Thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to the TC Energy Third Quarter 2025 Results Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] The conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Gavin Wylie, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thanks very much, and good morning. I'd like to welcome you to TC Energy's Third Quarter 2025 Conference Call. Joining me are Francois Poirier, President and Chief Executive Officer; Sean O'Donnell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Tina Faraca, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Natural Gas Pipelines; and Greg Grant, Executive Vice President and President, Power and Energy Solutions. Our agenda for today will start with Francois and our strategic update. Tina and Greg will walk you through our business in more detail, and we'll wrap up with Sean's quarterly update and financial outlook before moving to Q&A. A copy of the slide presentation is also available on our website under the Investors section. Following opening remarks, we'll take questions from the investment community. Please limit yourself to two questions. And if you're a member of the media, please contact our media team. Today's remarks will include forward-looking statements that are subject to important risks and uncertainties. For more information, please see the reports filed by TC Energy with Canadian securities regulators and with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Finally, we'll refer to certain non-GAAP measures that may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. A reconciliation of these measures is contained in the appendix of the presentation. With that, I'll turn the call to Francois.

Thanks, Gavin, and good morning, everyone. I want to begin by expressing my sincere appreciation for our team's unwavering commitment to safety and operational excellence. These are the cornerstones of how we operate and the reason we continue to deliver strong results quarter after quarter. I'm proud to report that our safety incident rates continue to trend at 5-year lows. And through the first 9 months of the year, comparable EBITDA has increased 8% year-over-year. We've successfully placed $8 billion of assets into service on schedule, and we're tracking approximately 15% under budget for those projects with 2025 in-service dates. Today, I'm also pleased to announce an additional $700 million in new growth projects at a weighted average build multiple of 5.9x. This takes our total sanctioned projects up to $5.1 billion over the last 12 months, largely capitalizing on the extensive demand we're seeing for power generation and data centers. Driven by exceptional project execution and capital optimization, we now expect 2025 net capital expenditures to be at the low end of our $5.5 billion to $6 billion range. When you combine that with our expected growth in comparable EBITDA, we have clear line of sight to achieving our long-term target of 4.75x debt-to-EBITDA, ensuring continued financial flexibility for future growth. These strong results continue to demonstrate that our focused strategy is delivering solid growth, low risk and repeatable performance. Across North America, the policy environment is becoming increasingly supportive, enabling more timely and cost-effective delivery of our projects to further ensure our infrastructure projects can meet the unprecedented growth in demand. In Canada, recent developments are improving the regulatory environment for projects of national interest. This includes LNG Canada Phase 2, which is directly enabled by our Coastal GasLink pipeline. In the U.S., recent actions to clarify NEPA's…

Thanks, Francois. With over 94,000 kilometers of pipelines across North America, TC Energy's network is delivering reliable supply at scale. The competitiveness of our footprint and our extensive customer relationships position us to win our fair share of this growing market. Natural gas demand from power generation continues to accelerate, propelled by widespread electrification, coal-to-gas conversions and the rapid expansion of data centers and AI infrastructure. In Alberta, our systems have seen an 80% increase in gas for power volumes over the past 5 years. And with the queue of data center interconnections tripling over the last year, we are working closely with customers to ensure our assets can meet the market's evolving demands. In the U.S., approximately 40 gigawatts of coal-fired generation is expected to retire over the next decade with the majority of that capacity anticipated to be replaced by natural gas generation. Across the full landscape, the 170 gigawatts of current operational coal capacity equates to over 20 Bcf per day of potential natural gas demand. Additionally, our assets are strategically positioned in key power growth markets like PJM and MISO, where forecast for natural gas power capacity additions through the end of the decade have doubled compared to last year. Nearly 60% of U.S. data center growth is expected within reach of our asset footprint, and we're collaborating across the entire value chain to deliver the natural gas that powers this transformation. And finally, in Mexico, our assets supply 20% of the nation's gas to power plants and will feed 80% of the new public tender natural gas generation projects entering service over the next 5 years. We have a 30-year relationship with the CFE, Mexico's national electricity provider. CFE is the primary driver behind the country's generation capacity expansion initiatives that we support through assets…

Thank you, Tina. As Francois noted, our portfolio is one of a kind, highly aligned with the fastest-growing segment of the energy market. Anchored by our position in nuclear power, our Power and Energy Solutions business is designed to deliver complementary solutions that drive incremental shareholder value. Importantly, this portfolio is built for scalability. We can grow with market demand, adapt to evolving energy needs and capitalize on opportunities that allow us to deliver solid growth, low risk that are repeatable for decades to come. In the near term, our focus is on maximizing the value of our existing assets. At the core of this effort is the on-time, on-budget execution of our Major Component Replacement program, or MCR at Bruce Power. These extend reactor life until at least 2064, while improving the availability of our nuclear fleet. As realized prices continue to rise and availability improves, with the completion of each unit's MCR, this performance is translating into incremental revenue and stronger financial results. By leveraging our expertise across natural gas and power, we're also capturing value through commercial marketing, system optimization while maximizing availability of our cogeneration fleet. Our 118 Bcf of nonregulated natural gas storage in Canada is a prime example of where we have the ability to generate incremental EBITDA in a highly dynamic market. Looking ahead, we're positioned to build on the incumbency of our North American footprint, deep customer relationships core capabilities in natural gas transmission, storage and nuclear power. We have a strong foundation to scale our operations and deliver complementary solutions at the intersection of the molecule and the electron that will unlock incremental value across the energy chain. The proposed Ontario pump storage project is a great example of the optionality we have in our portfolio. The 1,000-megawatt storage project will…

Thanks, Greg. Good morning, everybody. I'll start with a few of the operational and financial highlights achieved in the third quarter. Most notably, each pipeline business increased its average daily flows on their way to setting the 14 all-time high delivery records that Francois mentioned. I would highlight our U.S. natural gas business in particular, which saw LNG flows increase 15% this quarter as well as setting a new peak delivery record of 4 Bcf per day. In Mexico, our network is tracking towards 100% availability year-to-date at the same time that Mexico's daily gas imports are averaging 4% higher in 2025 than 2024. Mexico also saw its highest peak import day of record in August for over 8 Bcf a day. We also had our first full quarter of EBITDA contribution from Southeast Gateway, driving our comparable results up 57% in the quarter. In our Power and Energy Solutions business, Bruce Power achieved 94% availability, which includes the planned outages on Units 3 and 4 and is in line with our expected annual availability in the low 90% range for full year 2025. Turning to the top of the EBITDA bridge on the right-hand side. You'll see that we generated $2.7 billion in comparable EBITDA in the quarter, which was a 10% increase year-over-year. The 10% growth reflects a 13% increase in our natural gas pipelines network, partially offset by an 18% reduction in our Power and Energy Solutions segment. Let me walk you through the components of those changes, starting with Canada Gas, where EBITDA increased by $68 million due to higher incentive earnings, higher depreciation, higher income taxes on the NGTL System, partially offset by lower flow-through financial charges. In the U.S., EBITDA increased by $60 million, primarily from our Columbia gas settlement, partially offset by higher…

Thanks, Sean. In summary, our strategy is working. As we look ahead, our focus remains squarely on the priorities that have proven successful. First, maximizing the value of our assets through safety and operational excellence while leveraging commercial and technological innovation. Second, prioritizing low-risk, high-return growth, including placing projects in service on time and on budget or better and allocating our remaining net annual investment capacity through 2030 within our targeted build multiples range of 5 to 7x without moving up the risk curve. And third, maintaining that financial strength and agility to support long-term value creation through capital discipline and efficiency. With our asset base and strong momentum, I am confident we can deliver low-risk, repeatable growth into the next decade. Operator, we're now ready to take questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Praneeth Satish with Wells Fargo.

I think if we just zoom out for a second and think about EBITDA growth on a longer time frame than 2028, it would seem to me like the current mid-single-digit CAGR guidance can be sustained for a long time past 2028. The backlog is very large on the gas side, ROIC is increasing. And then when you get out to 2030, there's at least $1 billion to $2 billion per year of CapEx capacity that opens up with Bruce Power. So I know you aren't formally guiding past 2028, but can you maybe walk us through the puts and takes that shape your long-term EBITDA growth trajectory and how long that 5% to 7% CAGR can be maintained?

Praneeth, it's Sean. I'll take that question. Great question. You highlighted on Francois's Page 9, those IRRs going to kind of 12.5% right now, that is that's critical, right, for us to continue to see those types of return levels to be able to allocate capital in that '29 and '30 period. And I'll tell you a little bit of what's happening. Small to midsized projects were taking down very quickly, but projects are getting bigger and more complex. And that just -- that's where we want to wait to see. Can we continue to push returns and capital allocation up in the '29 to '30 time frame. So if these returns remain true, then I do think you'll see the same kind of midpoint of growth, if not potentially better, but the projects are just taking a little bit longer for us to have that degree of clarity.

Got it. That's helpful. And maybe if I could follow up on that. line of questioning here. So as leverage trends lower over the next few years, it seems like there's a lot of balance sheet capacity that opens up, especially as you get out to 2028. So I know you kind of reiterated the $6 billion per year of CapEx, but is there room to scale towards $7 billion or even $8 billion at some point over the next few years? Or should we kind of assume a more conservative leverage targets over time? Any update on kind of how you're thinking about that longer-term CapEx cadence?

Praneeth, it's Francois. I'll take this one. our goal is that 12 months from now, we've essentially filled up the project backlog at the $6 billion level through 2030 inclusively. I think the opportunity set we have will give us the opportunity at that point to consider going above that $6 billion level. A couple of really important criteria, which we are not going to lose sight of, however. First one is human capital. It's the most important consideration. We've made the progress we've made because we've executed our projects with excellence. So wanting to make sure that if and when we consider going above $6 billion, we can continue to execute with the performance that we've demonstrated over the last 2 or 3 years. Second is the 4.75 is going to continue to be a targeted cap for us irrespective of the size of our capital program. So we could make excellent progress on efficiencies, on technological innovation and commercial innovation that could allow us to go above $6 billion without looking to rotate capital or any other sources of funds. I would say though, as I said before, the opportunity set will absolutely allow us to go there. But I would say it's within those two caveats. And then when you look at the lead time for projects, realistically, that's probably 2028 or 2029 before we could go there just with the time it takes to develop projects and then the time it takes to get them permitted.

And the next question comes from Robert Hope with Scotiabank.

Maybe to follow up on your commentary that the projects are becoming larger and more complex. Can you maybe add a little bit more color on what size of projects that you are now seeing and why they're more complex? And are you more willing to go for larger projects given the increasingly more favorable regulatory outlook in the U.S.?

Thanks, Rob. This is Tina. We are really encouraged by the development pipeline that we have, primarily related to the growth in the power generation sector. Along our entire footprint, we see opportunities in scale of volumes that could be anywhere from just 0.5 Bcf all the way up to more than 1 Bcf, depending on the type a project we're pursuing. The value of our footprint is such that it allows us to capture all of these opportunities, whether they're on a smaller scale or the larger scale. The hyperscalers that we're working with behind the utilities do take more time just because of the supply chain constraints. But certainly, we continue to see those opportunities progress, and we'll pursue those as we see them advance. So the larger ones are taking a little bit more time, but we're able to capture some of the more single, doubles, triples along the way.

Yes. And I'll add a little bit to that, Rob. I appreciate the question. When we talk about increased size and complexity, we're not talking about SGP or CGL like multi-jurisdictional multibillion-dollar projects. These are still in-corridor expansions. The average size of our projects in our backlog right now is about $0.5 billion. You might see projects announced over the next year, creep up around that $1 billion level or maybe still a little bit north of that, but they are still in corridor in -- with existing customers and very straightforward from a construction execution standpoint. So we don't view, despite the larger size, any execution complexity increase. Simply, we've had a number of projects this year that we -- 6 months ago, we would have expected to have announced by now, but they're getting pushed out into next year because they're getting upsized. Demand is increasing so quickly that our utility customers are looking to increase the scope of our projects, and we just have to go back to the drawing board a little bit.

Appreciate that color. And then maybe continuing on the theme of the project backlog. So you have $17 billion of projects in the backlog, $6 billion are in advanced development. How do you expect that kind of overall size to progress over the next year as you're seeing increasing demand for your system? Are you seeing projects -- are you having to turn away projects just given the organizational requirements? Or could we see that backlog expand a little bit further over the next, we'll call it, 12 to 24 months?

Yes. We have -- just to be very clear, Rob, thank you for the question because it gives me the opportunity to point out that we have not turned down a single project because of balance sheet or capital. We still have even with our expectation of bringing in all of the pending projects to full sanctioning, we still have $3.5 billion of room under the $6 billion level. And as we talked about, with careful consideration of our human capital, we think we can go beyond that. So we're not capital constrained in that we're turning away projects. We simply want to make sure that we maintain our 4.75 level and that we're continuing to execute projects with excellence. So the great thing, for example, if you look at our guidance for 2028 of $12.5 billion to $13.1 billion, with EBITDA growing the way it is, it's natural that our backlog and annual capital spend can grow along with it. So as I said, the opportunity set is definitely there for us to go there if we choose to. And based on the cadence of projects we expect to be announced regularly through 2026, I think at this time next year, we're going to be thinking long and hard about increasing that $6 billion level, starting in maybe '28 or '29.

And the next question comes from Theresa Chen with Barclays.

On the theme of gas to power for data centers, you've clearly chosen to stay focused on transmission, supporting your customers rather than competing with them in power generation despite your deep expertise in that space. What drove this strategic decision? And what are the key considerations behind it?

Thanks, Theresa. This is Tina. I'll focus on the U.S. because that's where we're seeing the majority of our data center growth right now. And the attractiveness and depth of our portfolio of data center projects, primarily accessed through our interconnections with key utility customers provides us with a low-risk, compelling return approach to capturing that data center growth. We're actually not seeing a big pull from customers to develop behind-the-meter projects in the U.S. And in instances where we have seen those requested, there have been limiting factors, including contract term or requirements to procure long lead time items, just inconsistent with our risk preferences. And we have a deep pipeline now of those opportunities with our long-standing relationships with our key utility customers. Additionally, when we're working with those utility customers, we're not just solving the needs for their data center growth. It's all of the other electrification needs that they have, whether it's coal to gas conversion or economic development.

Got it. And in regards to Bruce C, can you walk us through the current status on the path to FID, the next key milestones, how you plan to manage cost and execution risk if the project proceeds? And on the heels of Greg's comments related to the technological advancements and use of robotics for the NCR program, it seems that you're incorporating additional efficiencies and innovative solutions in general here. But what are the key lessons from the NCR process that you'll be applying to Bruce C if FID-ed?

Sure. Thanks, Theresa. Appreciate the question. It's Greg. We do continue to progress Bruce C. We actually just received the notice of commencement from the IAC here in August. As we talked about in the last quarter, there's still a lot of work to do when you think about moving towards FID in the early 2030s. But what the next step for us is we're actually working with the ISO and our next tranche of funding. As a reminder, we're currently using federal funding through Enercan and the next tranche will help provide us the funding as we move towards FID towards the end of the decade. Nice for you to point out the Slide 19. I think there's many innovations that Bruce have been using both operationally and through the MCR program with the robotics that I talked about earlier. You'll see successive efficiencies being taken through all those lessons learned when you think about -- this is almost a decade-long plan. And the reason that we actually put robotics and other things in as we progress through Unit 3 was to be able to continue that over through all the success of MCR programs. So the team have been doing a great job on time and on budget. And what you'll continue to see is that time shrinking in terms of how long it's taken us to do the MCR program and get these units back online.

And the next question comes from Aaron MacNeil with TD Cowen.

The negotiated settlement on the Canadian Mainline expires in 2026. You mentioned several rate cases over the next several years. So I guess, just very simply, have toll increases or rate cases been contemplated in the 2028 guide? Or could we think about that as potential upside very much like we saw with Columbia earlier this year?

Yes. Thanks for the question, Aaron. We do have several rate cases in flight. As you're familiar, we have the ANR, the Great Lakes rate cases that we have just recently filed and are in settlement discussions. We had a successful settlement on the Columbia Gas system. We have a cadence going forward on other U.S. pipes. Specific to Canada Gas, we have the mainline settlement, which goes through the end of 2026. in our NGTL settlement that ends at the end of 2029. The projections for those rate cases or rate settlements include conservative estimates in our budgeting and forecasting. And each rate case is very different depending on the rate base, the capital investment, but you will see the proposed uplift on those rate cases already embedded into our forecast.

Okay. Understood. And then I wanted to dig in on the cost savings that you've realized on capital. As we look to the future and just given the broader investment in energy infrastructure across North America, are you starting to run into challenges or bottlenecks with contractors? Or can you speak to any other pressure points that we should be aware of or risks that you're actively mitigating? And ultimately, I guess I'm just wondering if this level of outperformance can be sustained.

Yes, thanks. Market pressures haven't really had a material impact yet, but we do see industry backlogs building, and we're continuously monitoring our suppliers and our contractors. Francois earlier highlighted our human capital, and that's one of our also top considerations when we're sanctioning and executing projects. This applies also to our contractors and skilled labor workforces. We've been through these cycles before. We learn when it gets busy. It's increasingly important to retain top-tier suppliers, contractors, crews. And we're able to attract some of those top suppliers and contractors in two ways: one, through our long-term relationships and our contracting strategies that we deploy; and two, our portfolio. Our contractors like this long-term portfolio that we have, whether it's small, medium-sized in quarter projects and all of our maintenance capital, we're able to develop long-term relationships with them for that long-term backlog.

Yes. And I'll add to that, Aaron, it's Francois. With respect to outperforming plan going forward. Remember that the risk of our portfolio is decreasing. If you look over the last 2 or 3 years, we had CGL and Southeast Gateway in there. The small- to medium-sized projects are much more straightforward to execute. The predictability of cost estimates is very high because we know the right of way, we know the terrain. The time lines are quite predictable. So we do tend to take a more conservative approach in an inflationary environment to our costs. Projects we're putting into service now were sanctioned in 2022 and 2023. Remember, we were in a much higher inflationary environment back then. But I'm optimistic that we can continue that execution excellence with a recognition that we're in a generational time in terms of allowed rates of return or rates of returns on projects we sanction. And to some extent, we might be a little bit more aggressive in terms of our estimation simply because we want to be able to allocate more capital to growth. Over the last few years, as we've been deleveraging any outperformance on projects, the proceeds have gone to accelerating our deleveraging. Going forward, the balance sheet is in good shape right now. We're more focused on growth. So we're going to want to allocate more capital. There are some great examples that our team, our supply chain team have been working with some of our key suppliers on long-term contracts, things like turbine maintenance, things like delivery of new equipment for new projects with the long backlog that Tina mentioned, we are a preferred customer that our contractors very much like to deal with. That means we get the A teams on our projects. And project execution is always about people and our human capital. And our team is very strong, and we get the strongest teams from our contractors, which leads to the results we've been getting, and we hope to continue those.

And the next question comes from Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan.

Just wanted to turn to Slide 23, if I could revisit that. On the right-hand side, piling up tailwinds and headwinds for the guide here, if I recall correctly, it seems like there's a lot more tailwinds than headwinds at this point. So just wondering, is it fair to think that, that is the balance when you're thinking about the guide period?

Jeremy, it's Sean. I'll take that question. Candidly, I think you're right. We are feeling more tailwinds than headwinds at the moment, whether that be the jurisdiction regulatory reforms that Francois mentioned, the customer kind of demand pull on our systems, we're being asked to do more than we ever have been. And to Francois's point, we're able to drive kind of project IRRs up, and we're able to drive rate case outcomes higher than we've ever seen before. So it is a bit of an imbalance towards the tailwinds for the first time in a long time. But towards that -- outside of that [ '29 and '30 ], we've been asked a few times about why not 5 years guidance. We just want to maintain a few -- another year to make sure that all of these tailwinds remain durable through the end of the decade. But so far, so good.

Got it. That's helpful. So the 3-year guide looks really conservative here given that backdrop. So that's helpful to understand. And then just wanted to go to Mexico, I guess, there have been comments in the past with regards to potential for monetization there. I'm just wondering any updated thoughts you might be able to provide there?

Yes. I'll take that one as well, Jeremy. No updated thoughts, but just let us recap kind of where we've been on that one. Look, Mexico is a phenomenal business for us, right, putting SGP into service this year and kind of demonstrating the commercial viability of that. CFE has a major campaign underway, right, with their $20-some billion kind of power and transmission build-out and given that a couple of quarters to continue to develop. So we're still committed to looking at alternatives in 2026. We'll have USMCA, some clarity there by hopefully, June or July. We'll have progress on the CFE side with connecting a number of different power plants that will be served primarily by SGP and other assets. And we'll look at capital market and partnership opportunities starting in 2026 and hopefully have an update by mid to fall of 2026.

And the next question comes from Maurice Choy wit RBC.

I just want to come back to a comment earlier that Francois, you made about your ability to go above $6 billion without rotating capital. It doesn't sound like you need this program. But from everything you shared today, you're also not short of opportunities. So how do you see the company being more engaged on an active capital rotation program just from a financial discipline perspective, particularly for mature or derisked projects?

Thanks for the question, Maurice, and it gives me an opportunity to maybe be a bit clearer based on my prior response. What I wanted to indicate is that the first source of deleveraging is always growing your EBITDA. And before we consider capital rotation or any outside form of equity, we always look to improve the ROIC on our existing assets. So through commercial innovations and increasingly interesting technological innovation, the use of AI more specifically, we see an opportunity to accelerate EBITDA growth through optimization and efficiencies in our system. And I would like to see those carried out and run through before we consider any outside capital or deleveraging. Obviously, we hold share count dearly. Our bias to the extent we need -- to the extent we want to grow our capital program above $6 billion and we decide that we do need some equity the bias will always be the capital rotation first. But first, let's see what we can do with the EBITDA. We've had some really good successes here in improving the efficiency of our systems, getting our OM&A down and getting the ROIC on our existing assets up. And that's what I meant by that comment.

That makes sense. And if I could just finish on the question about returns. On a forward-looking basis, you mentioned that you are expecting 5 to 7x build multiple. Compared to the Investor Day last year, has there been certain assets or project types that you're seeing evolving returns? Or have they broadly been quite steady over the past 12 months?

Maurice, it's Sean. The answer is the latter. We have seen the 5% to 7% guidance from Investor Day last year to this year, we have executed right in the middle of that range. So it is steady. The proof points are there, and they are why we're extending that guidance through '28 at this point.

Yes. And just to add to that, as we talked about our priorities for 2026 and our goal of filling out the slate of growth projects at the $6 billion level through 2030, along with that is at a 5 to 7x EBITDA build multiple. As you can imagine, our $17 billion BD pipeline, we have pretty good visibility on the returns of those projects. And so we think that, that outcome is very achievable. And the clear implication there is that we expect the build multiples to hold at the levels that you just referred to.

So just a quick follow-up. I think earlier, there was a mention, I believe, by Tina that just we've not seen a whole lot of cost pressures, but perhaps there may be some on the horizon if all the resources are directed towards data centers, for example. What you're saying is that even if costs globally goes up, your returns should hold. Is that fair?

Yes. Look, I think we compete with our peer company pipelines for projects, particularly in the U.S. My presumption is that if all competitors are impacted by the same inflationary environment, we're competing on a level playing field, and those costs will be reflected in all of our bids, and we expect to be able to hold our returns to deliver that 5 to 7x EBITDA build multiple.

And the next question comes from Manav Gupta with UBS.

You recently got an upgrade from S&P rate. They finally moved you to stable outlook versus negative. I know you had been working with them. Help us understand what that process was and finally, what pushed them to acknowledge that the outlook is actually stable and not negative.

Manav, it's Sean. I'll take that one. Look, without speaking to any particular agency, we've simply delivered on the plan that we introduced at Investor Day last year, right? Obviously, getting SGP done on time and on service and living within our $6 billion to $7 billion capital raise. Those were commitments that we made to the market. And to be fair, the agencies held us accountable and wanted to see a couple of quarters of performance under that new strategy. So we've delivered and better. So yes, we're grateful for recognition of that, but it was always kind of part of our plan and expectation to get to this point.

A number of question we are getting from investors is when you look at 2026, your guide is 6% to 8% and people feel it's slightly conservative. Help us understand what can get us closer to 8% versus the 6%, if you could talk a little bit about that?

Yes. Happy to take that one again, Manav, it's Sean. Look, we have a little over $8 billion going into service kind of driving that. So these are new assets. And as it relates to the optionality that we have with all of our assets, right, customer-driven events, weather-driven events, outperformance. It's -- we need a little bit of time with our new assets in particular, but we are seeing new counterparties come across all of our systems with really kind of commercially innovative strategies to express hedging across molecules to electrons. So with these new assets, in particular, we'll be conservative in how much more we can do from a new customer standpoint, but we look forward to having all the new inventory kind of up and running here by the end of the year.

And the next question comes from Olivia Foster with Goldman Sachs.

I wanted to go back to some of the comments which were made on improving IRRs across the footprint. Could you talk about specific drivers of the improved project returns we are seeing versus earlier this decade? And specifically, are there insights you can share on customer willingness to sign up for rates underpinning these improved project returns? And on the other hand, any balancing factors from project competition in regions where TC operates?

Olivia, this is Tina. I'll take that question. There are various factors that are driving our higher returns and our strong build multiples. One is our project execution capabilities. We've really have advanced our skill set, our governance are the way we advance our projects on early development. And so I feel like our project development and execution experience has really driven us a long way in executing on time and under budget at returns that are continuing to increase. Second is the capacity in the market on the pipeline side continues to be more and more utilized. And so as we're working with our customers, the optionality in our systems requires expanding. And as we're working with them, they are highly valuing the new capacity as well as the security of supply. So we are able to negotiate, in some cases, returns that are providing us stronger options there. In addition, just the amount of growth across North America is really providing a big landscape for us to be able to select projects that have the highest return and strong build multiples. That's really the value of our footprint. Our footprint is a strategic advantage for us to find those low-risk, high-return opportunities that we can filter into our $6 billion to $7 billion capital.

Got it. That's clear. And for my second question, I wanted to ask a follow-up on one of Praneeth's questions, specifically on the leverage build and annual CapEx outlay. How much cushion specifically would you like to build under the 4.75 target on a run rate basis before we could see annual CapEx trend towards the higher end of the range? And then maybe this is a clarifying question as well, I'll tag on. But is TC contemplating moving towards the higher end of the $6 billion to $7 billion range or eventually moving above the upper end of the range over time?

Yes, Olivia, it's Sean. I'll take the first part of that question. Look, as it relates to having a specific target below 4.75, our objective is really capital efficiency. And as Francois mentioned, our per share metrics at 4.75 or below are really how we kind of triangulate balance of total shareholder return. So -- and we are being below $6 billion here for the next kind of couple of years, we are giving the balance sheet time to breathe. We could have gone to $6 billion, but we have chosen not to. We're not chasing projects in favor of giving -- lower return projects in favor of giving the balance sheet time to breathe. That's a critical takeaway. As it relates to going from $6 billion to $7 billion or $7 billion to $8 billion, if the project returns are there, and it works within our -- that 12.5%, that glide path up that we're seeing, if that continues to be true and our teams can deliver on time and on budget, and it works at 4.75 or lower, those are the ingredients for both growth and continued preservation of balance sheet strength.

And the next question comes from Robert Catellier with CIBC.

Rob Catellier from CIBC. First of all, congratulations on your ongoing safety record. I just wanted to follow up a little bit with Tina, just on the project execution we've seen recently. You gave a whole host of reasons on how you got there. But I wondered if you could maybe highlight the one or two top reasons why you -- the projects are coming in on time and on budget recently?

Thanks for the question, Rob. I'd love to talk about our project execution teams because they have been delivering time and time again. Our human capital there is really the #1 driver, in my opinion, of why we're executing on time and on budget. We've really advanced our internal leadership execution skills, more due diligence on risk we are engaging our stakeholders much earlier in the process, in the development cycle. We are negotiating strong contractors with our third-party constructors to provide the A teams. All of that allows us to execute on time and on budget and drive that increasing returns on our invested capital.

And just to add to that, Rob, I really appreciate the question. We don't talk about culture enough on these types of calls and having a one-team approach to project execution, creating a psychologically safe environment where our teams feel comfortable identifying challenges early on so that we can manage them and manage risk. Is critical to the high-quality execution on projects. So we've worked really hard on creating a strong culture with strong psychological safety, and it's definitely benefited us.

Yes. It sounds like you put in a really sustainable framework there that should benefit you for years to come. My second question was for Greg Grant on the power side. On Slide 18, there's a comment in the midterm bucket about exploring complementary services in high-demand power and energy solution markets. I wondered if you could give us a flavor of what you think the highest likelihood opportunities are there, in your opinion, as we stand here today? And whether or not you're contemplating any behind-the-meter power in that bucket.

Sure. Yes. Thanks, Robert. Happy to talk a bit about that. We've talked about areas where we do have some of the complementary gas and power solutions. Obviously, we have to be quite strategic with our footprint on both the gas and power side. We've talked about we're not just trying to build out the power business on its own. Certainly, Alberta has been the one area that I've talked about in the past, just given we have that energy supply chain footprint, whether it goes from the gas storage all the way to the end of power. So that's a natural area where we would be looking to potentially look to colocation and/or power solution. The one thing I just want to highlight, and I think Tina highlighted it earlier, we have a great pipeline of growth. And so we're going to be very selective. Some of the projects that we have seen are probably taking on a bit more risk than we would like to, especially given the footprint and the pipeline that we have. But certainly, in Alberta, when you see over 20 gigawatt queue on the data center front, whether we're developing it or we see other developers come in and build out some more demand, that's great for our existing footprint on the gas and power side.

And the next question comes from Sam Burwell with Jefferies.

Given the LNG build-out on the Gulf Coast, it seems like there's at least some opportunity to send more Canadian gas south. So are possible brownfield expansions on your system something that might make sense for you to pursue? And if so, how would those projects rank within your opportunity set?

Yes. Thanks for the question, Sam. This is Tina. Yes, LNG opportunities are continuing to evolve. It is a large market, as you know, from a demand perspective. If you think about it across our portfolio, we've placed 8 LNG projects into service over the last few years, primarily related to Gulf Coast projects. Recently, you're familiar, we have built our Coastal GasLink project to the West Coast, and we think there's great opportunity to continue to provide egress out of the WCSB to the West Coast for LNG exports there. As you think about coming down into the U.S., we certainly have a corridor there through our ANR pipeline system and other systems where we have had some expansions in the past to bring gas from Western Canada down to the Gulf Coast, and we'll continue to evaluate those as necessary. There are about 10 more LNG projects proposed along the Gulf Coast that we'll be looking for additional supply. But again, I think the West Coast of Canada and building that out is going to be an incredible opportunity for us to move that gas west.

Okay. Understood. So I guess on that point, I mean, any updates you can share on Coastal GasLink expansion?

Sure. We're excited to have Coastal GasLink in service and flowing gas, Train 1 and Train 2 now moving forward. We are working really closely with LNG Canada right now to evaluate the Phase 2, and we're supporting them in the development related to what would be necessary on the pipeline. So the FID does rest with them, but we are working jointly to evaluate what would be necessary to expand Coastal to get to the Phase 2.

And recall, Sam, that LNG Canada Phase 2 is part of the projects and the national interest that the federal government has identified. So from a permitting standpoint, I think that process is well underway with the major projects office. And really, the decision now rests with the proponent for the LNG facility.

And the next question comes from Ben Pham with BMO.

I appreciate the update. A couple of maintenance questions from me on the 5% to 7% EBITDA growth guidance. So there's a couple of questions earlier on this topic. But I'm wondering, could you provide the building blocks on that CAGR, that 5%? Like what amounts growth? What is rate cases? What is the efficiencies? And then what takes you to the 6% and the 7% or beyond?

Ben, it's Sean. Thanks for the question. Look, we maybe do a better job on that kind of offline, but just to give you a sense for it. there's another big chunk of that with capital coming into service kind of over the next 2 years, right? That's always our baseline, capital kind of coming into service. We could have up to a half a dozen rate cases kind of in flight during this plan. So that's probably the biggest driver of the range and what has to be true over the course of the next kind of couple of years. And then the smaller kind of bucket, but things that we've had real kind of demonstrable experience and results from asset availability, commercial and technology. Those -- it's a small but kind of growing kind of influence on the growth. And you heard both Tina and Greg kind of mentioned we've got active robotics. We've got AI, we've got preventative maintenance that are all showing early signs of kind of cash flow productivity and contribution. So those are really the three big buckets, but happy to take that offline in more detail.

Okay. That's great. And maybe the other maintenance question that I had is on the dividend growth side, are you still expecting the ranges you've highlighted in the past on dividend growth?

Yes. So just to be clear for all the listeners, our 3% to 5% range is consistent. We are just given the returns that we're seeing in our new projects, right, well above our cost of capital, we are going to direct as much capital as we can into new projects, which implies we will keep the dividend growth at the low end of that range for the foreseeable future because the projects just warrant as much growth at 12.5% or better. That's the highest and best use of capital we see across the entire system.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the question-and-answer session. If there are any further questions, please contact Investor Relations at TC Energy. I will now turn the call over to Gavin Wylie for any closing remarks.

I just wanted to say once again, thank you for attending the call this morning and for the great questions. As the operator stated, if we didn't get to your question or if there was anything that was outstanding, please feel free to contact us in the Investor Relations team. We're always happy to help. And of course, we look forward to providing you our next update likely in mid-February. Thank you.

This brings to a close today's conference call. You may disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating, and have a pleasant day.