Yahoo Finance

John Moreira

Thank you, Joe, and good morning, everyone. This morning, I will review first quarter earnings results, provide a regulatory update, and also discuss our balance sheet progress, and credit metrics. I'll start with our first quarter results on slide 8.
GAAP and recurring earnings results for the first quarter were $1.50 per share compared with GAAP and recurring earnings of $1.49 per share last year. Higher utility earnings were largely offset by a decrease in parent and other earnings.
Starting with transmission, higher electric transmission earnings $0.04 per share were due to increased revenues from continued system investments to address agent infrastructure, reliability, and load growth, partially offset by the impact of share dilution. Higher electric distribution earnings of $0.03 per share benefited from grid modernization and system improvement rate mechanisms.
Additionally, base distribution rate increases in New Hampshire and Massachusetts provide a timely recovery of investments. Partially offsetting these revenue adjustments were higher property taxes, interest, depreciation, and share dilution.
The improved results of $0.06 per share at Eversource's Natural Gas segment were due primarily to higher revenues from continued investments to replace aging infrastructure resulting in base distribution rate increases at our Massachusetts Gas businesses, including the EGMA rate base roll-in that became effective November 1, 2024, in accordance with the 2021 settlement agreement.
Offsetting these higher natural gas revenues were higher O&M, interest, depreciation, property taxes, and the impact from share dilution. Water earnings were comparable year over year as the first quarter is typically a very low usage period. Eversource parent losses increased $0.12 per share in 2025.
Lower results were as expected, primarily due to higher interest expense and the impact from the absence of capitalized interest associated with our former offshore wind investment. Overall, our first quarter earnings were in line with our expectations, and we are pleased to start 2025 with such a solid performance.
Moving to our key regulatory items as highlighted on slide 9. Starting with New Hampshire, where we currently have a pending rate proceeding. Hearings in this proceeding are scheduled to start next week. In addition to recovery of previous system investments and deferred storm costs, we have proposed implementing a four-year performance-based ratemaking plan, including a capital support mechanism that would adjust rates annually. We anticipate a final decision in July for rates to become effective August 1.
In Massachusetts, on November 1, 2025, new rates will be effective for NSTAR Gas under the annual PBR adjustment and a rate base roll-in. In addition, rates reflected the second phase of the 2024 rate base roll-in for EGMA of approximately $62 million.
Moving to Connecticut. We are pleased to report that the average CL&P residential customer will see a 6% reduction on May 1 due to the implementation of the annual rate adjustment mechanism. We appreciate the progress made by PURA from the proposed decision to the final decision to provide customers with this benefit.
Also in Connecticut, we have an ongoing Yankee Gas rate case, where we seek to recover a revenue deficiency of $209 million, reflecting critical investments and cost increases since our previous rate review in 2018. Hearings are scheduled for June, with a final decision scheduled at the end of October for rates effective November 1 of this year.
Next, let me reaffirm our five-year capital plan of $24.2 billion, as shown on slide 10, which reflects our five-year utility infrastructure investments by segment. This plan is a 10% increase over the last five-year plan. As a reminder, this forecast includes only those projects that we have a clear line of sight on from a regulatory approval perspective.
The plan includes nearly $7 billion of transmission infrastructure investments over the next five years, greatly enabled by efforts in Massachusetts last year, including the state's clean energy bill that reformed siting and permitting of energy facilities as well as the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities approval of the Electric Sector Modernization Plan, or ESMP.
It also includes the Greater Cambridge Energy project that commenced construction earlier this year. As a reminder, this project consists of a 35,000 square foot underground substation at a projected capital cost of $1.8 billion with nearly 80% of this investment to be recovered through our transmission tariff.
Turning to electric distribution. The capital forecast reflects over $10 billion of planned utility infrastructure investments with investments related to Massachusetts operations making up 60% of this capital plan.
This includes $850 million for the AMI program in Massachusetts that Joe discussed. We have already realized significant benefits for our customers from the new billing system implemented to support AMI and we look forward to providing customers with additional benefits as we begin meter installation later this year. In addition to our base capital investment forecast, we continue to see opportunities that could provide additional investments in the range of $1.5 billion to $2 billion within the forecast period.
And as Joe mentioned, we have other growth opportunities that could materialize towards the back end of our forecast period and beyond. Let me now turn to the subject of potential tariffs and how they could impact our O&M and capital investment plan.
First, we see minimal, if any, impact on our operation and maintenance expense. Secondly, we could potentially see cost increases resulting from the tariffs impacting our capital investment plan, but we expect them to be manageable. While tariffs are disruptive to our supply chain, we have been managing through supply chain disruption for the past five years, especially through the pandemic years.
The work we have done to expand and diversify our supply chain prior to the tariffs has positioned us well to mitigate this potential tariff risk. Through this strategic planning, we have almost no direct exposure to China where the tariff impact is slated to be the highest.
Overall, we believe the potential cost increase to our capital projects will be approximately 3% to 6%. Should these potential tariffs put pressure on inflation, keep in mind that in Massachusetts, where we currently have performance-based rates that include an inflationary adjustment, which would allow us to recover a portion of this inflation impact. In addition, we have proposed PBR rate mechanisms in the PSNH and Yankee rate filings.
Turning to slide 11. To efficiently finance our customer-focused investments, we have taken a number of steps to enhance our cash flow position and improve our balance sheet profile.
Our plan to enhance our cash flows is well balanced alongside our equity needs of $1.2 billion, the majority of which we expect to issue towards the back half of our five-year forecast period. This plan also supports our FFO to debt ratio target, which we expect to improve significantly over 2024 actual results and certainly above the rating agency downgrade thresholds.
We continue to expect our FFO to debt targets for 2025 to be well above 100 basis points over the rating agency thresholds. As you can see on the slide, we have provided you with the rating agency thresholds at both S&P and Moody's as well as the actual 2024 results. As we shared with you last quarter and as shown on slide 12, we have executed on all of the items necessary to improve our cash flows and strengthen our balance sheet.
Next, I will turn to 2025 earnings guidance on slide 13. With the first quarter in the books, we are reaffirming our 2025 recurring earnings per share in the range of $4.67 to $4.82 and our long-term EPS growth rate of 5% to 7% off of the 2024 base.
Our EPS growth profile will continue to strengthen as we execute on the strategic plan with customer-focused transmission and distribution infrastructure investments recovered through constructive rate mechanisms.
In addition, the progress with the recovery of deferred storm costs throughout the system and continued O&M cost discipline provide a solid foundation for Eversource to return value to our investors for years to come. I will now turn the call over to Rima to begin the Q&A session.

Rima Hyder

Thank you, John. Marvin, we are ready for question and answers now. Thank you.

Question and Answer Session

Operator

(Operator Instructions)
Durgesh Chopra, Evercore.

Durgesh Chopra

Guys, just appreciate the tariff commentary. We've been getting a lot of questions on the offshore project, obviously under construction. Can you just frame for us if you already have the equipment on hand? I know there's one monopile that is being manufactured. There's also some storage -- some equipment you've stored in Canada. Maybe just a little bit more color on the tariff exposure to Revolution, please.

Joseph Nolan

Sure. I appreciate the question. We have all items procured. There is -- as you mentioned, there is a monopile that's being constructed that we do expect in the fall. But the remaining items, even the item that is the substation that's being stored in Canada has already come in the United States.
It's already been here. So we don't anticipate or expect any tariff-related challenges of anything around Revolution other than there is one monopile that is coming that's under construction. But we feel very good about it. As we had mentioned, this project is very, very mature. It's going along very, very well.
It's construction. I'm very, very pleased with the progress. As you know, we do oversee the construction of that substation in Rhode Island. And I will tell you that both John and I get daily updates on the progress, and I'm very, very impressed with the team down there and what they've been able to do to bring that station to fruition. So we don't feel as though there's going to be anything that's going to challenge us around tariffs as it relates to Revolution.
But Durgesh, I also want to talk to you a little bit about our business and some of our capital investments. When COVID hit, we made a concerted effort to go and kind of fill the warehouses with a lot of components and parts that might be challenging to get.
So fortunately, Eversource is blessed with a very robust warehouse operation that hopefully will insulate us from anything that's very, very challenging. But again, it is an issue we need to look at. We do look at it all the time.
John, it does oversee the warehousing and procurement. So it's in very, very good hands, and I know that he'll do everything he can to mitigate any risk that tariffs could have on the company.

Durgesh Chopra

Got it, Joe. That's very thorough. It sounds like you don't see it as a major risk. Okay. Really quickly, shifting gears. Aquarion still on track for year-end. And then what kind of regulatory approval time line as you think about approvals through different states, are you -- should we be expecting, please?

Joseph Nolan

Sure. Yeah, the Aquaria filing has been made. We anticipate that, that transaction will close in 2025. We don't see any bumps in the road. As you know, we will pass through Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, the regulatory bodies.
But it's a pretty straightforward filing. And I think that, obviously, when you look at the buyer of the assets, they're a very competent buyer that is already operating in the jurisdiction. So we don't see any issues at all.

Durgesh Chopra

Got it. Is there a specific time line for Connecticut to rule on this?

Joseph Nolan

Yes, they have. The timeline would be October. So five months range.

Operator

Shar Pourreza, Guggenheim Partners.

It's actually James on for Shar. So maybe just starting off in Connecticut. The -- a lot of moving pieces on the legislative front. I think one of them is securitization potentially for the storm cost rig assets. I guess if you receive that, would it change your thoughts on the timing of the quantum of the current ATM equity? I think you had said back half, but just any kind of thoughts there for us.

John Moreira

Hey, James, this is John. Yes. So obviously, as I communicated in February, we did not assume securitization as part of our financing strategy. But certainly, if we get that and we get that cash in the door on an accelerated basis, we would revisit our equity needs at that point in time.

Okay. Perfect. And then just any updated thoughts or expectations for movement in the AMI process at this point?

Joseph Nolan

Well, that docket, James, is under the final one we did file for reconsideration to try to get some clarity and some certainty around the recovery of dollars that we might spend. And so we'll see how that plays out there. But we just want to get comfortable. Obviously, we'll spend what Connecticut wants us to spend, but you need to have line of sight on recover.

Operator

Carly Davenport, Goldman Sachs.

Carly Davenport

Maybe just a follow-up on Connecticut. Just could you provide your latest thoughts just around some of the noise on the forward composition of PURA just in terms of filling those other 2Cs, anything you can share and how you're thinking about the timing of when potentially we could get some certainty on that piece.

Joseph Nolan

Yeah. Great question. We are indifferent on whether it's [3 or whether it's 5]. We do feel as though there's a movement that hopefully we'll see some activity down there on that and get some clarity. But unfortunately, I cannot predict for you when we might see it or whether it's [3 or whether it's 5].
We are obviously eager for a stable regulatory climate in that jurisdiction. So we'll continue to monitor it and we will hope that we do get a transparent regulatory environment that allows us to continue to operate in that state.

Carly Davenport

Great. Appreciate that. And then maybe just shifting to the balance sheet and FFO to debt. I appreciate the detail that you shared in the slides there. Just anything you can provide in terms of conversations, in particular with Moody's in terms of what they need to see to sort of shift from the negative watch and how you feel about the path to executing on that goal?

John Moreira

Yeah, Carly. I would say what I need to see is us to continue to execute on our plan that we have put before them. We're going through a refresh of that plan next month with all three agencies. But suffice it to say, as you'll see in our first quarter statement of cash flows, you'll see a significant improvement in our operating cash flows, and it's really execution of what we've been saying for the past year. the recovery of previously under-recovered regulatory costs have come in and will continue to come in.
That in and of itself is probably -- will generate and benefit FFO to debt at Moody's of about 300 basis points. So everything that we've been executing on everything that we've been communicating to you all, has materialized and will continue to materialize.

Operator

Jeremy Tonet, J.P. Morgan Securities.

Jeremy Tonet

Thank you for the color here today. Just want to pick up with the FFO to debt commentary that you provided in the slide there. Just wondering if you had thoughts you could share with regards to where you think you would land in 2026, FFO to debt on both agency metrics there?

John Moreira

Sure. I mean the groundwork that we've laid to get us to a much better spot in 2025, that will continue with the reduction of about $2.4 billion of debt just related to the Aquarion sale, that's going to continue to persist.
And what I think is very, very important for you all to understand is that this huge under recovery, what's really important and what I feel so optimistic about and confident is that the future costs and rates have been set to align with those costs. So we should not see significant swings in under recoveries in the future. So that -- having that sustainable cost incurred with the revenues to match it is a major, major benefit for us.

Jeremy Tonet

Got it. And so I guess, do you expect FFO to debt will improve from the numbers outlined in 2025, the 100 bps cushion?

John Moreira

Our FFO to debt will continue to enhance. Obviously, that's contingent. We have to look at where our capital forecast is over a five-year period. As I've communicated to a while, this potentially $1.5 billion to $2 billion kind of sitting on the sidelines that we'll hope to have clarity certainly within the next 6 to 12 months. period. And as we typically do, we'll update you all on our finance and plan annually.

Jeremy Tonet

Got it. And then just related to the rev win cost estimates. Just wondering, I guess, how the process works with Ørsted there. You guys kind of worked together in formulating those estimates, those expectations of tariff impacts. And we would expect them to kind of say the same thing where the independent processes. Just wondering how that process works.

John Moreira

No, it's a collaborative. We get updates, as Joe mentioned, from them, they share their forecast update routinely. So we're much aligned, obviously, the deal that we struck with GIP gives us the line of sight and clarity. So we have access to Ørsted, and we're constantly engaged with GIP.

Operator

Sophie Karp, KBCM.

Sophie Karp

I was wondering about the upcoming Millstone re-contracting, right? So can I on the lines of, would that present an opportunity to either maybe improve affordability for payers or at least make it clearer to repay in Connecticut, what they're paying for? Because I think right now, it's rolled into something called public benefit charge. And from a PR standpoint, would that benefit you in any way?

Joseph Nolan

Yeah. I mean if that contract is up in 2029. Obviously, having 1,000 megawatts of clean energy at baseload generation in the region is helpful and in a region where we are actually losing generation. So it's very helpful, but I think it's too early right now, Sophie, to be looking at that contract and maybe what's going to happen going forward. As you know, this was a desire of the administration -- the previous administration to contract for this power and we'd have to work collaboratively with the administration on what's important to them.

Operator

Anthony Crowdell, Mizuho.

Anthony Crowdell

Let's go Nicks, right? I think I heard that in the background.

John Moreira

We'll see what happens on Monday.

Anthony Crowdell

I don't think the Nicks have a chance. But just some odds and ends. In Connecticut, the securitization, the public benefit and the storm cost recovery. Are those rolled up together in same legislation and it's not decided yet?

Joseph Nolan

Well, yeah. No, it has rolled up. I mean, not that it would be allowing securitization for storm costs, but in SB-1560, all of those issues are discussed and contemplated. So -- but again, that's just to allow the recovery so cost. As you know, we do have a prudency review underway at PURA, and we'll continue to work through that process, but it's going very, very well.

Anthony Crowdell

Great. And then if I move to Massachusetts, I think on Wednesday, there was a first share gas decision that maybe change some of the rules on the acronym, I think it's GSEP. Does that impact you guys? Or what kind of exposure do you have with the new rules on the GSEP.

John Moreira

Well, the GSEP file impacted NSTAR Gas and EGMA, Anthony, where they lowered the ceiling from 3% cap to 2.5%. So in and of itself, I don't see that as something that's devastating, we can certainly manage to that. Obviously, our focus will continue to make sure that we provide safe and reliable gas services to our customers. That's first and foremost. And once again, I think we're still going through that review process and we haven't determined what action we would take.
So I think it's a bit early in that process. So there's more to come, but we don't see that as a major impact to us. It's not as though they don't want us to make the investments, they continue to support it, which is -- but they're basically saying, hey, consider other non-pipe alternatives. So that's really what message and what they've communicated to us, and we're very supportive of that concept.

Anthony Crowdell

Great. And if I could just squeeze one more in. It follows off of Durgesh's question earlier. Have you guys stated what percentage of the Revolution project is complete, 50%, 40%, 30%. Have you guys quantified what percent of the project is completed?

Joseph Nolan

We have not. I will just tell you that construction is going very, very well.

Operator

Travis Miller, Morningstar.

Travis Miller

Back sticking on the regulatory under-recovery. I was wondering if you could just give a little bit of a list here. What you got in, in the first quarter and the ones you expect or what you expect to get in over the next, say, two quarters or even through the end of the year. I know that the New Hampshire one is outstanding, Connecticut is a bit outstanding, but --

John Moreira

Well, I would say the most significant one, Travis is the RAM docket, which recovered some of the Millstone Seabrook kind of all the public benefits charge, some bad debt recovery. As you know, we had a $900 million rate increase to collect those under-recoveries into set rates for the current year at a much more reasonable level.
So that was a $900 million rate increase that went live July 1, okay? So -- and that runs from July through April 30 of this year. And then recently, as I stated in my formal remarks, we just got the final decision on the RAM for this year that will go live May -- that went live May 1 which lowered the recovery by $142 million.
So we have very good line of sight. But suffice it to say, in that 300 basis point that I just mentioned, that includes the bulk of the RAM decision recovery of those costs.

Travis Miller

Okay. And then the New Hampshire and then any kind of results in future Connecticut.

John Moreira

I would characterize it in this fashion, in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. We have timely recovery. So they could -- within a very short period of time, we adjust rates whether it's no recovery or under recovery. And they're not significant balances, Travis.

Travis Miller

Yeah. Okay. Very good. And then just real quick, that $1.5 billion to $2 billion CapEx opportunity, anything different or changed in that bucket since last quarter or since February.

John Moreira

Well, there's -- we always continue to progress and look at it. It's a little bit early in obviously, embedded in that is the AMI in Connecticut. And I think Joe addressed that.

Operator

Julien Dumoulin-Smith, Jefferies.

Julien Dumoulin-Smith

Look, I just wanted to come back to where Jeremy was a second to go. If we can talk a little bit more about the FFO to debt numbers. And just trying to understand like the numerator and denominator a little bit because clearly hearing your comments about the 100 basis points of latitude.
Just wanted to understand a little bit more about how you're seeing that happen because if I remember right, I think last quarter, you guys were talking about this, I think it was a 45% number on improvement in operating cash flow. So it's a good -- I think that was a good proxy if we think about the numerator improving.
But is that still the case? Or how do you think about the debt moving versus the CFO to get to that 100 basis points of latitude you talk about from the 9%.

John Moreira

Julien, I would say that the enhancement in cash flows is obviously -- I mean, when you look at the calculation, it's much more impactful to have a dollar come in and cash flows than it is to have a dollar reduction in debt.
So the improvement, and I stated in my formal remarks that we are looking to be well over 100 basis points, not only for 2025, but on a sustainable basis throughout our forecast period, driven by enhanced cash flows from operations.

Julien Dumoulin-Smith

The 45% is still relevant, though, right? Or is it better than that?

John Moreira

I mean, I haven't done the math recently, but it's probably slightly enhanced. And as I said, you'll see when we file our 10-Q on Monday, you'll see that there's been about a $50 million improvement quarter-over-quarter in our cash flows from operations. So that's very sizable, and that moves the needle quite a bit.

Julien Dumoulin-Smith

Got it. All right. Awesome. I appreciate it. And then quickly, if I can come back just a little bit nitty-gritty here, but we'll do a little cleanup.
On the corporate drag, just to talk about that super quickly, I see the $0.16 drag. And I think for full year '24, you had about $0.16, how do you think about 1Q being a run rate versus what's in there that you should be excluding, right?
Like there's a lower tax rate, some other dynamics here? What should we be watching from the -- taking away from that? I know you mentioned some of it in the prepared remarks, but I'm curious if there's anything you'd flag like kind of what you -- what's the glean from the 1Q for full year corporate?

John Moreira

So let me start by saying that items that run through the parent and other category, that segment is becoming less items that are impacting, it's really two. It's interest and taxes. For the $0.16 impact in Q1 of 2025, let me remind you, in Q1 of 2024, we would still capitalize an interest on the offshore wind. That has now tailed off effective Q3 with the sale -- the final sale to GIP. So we will see a bit more of an impact in the first couple of quarters until we catch up.
In addition, the first quarter, we didn't have the full impact of the $1.4 billion holding company debt that we issued in mid-April. So this quarter, you're seeing the full brunt of both of those items. As we progress through the year, year over year, quarter over quarter, it will be far less significant. The only item that will create that is be the tax benefits. And as I said in the -- those tax benefits are typically recognized in Q3 and in Q4.

Julien Dumoulin-Smith

Got it. So is there a good full year tax rate you'd be running with given those benefits that you talk about in the back half of the year?

John Moreira

Yeah. So our tax rate for 2025 is in the range of 22.5% to 23.5%. Last year, it was in the upper teens.

Operator

Paul Patterson, Glenrock Associates.

Paul Patterson

So a lot of questions have been answered, but just really following up on the PBR, assuming that these guys get it done by the end of the year, as you mentioned in the prepared remarks, when do you think the first practical impact on rates would be experienced if -- I mean, if you can, if you have sort of a rough estimate as to when we might see it actually impacting you, if you follow what I'm saying as opposed to just the --

John Moreira

Yeah. Sure. Thanks, Paul. So the first thing is you have to file a rate case, number one, right? And in the Yankee case, we currently have proposed PBR structure. So we were proactive.
So we need to see how things continue to pan out. We did see the revised store proposal at the end of February. So we hope to see a draft in the final decision kind of midyear, July time frame, July-August time frame. So I think we still have more to come.

Paul Patterson

Right. And then so the Yankee case, just to refresh my memory, with the PBR and these giant sort of dockets or whatever, when would those be -- would those -- do you think -- I apologize for being unfamiliar exactly, but when would those potentially impact the Yankee case. Would those impact the Yankee case? Or would that be at a later time, do you think?

John Moreira

I think that's to be determined, Paul, to be quite honest with you, because we have proposed our PBR structure that we're very familiar, and we've had it for nearly a decade in Massachusetts. So the timing is going to be a bit tight. We do expect decision in the Yankee case in October time frame. So PURA issues its guidance in July or August time frame, that's really, really close. So we just -- we're getting a little bit ahead of ourselves, yes. So yet to be determined how that would ultimately shake out.

Paul Patterson

I appreciate that. And then in Massachusetts, it seems like the governor for the most part, has been oriented towards sort of expanding low-income assistance and sort of the phase-in issue or the avoiding rate shock approach, if I understand it correctly. Is there anything else we should think about? And I just -- one of the things I have heard sort of in the past is sort of an income determination energy burden approach? Do you think that would be expanded greatly.
Or do you just see this as sort of what I just talked about or just expanding low-income assistance and the avoidance of [rate shock]?

Joseph Nolan

Yeah. I mean I guess the one great thing I'll tell you about Governor Healey and this administration is that they are very collaborative and thoughtful. I was -- I participated in many discussions around the table, we were looking at opportunities to try to help customers that are in need. And I think it's been very, very productive. We continue to look at that.
And I think if you look at the 10% reduction we were able to help our customers achieve. That's just another example of when you collaborate when the utilities collaborate with regulators and administrations, you get very positive outcomes that are a win-win for everybody. So I think everything is on the table. I'm not saying that, that particular one, I do remember it being discussed. But how it plays out, it's still pretty early on in that.

Operator

(Operator Instructions)
Andrew Weisel, Scotiabank.

Andrew Weisel

First, to follow up on the FFO to debt, just to clarify, which threshold are you referring to when you talk about the 100 basis point cushion? Is it the 12% in S&P? So you're talking about 13% or higher?

John Moreira

I'm talking about the both thresholds at S&P and Moody's.

Andrew Weisel

Okay. So each of them on a corresponding calculation basis?

John Moreira

Correct, Andrew. Correct.

Andrew Weisel

Okay. Great. Next, maybe I need a little bit of a reminder. But when you talk about tariffs and the Massachusetts mechanism around performance-based rate making and inflation, please just remind me how would that work? And would you expect to fully pass on the effect? I think you mentioned an estimate of 3% to 6% impact. Is your expectation that, that would be fully passed on or just some portion of it?

John Moreira

Well, the reference to the 3% to 6% that I mentioned was on our capital program. So that would be capital projects related. I also said in my formal remarks that we see very little impact on O&M or O&M. What I'm trying -- with the reference that I made about the PBR mechanism, if these tariffs put inflationary pressure on the commodities that we purchased material from an O&M perspective or general inflation that we've seen across the board.
The PBR mechanism that we have in Massachusetts and we've had it for, as I said, nearly a decade now, the first layer of that mechanism is an adjustment for inflation using the GDP-PPI mechanism.
That adjustment -- inflationary adjustment is capped at 5%. So last -- in our last year's adjustment for NSTAR Electric, for example, that took effect January 1 of this year. That inflation adjustment was about 3%, 3.25%. So if inflation were to creep up to 6%, we would at least get up to 5% of that rate impact.

Andrew Weisel

I see. Thank you for clarifying that. So two different things. The O&M versus the capital different bucket, thank you for clarifying. Got it. And one last one, if I may. Can you just give us your latest thoughts on timing of a potential CL&P rate case? Would that be something for 2025?

John Moreira

We're still assessing as we -- as I continuously communicated to you, the earliest we would likely file would be in the fall. But this -- we're still assessing the timing of that.

Operator

I'm showing no further questions at this time. I would now like to turn it back to Joe Nolan for closing remarks.

Joseph Nolan

Great. Well, thank you all for taking the time to join us this morning. We really appreciate it. And you've got eight minutes to get on the Ameren call of my good friend, Marty Lyons. So enjoy.

John Moreira

Thank you, everyone.

Operator

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