With a combined revenue of $21 trillion and $2.1 trillion in profits, the 2026 Fortune 500 is the definitive list of America's largest companies.

Fortune 500

Almost $20 trillion in revenue—and a record-breaking $1.87 trillion in profits. Introducing the 2025 Fortune 500, the definitive list of the biggest companies in America.

The Fortune 500, in its 70th year in 2024, ranks the biggest U.S. companies by revenue.

The Fortune 500, in its 69th year in 2023, ranks the biggest U.S. companies by revenue.

This year’s Fortune 500 marks the 68th running of the list.

This year’s Fortune 500 marks the 67th running of the list.

Based out of Jackson, Mich., the electric power provider supplies electric energy and natural gas to around 60% of Michigan's residences.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 66th running of the list.

F500-2020-443-CMS-Energy

Michigan-based CMS Energy owns electric and natural gas utility Consumers Energy, as well as independent power generation businesses.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 65th running of the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 64th running of the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 63rd running of the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 62nd running of the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 61st running of the list. Wal-Mart claims the top spot again. See who made the list.

Wal-Mart stayed on top as its sales crept closer to half-a-trillion dollars. Apple moved into the top five. And UnitedHealth Group continued its steady climb. 

Fortune Global 500

Key Financials (last Fiscal Year)

Revenues ($M)

Profits ($M)

Assets ($M)

Total Stockholder Equity ($M)

Profit Ratios

Profit as % of Revenues

Profits as % of Assets

Profits as % of Stockholder Equity

Earnings Per Share (last Fiscal Year)

Earnings Per Share ($)

EPS % Change (from prior fiscal year)

EPS % Change (5 year annual rate)

EPS % Change (10 year annual rate)

Total Return

Total Return to Investors (last year)

Total Return to Investors (5 year, annualized)

Total Return to Investors (10 year, annualized)

CMS Energy is the parent to Consumers Energy, Michigan’s largest electric and natural gas utility that serves 6.8 million of the state’s 10 million residents. The company’s other arm, North Star Clean Energy, produces electricity, including solar power, in Michigan, Ohio, and Arkansas; owns natural gas and cogeneration plants in Michigan; and manages biomass operations in Michigan and North Carolina. It also partners with other companies on clean energy projects, such as a solar installation in Arkansas with General Motors. The CMS Energy holding company was created in 1987, but its history dates back to 1886, when the utility’s forerunner opened for business.

Q2 2026

Q1 2026

Q4 2025

Q3 2025

Q2 2025

Q1 2025

Q4 2024

CMS Energy (CMS): Company Profile, Stock Price, News, Rankings

legacy

CMS Energy

cms energy

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the CMS Energy twenty twenty five First Quarter Results. The earnings news release issued earlier today and the presentation used in this webcast are available on CMS Energy's website in the Investor Relations section. This call is being recorded. After the presentation, we will conduct a question and answer session. Instructions will be provided at that time.

Just a reminder, there will be a rebroadcast of this conference call today beginning at twelve m. Eastern Time running through May 1. This presentation is also being webcast and is available on CMS Energy's website in the Investor Relations section. At this time, I'd like to turn the call over to Mr. Jason Shaw, Treasurer and Vice President of Investor Relations.

Thank you, Harry. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. With me are Derek Roshow, President and Chief Executive Officer and Reggie Hayes, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. This presentation contains forward looking statements, which are subject to risks and uncertainties. Please refer to our SEC filings for more information regarding the risks and other factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially.

This presentation also includes non GAAP measures. Reconciliations of these measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures are included in the appendix and posted on our website. And now I'll turn the

Thank you, Jason, and thank you everyone for joining us today. CMS Energy, consistent, predictable, dependable. Twenty two years of steady hands at the wheel. It's what you expect and it's what we deliver.

And even more important in these times of broader economic uncertainty. It starts with our investment thesis, which is based on conservative planning paired with disciplined execution, a commitment to excellence across our electric and gas businesses, constructive legislation and regulation and driving growth across the state with a robust economic development pipeline. Our customers can count on us deliver safe, reliable, affordable, clean and equitable energy under all conditions and our investment thesis is what keeps us on track. It's our focus. It's what you count on us for every year.

In fact, I'd like to take a moment to shine a spotlight on our recent storm response, which included company crews, dispatchers, call centers, coworkers, contractors and volunteers who were committed to delivering excellence for our customers during the recent historic storms that impacted Michigan in late March and early April. These storms packed it all in, 14 tornadoes, nearly 100 mile per hour winds and in northern locations over 1.5 inches of ice. The team executed well. We were prepared and ready to dispatch prior to the first wave of weather with 500 crews pre staged and 900 total crews dispatched. Fighting storms on two fronts, we restored customers safely and quickly, then continue to serve supporting local co op utility customers in their restoration efforts.

We saw favorable customer and positive policymaker support because of our response. Yes, our investments and process changes are making a difference. I'm extremely proud and thankful for our coworkers and how they showed up in the work they do daily to improve performance for our customers. I want to start today with Michigan's constructive regulatory environment. We are pleased with the recent electric rate order in March, approximately 65% of the revised ask, nearly double the investments included in the investment recovery mechanism and solid support for investments to improve electric reliability for our customers.

We work hard to ensure our filings are transparent and high quality and we are seeing the results, achieving constructive regulatory outcomes time and time again. We'll continue to work closely with MPSC staff, interveners and the commission on the importance of our investments to bolster our electric and gas systems to ensure we continue to serve customers during sunny days and extreme weather. Given our continued focus on improving electric reliability, you can expect us to file our next electric rate case in Q2. In our gas rate case, we did recently see staff testimony, which we view as a constructive starting position. As we've shown in the past, we're always open to settlement having settled our last four gas cases.

The dynamics of these gas cases are different than our electric cases and we feel good either way, a settlement or fully adjudicated order. For our longer term filings, we expect an order in our renewable energy plan or REP by mid September. Our REP will help define our clean energy future and feeds into our integrated resource plan or IRP that we'll file next year. Earlier in my prepared remarks, I referenced broader economic uncertainty. As you would expect, we are closely monitoring the landscape, potential changes, shaping as needed and preparing to adjust as necessary.

Our conservative planning and strong fundamentals as well as our track record of delivering through any event gives me confidence that we are well positioned to effectively navigate any scenario. This confidence is further bolstered by a diversified service territory with minimal exposure to the auto industry or any other large sectors. We're actively monitoring the landscape and have a diverse supply chain, which limits our exposure to tariffs. Our direct and indirect spend is approximately 90% domestically sourced and we continue to shift U. S.-based Vendors to lower our exposure.

Much of the exposure is related to capital equipment, which means any customer impact would be spread over the life of the asset and our earnings are largely insulated. Nonetheless, we're actively working with all suppliers to manage fluctuations in price and sourcing to keep customer bills affordable as we execute on our plan. In the context of the Inflation Reduction Act or IRA, we've seen good support from Republicans in our individual conversations, the 25 who have signed on in support of continuing tax credits. Our read is that there may be a partial appeal of portions of the IRA. And although we do not expect changes to the renewable tax credits, we continue to safe harbor equipment for projects within our five year plan.

And as a reminder, we have a supportive energy law in Michigan that mandates renewables and 100% clean energy resources by 2,040. The law shapes our customer investments through our REP and IRP. To the degree there are changes in the IRA, Michigan's law offers us enough flexibility to achieve the intent of the law and ensure resource adequacy and affordability for our customers. As for industry exposure, I'll remind you the auto industry is about 2% of our total gross margin. The heart of our electric service territory is in the Grand Rapids Metropolitan Area, which is diversified with commercial businesses and manufacturing and includes significant jobs and state investment.

We're also seeing expansion in other industries including defense, aerospace, polysilicon, semiconductors and agriculture. At CMS Energy, our core business is to serve under all conditions. Our mindset of preparedness and conservative planning ensures we are ready for multiple scenarios, calm in the storm and steady at the wheel. I want to talk for a moment about Michigan's exciting growth renaissance and our work to help our service territory in the state thrive and prosper. First and foremost, we see strong progress in the continued construction and work that make up the 2% to 3% load growth within our five year financial plan.

We have seen one large data center project accelerate their load ramp up by almost a year and another large new manufacturing project has requested to expand service by an additional 10%, all positive indicators. Both we can deliver. Since the beginning of the year, with the elimination of the sales and use taxes for data centers, our pipeline has grown to nine gigawatts, with more of that shift about 65% toward data centers. We're seeing the data center pipeline continue to progress and feel confident some of these projects will materialize into contractual agreements. The data center tariff, which we filed in February with the commission is the next logical step in that process.

The tariff provides a great opportunity for data centers and protects our existing customers. We'll continue to work through this proceeding with settlement being a possible outcome. As I've shared before, we are also excited about the manufacturing growth in our pipeline that brings with it secondary and tertiary benefits including new and growing commercial business as well as residential load. We're excited about and committed to Michigan's future and we are prepared to serve its growing energy needs. Now on to the financials for the quarter.

In the first quarter, we reported adjusted earnings per share of $1.2 We remain confident in this year's guidance and long term outlook and are reaffirming all our financial objectives. Our full year guidance remains at $3.54 to $3.6 per share with continued confidence toward the high end. Longer term, we continue to guide toward the high end of our adjusted EPS growth range of 6% to 8%. With that, I'll hand the call over to Reggie.

Thank you, Guric, and good morning, everyone. On Slide eight, you'll see our standard waterfall chart, which illustrates the key drivers impacting our financial performance for the quarter and our year to go expectations. For clarification purposes, all of the variance analysis herein are in comparison to 2024, both on a first quarter and nine months ago basis. In summary, through the first quarter of twenty twenty five, we delivered adjusted net income of $3.00 $4,000,000 or $1.02 per share, which compares favorably to the comparable period in 2024, largely due to the absence of the mild weather experienced in Q1 of twenty twenty four, coupled with higher rate relief net of investments. These sources of positive variance were partially offset by higher O and M costs at the utility driven by the continued execution of our electric reliability roadmap and the timing of select items at NorthStar like our planned outage at the Dearborn Industrial Generation Facility or DIG among other factors.

To elaborate on the impact of weather, we experienced a relatively normal winter in Michigan in the first quarter for the first time in a couple of years. As such, we saw zero two six dollars per share of favorable variance, which largely reflects the absence of the mild weather experienced in the first quarter of twenty twenty four. Rate relief net of investment related expenses resulted in $07 per share a positive variance due to constructive outcomes achieved in last year's electric and gas rate orders in addition to the benefits of ongoing renewable projects. Moving on to cost trends. As noted, in accordance with our electric reliability roadmap, we continue to increase the size of our vegetation management program as we glide path to a seven year trim cycle across our low voltage electric distribution system.

The associated financial impact was the key driver of the $05 per share of negative variance versus the comparable period in 2024. In our catchall category represented by the final bucket in the actual section of the chart, you'll note a negative variance of $0.23 per share, largely driven by a strong 2024 comp at NorthStar due to normalized operations at DIG and the timing of tax benefits from renewable projects. Other notable drivers in this category include the impact of parent financing activities in the quarter and select one time reversals from last year. Looking ahead, we plan for normal weather as always, which equates to $0.12 per share of positive variance for the remaining nine months of the year, primarily due to the absence of the mild temperatures experienced in the fourth quarter of twenty twenty four. From a regulatory perspective, we're assuming $0.16 per share of positive variance, which is largely driven by the constructive electric rate order received from the commission in March, ongoing benefits of renewable projects at the utility and the assumption of a supportive outcome in our pending gas rate case.

On the cost side, we anticipate higher overall O and M expense at the utility for the remainder of the year, largely driven by the expectation of increased service restoration costs attributable to the large weather system that impacted our service territory in late March extending into early April that Gerrick mentioned. It's worth noting that this storm was the costliest in our company's history at roughly $100,000,000 of operating and maintenance or O and M expense per our preliminary estimates. As you would expect, we're already busy at work identifying and implementing countermeasures such as limiting hiring, reducing our use of consultants and contractors and eliminating other discretionary spending among other potential offsets. And of course, we expect increased productivity from the CE Way, which our workforce has delivered every year since we instituted the lean operating system roughly a decade ago. It is also worth noting that we have sought a deferred accounting order for the financial impacts of the storm given its historic nature, which we filed earlier this week.

The recalibration of our service restoration expense for the remainder of the year, net of anticipated savings from the aforementioned countermeasures, will drive an estimated net impact of $04 per share of negative variance for the remaining nine months of the year. Lastly, in the penultimate bar on the right hand side, you'll see an estimated range of $03 to $09 per share of negative variance, which incorporates further risk mitigation to the financial headwinds encountered in the first quarter and provides additional contingency should we need it, namely in the form of opportunistic financing activities. Before moving on, I'll just note that our track record of delivering on our financial objectives over the last two decades, irrespective of the circumstances, speaks for itself. That said, we'll always do the worrying so you don't have to, and we remain confident in our ability to deliver on our financial and operational objectives this year to the benefit of all stakeholders. Moving on to credit quality, it is worth noting that Fitch reaffirmed our credit ratings in March as noted at the bottom of the table on Slide nine, and we are currently working through the review process with Moody's.

Longer term, we continue to target solid investment grade credit ratings and will manage our key credit metrics accordingly as we balance the needs of the business. Slide 10 offers an update to our funding needs in 2025 at the utility and the parent. During the quarter, we issued $1,000,000,000 of junior subordinated notes for hybrids with a 6.5% coupon as parent, which I'll note was identical to rates achieved by some of our much larger peers and had the tightest credit spread achieved for a hybrid in recent memory, which speaks to our credit quality and a strong receptivity to our paper in the market. As you'll note in the table on the left hand side of the page, the hybrid issuance address a good portion of our financing needs at the parent for the year, while offering significant financial flexibility on our remaining needs. We'll look to complete the balance of our financing plan at the parent and utility over the remaining months of the year with a keen focus on maintaining our consolidated credit metrics around the mid teens area from a funds from operation to total debt perspective.

As always, we remain opportunistic and look to capitalize on market conditions. And with that, I'll hand it back to Gerrick for his final remarks before the Q and A session.

Thanks, Reggie. As the landscape continues to evolve, I want to remind everyone about our long history of delivering under all scenarios for all our stakeholders. Remember, our business is preparedness and response. Through uncertainty, recession, bad weather, doesn't matter. We've seen it before, and we've navigated the waters.

Bottom line, we deliver. Our track record speaks for itself. We focus on what is necessary to deliver for our customers and investors, and we remain confident in our outlook for 2025 and beyond. With that, Harry, please open the lines for Q and

please do so by pressing the star key followed by the digit one on your touch tone telephone. If you're using a speaker function, please make sure you pick up your headset. We'll proceed in the order you signal us, and we'll take as many questions as time permits. Our first question will be from the line of Durgesh Chopra with Evercore ISI. Please go ahead.

Hey, good morning, Garek. Thank you for taking my question. Hey, appreciate all the commentary around tariffs and IRA. I just one question was focusing on North Star. Maybe just can you remind us what percentage of capital I appreciate it's small versus the rest of the company.

What percentage of capital is going towards solar storage? And then just given the IRA discussion and repeal risk, do you kind of reprioritize that capital potentially maybe switch that with higher regulated capital? And then your comments around safe harboring, do those apply to North Star as well as you try to kind of secure those tax credits into the future? Thank you.

Thanks for your question Durgesh. Great question. Again, context is really important here in the context of North Star. So we're talking about 5% of the EPS mix here, so small. And remember, big driver here is DIG or Dearborn Industrial Generation.

That's the big story in the energy and capacity markets. And so when it comes down to the amount of capital that we're spending on renewables it's small. Reggie will have the numbers here in a bit but there's nothing on storage, zero on storage. And so it's all really renewables and those are again projects that are well laid out for the future. Now how we derisk those projects?

One, have contracts in place that allow for escalators. That's an important piece. But we've done a lot of great work in terms of securing panels. I've got panels secured through 02/1930 through a variety of vendors through contracts, some already on-site to be able to navigate any implications from a tariff perspective. And then I'm out in 2028 from a safe harbor provision in the main power transformers.

And so we feel good about the runway there of projects, renewable projects and what we've done to derisk that. But as you know and your question alluded to, there's tons of flexibility. We have plenty of opportunities to invest in the utility itself and so those are decisions we make on a time by a year by year basis and where the needs are for the company and are best suited. But again feel good about NorthStar's ability to deliver not just in the year but also from a long term perspective.

Yeah, Durgesh I'll just build on Gerrick's comments there. Yeah, we certainly feel good about NorthStar's prospects going forward and have done a lot to derisk renewable projects on both the utility side and the NorthStar side and have done some things in supply chain that further fortify our position going forward. From a capital perspective, we're planning and this is in our 10 ks that we filed last quarter about gross investments a little over $2,500,000,000 I say gross because we have planned to recycle capital largely at North Star through the sell down of common equity stakes. And so that is providing a lot of liquidity to fund their projects. And so the equity infusions from the parent are relatively light, probably about 20% of that or so or $05,000,000,000 So gross capital investments of about $2,500,000,000 to support commercial renewable projects over the next five years.

And the reality is, if we do see some repeal of the IRA, we will just increase the bar or raise the expected hurdle rate for those renewable projects at NorthStar. And so if we saw the economics of those projects being less attractive, we would certainly allocate more capital to utility. As you know, capital is not an issue at the utility. There's plenty of opportunity. Our current five year plan at $20 of capital investments At utility has another $20,000,000,000 or so on the outside looking in and I think that that's the low end of capital investment opportunities outside of the plan.

So a lot of flexibility to allocate capital to the utility versus North Star again if we see the economics of those projects start soften over time. So really good flexibility going forward and no concerns with the economic outlook there. Is that helpful?

Very helpful. A lot of flexibility there, sounds like. And then just quickly, Reggie, the deferred accounting order on the storm cost, have you guys done that before? Sorry, I should know, but I don't. Maybe just remind us if you have done that before?

Is there a time line that the commission is going to sort of rule this on by? Or is this just a one off type event and there's no set procedural schedule here? Thank you.

And maybe I'll just take your question and do a little bigger picture on it and then we can go down in this process from a storm perspective. As Reggie talked about in his prepared remarks, there is a number of levers and opportunities everything from the CE Way to technology to what Reggie shared in his prepared remarks and how to deliver the year and for both the customers and really investors and really all stakeholders. That's the tools in the toolbox. And what we're doing with this particular storm, this what I would say is historic storm and really extreme weather as I characterized in my remarks is leveraging the Liberty Audit. If you go into Liberty Audit, that's the distribution audit.

It specifically calls out best practices with jurisdictions and utilities is to have a mechanism for extreme weather. And that's what we filed, and that's really the first time we filed that with the commission in this kind of framework. We've had constructive conversations both with staff and the commissioners on this. And so, again, it's an ex parte filing. The timeline has not been established at this point.

But, you know, I'm I'm guessing I'm going to go off a little off little off the record here. Like, I'm an old farmer. I grew up on a farm, and so I don't count my chickens before they hatch. And so that's a true thing from a farmer perspective. Like, understand this.

Like, we're not counting on that. It's important. We think it's needed in Michigan. Again, constructive conversations, but we have a lot of tools in our tool belt to be able to deliver the year.

Yeah. Durgesh, all I would add, and I wish I had a wish I had a farming analogy as well,

just a couple of things to Derek's good comments. And so you asked I think specifically about the timing of approval because it's in our ex parte filing. I think that will be at the commission's discretion. Obviously, we're our expectations are tempered, but we would love to see just a fairly quick resolution to the matter. So we just at least know what the outcome is in a timely fashion.

And in terms of our history around this, we have sought mechanisms like this in the context of rate cases. I can't recall the last time we saw an accounting order like this outside of a rate case, maybe once in the past in my eight years as CFO. So this is fairly atypical, but we think given the historic nature of the storm, it's justified and I believe we've made a strong case in the filing as to why we should get support here. So I just wanted to address those two direct questions you had.

Awesome. Thank you. Appreciate the off the record and on the record commentary. Thanks so much.

The next question today will be from the line of Shah Pourreza with Guggenheim Partners. Please go ahead. Your line is now open.

It's actually Constantine here for Shah. Hello.

It's actually Constantine. Hey, good morning.

How are you thinking about the execution on the financing plan just given that optically the balance of the equity needs is resolved through the hybrid? Is that is there kind of more execution to come in '25? Or is there some efficient financing that unlocks like a CapEx pull forward or any other opportunity in the near term?

Constantine, is Reggie. Appreciate the question. Yes, per my prepared remarks, we still have a bit of financing left in the plan for the year. And so, at the parent, just going back to our original guidance, we said we had about $1,000,000,000 to do. So $1.3 of, what I'll just say non equity financing and our working assumption was senior debt assumption senior debt financings and then up to $500,000,000 of equity.

Obviously, the hybrid transaction that you noted, really took care of a good portion of those needs. And so with the equity credit ascribed to hybrids that creates a lot of financial flexibility. And so we still have about $700,000,000 or so left for the remainder of the year. We're keeping all options on the table. We've seen really attractive execution across a variety of securities offered in the first quarter from some of our peers.

And so we're keeping all options on the table, but have quite a bit of flexibility. And at the OpCo just to round it out, we've got $1,000,000,000 left and I think the working assumption for those financings will be first mortgage bonds. And so as always we'll look at which securities are priced most attractively at both the parent and the OpCo and we'll be opportunistic as we always are. With respect to pull aheads for capital we've got $3,700,000,000 in the utility per our plan this year. And so we're focused on executing on that.

And so we'll see what the rest of the year has in store for us. And so we're acutely focused on the current plan for this year and really haven't thought about pull aheads in any respect if that was the spirit of the second part of your question.

Yep, understood. Understood. And maybe a higher level question on in terms of your energy supply needs. How are those evolving especially as you get feedback to the R and D process? Is there more dispatchable generation needs that you see kind of going into the next IRP cycle?

And do you think that there's a better case for kind of like a big buy in into the opco?

A portion of our energy supply needs are spelled out in the renewable energy plan and that addresses some of the energy needs and the compliance with the 2023 energy law. And so as we've seen the need to get to the 5060% renewable target as well as because of the 2% to 3% low growth that is in our five year plan. You can see and have insight into those both renewable needs as well as storage needs in the future. The broader need for capacity to be able to continue to deliver to the low growth in the pipeline within the state will come together in the integrated resource plan. We'll file that in 2026.

It will evaluate and look at natural gas plants, the existing natural gas plants we have in the state, the longevity of those plants, considerations for carbon capture and sequestration technology. So that modeling work is still underway as you might imagine for a 2026 filing and will be also based on the renewable energy plan. So that's really all I can share at this point but as you imagine as you're growing the state and you have this pipeline there will be additional needs in the future for supply assets.

Okay, understood. And maybe you're hitting quickly on the Geisha's question around storms again. As you're kind of noting the impact on the offsets in the quarter, do you anticipate those to be recurring or would those potentially unwind with that potential deferral filing?

Yes. So I would say, Constantine, similar to prior years when we saw significant financial headwinds, we'll look at all opportunities across the cross structure. I'd say it's premature to think about what's recurring and what isn't. But what I have been encouraged to see really, per my prepared remarks over the last ten years is every year we establish a target for how much productivity and cost savings, whether that's a hard cost savings or avoided costs associated with the CE Way. And every year we exceed that target pretty significantly.

And by definition, the savings generated by the CE Way are recurring savings. And so I'll give you an example. Last year we had in our target we had a target for the CEUA of around $50 or so million. We delivered 110,000,000 of savings, and those are obviously recurring. And so I would say we've exceeded expectations year in and year out on what we expect to achieve from a productivity perspective.

But we'll also look at one timers. I mentioned we'll look at sort of financing activity. So we may start to take a look at liability management as we had in the past. And we'll also look at other potential cost deferrals which would not be recurring. And so it'll be a good mix of all of the above like we've done in prior years.

If I can just take a moment to just elaborate on this toolbox of opportunities and Reggie characterized it well. It starts with conservative planning, right? That is part of our mindset, that's part of our approach. You know, we're not redlining the engineer. This is just how we think about different scenarios.

That's like point one. Reggie, you know, emphasized the CE Way. There's so much opportunity in the CE Way that our coworkers deliver on. And you take and improve a process, you take waste out, coworkers feel better, customers feel better, and you cost fall out. The other one that we've been really highlighting too is in the space of technology.

The IT team calls it app realization, and I I make fun of them when they talk about it because I'm like, what the hell is that? But the reality is it's looking about all our software, all our hardware, and how are we leveraging to get additional benefit out of it, where there's real savings there as well. And then you apply AI in some places, and we get better predictions, and that takes cost out as well. And then there was all the things that Reggie mentioned in his prepared remarks. And so again, I feel confident in just the ability to leverage these, and a portion of them, a good portion will be sustaining.

And as Reggie indicated, some will be one time.

Excellent. Appreciate you taking the questions.

The next question today will be the next question today will be from the line of Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

I just wanted to pick up with the gas Good. How are you? Just wanted to pick up with the gas case in given what's come out so far, the appetite for settlement or just any other thoughts at this point? I know you said you'd be happy going either way, but just wondered any incremental color you could provide.

I'm going to even pull it back a little bit and just with these words. I am very pleased with our track record of delivering constructive outcomes in Michigan. There's all kinds of data points. Electric, forecast settlements, doesn't matter, electric or gas. We just continue to lever time and time again.

And in the q four call, what I shared was full throated, a constructive we'd get we'd see a constructive electric order. And how did I know that? One, because the quality and the visibility we put in this case, the constructive legislation we have. And it's not perfect, as I shared, but we continue to work on improving that. And then if you look at the staff, the MPSC staff are professionals.

And when you have a good staff position or constructive staff position, you get good outcomes. And That's what we did. And that's another data point with this electric freight case. I'm excited about this gas, case as well. It is down the fairway or straightforward.

We're replacing gas pipe. We're making the system safer. Like, that's important from a gas business perspective. We're ensuring capacity to deliver to customers and growth in the gas business. And when you do all that right, you also reduce carbon emissions.

It's a trifecta, right? It's a great case the team has built, straightforward. And so I'm excited about staff's position. It is a constructive starting position, within the gas case. And we'll go through the process.

We'll go through rebuttal as we always do. You know, ROEs, we're going to push on those. This is like, if I look at the external environment, risk has not declined, right? And so we'll push on the ROEs and rebuttal, that'll be important piece for us to lean into, but as I said always, I'm open to settlement, And there's a variety of different points of view and different interveners on that. We'll work through that process.

If we see that, I would imagine it would be before the PFD. That's expected in August timeframe. But hear my confidence in our ability to go the full distance too and just continue the track record of constructive outcomes in Michigan.

Got it. No, that makes sense. I just want to pivot to a smaller point, if you could, deferral, that's baked into the guide right now. Just want to be clear on the treatment there.

Jeremy, this is Reggie. We have not presupposed approval of the deferred accounting order. Like I said, I think we've made a very compelling case given the historic nature of the storm and our efforts to restore customers as quickly as possible both inside our service territory and out. So we think we've made a compelling case. But as you know given our conservative nature we have not presupposed approval of that.

Okay. Got it. That's very helpful. Thanks. And just last one if I could.

As it relates to ITC's the unregulated part of the business, what's the magnitude of earnings exposure in your plan here? And really if you could just outline a bit more how tax equity impacts this and any other relevant considerations and how potential tariff risk at the project level could influence growth here? I know you touched on it a bit before, just wondering if you could flush out those points a bit.

Yes, Jeremy, I'll take this as well. This is Reggie. So I would say in the context of 2025 guidance, in our original guidance, we guided NorthStar at $0.18 to $0.22 Given the planned large outage at DIG, which historically really going forward is the flagship earnings contributor to NorthStar. We are anticipating more contribution from commercial renewables projects and we have two solar projects that are well on their way of delivering constructive outcomes later this year. And so I would say, the exposure from a renewables perspective this year is a little bigger than other years or prior years.

And so of that $0.18 to $0.22 assume about three quarters of that is delivered by residual benefits from ongoing assets, little bit of North Star, but primarily from two solar projects we have underway. As we look at the outer years of the plan, still anticipation of solid renewable project development over the course of the plan. But again, you should always assume that DIG will be the primary contributor of earnings to NorthStar over the course of the next five years. Let me pause there and see if there are any questions on that.

No, that's helpful. I'll leave it there. Thank you.

The next question today will be from the line of Nicolas Campanello with Barclays. Please go ahead. Your line is now open.

Nicholas Campanella from Barclays. Your line is now open. If you'd like to proceed with your question. Apologies, we're not receiving audio from Nicholas' line there. We're moving on to the next question being from the line of Julien Smith with Jefferies.

Hey, team. Morning and pleasure here. I hope I get as candid response from Gerrick as as earlier here. Just with I I think we're developing a new pattern. Just with with on economic development, I'd just love to understand how you guys are thinking about them.

I saw there heard the comments on the call with respect to data center activity and ongoing development year to date subsequent to the legislation. But in parallel, also note the Goshen developments from the County Board here. How are you thinking about what's included in the 900 megawatts of demand in the current plan? Are there puts and takes in that or is it still kind of static pending some more formal updates here? Just to understand how you think about both the positive and the negative accumulated year to date.

CMS Energy (CMS) Q1 2025 Earnings Call Transcript

Company Participants