to -- like when you think about it, I think we used the word hyperscaler as it's -- everybody is the same. -- right? And everybody has the same desires. And I don't know that, that's exactly true. I mean people have ratepayer protection pledges, et cetera. But they have different views on new capacity, how much new capacity versus existing what form that's in.

Cole，我再補充一下。David，當你這樣想時，我覺得我們用了「hyperscaler」這個詞，好像——每個人都一樣——對吧？好像每個人都有相同的需求。但我不確定這完全正確。我的意思是，人們會有用戶（ratepayer）保護承諾等等。但他們對新增容量的看法不同：要多少新增容量、相對於既有容量的比例，以及採用什麼形式。

And then if you expand and I think Cole went through this slide, we had Neo clouds there and co-locators who are getting back into the game. There are certain aspects of data centers that might be okay to be curtailed. That doesn't mean that we think IRAS should be implemented in the way that it was under Connect manage. Don't take that the wrong way. But they should be incented to do that in a market and create demand response product that they can participate in.

另外，如果你把範圍擴大——我想 Cole 也在那張投影片中提到——我們還列了新型雲端（Neo clouds）以及機房共置業者（co-locators），他們也正在重新回到市場。資料中心有些面向可能可以接受被限電。這不代表我們認為 IRAS 應該以 Connect manage 之下當時那種方式來實施。不要誤會我的意思。但市場應該提供誘因，並建立他們可以參與的需求反應（demand response）產品。

And some people may be okay with that. And some people might not be okay with that and want to bring capacity. And some people may be okay with just having a contract and seeing what comes in the future with the changes over these types of things. And so that's why we've developed a suite of options and are working on advancing that suite of options so that we can participate in anything in the future holds with the exception, as I mentioned before, buying the meter because that's just not -- it's not our thing.

有些人可能可以接受那樣的安排。也有些人可能無法接受，並希望自帶容量。還有些人可能只想先簽一份合約，看看未來隨著這類變動會如何發展。因此我們才開發了一整套選項，並持續推進這套選項的完善，讓我們能參與未來可能出現的任何情境；唯一的例外，如我先前提到的，是去買電表（buying the meter），因為那就不是——那不是我們的路線。

Yes. Got it. Understood. That's helpful color. And then just curious if you could elaborate a bit on how you're thinking about M&A, the M&A landscape and just how you would prioritize that in terms of allocation of capital currently where things stand?

是的。了解。明白。這些補充很有幫助。另外也想請教，你們能否多談一點你們如何看待併購（M&A）、目前的併購環境，以及在當前情況下你們會如何在資本配置上排序其優先順序？

So David, this is Terry. I'll take that and Mac and others can chime in. Obviously, M&A has been part of our strategy. When you take a look at the growth in our earnings and our free cash flow per share, it's been a core part of our strategy. We'll look at it as a path just like we'll look at anything else, right? First and foremost, with our -- where our share prices are, our free cash flow yield is very attractive. So the share repurchase program is our hurdle.

David，我是 Terry。我來回答，Mac 和其他人也可以補充。很明顯，併購一直是我們策略的一部分。當你看我們每股盈餘與每股自由現金流的成長，併購一直是核心策略之一。我們會把它視為一條路徑，就像我們看待其他任何事情一樣，對吧？首先，以我們目前的股價水準來看，我們的自由現金流殖利率非常具吸引力。因此，股票回購計畫就是我們的門檻（hurdle）。

We've always talked about that. But if we could find an accretive M&A transaction that -- similar to what we've done in the past and it adds free cash flow to the overall mix, and we can do it in a manner that's clearing those returns, we'll do it. So yes, we're always in the M&A market, and I think that's just sort of something that you've got to do to look at growing the business.

我們一直都有談到這點。但如果我們能找到一筆具增值性的併購交易——類似於我們過去做過的那種，並且能為整體組合增加自由現金流，而且我們能以符合那些報酬門檻的方式來做，我們就會做。所以是的，我們一直都在併購市場裡，我認為這就是你為了尋求業務成長必須去做、去看的事情。

But I want to say the same thing that we always say, which is like our hurdle is like and we showed it in the charts on as of Page 10, whatever the free cash flow per share churn but sorry, the free cash flow per share chart, that the reason we show 70% of our cash flow being returned is because that's our hurdle like we think of it that way. But as Terry said, we've been flexible.

但我想重申我們一貫說的同一句話，也就是我們的門檻大概是——我們在第10頁的圖表裡也有展示，呃，什麼每股自由現金流的流失率，不好意思，是每股自由現金流的圖表——我們之所以展示有70%的現金流被回饋出去，是因為那就是我們的門檻，我們是用那樣的方式來思考的。但如Terry所說，我們一直保持彈性。

We've issued shares to do deals. We've taken on debt with a paydown over with a distinct time frame. And so we've been able to use those toggles, but we always go back to measuring ourselves in particular, depending upon where the share price is and the free cash flow yield in the out year. how we might take that capital and return it to shareholders.

我們曾發行股票來做交易。我們也曾舉債，並在明確的時間框架內進行償還。因此我們能運用這些槓桿選項，但我們總是回到一個衡量方式：特別是取決於股價所在位置，以及未來年度的自由現金流殖利率，我們要如何運用那筆資本並把它回饋給股東。

Shar Pourreza, Wells Fargo.

Shar Pourreza，富國銀行。

Good afternoon, team. It's actually Constantine -- really appreciate all the great answers and maybe we can -- maybe we just clean up a couple of housekeeping items and leftovers, but -- maybe just to help clarify on the site development plan. The 4 gigawatts. There's no change from kind of the prior three to four that you were looking at, right?

各位下午好。其實我是Constantine——非常感謝你們所有精彩的回答；也許我們可以——也許就把幾個行政性事項和遺留問題整理一下——但——也許先幫忙釐清一下站點開發計畫。那4吉瓦。這跟你們先前提到的約3到4吉瓦並沒有變化，對吧？

And are those kind of contemplating the same characteristics that you highlighted in the first quarter, like the '28, '29 grid connections and gigawatt type sites. Just maybe any impact that you've seen on those from the PJM rule changes?

而且這些是否也在考量你們第一季提到的相同特性，例如在2028、2029年的電網併網，以及吉瓦級的站點？另外，PJM規則變更對這些有沒有造成任何影響？

Hey, Constantine. Look, largely speaking, we're advancing the portfolio, and we're always looking to add to the portfolio -- but we outlined a number of sites, at least in terms of size of megawatts. And as I said in the script, we're developing those and advancing those, but we're still looking to continue to add to the funnel there.

嗨，Constantine。你看，整體而言，我們正在推進這個投資組合，我們也一直在尋找把更多項目加入組合的機會——但我們已經列出若干站點，至少就兆瓦規模而言。如我在講稿中所說，我們正在開發並推進這些項目，但我們仍會持續把更多項目加入漏斗。

So I'm not going to comment on specific numbers of projects going. But yes, in terms of the characteristics, the charters are the same speed to market advantages sites that can be scaled to gigawatt plus data centers are clearly the kind of the value add that we're providing to customers.

所以我不會評論正在推進的具體專案數量。但就特性而言，是的，定位仍相同：具備快速上市優勢、且可擴展到吉瓦以上資料中心的站點，顯然就是我們為客戶提供的價值增量。

And then constant, maybe to add to Cole's comments, -- when you look at the new build capacity, I would say that the one thing that we've added in there for this quarter, and it's on the back of closing the Cornerstone transaction as we do have some upgrades that we're looking at, obviously, adding these additional gas plants in the system. That's something that we can look at from a new build standpoint. But once again, going back to one of the other questions, obviously, we'll have to clear the right hurdle rate before we'll do anything with those.

另外，Constantine，補充Cole的評論——當你看新建容量時，我會說我們本季新增的一件事（這也得益於我們完成Cornerstone交易）是：我們確實在評估一些升級，顯然是把這些額外的燃氣電廠納入系統。這是我們可以從新建角度來看的事情。但再次回到先前的問題，在我們對那些項目採取任何行動之前，顯然必須先達到正確的門檻報酬率。

Right. And then any impact from the PJM rule changes that's kind of starting to get felt within that development portfolio or still too soon?

了解。那PJM規則變更是否已開始在你們的開發組合中感受到影響，還是仍然太早？

I think still too soon. Obviously, we'll see where IRAS comes out and what the RBP is. But I think several of these projects that we have sort of meet the requirements or need that.

我認為仍然太早。顯然，我們會看IRAS最後如何落地，以及RBP是什麼。但我認為我們手上的幾個專案大致上符合相關要求或需要那些條件。

Okay. And then we've seen some waves on data center development from Texas this week being made? And do you see that creating any opportunities like sending projects to PJM or other areas, just in general, maybe kind of your view on the scarcity signals for on-grid solutions. Just curious kind of where the strategic focus lies as the dynamics evolve and would you look outside of PJM or just double down on the current plan?

好的。另外，本週我們看到德州在資料中心開發方面出現一些動向？你是否認為這會帶來一些機會，例如把專案轉向PJM或其他地區；更一般地說，你對於電網內解決方案的稀缺性訊號有何看法？只是好奇，隨著動態演變，你們的策略重點會放在哪裡；你們會看PJM以外的地區，還是會加碼既有計畫？

Constant I think that there's a lot of things that are -- that are real, but that are also politics. And that lockage and read into things and a lot that shouldn't get read in and some things that probably should get read into these things. And it's just -- at the end of the day, there's politics. There's going to be politics in there's politics in Texas. I think it's pretty sure to talk about data centers.

Constantine，我認為有很多事情——有些是真實的，但也有些是政治因素。而且人們會把一些事情過度解讀，也有很多其實不該解讀的，當然也有些可能確實該解讀。但歸根結底，這就是政治。會有政治因素——德州也有政治因素。我想談資料中心這件事相當安全。

But my view is that data centers are -- I'm not going to say that we need win this, but I do think there is a strategic advantage for the United States, and it's something that we need to really rally around and they bring economic development to communities and but there just happens to be -- we got midterms coming up.

但我的看法是，資料中心——我不會說我們必須贏下這一局，但我確實認為這對美國具有策略優勢，是我們需要真正凝聚共識的事情；它們也會為社區帶來經濟發展——只是剛好——我們即將迎來期中選舉。

We've got elections coming up and this happens to be a political football. And I just think there's a lot of that noise in the air, whether it be in Texas or anywhere else. And so I don't know that there's any particular application. If they want to throw the data center, Pennsylvania will take them. I mean we're all.

我們也即將迎來選舉，而這剛好成了一顆政治足球。我只是覺得空氣中有很多這樣的雜音，不管是在德州或其他任何地方。所以我不確定這是否會帶來任何特定的應用或影響。如果他們想把資料中心丟出去，賓州會接手。我是說，我們都會。

Excellent. And then maybe just a quick follow-up on kind of the basis issues and the mismatch with the PTL zone. And do you have any thoughts around kind of how to monetize that basis mismatch whether it's FDR strategies or just flexibility around hedging strategy?

很好。那再快速追問一下關於基差問題，以及與PTL分區的不匹配。你們對於如何將這種基差不匹配變現有什麼想法嗎？例如用FDR策略，或是在避險策略上提高彈性？

Yes. There is there's flexibility around it. I mean, we got to answer this because we've got time for like one more question here consenting after you. But like the -- there is ways to do it, but the problem with is sort of PPL, PICO, PEG, Jersey Central Power and Light, all of these places you could trade they're not deeply traded. It might become expensive to do it.

有。在這方面是有彈性的。我的意思是，我們得回答這題，因為在你之後我們大概只剩下一個問題的時間了，Constantine。但確實有方法可以做；問題在於像PPL、PECO、PSEG、Jersey Central Power and Light，這些地方你都可以交易，但它們的交易深度不高。做起來可能會變得很昂貴。

FTRs are only on either -- on the auction basis and don't trade that far in front and there's so much recently bias in it. And we were talking about it internally. I mean, people forget that. If you go back over a decade and PECO and PSEG were premium zones to WestuAnd then all the generation got built and things changed. But my only point being is that it's hard to manage that, and that's why West Hub, it's like trading NYMEX, right?

FTR只能在拍賣機制下取得，而且不會交易到那麼遠的遠期，並且最近裡面有很強的偏態。我們內部也在討論這件事。我的意思是，人們會忘記：如果你回顧十多年前，PECO和PSEG相對於West Hub曾是溢價分區，然後所有發電機組都建起來了，情況就改變了。但我想說的是，這很難管理；這也是為什麼West Hub就像在交易NYMEX一樣，對吧？

It's an easily definable point whereas you can go have delivery points on gas and get really complicated, but people do things at West Hub and that just happens to be the more liquid piece of it. So there are transmission that's being built. There is load that's coming. This will subside and by the way, there were some should mention this, there were some like specific in June of this year, there were some specific line outages as people were doing work.

它是一個容易界定的點；相較之下，你可以在天然氣上設定交割點，事情就會變得非常複雜，但大家會在West Hub做交易，而那剛好是其中流動性較高的部分。所以有輸電正在建設。也有負載正在進來。這種情況會緩解；順帶一提，還有一點應該提到：今年6月有一些特定的線路停運，因為大家在進行施工。

Now you'd ask why are they doing in June when it got hot. Well, that's just how it's planned, but there were some line outages that were taken out of service in order to like make improvements that will help relieve this over the long term.

現在你會問，為什麼他們要在六月、天氣變熱的時候做這件事。嗯，這就是既定的規劃，但也有一些線路停運，是為了進行改善，以在長期內幫助緩解這個問題。

And there's going to be more of those that go on. But it's not like one defining event of this transmission is going to solve it and then loads coming. But -- just to answer your question specifically, it's a difficult thing to deal with. And so yes, it informs our hedging strategy, but West Health is still the most liquid delivery point. So with that, going to go one more opportunity -- really appreciate it.

而且還會有更多這類情況發生。但並不是說這條輸電的某一個決定性事件就能把問題解決，然後負載就進來了。不過——就具體回答你的問題，這確實很難處理。所以是的，這會影響我們的避險策略，但 West Health 仍然是流動性最高的交割點。那麼，最後再給一次提問機會——非常感謝。

Michael Sullivan, Wolfe.

Michael Sullivan，Wolfe。

In terms of these new capacity options that you have, can you give us any sense of where you're at in terms of sourcing equipment and what costs might be looking like?

就你們目前擁有的這些新容量選項而言，能否讓我們大致了解一下你們在設備採購方面進展到哪一步，以及成本大概會是什麼樣子？

Question was on new capacity projects. I'm sorry, it was a little weak coming through.

問題是關於新容量專案。抱歉，剛才傳過來的聲音有點弱。

Just the peakers, the batteries, the new capacity solutions that you're looking to offer, where you're at in terms of equipment and what costs are looking like?

就是那些尖峰機組（peakers）、電池，以及你們打算提供的新容量解決方案；在設備方面你們目前進展如何？成本看起來如何？

Michael, this is Terry. We've talked to a number of different suppliers across the board, both batteries and peakers. The supplies there is available. It's just a question of pricing at the end of the day and then what's the end solution. And once again, going back to what we mentioned earlier. Obviously, we're not going to go on the road of spending too much money on a project like that unless we know what the returns are on the back end. So I think that is a way for you to understand sort of where we're moving on that.

Michael，我是 Terry。我們已經和多家不同供應商談過，涵蓋電池和尖峰機組。供應是有的。歸根結底只是價格問題，以及最終的解決方案是什麼。再一次回到我們先前提到的。很明顯，除非我們知道後端的回報是什麼，否則我們不會走上在那樣的專案上花太多錢的路。所以我想，這能讓你理解我們在這方面大致推進到哪裡。

Okay. And then last one, just on the future of the PJM capacity auction. Maybe just first, when you think we'll have clarity on the structure there post the cap rolling off? And then also how to think about the IRS provision of pulling out new load that isn't match with NewGen and any implications there for the future of the auction?

好的。最後一個問題，關於 PJM 容量拍賣的未來。也許先談第一點：你認為在上限（cap）到期取消之後，何時會對那邊的架構有更明確的方向？另外，關於 IRS 條款把未與 NewGen 匹配的新負載抽離出來，該如何看待？這對未來拍賣會有什麼影響？

So sorry, Michael, you're coming in a bit faint. I think you asked when do we think the longer-term capacity reforms are going to be post the cap. I think we're going to -- I think that was the first question. We're going to find out we may have to get that expedited. That's why we want to get the RVP behind us is going to get this IRAS behind us and move on to these longer-term reforms because we think that, again, like go back, we should be trying to figure out how to solve the load by bringing new gen, not curtailing it, not connect and managing it, not all these other things.

抱歉，Michael，你的聲音有點小。我想你問的是，在上限之後，我們何時會看到較長期的容量改革。我想我們會——我想那是第一個問題。我們會了解情況，可能必須加速推進。這也是為什麼我們想先把 RVP 處理完、把這個 IRAS 處理完，然後推進這些較長期的改革；因為我們認為，再次回到根本，我們應該試著透過引入新的發電（new gen）來解決負載問題，而不是去限縮它、不是不讓它併網並加以管理，也不是做所有其他那些事情。

And so that's our perspective. And we're going to work vigorously to help PJM with doing that and hopefully, we can make some meaningful reform. I didn't quite hear on IRAS, but let me just -- because we're a few minutes over and I apologize. But Again, we got to wait and see what comes out. I think you heard our position. We're fairly -- we're going to be -- I think we -- I think it's prudent to see what comes out because there were some changes.

這就是我們的觀點。我們會積極協助 PJM 推動這件事，希望能做出一些有意義的改革。關於 IRAS 我沒有聽得很清楚，但我先——因為我們已經超時幾分鐘了，抱歉。不過，還是得等看看最後會出什麼結果。我想你也聽到我們的立場了。我們相當——我們會——我想我們——我認為謹慎起見，先看看結果再說，因為確實有一些變動。

I think people have heard some feedback we'll see where it comes out. I don't think that we should be judging until we see that. So we're going to have to take that time. So Michael, happy to follow up with you. And by the way, there are a lot of people here, unfortunately, that we haven't gotten to. We've gone over a full hour appreciate everybody's questions, interest and talent.

我想大家也聽到了一些回饋，我們就看最後會怎麼落地。在看到之前，我不認為我們應該下定論。所以我們得花點時間。Michael，很樂意再跟你後續跟進。順帶一提，現場其實還有很多人，很遺憾我們沒有輪到。我們已經超過整整一小時了，感謝大家的提問、關注與投入。

We look forward to catching up with all of you and all of our investors over the coming as we get back to the sort of investor flow after the dog days of summer here in early August, but look forward to catching up with everybody. Thank you for your interest in Talen. Have a great day.

我們期待在接下來幾週與各位以及所有投資人再度交流；等到八月初、度過這裡所謂的盛夏淡季之後，我們也會回到比較正常的投資人互動節奏，但很期待與大家再碰面。感謝各位對 Talen 的關注。祝各位有美好的一天。

Thank you for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program, and you may now disconnect.

感謝各位參與今天的電話會議。本次議程到此結束，您現在可以掛線。