Portland General Electric Company (POR) Q2 2026 Earnings Report, Transcript and Summary

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to today's conference call with Portland General Electric. Today is Friday, July 31, 2026. This call is being recorded. [Operator Instructions] For opening remarks, I will turn the conference call over to Portland General Electric's Senior Manager of Investor Relations, Erin Schwartz. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Didi. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. Before we begin, I would like to remind you that we issued a press release this morning and have prepared a presentation to supplement our discussion, which we will be referencing throughout the call. The press release and slides are available on our website at investors.portlandgeneral.com. Referring to Slide 2, some of our remarks this morning will constitute forward-looking statements. We caution you that such statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially from our expectations. For a description of some of the factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, please refer to our press release and our most recent forms 10-K and 10-Q, which are available on our website. Turning to Slide 3. Leading our discussion today are Maria Pope, President and CEO; and Joe Trpik, Senior Vice President of Finance and CFO. Following their prepared remarks, we will open the line for your questions. Now I will turn things over to Maria.

Thank you, Erin, and good morning, everyone. We appreciate you joining us today. The second quarter was marked by continued execution across our strategic priorities. Strong industrial demand growth of 11% when compared to second quarter of last year, advancement of key proceedings -- excuse me, key regulatory proceedings, disciplined cost management and continued progress on resource planning. Beginning with Slide 4, I'll speak to our financial results and key drivers. For the second quarter, we reported GAAP net income of $68 million or $0.59 per diluted share and non-GAAP net income of $74 million or $0.64 per diluted share. Our non-GAAP results exclude business transformation, optimization and acquisition-related expenses, which are not reflective of ongoing operational performance. These costs relate to the holding company formation, the pending Washington acquisition and our customer affordability work. These results were in line with our expectations for the quarter and reflect strong execution. As a result, we are reaffirming our full year earnings guidance of $3.33 to $3.53 per diluted share and our long-term earnings and dividend growth guidance of 5% to 7%. Turning to Slide 5 for updates on our 5 strategic priorities. First, industrial demand growth remains an important element of our long-term outlook. Today, we serve 12 different data center customers, which make up approximately 1/3 of our total industrial usage. Total industrial load growth was approximately 10% compounded annually over the last 5 years. We continue to see strong demand from technology, semiconductor and data center customers with approximately 10% compounded annual growth expected through 2030. This outlook is supported by customers who are under contract and whom are already energized or actively advancing construction and facility development in our service area. Second, affordability remains a national focus. We've taken proactive steps to address customer cost pressures, mitigate stranded asset cost risk and enable growth that supports the long-term strength of our communities and continued economic development. In Q2, the OPUC issued a final order approving PGE's New Large Load Tariff effective in July, raising average prices approximately 30% for data centers, while lowering rates for all other customers and capping several years of legislative and regulatory work. This important framework aligns infrastructure costs on an ongoing basis to customers driving new system investments while helping reduce costs for residential and small business customers. The tariff also creates greater certainty for large load customers by providing a clear pricing framework, which supports investment decisions and continued economic development across our region. In addition to the changes implemented with our large load tariff, we continue to focus on operating costs and executing across our financial and operational priorities, which Joe will cover in more detail in a minute. Third, we're advancing our 2025 renewable RFP. During the quarter, the OPUC acknowledged the short list, marking an important milestone in the procurement process. The short list includes a diverse mix of wind, solar, battery storage and hybrid resources with both purchase power and company-owned structures under consideration. We are now moving into commercial negotiations and expect to execute contracts by early 2027, subject to final negotiations and approvals. Fourth, our year-round wildfire mitigation work remains on track. We continue executing the actions identified in our 2026 through 2028 wildfire mitigation plan and remain engaged with policymakers and stakeholders regarding long-term wildfire policy discussions. Across Oregon, there are several active wildfires, and we appreciate the significant actions that first responders and local communities are taking. None of these wildfires are in PGE's service territory. And fifth, next week, we will file our 2027 general rate case. As proposed, the case would result in approximately 4.8% overall increase relative to currently approved prices effective July 1, 2027, with residential customers seeking an approximately 3.9% increase. The residential increase would have been higher if not but for the large load tariff. The rate case increase is expected to be partially offset by lower net variable power costs, which are addressed separately through the annual update cost tariff and are currently forecast to reduce customer prices by approximately 2.4% beginning in January 1. The filing is based on a proposed 50% debt, 50% equity capital structure and a 9.75% return on equity. It reflects a balanced approach that supports continued investment in reliability, resiliency and infrastructure needed to meet growing customer demand while maintaining affordability and delivering the financial foundation necessary to serve customers safely and effectively over the long term. In parallel, we continue to advance our proposed holding company structure. We expect the final order at the end of August. The proposed structure will enhance financing flexibility and support our ability to invest in clean energy and meet significant customer and infrastructure needs over time. Lastly, our teams remain focused on the regulatory work to obtain approvals for the Washington acquisition and continue to target a mid-2027 closing. As we move through the second half of 2026, we remain focused on delivering safe, reliable and affordable service while advancing clean energy investments, our expansion into Washington and completing the formation of the holding company. At the same time, we are operating to our plan and executing on actions to deliver on shareholder and customer commitments. With that, I'll turn things over to Joe. Thank you.

Thank you, Maria, and good morning, everyone. Turning to Slide 6. Our second quarter results were consistent with our guidance and reflect solid execution across the business. Beginning with load trends year-over-year. Total retail energy deliveries increased 3.9% compared to the second quarter of 2025 on a nominal basis and were up 2.7% weather adjusted. As Maria mentioned, we continue to see strong demand from our technology, semiconductor and data center customers with approximately 10% annual large customer capacity growth expected through 2030. Industrial demand remained a key driver in the second quarter, increasing 11.2% year-over-year, reflecting continued demand from high-tech and data center customers. Residential deliveries increased 1.3% on a nominal basis and were down 1.4% on a weather-adjusted basis, while commercial deliveries decreased 2% nominally and were down 2.8% weather adjusted. Overall, weather-adjusted load across customer classes was largely consistent with our expectations. Therefore, we are reaffirming our 2026 weather-adjusted load growth guidance of 1.5% to 2.5%. Now I'll cover the primary year-over-year drivers for the -- earnings drivers for the quarter. A decrease from power cost of $0.18 was primarily driven by expected intra-year timing of revenue collection and power cost recognition. We experienced a $0.22 increase in retail revenues, including a $0.10 increase from industrial demand, a $0.12 increase from additional cost recovery, reflecting the Seaside battery asset included in customer rates beginning in November 2025 and the distribution system planning recovery that began in April of 2026. Note that there was not a meaningful impact to our revenues from changes in residential or commercial customer usage over the year. A $0.12 decrease from other capital and financing costs in support of our ongoing rate base investments made up of $0.07 from higher depreciation and amortization, $0.03 from dilution and $0.02 of additional interest expense, a $0.06 increase from O&M, reflecting strong cost management and productivity improvements across the organization. On to Slide 7 for our 5-year capital forecast, which includes the 2026 and 2027 spend from the incoming 2023 RFP. I will note that this view does not contemplate CapEx from the 2025 RFP or the Washington acquisition, which, as Maria noted, are progressing as expected. On to Slide 8 for financing. We remain well positioned. We have completed the majority of our 2026 financing activity, providing clear visibility to our funding needs for the year, and this included $550 million equity issued under forward sale, a $500 million ATM facility to further support the equity needs, a $350 million 24-month term loan satisfying our 2026 financing needs and a $680 million delayed draw term loan related to the Washington acquisition available until specific acquisition milestones are achieved and maturing 364 days after funding. And our investment-grade credit ratings remain unchanged. In July, the Board of Directors declared a quarterly common dividend of $0.55125 per share, representing an increase of 5% on an annualized basis. We remain committed to paying a competitive dividend in line with our 60% to 70% payout target while balancing overall financing needs. Our plan focuses on maintaining strong operating cash flows while supporting continued investment in customer-focused capital projects, all while advancing us towards our authorized capital structure. As we look to the second half of the year, we have a clear path to deliver on our guidance. We are providing quarterly guidance as the shape of our earnings is different than it has been in prior years. First, we expect improved power costs over the remainder of 2026, helping offset the first half timing headwind. Second, in Q4 2025, the weather detriment is not expected to recur with our 2026 forecast assuming normal weather. Third, we expect margin improvement from the New Large Load Tariff approved earlier this year. Fourth, we expect continued increased regulatory recovery, including the Seaside and DSP alternative recovery mechanisms. And finally, we are executing management actions across operating and power costs to support earnings through the remainder of the year. We remain focused on safe, reliable and efficient operations, advancing our strategic priorities and delivering value for our customers, communities and shareholders. And now, operator, we are ready for questions.

[Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith of Jefferies.

It's Brian Russo on for Julien. I was just curious, if you could comment on the slide presentation, you have 1.7 gigawatts of additional data center pipeline. What kind of investment would be needed to support that? Is it generation and is it part of the '25 RFP? I just want to understand if that's like another bucket of potential growth investments for you guys.

Sure. First of all, let me give you a little bit of background on the 1.7 gigawatts. The investments are in a number of different counties across our service territory. And the vast majority of that represents projects that are already in the permitting process. Many projects already have land ownership and are progressing really nicely. The 1.7 gigawatts will also be under the UM 2377, which enables growth pace -- for growth, as I like say, or our peak growth modifier and the most recent higher customer prices for data centers. But we have not included any of the additional generation. And you can see some transmission investments in our forecast, but not all of them and some of them are beyond the 2030 time period.

Okay. Great. And then just on the upcoming multiyear rate plan filing. Looking ahead to the framework, are there any key areas to focus on in terms of the mechanisms to help you maintain that just inherent lag, which I think is -- you're trying to close that gap to 50 basis points on the structural side. Just wondering what we might expect in terms of proactive mechanics in the MRP filing?

Brian, I mean, the multiyear framework, considering that it lists out for 5 years, right, our focus will be making sure it has flexibility for us to operate the business as expected and to be able to adapt to change. So -- but before we get to the multiyear, right, the way I focus on this is we have the general rate case this year that will cover a period of time. And then we're proposing a bridge mechanism to get to the multiyear because the multiyear rate would not be filed until '29 that would have rates effective in '30. So we're focused on this GRC, which would have rates effective July of next year and then a bridge mechanism that would bridge '28 and '29. And so starting with the bridge mechanism, the design here is to be able to address inflation and cost between these full GRC type cases. And then to the multiyear, as I said, it's really about being able to balance and make sure that we can adapt considering it's 5 years, there's an amount of uncertainty in that, that will occur. So having the flexibility to balance and adapt will be key for us.

Okay. Great. And then just lastly on wildfire legislation as we quickly approach the 2027 legislative session. What's going to be like the key focus for you or how you're preparing for that to make some constructive steps in the upcoming session?

Sure. So it's a great question, and we will continue the discussions that we've been having over the last couple of years with a variety of stakeholders. One thing I would note that's really constructive and an improvement this year is the Oregon Public Utility Commission's work so they've hired Boston Consulting Group to do a study on wildfire and obviously, utilities. And we look forward to the results of that report probably in the early fall time period and are very encouraged with that next good step as well as working with stakeholders across the state and key customers as well.

And our next question comes from Shar Pourreza of Wells Fargo Securities.

Maria, just on the Salem data center, I guess, since the state's pullback only affects kind of the state-owned portion of the site, not the private land, does that kind of change how you think about the 1.6 gig large load queue at all? Should we expect that to convert at the pace you guided to or some haircut the right way to think about it?

Sure. So first of all, the $1.7 billion is not in our guidance. It would be in addition and upside to our guidance. And just for those of you who are not tracking everything that's taken place with regards to the data centers and -- in Oregon, for the Salem region, one of our large customers had anticipated purchasing some state land, and the governor will be reviewing that sale and has not made any final determination at this point in time. That is just a portion of the land that they own or planning on owning. And the bulk of their investment would actually be on non-state land. In addition, there has been some discussion in Hillsboro on data center moratorium. And most of our customers that are not in our forecast, but that we are working with, with additional upside are actually already in the existing permitting process and grandfathered.

Got it. Okay. That's helpful. That clears up some confusion this morning. And then just with the holdco approval process now kind of getting to the finish line, I guess, how are you thinking about maybe updating the Street and what it means to the current plan, including maybe the balance sheet, EPS, financing flexibility? I mean it's obviously accretive. So how should we think about a plan update? Or do you want to wait for other items to kind of play out like the Washington acquisition, Seaside, et cetera?

Shar, we will give as much of an update as this process resolves itself, we will give an update to how we can. But you're right, Shar. I mean we have multiple growth and earnings catalysts that sit in front of us that would have an interplay here. So any type of guidance we give will be somewhat of a flexible view of the world is we don't want to front run the other processes that are out here. I mean I agree with you, there's having a holding company to align us with where the industry is and give us the flexibility to drive benefits for our customers and that further, I think, is important. And we'll just -- we'll balance how we guide this as these items in front of us are critical to its true ability to drive value.

And our next question comes from Sophie Karp with KeyBanc.

So I wanted to ask you, with the large load ramp that you may be seeing, is there a scenario where this incremental load and associated cash flow offset some of your financing needs? And is there a line of sight to that or too early to speculate?

Yes, that's a great question. It's probably too early to speculate, but we're really pleased with the cooperation we had from all of our customers, the partnership with the PUC, the [ legislative ] changes that were made that resulted in a 30% customer price increase for data centers effective in early July. And the resulting impact of that as we move forward through the general rate case as well as future years. It will be very helpful as we move forward to our overall P&L.

Yes. Yes, for sure. Okay. And then on the holdco outcome, I guess the hearings have concluded, as I understand. We heard the price positions. So everybody is kind of set their piece. Like at this point, what do you see as the most likely outcome? And how would you frame the positive impact from it as you see it today versus maybe where you started?

Sure. So first of all, it has been a process that's gone on for over a year, and we've had many discussions, and we hope to conclude by the end of August. The most recent discussions that you're referring to were some concluding public testimony where this -- people pretty much reiterated their same and sort of from the beginning public statements. There have been a number of settlement conferences. Some of these are confidential, and we are really pleased with being able to come to an alignment on a number of important governance conditions as well as customer benefits and other items. The case overall has great merit. Much of what we have proposed and agreed upon to is not just similar to Northwest Natural and other utilities concluded results, but in some instances, absolutely identical in the types of conditions and aligned with the precedents that have been set.

And our next question comes from Aidan Kelly of JPMorgan.

If I could, maybe just picking up again on the holdco front. Just how would you kind of characterize the delta between Portland and key stakeholders at this point? And just like do you see any risk of the proceeding getting further delayed or punted into next year at all? Or do you feel firm on that August 25 deadline?

So I think as we are working backwards here, I mean, I think all the key facts and all the key dialogue are really laid out pretty cleanly in the testimony. So I think the facts are there to be considered pretty cleanly. I think when you talk to delta here, which obviously varies by parties. But there's pretty good alignment as it relates to a lot of the conditions that would fall through here on the case. I mean there's always a bit of a delta on what I'll call the bid-ask spread on what is the benefit to the customers or what is the rate credit to the customer. But I mean, I think fundamentally, as to the conditions, we're relatively aligned. So I mean, I think it comes down to maybe some of the finer points on the conditions and then it's really the bid-ask spread here is really where we sit. You can see that cleanly in some of the testimony from some of the parties. You'll notice that we're just really relatively aligned and it comes down to dollars. So we're pretty satisfied with the way we've laid out the case. We think it's pretty clear on the benefits that are available to the customers. We're pretty clear on it is not a -- obviously, as you all know, a pretty consistent practice to have across the industry. So -- but we think that I'll close with the facts are there to have them decide the case. We haven't seen any indicators yet that it would extend. But obviously, we're waiting to see just like you would be.

Yes, I appreciate the color there. Maybe if I could just shift to the GRC backdrop. I appreciate you guys kind of laying out your thoughts and goals there. I guess just zooming out, how would you kind of rate the current affordability backdrop versus the recent past and your kind of key, I guess, items in proposal that kind of drive that 4.8% net increase? And maybe if you could tee that up kind of compared to prior GRC cycles. Just any thoughts kind of going into this filing next week.

Sure. So first of all, I want to note that we have not filed a general rate case in 2.5 years. So we take affordability very seriously, and we have been working diligently and effectively on our operating costs through our customer affordability commitments. And this rate case reflects the benefits for residential small business and other customers from the most recent New Load Tariff beyond 2377, which, as I noted, raised customer or data center prices by about 30%. Data center prices will go up much more than the -- significantly more than the average of 4.8% and residential customers are lower at about 3.9%. So we think that we have really done a lot to address affordability. When you factor in at January 1, our proposal to reduce energy costs through the annual update tariff by 2.4%, it's really just a couple of percent increase for our customers as they move forward. And we have also reflected really important infrastructure investments, some smart grid and grid-enhancing technology investments as well as reflect the things that customers, particularly on the residential, small commercial side, value and have been fairly vocal about. So we look forward to proceeding over the next year through discussions collaboratively with all stakeholders in the commission.

I appreciate the color. Sorry, there's just one more question I keep getting asked is, is it possible for you guys to still settle the holdco today, just like yes or no?

Absolutely. As you know, we have a record of settling most of our discussions. It's August or going into August, and there's people on vacation [indiscernible]. So my hope is that we do settle quickly, but the date is August 25. So we may end up with a commission decision, and we look forward to continuing the conversations.

And our next question comes from Anthony Crowdell of Mizuho.

If I could just jump on the last question to start off. Any chance that it seems that there's -- and hopefully, I'm not putting words in your mouth, it seems that there's active settlement discussions going on. Is there any chance that commission, actually, I think Sophie asked how hard is that August 25 deadline. Is there any chance that they would move that out knowing that there's active settlement discussions?

Yes. I guess, Anthony, Joe Trpik. So one, we haven't heard any dialogue to that. And to your comment on the settlement dialogue, the settlement dialogues are always open and part of the process. So this type of dialogue and settlement discussion is no different than other cases. So I'm not sure that it would be some indicator that says to prolong the hearings.

And again, are the settlement discussions going on with all the major parties? Or are you kind of focused on maybe a smaller group of interveners?

Yes. And considering on how that we're in the middle of the year, there are discussions that are out there. I think any further detail would really front-run some items. So they're just open discussions that are out there.

Great. And then if I -- and I apologize if I'm just getting things confused. I believe maybe earlier this year, you guys had pulled a transmission case not to confuse the holding company approval with the transmission rate case, the holding company approval still pending and the thoughts of maybe the timing of why file the general rate case now prior to maybe closing the transmission -- I'm sorry, the holding company case up. It seems that -- just curious on you pulled one case because you really wanted to focus be on the holding company structure and now possibly going in to file another case prior to the holding company structure.

Sure. So first of all, thank you for the question. And we do remain focused long term on the transmission. But knowing that there was a considerable amount of work in front of the commission, we really narrowed to the holding company, which includes the Washington acquisition, of course, and have had quite a few discussions with parties with regards to the general rate case and felt that this was an optimal time. As you may recall, led by the Citizens Utility Board and some others, we worked with parties to come up with something, some legislation in addition to the POWER Act, which resulted in larger customer price increases for data centers, but for not having rate increases go in during certain times of the year. And so given the discussions that we've had so far with parties on the general rate case, we really felt that filing in August would be workable for everyone. And since we've not have had a rate case for 2.5 years timely.

And Anthony, just a reminder, obviously, the transco filing was a structural filing here and didn't really impact how or when we collect rates on the transmission assets. Those have worked themselves through the same process that they did before. So they don't -- any of that timing or pulling of things doesn't have anything to do with rate recovery. It was solely structured.

Got it. So just to make sure I have the sequence right, general rate case filing, expectation holding company formation hopefully later in the month?

That is correct. Yes, that is correct.

And our next question comes from Gregg Orrill of UBS.

Just regarding the reliability contingency structure, just maybe you could talk to what that -- what the prospects are for continuing that and how that was viewed by the commission? Why did they decide not to continue to move forward with that? And then maybe also just on the O&M reduction plan, if there's any sort of update on that and sort of the prospects going forward, given its exception.

So the reliability contingency event or RCE was a mechanism that was afforded us in the last case that had a 2-year period, which expired here. That mechanism, we felt worked quite effectively here. We had an unusual ice storm and had some significant deviations in cost, and it pretty effectively captured those differences. It was put in initially with a 2-year time frame with the expectation that we would ultimately align aligned to broader power cost reform. That has not occurred as of yet. But the RCE did expire. I think the staff at least viewed as an experiment, it worked the way it's worked, and they ultimately would like to get away from that type of mechanism and just address -- ultimately address broader reform at some point in time in the future. So this is -- that is sort of an expired item that we're not subject to currently. Obviously, we like that.

Joe will go on and talk to your question about O&M, but I do want to just comment that I do -- we are aligned with staff and with policymakers across the state on the impacts of extreme weather and whether that is impacting customer energy usage, power costs, and we need to look more holistically at all of these things combined as we move forward. Joe, do you want to cover this question on O&M?

Yes. Thanks for asking on the O&M. I'm pretty happy with where we sit on the O&M side. As you may recall, we entered into this -- last year, we entered into a cost management program here, yielded about $25 million in benefits. In fact, those benefits are part included in the general rate case to help mitigate what cost considering it has been 2.5 years since we filed the case. And we'll continue to proceed with the program. You can see some of the results this year as they fall through the earnings waterfall year-to-date. The company has been pretty committed to not just squeezing to find savings, but to transform, and we find ourselves, we probably got another couple of years of this left. I think to date, you would score the effort as successful and very aligned with our expectations and very aligned with how it ties into our longer-term strategy.

And our next question comes from Paul Fremont of Ladenburg Thalmann & Company.

I guess my first question is, I think earlier in the year and maybe towards the end of last year, you were pretty optimistic about being able to settle the holdco case. Do you feel less optimistic at this point? Or do you still -- are you still in the camp that it's highly probable that you'll be -- that you will settle the case?

Sure. So we were optimistic then, and we are optimistic now. We have a strong case, good benefits for customers and the discussions are ongoing.

Great. And then I guess during oral arguments, some of the commissioners sort of asked, do you -- whether there are alternative mechanisms to double leverage to fund capital spending in the future. I think they mentioned securitization. Sort of any thoughts along those lines in terms of what alternatives might be available to the company?

I don't think we want to be front running the process. The discussion that took place in oral arguments was as expected and one part of the process. But clearly, it's important to the company to have the flexibility afforded to the vast majority of utilities across the country in terms of having a holding company structure.

Yes. Paul, can I just add? I mean this -- the focus on the holding company was about this is the structure that can yield the greatest benefits to the customers by a good distance and give us the tools that -- the one that gives us the most tools there. So there are always alternatives out there, but those alternatives will -- they can yield benefits, but they will not yield as meaningful to both the customer and design benefits as the structure that we proposed.

And our next question comes from Travis Miller of Morningstar.

You answered most of my questions, but just a couple of quick clarifying ones. What's the earnings impact from the large load tariff that you have in the guidance? And what was initially included in the guidance? Has that changed at all?

So initially in the guidance, obviously, we gave our broad guidance for the year. The large load tariff was not a proposed document, and there was nothing included in. As we've gone through the year and as the large load tariff, we've incorporated the effects. We haven't to date quantified that, but we've incorporated the effects as a -- really as a balancing. As you know, we were reacting to some of the first quarter items. So there's a modest amount of benefit that's layered in here for the year. Maybe I'll just leave it at that.

Okay. And presumably, that would carry over at least through the first half of next year, right? So it should be a little bump in growth all else equal.

That's correct.

Okay. Okay. And then one other quick clarifying one. The 10% 5-year CAGR you're talking about at least through 2030 with the new customers, is that the ramp -- the ramping of existing contracted customers? Or is there an assumption of some additional large load customers that you'll get in the next couple of years?

So what I feel makes our disclosure there a bit unique is these are contracted customers. These are customers who are already either have constructed facilities or facilities that are under construction currently. So this ramp is really about this contracted and constructed assets here for us, which I feel makes it a little different is we don't have -- there is not a speculative queue here. I mean the opportunity for it that we talked to earlier on this call, that 1.7, I guess, some of that could have a different level of certainty. But the ramp that we have at 10% is solid. They have names, they have locations, they have companies to them. So we are pretty confident with the work that's laid out for the 10% ramp.

Perfect. And presumably, those customers, at least most of them would pay that large load low tariff?

Yes. Those customers, the large load tariff is applicable to all customers that once you meet certain megawatt of criteria, yes. And they obviously -- those parties were able to respond and then we're engaged in the process that ultimately resulted in the large load tariff.

Thank you very much. So I think with that, we are finished and don't have any more questions. We want to thank everyone for your time today. We look forward to further conversations at conferences through the balance of the quarter and the fall. And thank you for your interest in Portland General Electric.

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