Thank you, Rob. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today.

With me are Garrick Rochow, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Rejji Hayes, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. This presentation contains forward-looking statements, which are subject to risks and uncertainties.

Please refer to our SEC filings for more information regarding the risks and other factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially. This presentation also includes non-GAAP measures.

Reconciliations of these measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures are included in the appendix and posted on our website. Now, I'll turn the call over to Garrick.

Thank you, Jason, and thank you, everyone, for joining us today. Our investment thesis, which you see on slide 3, continues to stand the test of time.

Whether it's our long capital runway, Michigan's top-tier regulatory jurisdiction, our ability to keep bills affordable for customers, or the strong economic growth across the state, this model works, and it works consistently. It drives a premium total shareholder return: 6% to 8% adjusted EPS growth with annual compounding, paired with approximately 3% dividend yield.

It's a simple, durable formula, and it's why CMS Energy continues to be a smart, long-term investment, delivering for more than two decades with consistent industry-leading performance. Turning to slide 4, you'll see the outcome of our most recent electric rate case.

The commission approved over 65% of our ask and maintained our 9.9% ROE in the electric business. I continue to be pleased with our regulatory outcomes and, most importantly, the support for our customer investments.

On the graph to the left, what stands out is that consistent record of support, constructive outcomes we've seen across our electric rate case filings over the last several years. These outcomes reflect deliberate, customer-focused investments designed to deliver on Michigan's energy law and materially improve the reliability and resiliency of the electric grid.

It's the investments approved in this rate case and previous cases that directly support better service. That includes everything from critical capital investments across the grid to advanced tree trimming on a 5-year cycle, work that meaningfully reduces outages, restoration time, and customer costs.

The commission's support reinforces that reliability and affordability can and should go hand in hand. That's good for our customers.

Our track record of consistent and constructive rate case outcomes is strong, and that is possible through a deliberate process, a constructive environment, and focused work by the team. These strong outcomes aren't a one-off or by chance.

They're the result of a very deliberate and disciplined regulatory strategy. It starts with Michigan's energy law and enabling legislation.

From there, we build alignment, support, and pre-approvals through a coordinated set of filings: our Integrated Resource Plan, Renewable Energy Plan, and 5-year Electric Distribution Plan. We also utilize proven regulatory mechanisms, like the investment recovery mechanism, that streamline proceedings, ensuring certainty of recovery and drive accountability.

When you combine that framework with strong testimony and clear business cases, the result is exactly what you see here: constructive outcomes that support needed customer investments while maintaining affordability. Looking forward to our upcoming regulatory agenda, in April, we saw the MPSC staff position in our current gas rate case recommending over 75% of our $240 million ask.

Staff also supported nearly 95% of our gas infrastructure investments. These investments continue to ensure a safe and reliable natural gas system while balancing affordability for our customers.

Much like electric, we continue to receive constructive outcomes that benefit our customers. We've settled four of the last five cases and continue to see support for our filings.

In our electric business, we plan to file our 20-year Integrated Resource Plan, or IRP, in June. Our IRP will include 1.5 gigawatts of new gas capacity to replace existing retiring capacity, ensuring we have the supply to meet our customer load well into the future.

We'll include 13 gigawatts of renewable and clean energy, much of which was already approved in our 20-year Renewable Energy Plan. Our filing will also include a growth scenario highlighting the need for additional capacity to ensure we are prepared for the growing customer base in Michigan, as we see data center and manufacturing interest in our service territory.

A portion of these renewables and the additional gas capacity are in our current 5-year plan, with more upside opportunity given additional storage and renewables to meet Michigan's energy law and customer load beyond the 5-year plan. We've identified that for every 1 gigawatt of new large load, we could see capital opportunity of $2 billion to $5 billion.

Again, those investments would be incremental to our current capital plan. I'm very proud of the team and the thoughtful work on these plans.

The comprehensive analysis and modeling takes months, and it is done with a deep commitment to building a plan that is best for our customers and our state. At CMS Energy, our customers are at the center of all we do, a promise to deliver safe, reliable, and affordable energy.

While we are committed to the important and necessary investments in our electric and gas systems, we remain laser-focused on customer affordability. Our track record is strong: customer savings driven through the CE Way and further optimized with digital automation, episodic cost savings, load growth, and energy waste reduction as further examples.

Our efforts here are meaningful and impactful. As a result, Michigan electric bills are the 14th lowest in the nation, well below the national average and also below the Midwest average.

Our bill growth, you see on the left side of the slide, among the lowest in the country. On the right side of the slide, looking forward, customer bills, electric and gas, below the energy CPI while investing over $24 billion over our 5-year plan period.

I am pleased with our progress, but we're not done yet. We're sharply focused on continuing to bring down costs for our customers while delivering for those most in need.

Additionally, affordability is supported by growth, and Michigan continues to make headlines and top rankings nationwide as we see new or expanding load materializing in the state and supporting 2% to 3% annual sales growth. This growth allows us to spread fixed costs over a larger customer base and improve affordability for all customers.

We have significant interest in our service territory, with contracts for roughly 100 megawatts of new load signed last year, and we've exceeded that in just Q1 of this year: approximately 110 megawatts of signed contracts year-to-date. This is all on top of the approximately 450 megawatts connected last year.

As I've shared in many investor meetings, Michigan has more engineers per capita than any other state. We are the second most diverse state in agriculture.

We have many aerospace and defense businesses and a rich automotive heritage. Our service territory is growing with manufacturing and industrial processing, bringing with it large investments, jobs, supply chains, and commercial and residential growth.

One of our larger, recently signed contracts is with Michigan Potash & Salt Company, a strategic and critical mineral manufacturer and the only established and sustainable potash reserve in the US, expanding in our service territory, bringing with it roughly 130 jobs and over $1.3 billion of investment in Michigan. I love seeing growth like this and the value that it brings to Michigan, our customers, communities, and investors.

There is also a diversity in this growth, which is important in the context of data centers, which I'll cover on the next slide. Moving on to our growth pipeline, you see that win here on slide 8, with Michigan Potash moved through the funnel to a signed contract.

There were also several other smaller customer expansions, not shown on the slide, that make up roughly 110 megawatts year-to-date. In addition to strong manufacturing and industrial processing, Michigan continues to attract data center interest, and I'm pleased with the progress we have made over the last quarter.

Our announced data center continues to close in on final contract after reaching commercial terms on the extraordinary facilities agreement and now commercial terms on the rate contract. As I mentioned in our year-end call, another data center has continued to progress in advanced contract negotiations.

I'm also pleased with the community engagement in the forward progress experienced at a local zoning level. Keep in mind, these data centers are not yet reflected in our 5-year customer investment plan, and associated additional investments will not be subsidized by existing customers.

In fact, each gigawatt of new data center load that materializes in our service territory will reduce our average customer rate by 2% annually over a 5-year period. Now, on to the financials for the quarter.

In the first quarter, we reported adjusted earnings per share of $1.13. We remain confident in this year's guidance and long-term outlook and are reaffirming all our financial objectives.

Our full-year guidance remains at $3.83 to $3.90 per share, with continued confidence toward the high end. Longer term, we continue to guide toward the high end of our adjusted EPS growth range of 6% to 8%.

With that, I'll hand the call over to Rejji.

Thank you, Garrick, and good morning, everyone. On slide 10, you'll see our standard waterfall chart, which illustrates the key drivers impacting our financial performance for the quarter and our year-to-go expectations.

For clarification purposes, all of the variance analyses herein are in comparison to 2025, both on a first quarter and a 9-months-to-go basis. In summary, through the first quarter of 2026, we delivered adjusted net income of $346 million, or $1.13 per share, which compares favorably to the comparable period in 2025, largely due to NorthStar outperforming a relatively soft comp in the first quarter of last year, coupled with higher rate relief net of investments at the utility.

These sources of positive variance were partially offset by a significant ice storm in our electric service territory in March. From a top-line perspective at the utility, heating degree days in Michigan ended up at relatively normal volumes for the quarter, as a relatively warm March and February offset an atypically cold January.

The impact of normal weather drove 1 cent per share of favorable variance versus the first quarter of 2025. Rate relief net of investment-related expenses resulted in 11 cents per share of positive variance due to the residual benefits of last year's constructive electric and gas rate orders, as well as earnings associated with ongoing renewable projects at the utility.

Moving on to cost trends, as noted, we experienced an uptick in storm activity during the quarter, including a sizable ice storm in March, which was bigger than last year's storm. As such, we saw 5 cents per share of negative variance for this cost category, which includes some positive offsets associated with our electric supply business.

In our catch-all category represented by the final bucket in the actual section of the chart, you'll note a positive variance of 4 cents per share, largely driven by the impact of achieving key milestones for ongoing renewable projects at NorthStar and the reversal of last year's outage at DIG, partially offset by higher parent financing costs, namely a higher average share count. Looking ahead, we plan for normal weather as always, which equates to 23 cents per share of negative variance for the remaining 9 months of the year, driven by the absence of favorable temperatures experienced in 2025, primarily in our electric business.

From a regulatory perspective, we're assuming 24 cents per share of positive variance, which is largely driven by the constructive electric rate order received from the commission in March, ongoing benefits of renewable projects at the utility, and the assumption of a constructive outcome in our pending gas rate case. On the cost side, we anticipate lower overall O&M expense, equating to 4 cents per share of positive variance at the utility for the remainder of the year, largely driven by expected cost performance through the CE Way and other cost reduction other cost reduction initiatives underway.

Lastly, in the penultimate bar on the right-hand side, you'll see an estimated range of 6 cents to 13 cents per share of positive variance, which incorporates continued solid performance at NorthStar, partially offset by planned parent financing costs, including the effects of equity dilution. Before moving on, I'll just note that our track record of delivering on our financial objectives over the last two decades, irrespective of the circumstances, speaks for itself.

That said, we'll always do the worrying so you don't have to, and remain confident in our ability to deliver on our financial and operational objectives this year to the benefit of all stakeholders. Slide 11 offers an update to our funding needs in 2026 at the utility and the parent.

As a reminder, the convertible debt that was opportunistically issued last November addressed a good portion of our financing needs at the parent for the year, while offering significant financial flexibility on our remaining needs. From an equity needs perspective, given the trading performance of our stock during the first quarter versus our plan assumptions, we executed equity forward contracts totaling approximately $495 million, significantly de-risking our planned needs for the year.

As you can see in the table on the slide, we settled approximately $142 million of said equity contracts during the quarter. As per our guidance, we'll share we'll plan to issue an aggregate amount of approximately $700 million over the course of the year.

Finally, we'll look to complete the balance of our financing plan at the utility over the remainder of the year. As always, we'll be opportunistic and look to capitalize on strong market conditions.

Moving on to credit quality, I'm pleased to report that both Moody's and Fitch reaffirmed our credit ratings in March, as indicated at the bottom of the table on slide 12. That said, it is worth noting that Moody's did move the utility to a negative outlook, largely due to the size of our 5-year capital investment plan relative to the timing of cost recovery, particularly for large projects with protracted construction cycles.

Needless to say, we are evaluating a variety of countermeasures to address Moody's concerns. As always, we'll continue to target solid investment-grade credit ratings, and we'll manage our key credit metrics accordingly as we balance the needs of the business.

With that, I'll hand it back to Garrick for his final remarks before the Q&A session.

Thanks, Rejji. At CMS Energy, we deliver: 23 years now of consistent, industry-leading performance, regardless of circumstances.

Year in and year out, you can count on CMS Energy to deliver for all of its stakeholders. With that, Rob, please open the lines for Q&A.

Hey, good morning.

Hey, welcome.

Thank you. There's been a lot of attention on data centers, and I guess there's a lot to dig into here.

You talked about confidence in what you're seeing. I'm curious about the opportunities as it stands now relative to last quarter, and in particular, if you see both of these data centers come through, what is the potential to delay your electric rate case filing cadence on the back of that?

Anything you can speak to there versus load ramp would be helpful. Thank you.

I'm very pleased with the progress. Let me even take a step back.

If I start with the pipeline, as we've shared historically, it's roughly about 9 gigawatts. There are customers that are falling out of the pipeline and going through, like we saw with Michigan Potash, and having successful contracts.

There's new companies coming in, and so the pipeline is strong and actually much larger than 9 gigawatts. Those are the ones that are more qualified, you might say, in the process.

As I shared in the Q4 call, and I just continue to be pleased with the progress of the data centers, the hyperscalers that are in our service territory, and looking at different locations, multiple locations to locate those data centers. As I shared, we've made great progress with the contractual piece with those companies.

Pleased with that, pleased with the work the team is doing, and we're working through the zoning process here in Michigan. Again, I've seen those data center companies, they're out, they're meeting with the local planning commissions, they're meeting with the communities.

We're standing side by side with them to be able to address those issues, a lot of positive progress. I hear you're referring to this kind of stay out here and referring to the DTE approach to this, I haven't seen their filing yet, I can't speak to the specifics of that and what they propose, just what's been in the media.

I will say this: in November, we put a tariff in place, a really great tariff. It's been able to set the standard, really, one of the best in the country.

These hyperscalers have quickly adapted to it, they know what the hurdle rate looks like, or the hurdle mark looks like. I'm very pleased with it.

It speaks to how we protect existing customers, how we protect the business. It really provides a path for benefits to flow back to customers, which is, I think, critically important.

It's also important to put this in the context: there's a significant capital runway. There's a lot of opportunities to invest in this business.

We've talked about that. Those weren't just Excel exercises.

This is real stuff that's underway. We're investing heavily in the electric grid to improve reliability and resiliency so it's better for our customers, cuz I hate when a customer's without power and the costs and the impact to that.

I appreciate the commissioners' comments on how affordability and reliability can go hand in hand; they're not opposed. We have this IRP, 20-year IRP for the supply needs of the state.

We have to meet the Michigan's energy law and the renewables, but we also have to think about those times when the sun is not shining or the wind's not blowing. Batteries make up a part of that, but we've got to introduce natural gas to replace some of our existing peakers.

That's an important piece and investment right now. Then there's importance of the safety of the gas system.

I can go on for hours about this, and I know you don't want me to do that, but that's why we're in annual rate cases. The biggest thing and the most important thing is affordability for our customers right now.

We've talked about that through the CE Way, we've talked about that through episodic cost savings, but a big piece of this is growth, and that's how I tie it back to data centers. Whether that's internal focus or what we're doing externally, know this, that we're focused on the root cause.

We've got these important investments. We believe in going for annual rate cases and keep them close to the rate of inflation for our customers.

One thing that's important about annual rate cases is we pass along savings to our customers every single time, and that's what we're focused on. The stats are we're the 14th lowest electric bill out there, but that's still not good enough, because affordability is defined by our customers, and there are some customers that are out there that are struggling, and we need to help them, and that's what we're focused on: affordability for our customers.

Thanks for your question. Long answer, but there's a lot there.

Certainly is a lot there, and appreciate the comprehensive response. I also wanted to switch gears.

There've been some media reports out there around NorthStar. Maybe just to zoom out broadly across your portfolio, if you were to consider any transactions around the portfolio, do you have any sort of guiding lights around how you think about the qualitative versus quantitative aspects of a deal, and in particular, accretion/dilution, the prospects of, say, near-term dilution versus break-even over the long term?

Anything there would be helpful. Thank you.

Just to be clear about this, we have a long-standing company policy: we don't comment on M&A, period. What I've shared about NorthStar in the past, just consistent with other investor meetings or earnings calls, look at the thermal assets, right, Dearborn Industrial Generation, energy and capacity prices are increasing, we strike bilateral contracts, we layer them over time, they've been better than plan, and we've shown that in some of the slides before and some of that opportunity.

In terms of the renewables, we've used this baseball analogy: we hit singles and doubles, we're not aiming for home runs, and so these are solid projects. We do one or two of them a year, maybe in a busy year we might do three.

Utility-like returns or better, with a contracted offtaker, long-term contracts. We've safe-harbored the assets out in the '28-'29 timeframe, we look to recycle capital.

That whole NorthStar mix is about 5% of our earnings mix. The rest of it's utility.

Understood. Thanks for the time.

Thank you.

Hey, good morning. This is Marcella on for Shar.

Thanks for taking the question.

Oh, I'm sorry. Marcella, welcome.

Thanks. Maybe building on the data center topic, what kind of specific color can you give us on what's going on with Gaines Township and the Microsoft data center?

Anything on the status there, and how we should be thinking about public pushback?

My mom used to say good things come to those that wait. My mom is right.

I and, I talked about the contract in my prepared remarks, talked about the contract pieces, and I shared with you I'm pleased with with the zoning piece. I think it's important for the investment community to understand Michigan's like units of government, local units of government.

There are 2,800 forms of local units of government in Michigan. About 96% of the state is covered by some kind of township.

In those townships, and we know this because we work with them all the time, there are planning commissions or planning boards, and they work through zoning, but they also work and look at the site layout and other plans. Then there's a township board, and so there are several steps in that approval process.

I've been pleased because not only the data centers have been meeting with the the township officials and the planning officials, we've been meeting with them, and we've seen good progress. Also know that they have to they're doing good due diligence, right?

They're elected officials, and they're doing the right things, and they have to dig into what is the what's the impact from a property tax perspective, how does this meet the zoning requirements, what does this mean for agriculture or industrial land, what does it mean for water. They're going through and and making sure they're doing good due diligence.

I appreciate the process. I'm familiar with the process because we go through it when we're doing big projects, whether it's a gas pipeline or other solar project.

Again, I feel good about where we're headed. My mom was right: good things come to those that wait.

We're working through that process, and pleased with where it's headed.

Thanks. That's helpful.

Then maybe following up on Richard's question on case cadence, are there any specific triggers you'd point to or are working towards that would increase the time between cases?

We've, in terms of settlement, we've stayed out of cases before. That's not abnormal for us, unusual for us.

I certainly would consider that as something, in the future. I'd go back to my my comments: like large capital runway and the ability to pass afford, savings back to our customers.

At the heart of it, this isn't about skipping cases and push of our way, it's about bringing affordability to our customers. That's what we're focused on.

Awesome. Thanks.

Hi, thank you. Garrick, given the Gaines Township tabling on April 15th, can you reaffirm the as early as 2028 online date for your final stages prospect, or has that timeline maybe softened a bit?

The project timelines are the same. 2028 is the timeline within the contracts.

They'll ramp up early electrons, you might say, and then they ramp up over 2029, '30. Those timeframes are the same.

Terrific. Thank you for clarifying that.

Second, just without naming the customer, is the prospect you've reached commercial agreement with the same one tied to the Gaines process, or a different site in your territory?

There are two there are two at least two hyperscalers that we are in advanced negotiation with, and I've shared that one we're finalizing the contract with, and there are many more in the pipeline, and so I really cannot disclose that at this time.

All good. Thanks.

Last question for me, just off of feedback we've gotten last week given some of the news out there, and keeping in mind your comments earlier about company policy and so on, ask something broader and higher level. With where IPP multiples are trading and the DIG recontracting out past 20 out to past 2030, has anything shifted in how you're thinking about NorthStar strategically, or is DIG still something that you see being a part of CMS well into the next decade?

I shared that in my response to Rich, consistent with how we've talked about it in previous investor meetings and earnings calls. I walked through the thermal units, and there's really no change in how I talked about that, and the same with the renewables.

Terrific. Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Morning, Nick.

Hey, thanks for taking my questions and thanks for the time. Hi, how are you?

Look, there's two opportunities. We don't know who the commercial agreement specifically with.

I understand from the prepareds and responding to Rich's question, you're still working through the permit there, but I'm just trying to understand at more granularity on what is needed for the permit, and then just your expectation to have that done by summer, or is this going to go through the entire year-end to the end of this year? Thanks.

It varies depending on the location, and I'm not trying to dodge your question, it's just that there are multiple townships, and these hyperscalers are pursuing investment in multiple properties in multiple areas of the state, I can't say it's like a blanket here's where we're at in the process. Again, there's steps.

The first step is with the planning commission, and they see does it meet the zoning requirements of the state, and does there have to be a change, if there has to be a change. Then they got to do a site layout, and that has to be approved by the planning board or planning commission, and then eventually it goes to the township.

It varies in those places, and I would say the hyperscalers are looking at multiple locations and are in multiple places in that process, and have advanced, frankly, within that process. I would also say they're active in the communities: they're meeting with local officials, they're meeting with communities, and doing all the right things, which gives me a lot of optimism about the progress that's underway.

We've been in this process. We know this process, and when they pause and do more due diligence, when they listen to their constituents, that goes back and forth.

It wouldn't be appropriate for me to jump ahead of that process and try to predict the date. They need to work, let those elected officials do their important work, and you'll be one of the first ones to know, Nick, when we make the announcements.

Hey, thanks. I appreciate that.

Then just maybe because you've executed on a bulk of 2026 equity needs, I know that there's still a little bit outstanding, but how are you kind of thinking about being proactive to de-risk '27 and '28? I just know the shaping of the capex, there might be, to my understanding, a little bit more front-end equity in this 5-year plan, if you can talk to that?

Nick, it's Rejji. Appreciate the question.

Just to get everyone regrounded on the 5-year equity needs that we walked through on our fourth quarter call, we talked about in our prepared remarks the fact that we're planning for $700 million this year, that is still the plan, and then on average thereafter for the next 4 years it'll be $750 million, but it's far from linear. That's just a simple average, and as you rightly noted, it is a bit more front-end loaded, we do expect the majority of the equity needs to be issued in the first 3 years of this plan, really commensurate with the capital plan.

We are have been big proponents of the equity forward product, which we've used to good effect, and this first quarter, as I noted, we've already priced just under $0.5 billion to take that risk off the table. We did settle a small portion in the first quarter, and that will be the bias going forward.

As I've said on many occasions, I do believe we are undervalued quite a bit, and but that said, there's valuation, and then there's what's in our plan. We did see the stock trading at levels that were south of our plan over the course of the quarter, and so we were sorry, we did see the stock trading at levels that were, sorry, above our plan or above the assumptions in our plan over the course of the quarter, and so we were opportunistic there.

If we do see the stock continue to trade at levels that are better not just in our plan assumptions this year, but also in subsequent years, we may look to, execute on equity forwards for to de-risk '27 and beyond. First and foremost, we're going to prioritize our needs in '27 '26, excuse me, and address those, and then we'll see where we're at by the second half of the year.

Is that helpful?

That's helpful. I appreciate that color.

Thank you very much. Then, if I could squeeze one more in, I'm just reflecting a little bit on past efforts from this management team on portfolio rotation.

I know that when you did the EnerBank sale, you were able to kind of overcome the impact to the near-term numbers through the last IRP process, and, ultimately, still do the high end of that 6% to 8% forecast. Just strategically, is there appetite to do something like that again, or do you guys continue to have just very clear line of sight to the growth rate at the high end, '26, '27, and '28?

Thank you.

Thanks, Nick. No comments on M&A, and we've provided guidance on the call.

All right, thank you for the time.

Yep, thank you.

Hey, good morning. This is actually Aidan Kelly on Jeremy.

Thanks for the time today. Just want to hone in on the political backdrop in the state.

How are you thinking about affordability going into the elections, and I guess, what is the level of understanding from the candidates over the possibility that utilities could lower rates with new data center load, and just any kind of thoughts there would be great.

There's an important slide in our deck, and it's one of my favorite, and it's just this consistent growth over 23 years, multiple different CEOs, different governors, Republicans, Democrats, different commissions, different legislators and policy makers, and we've delivered. The sweet spot to that, or the secret sauce to that, is really being an honest broker and focused on what's best for Michigan and what's best for our customers.

Listening to policy makers and politicians to see what are they really want to get done, and how we can be a solution provider. I was with a governor candidate last night, and that's what we were talking about: how can we be a solution provider, what's important to you, how do we work together.

That's that honest broker piece. You stay in that, and it's hard to stay in that space, right?

You want to think about the business or the financials, but staying grounded in our customers is where you get that honest broker, where they get the trust and respect to have the conversations. There's a lot going on.

It's an election year, we're a purple state. That's important to know: it's a purple state, and so we're used to a lot of back and forth, particularly as people try to jockey for votes.

What? I sleep well at night, and it's not because I'm arrogant, or because I know how this is going to play out, it's because we have a good team, and if you go back to being an honest broker and being focused on the customers, you build trust, and you can find solutions in that.

Like I shared earlier in my comments and prepared remarks, you're focused on affordability. Even though we're the 14th lowest state, you can present the data to the people running for governor, or the policy makers, and that's great, but the reality, affordability is defined by the end user.

My affordability is different than Reji's, it's different than one of our low-to-moderate-income customers. We got to keep working on that, right?

Some of that's internal, you know the tools we use there, and some of it's external. I talked about in our last call, I walk around with two pages of ideas for policy makers.

Some of them are adopted, some of them might actually be bills that are being tossed around, right? We meet with all these gubernatorial candidates, we know them, and we provided a slide in the deck on that.

We don't just approach it from energy perspective, like we're a business leader. We talk about what's going on in the economy, and I will tell you every one of these candidates is about how to grow Michigan.

We talk about data centers: the three leading candidates are supportive of data centers in a thoughtful way, right, in a comprehensive way, and we've talked about how that can shape affordability for customers. They're concerned about education: we help have those conversations cuz we're concerned about education.

I can go on and on here. We get to energy, right?

When I look at their platforms, everyone in the platforms for the governor, we can work with all three of the leading candidates. Again, be an honest broker, focus on the customer, listen to what they're trying to get done.

Their approach looks different: some want to focus on low to moderate income, some want to focus on the business environment, we can do both, right, and really provide good solutions for our customers to help from an affordability perspective.

All I would add, Aidan, to Garrick's very good remarks is, well, first and foremost, I aspire to have his point of view on affordability at some point, just given the example he offered up when it comes to just personal finances. That's thing one.

Thing two, just to re-emphasize and remind you all of the flywheel and the algorithm when it comes to our financial planning process, as we've talked about before, and I think Garrick alluded to this very well, is that affordability remains one of the key governors in our financial planning process. For 20-plus years now, really almost 25 years, we do not take a plan, financial plan that is, to our board, let alone to the street, unless it passes the laugh test from an affordability perspective, unless it passes our hurdle rates from a balance sheet perspective, and then also can we get the work done.

When it comes to affordability, the dimensions are quite broad. It's first, we certainly look at the compound annual growth of our rates over the planning period, but then we also benchmark it versus the region, versus the country, and then we also take into account both rates and bills.

It's a really broad lens through which we look at affordability, again to make sure that the plan not just delivers for the investors, but also for customers and all stakeholders. I do think it's really important to recognize that while we've grown the rate base historically high single digits, now low double digits based on our forecast, we are still self-funding two-thirds to three-quarters of that rate base growth with, as Garrick noted, CE Way, episodic cost reductions, energy waste reduction.

Over time, we hope it'll be sales growth as well, as we continue to execute on this economic development pipeline. That's how even though you're growing the rate base high single digits, low double digits, you're keeping the bills and rates at low single digit levels.

By doing that year in and year out and having the discipline of incorporating that into your planning process, that's how you perpetuate this success, irrespective of who's running the state. Just wanted to add an additional financial lens to that, and it's not luck, it's not an accident, it's really hard work, and that's why you see the data points we have on slide 6.

Makes sense. Appreciate the insight there.

Then I just have one separate question on capex upside. Could you just remind us what the underlying assumptions are in the 1 gigawatt equals $2 billion to $5 billion of capex, maybe just anything that drives the low and high end of these ranges?

Aidan, happy to do that. For the low end of that sensitivity, which is around $2 billion, what you have in there is an assumption of storage resources as well as our current estimates for what a simple cycle combustion turbine would cost.

There's also a little bit of infrastructure costs, substation work, the wires, and so all that's incorporated into the low end of $2 billion. As you get to the higher end of that range, we'll see a couple of things.

First, likely a change in resource, and so going from simple cycle to, again, if the cup runneth over and we start to see a highly successful conversion of that economic development backlog, we would potentially look at combined cycle gas. That's what starts to get you towards that upper range.

It probably warrants additional infrastructure in terms of substation work and wires. Again, this is if you start to see additional economic development opportunities come to fruition.

Then it's also important to note that we do have to comply with the clean energy law requirements, which are predicated on sales, and so that's what also adds to the high end of that equation. That's really what drives that range.

Great. Thanks for running down that.

I'll leave it there. Thanks.

Hey,

Michael.

Morning, Michael.

Hey, Garrick. Hey, Rejji.

Wanted to just ask on this DC customer pipeline that you've got. You talked to kind of the incremental capex upside that's not in the plan, but as we just think about your earnings trajectory, is this something that can contribute in the next 5 years if you're able to bring these over the finish line?

Michael, appreciate the question. I would say it really is a function of the load ramp.

I do believe that the reality is that most of the opportunities in our backlog that we're looking at today, particularly those that are sort of in that advanced to final stages, the load ramps really start to materialize, as Garrick noted, for sort of most likely opportunity in the '28 timeframe, and some that are slightly lower in probability of conversion are kind of '29, '30, and the material ramp is really in the next decade. The supply needs will increase commensurately with that load ramp.

While we certainly would see additional capital investment opportunities come likely in the next 5-year plan that we roll out, I think it's a little early to suggest whether or not it would put upward growth on our EPS growth. That said, job one is to convert these opportunities, and so we're focused on that right now.

If we start to see some success in converting on this backlog, it should drive and will drive additional capital investment opportunities, and again, given the load ramp, we'll see what happens over the next 5 to 10 years, but I think it's premature to say whether it would immediately increase the EPS growth at this point. Hey,

totally fair. Then looking ahead to the IRP filing that you have coming up here in a couple of weeks, I think you mentioned something about a growth scenario highlighting the need for additional capacity, and maybe tying that into kind of all these beating around the bush questions around NorthStar, is there any world where DIG can be used as a solution?

I know that's been tried in the past, but any sense of a change in appetite there to use that asset to meet additional demand growth?

You captured it, Mike. Going back to our our last Integrated Resource Plan, we attempted to bring that into the utility, and it was just from an affiliate transaction perspective, just too big of a a hurdle to go through.

We don't see proposing that in this next Integrated Resource Plan to bring that into the utility. If I would step back and look broader at this IRP, as I shared, I'm pleased with the team's work there: 1.5 gigawatts of net natural gas to replace existing, and then also, when you think about the reliability or resource adequacy of the grid, got the renewables, the batteries, there are times and periods of the day and of the year where do you need natural gas to peak.

Karn 3 and 4, which is some old oil-fired and gas-fired peaking units, this really works to replace those almost almost megawatt for megawatt from a capacity perspective. Then you know the renewable story, much of which was approved in the in the IRP, and then remember this IRP or REP, I should say.

Then, as part of this IRP, we're looking out 20-plus years, it will give some color and context to for other investments that are beyond the 5-year capital plan out in the 10-year 10-year window as well. Remember, in this IRP, we also do multiple scenarios.

One of those is a growth scenario. Just given the interest, both manufacturing, industrial processing, data centers, that's an important scenario to develop in this in this in this process, which would mean more batteries, more renewables, and potentially other assets.

Those line up well with the contracts that we're working through, and so those should, come together through that IRP process as we move forward.

Very helpful. Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you.

Hey, Travis.

Morning, Travis.

You answered most of my questions, but just one overall one, high level: legislation, state legislation update. What are your thoughts there?

Does anything get done with the election year and the impact on your cadence of regulatory filings, rate case or other?

Most of the focus here, particularly after coming off of the spring break and their recess here, is going to be focused on the state budget. That's been a bit contentious, just given the nature of a purple state, was contentious last year.

Unfortunately, it'll be probably that way this year as well, and that dragged out for most of the year. I don't know if we're going to see a whole lot of policy movement or policy change.

If we do, know that we're engaged with it. Goes back to my earlier comment: team's fully engaged, focused on finding the right solution for customers.

In some cases, there's some great ideas out there in bills that can help from a customer affordability perspective, and so we'd like to see some of those progress with the right mechanisms in place. We'll see.

We'll see there's enough time and space left in this next session and as well as the fall-in session in the fall.

Okay. No change in your rate case cadence in terms of electric filing in the spring and gas filing in the fall, typically?

No, we'll file our electric rate case in June, and so that'll gives you a highlight for that. Then the gas case, we had staff position in April, the PFD will come out in August timeframe, and then it's September, October-ish for the final order, and that's roughly when you'll see the gas order, if we go the full distance.

Okay. Great.

That's all I had. Thanks a lot.

Yep. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, everybody.

Hi. First, a question on the demand side.

If I heard you right, you signed 110 megawatts of new load this year versus 100 megawatts signed last year and 450 megawatts connected last year. My question is, of the 110 new, when do you expect that to connect and ramp up, and how do you think of that as being supportive of the 2% to 3% or maybe does that take you to the high end or over it?

It varies. There are different customers in there that make that up.

Some of them are expansions that are underway. Some will play out over this 5 years.

In terms of Michigan Potash, we got permission to talk about the jobs and the investment, but we're not talking about the timeline yet on that, and so that will occur over time when we're able to share more of those specific details. What we've communicated in our 5-year plan is 2% to 3% load growth, and we keep giving these concrete examples on how that's materializing, and so gives us a lot of confidence in the delivering that for our shareholders and for our customers.

Okay. Sounds like better confidence, better visibility, sort of thing?

Great. Yep.

Is that right? Okay.

Yes.

Great.

It puts us on plan. It keeps us on plan, Andrew, for the avoidance of doubt.

Great. Next question is, you mentioned Moody's has the utility on negative outlook.

I think in the prepareds, you used the word you're considering countermeasures. Can you maybe elaborate what are some options you might be considering, if you're willing to get into that, and how much of a need do you feel to be proactive?

Andrew, appreciate the question. This is Rejji Hayes is something that's a little unique because it's at the OpCo.

If this were a parent company outlook, there are a variety of tools in your toolkit where we could revisit financing strategy, we could look at opportunities on the working capital side, and again, you just have more arrows in your quiver. Because it's at the OpCo, and you're really constrained in terms of your ratemaking capital structure, we're going to have to evaluate a variety of different solutions, and likely have to educate the commission and other stakeholders on what we would have to do over the next 12 to 18 months to avoid Moody's taking further action.

Not prepared to elaborate at this moment on what those alternatives are. I think they're fairly intuitive when you think about the opportunity at the regulated utility, and it really has to do with the ratemaking capital structure, but as well as potentially cost of capital and things of that nature, but we're exploring a variety of qualitative and quantitative measures, and again, we'll look to have conversations over time with key stakeholders.

That makes sense. One last one, if I may, and I can tell, Garrick, I'm getting the sense you don't want to talk about it much, I'll ask the NorthStar question in a different way.

Without speculating or digging too deep, maybe just a little bit of pun intended, would you consider splitting the business into pieces, or would you even be able to? Obviously, DIG has a nice growth outlook versus the renewables development business has maybe more finite growth given the tax credits being phased out after the next few years.

Could you or would you split that business up?

Andrew, I love your persistence here. Way to go on that!

We have to try.

Absolutely. No comment on M&A.

Fair enough. All right, we can move on.

Thank you.

Hello. Good morning.

Thank you for taking my question.

Hi.

Most of my questions have been answered, but I wanted to ask you this. You've highlighted increase in diversity within your development pipeline, and is it fair to think about this as maybe de-emphasizing data centers in that pipeline a little bit here, and how should we think about the role of data center customers in that mix?

Does it suggest any change in attractiveness of your service territory maybe for hyperscalers, kind of any comment on that would be helpful.

Thanks, Sophie. No, it's not a de-emphasis at all.

I love Michigan, and what I like to see is that we're growing in a variety of different ways. Those stats that I gave in my prepared remarks, more engineers per capita, literally, we have attracted businesses in Michigan just for that reason alone.

If you go back, rich automotive heritage, and then in the World War II timeframe, we became the Arsenal of Democracy, making planes and stuff, and that defense industry is stuck, right? We had Saab, we announced this a year or two ago, and they're in the construction process right now, building defense and other means here, and so there's some onshoring components of it as well.

Second most diverse state in agriculture, we've seen a lot more food processing. We're going to have more announcements on food processing coming up because they're just materializing in the state.

There's a really diverse growth in the state, and I think that's important to acknowledge, right? Data centers, we're in there, we're making great progress as I shared.

That's one part of our growth story, and I love the diversification of it. I think that's the unique piece that we talk about that you don't hear others speak about as much, which gives me a lot of confidence in our future and the growth profile that we're seeing.

Sophie, all I would add to Garrick's comments is just the reason why, again, we do talk about the full portfolio versus just data centers, and we certainly acknowledge that data centers are the shiny object in this environment, but it is important to know that about 15% of that 9-gigawatt backlog is represented by non-data-center opportunities. When you do that math, that's over a gigawatt, and so that's quite impactful.

We've talked in the past about the positive spillover effects and externalities that non-data-center opportunities bring. You get supply chain, you get sustainable job growth, and you get commercial activity once you get that residential or population growth, and those are higher-margin customer classes than industrial.

We certainly like and love all of our economic development opportunities, but we certainly also want to make it clear that when you get the non-data-center opportunities, like large manufacturing companies and so on, you just get a lot of externalities, and so we just want to make sure that that's not lost on the investment community, because again, we recognize the shiny object, but there's just a lot of good momentum in the state of Michigan and its diverse opportunities as well, to Garrick's comments.

Thank you. That's all for me.

Hey, good morning, team. Just thanks for squeezing me in.

Just quickly, I think the equity issue plan steps up from $500 in '25 to $750 million, I think on average, you said earlier, Rejji, over the '26-'30 time period. Does the incremental large load conversion above your base case reduce the need for equity, or does the increase in large load conversion accelerate the capital intensity and therefore the higher

Yeah. Anthony, appreciate the question.

I think the way I would think about it is, as we talked about, because our customer investment plan does not include these large load prospects, it would likely put upward pressure on our capital plan if we converted one or two of these larger opportunities. We talked about the sensitivity: every gigawatt gets you somewhere between $2 billion to $5 billion of incremental capex, and that would put upward pressure in the capex, and thus put upward pressure on the financing needs: equity, debt, and all things in between.

There would likely be additional equity investment opportunities, and I think the good news around that is it would be to fund growth, and capital investment opportunities and rate base growth as a result of that. Yes, there would be upward pressure on equity, but not so much because of the conversion of the large load customers, but because of the capital that goes with those large load customers.

Is that helpful?

Perfect. That's all I had.

Garrick, you're right: Mom is always right. Yes.

Thanks, Anthony.

Thanks, Rob. I'd like to thank you for joining us today.

I look forward to seeing you at the American Gas Association Financial Forum. Take care and stay safe.