North American Utilities: Takeaways from Our J.P. Morgan Natural Resources Conference

Research evidence excerpt

North American Utilities: Takeaways from Our J.P. Morgan Natural Resources Conference

-cost DOE financing to secure long-lead nuclear

components, shifting investor focus to which companies have the sites, regulatory

support, and risk appetite to pursue new nuclear. PEG fits the conversation from a site

and policy perspective, with management reiterating the feasibility of hosting a new unit

and highlighting state support to enable new development. Nevertheless, our discussion

showed zero appetite for putting the company at risk, framing the company’s role as an

enabler for developers versus a balance sheet-led investment at this stage. AEP struck a

similar balance, acknowledging the long-term need for new nuclear, while pointing first

to lower-risk opportunities such as Cook plant uprates targeted for customers. The

company also continues to develop three potential sites, two of which appear active due

to customer interest, but made clear it would not pursue new nuclear without significant

government support. ETR maintained messaging around preferring a federal backstop

and at a minimum requiring risk sharing proportional to EDC, OEM, and customer

balance sheets. We note ETR’s Evest (Meta) filing included funding for pre-FEED study

to evaluate construction and operation of AP-1000 nuclear generators at River Bend

Station and an agreement to evaluate options for advancing nuclear construction to serve

ETR-LA’s service area.

• Regulatory updates: balls, strikes, and incremental XEL wins. AEE management

views the IL regulatory construct as stabilizing, pointing to constructive outcomes in last

year’s MYRP reconciliation and the latest gas case. In the spirit of stability, AEE currently

appears to lean toward filing another MYRP in IL given where commission stakeholders