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 300 companies on this year’s list brought in over $12.6 trillion in revenue for the latest 12 months, with the median revenue figure at $22 billion.

America's Most Innovative Companies

Leaders in all industries rely more than ever on Big Tech—and appreciate the giants that deliver, at scale, without drama.

World's Most Admired Companies

Industries included in the sector are mining, oil and gas exploration and services, pipelines, refining, and utilities.

Fortune Sector Leaders: Energy

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

The 25th Fortune World’s Most Admired Companies list suggests that tech giants’ peers respect them as much as ever.

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

Just as it dominates our economy, Big Tech now dominates Fortune’s annual ranking of corporate reputation.

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

After a year in which humanity leaned more heavily than ever on tech giants, see which companies topped Fortune's ranking of corporate reputation.

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

F500-2021-193-Dominion Energy

The power and energy company operates in 16 states across the U.S., providing energy to nearly 7 million customers.

For an astounding 13th straight year, Apple claims the top spot in Fortune’s annual ranking of corporate reputation, based on a survey of almost 3,800 executives, directors, and analysts.

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

F500-2020-197-Dominion-Energy

The Virginia-based energy company supplies electricity and natural gas to customers in 20 states.

Here are the World's Most Admired Companies for 2019 as ranked in their industries. See who made the list.

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

Here are the World's Most Admired Companies for 2018 as ranked in their industries. See who made the list.

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

Here are the World's Most Admired Companies for 2017 as ranked in their industries. See who made the list.

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

Here are the World's Most Admired Companies for 2016 as ranked in their industries. See who made the list.

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

Business insiders have spoken: Asked which companies they most admire, more than 4,100 executives, directors, and analysts chose these top 50 All-Stars.

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

Sector

Industry

Current All-Star Rank

Previous All-Star Rank

Industry Rank

Previous Industry Rank

Overall Score

Innovation

People Management

Use of Corporate Assets

Social Responsibility

Quality of Management

Financial Soundness

Long-Term Investment Value

Quality of Products/Services

Global Competitiveness

Culture rank

Process rank

Product rank

Years on list

Previous rank

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)

Dominion Energy provides electricity to 3.6 million homes and businesses in Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, as well as natural gas services to half a million customers in South Carolina. The company also develops and operates offshore wind and solar power, with its Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) farm project currently in development. When completed (target end of 2026), CVOW is designed to produce 2.6 gigawatts of power. In 2024, Dominion Energy sold Utah, Ohio, and North Carolina natural gas distribution companies to major pipeline operator Enbridge. Dominion is currently focused on further power growth to service the ongoing data center boom, including Virginia's so-called Data Center Alley.

Q2 2026

Q1 2026

Q4 2025

Q3 2025

Q2 2025

Q1 2025

Q4 2024

Dominion Energy (D): Company Profile, Stock Price, News, Rankings

legacy

Dominion Energy

dominion energy

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Dominion Energy Q3 2025 earnings conference call. At this time, each of your lines is in a listen-only mode. At the conclusion of today's presentation, we will open the floor for questions. Instructions will be given for the procedure to follow if you would like to ask a question at that time. I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. David McFarland, Vice President, Investor Relations, and Treasurer. Please go ahead, sir.

Good morning, and thank you for joining Dominion Energy's Q3 2025 earnings call. Earnings materials, including today's prepared remarks, contain forward-looking statements and estimates that are subject to various risks and uncertainties. Please refer to our SEC filings, including our most recent annual report on Form 10-K and our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, for discussion of factors that may cause results to differ from management's estimates and expectations. This morning, we will discuss some measures of our company's performance that differ from those recognized by GAAP. Reconciliation of our non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures, which we can calculate, are contained in the earnings release kit. I encourage you to visit our Investor Relations website to review webcast slides as well as the earnings release kit.

Joining today's call are Bob Blue, Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer, Steven Ridge, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and other members of senior management. I will now turn the call over to Steven.

Thank you, David, and good morning, everyone. Since the conclusion of the business review last year, we've focused on three principal priorities. First, consistent achievement of our financial commitments. Second, continued on-time achievement of major construction milestones for the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Project. Third, constructive achievement of regulatory outcomes that demonstrate our ability to work cooperatively with regulators and stakeholders to deliver results that benefit both customers and shareholders. As we successfully execute against these priorities, we empower our employees to provide the reliable, affordable, and increasingly clean energy that powers our customers every day, and we position ourselves to deliver on the commitments we made to our investors at the conclusion of the business review. We believe that continued execution against these commitments will deliver compelling value for our shareholders. I'll address our financial results, and then Bob will address CVOW and regulatory progress.

As shown on Slide 3, Q3 operating earnings were $1.06 per share, which includes $0.03 of RNG 45Z credits and $0.06 of worse-than-normal weather. Relative to Q3 2024, positive factors for the quarter included $0.06 from regulated investment growth, $0.08 from increased sales, $0.05 from our DESC rate case settlement in 2024, and $0.03 from higher margins at contracted energy. Q3 results also included worse weather, higher DDNA, and higher financing costs. A summary of all drivers for earnings relative to the prior year period is included in Schedule 4 of the earnings release kit. Q3 GAAP results were $1.16 per share. A summary of all adjustments between operating and GAAP results is included in Schedule 2 of the earnings release kit. Turning now to guidance.

With nine months of 2025 financial results reported, we're narrowing our full-year guidance range to $3.33 to $3.48 per share, inclusive of RNG 45Z earnings, while preserving the original guidance midpoint of $3.40. On last quarter's call, I highlighted sales and weather as noteworthy tailwinds through six months of the year. Over the last four months, we've seen weather reverse, and through ten months of the year, now represents a small headwind of approximately $0.02. Continued strength from commercial and residential sales, combined with other initiatives, gives us confidence in our ability to deliver full-year results at or above the midpoint of our guidance, assuming normal weather for the last two months of the year. We've provided year-over-year drivers for the fourth quarter in the appendix of today's materials for your reference. Finally, we are reaffirming all other existing financial guidance.

Turning to Slide 4, we've completed our 2025 financing plan and, as mentioned on prior calls, taken steps to further de-risk future ATM equity. We remain focused on balance sheet conservatism, and there is no change to our previously communicated credit-related targets. Finally, we'll provide a comprehensive capital investment forecast update through 2030 on our Q4 earnings call, which will take place in early 2026. We expect incremental opportunities to deploy regulated capital on behalf of our customers, with a timing bias towards the back end of the plan. As always, we will look at incremental capital through the lenses of customer affordability, system reliability, balance sheet conservatism, and our low-risk profile. In conclusion, I am highly confident in our ability to deliver on our financial plan. We've built our plan to be appropriately, but also not unreasonably conservative, to weather unforeseen challenges that may occur.

With that, I'll turn the call over to Bob.

Thank you, Steven. Good morning, everyone. I'll begin with safety on Slide 5. Through September, our OSHA recordable rate was 0.28, continuing the positive trend from the last three years. Continuing to reduce workplace injuries is one way we can honor the memory of our colleague, Brian Barwick, who we lost in an accident earlier this year. We must continue to focus relentlessly on improving our safety performance. Now I'll turn to updates around the execution of our growth plan. I'll start with the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Project. Slide 6 highlights what makes CVOW such an important and unique generation resource. The project is now two-thirds complete and just a few months away from delivering much-needed electricity to our customers. Slide 7 shows our major equipment progress. We successfully completed 100% of monopile installation one month prior to the conclusion of the piling season.

I'm very pleased with this tremendous milestone for the project. We've installed 63 transition pieces to date, with all 176 transition pieces now fabricated. Turbine fabrication remains on schedule. Earlier this week, we installed the second offshore substation jacket, and we'll place the accompanying topside shortly. The third and final offshore substation is nearly complete and will be installed in the first quarter of next year. Turning to timing on Slide 10, we now expect first turbine installation to occur late next month and continue to expect first power to be delivered to our customers in late first quarter of next year, approximately five months from now. As a reminder, we'll be energizing strings of turbines throughout 2026.

No change to our current expectation of project completion by the end of 2026, but given delays with Charybdis, we have significantly reduced the schedule's weather and vessel maintenance contingency, which could push a few of the final turbines into early 2027. We'll continue to refine and update this assumption as we observe actual turbine installation cadence, similar to what occurred with monopiles, which went more quickly than expected. Project costs now stand at $11.2 billion, which includes unused contingency of $206 million, down about $15 million from last quarter. Excluding tariff impacts, costs for project components have remained in line with the prior update. The updated costs this quarter reflect the accelerated recognition of steel tariffs through the end of 2026, whereas we were previously recognizing all tariff costs on a quarter-by-quarter basis. Through September, the project has invested approximately $8.2 billion.

The remaining project costs attributable to Dominion are expected to be approximately $1.5 billion. On Slide 11, we've continued to provide an update to our potential tariff exposure across discrete tariff categories and illustrative durations. We're showing the impact of country-specific tariffs through project construction at the end of 2026. Please note that changes to tariff policy could impact these estimates. Unfixed costs include project management costs, fuel for vessels, and changes to tariffs and network upgrades, if any. Estimated network upgrade costs assigned by PJM to CVOW in the most recent decision point came down modestly. We expect this inaugural process to conclude by year-end and do not expect a material change to network upgrade costs. We'll then execute and submit our generator interconnection agreement to PJM and FERC under the very standard finalization protocol, as is in place for all new generating sources.

We expect the process to conclude in March, which will be the final step to first power. As a result of this project cost increase, we recorded a modest charge this quarter, about $50 million after tax, included on Schedule 2 for costs not expected to be recovered from customers in accordance with the cost-sharing settlement with Virginia regulators and our 50% cost-sharing partnership agreement with Stonepeak. These cost and risk-sharing arrangements continue to work as intended to protect customers and shareholders. Further on costs, we'll file both our quarterly status report and our 2026 CVOW rider filing with the State Corporation Commission today. As shown on Slide 12, the project's LCOE has been updated to $84. Up from last quarter, driven primarily by lower forecasted REC prices.

Keep in mind that REC sales are credited against the levelized cost of energy as value delivered to customers, and the value of RECs will change year to year based on market dynamics at the time. However, importantly, the LCOE compares favorably to other generation resources and is well below the statutory amount. It's also in line with the LCOE range provided at the time of the original filing in November 2021. The project is now forecasted to represent an average residential customer monthly bill credit of $0.63 over the life of the project. Under the rider proposal filed today, we're forecasting a revenue requirement for the 2026 rate year, which begins in September 2026, of $665 million. This customer-beneficial real-time cash recovery provides important financial support for this regulated investment during construction.

If approved, the rider proposal filed today would result in residential customers seeing a decline in their monthly bill in September as the project begins to generate electricity in early 2026. Progress on CVOW continues to go very well, and there's every reason for our customers and policymakers to be excited by the timely delivery of much-needed low-cost electricity from this critical generating resource. Let me pivot to discuss Charybdis, our American-made Jones Act-compliant wind turbine installation vessel, which has been a challenge. I'm extremely disappointed that Charybdis has again not met expectations. I recognize the importance of executing consistently against any commitment, and we failed to deliver regarding Charybdis. We built Charybdis to de-risk our installation process. We continue to believe that it will represent a strategic advantage, providing enhanced schedule certainty, which ultimately translates into cost certainty.

The vessel successfully completed sea trials, received sign-offs, and arrived in Portsmouth, Virginia, in September. Upon arrival, Siemens Gamesa successfully completed all necessary modifications for turbine handling and installation. Simultaneously, punch list items were identified that require remediation prior to the vessel being cleared to begin turbine loadout and installation. While all major systems are operating well, there are a variety of quality assurance-level items that require addressing, and those tasks are currently underway to ensure that the vessel can commence work as quickly as it is safely able to do so. It's become clear that while the ship's design and construction methods are consistent with global best practices, we didn't properly account in our timing estimate for the risk inherent in being the first Jones Act-compliant wind turbine installation vessel to be built and regulated in the United States.

The vessel is expected to be cleared to load and install turbines in November. As a reminder, unlike monopile installations, there are no time-of-year or time-of-day restrictions on installing turbines. Finally, any modest delay beyond November won't impact first power timing in late first quarter of 2026. One final note on Charybdis: project costs continue to be approximately $715 million. Moving out of data centers on Slide 14, we continue to see robust demand from data centers. We now have approximately 47 gigawatts in various stages of contracting as of September 2025, which compares to around 40 gigawatts as of December 2024, an increase of 7 gigawatts or 17%. As a reminder, these contracts are broken into substation engineering letters of authorization, construction letters of authorization, and electric service agreements. As customers move from the first to the last, the cost commitment and obligation by the customer increase.

We're currently studying over 28 gigawatts of data center demand within the substation engineering letters of authorization stage, which means a customer has requested the company to begin the necessary engineering review for new infrastructure required for service. This compares to approximately 26 gigawatts as of December 2024 and represents a roughly 7% increase. There are also now about 9 gigawatts of data center demand that have executed construction letters of authorization, which are contracts that enable construction of the required distribution and substation electric infrastructure to begin. This compares to just over 5 gigawatts in December 2024 and represents an approximately 73% increase. Should a customer in this stage elect to discontinue a project, they're obligated to reimburse the company for its investment to date. Finally, we now have nearly 10 gigawatts in electric service agreements, or ESA, representing contracts for electric service between Dominion Energy and a customer.

This has increased by nearly a gigawatt, or 12%, since December 2024 as well. By signing an ESA, the customer is committing to consume a certain level of electricity annually, often with ramp schedules where the contracted usage grows over time. We welcome these customers to our system and recognize the vital contribution data centers make to national, state, and community success. We're developing resources across distribution, transmission, and generation to ensure we meet this critical need on a timely basis, while also taking active steps to safeguard all of our customers from the risk of paying more than their fair share for reliable and affordable electric service. Data center demand should and can be a win-win for our state, our customers, and our company. Turning to Slide 15, let me share a few additional business updates.

First, on the biennial review proceeding and the proposed large load tariff, post-hearing briefs were filed last week. We anticipate a final order by the end of November. Next, on the transmission side, we submitted project proposals in the latest PJM open window process that closed in August. This year's reliability open window represents the largest proposed investment by Dominion Energy since PJM began its open window process. While final project selections by PJM won't be made until Q1 2026, there is a robust need for new transmission across the region, and we expect this open window to reflect that. Recall that in last year's open window, Dominion was awarded around 100 projects totaling nearly $3 billion. On the generation front, we've announced a number of updates in recent weeks.

SCC hearings for the Chesterfield Energy Reliability Center, an approximately 1 gigawatt natural gas-fired electric generating facility, concluded in September, and post-hearing briefs were filed this week in line with previous testimony. We expect an order in December. On October 15, we filed our next set of utility-scale solar and storage projects with the SCC, representing about $2.9 billion of new investment. The filing included approximately 845 megawatts of utility-scale solar and 155 megawatts of storage projects, which will further de-risk our growth program. Also, on October 15, we filed our 2025 Virginia Integrated Resource Plan, which presented several possible generation build portfolios with additional resource capacity across both renewable and dispatchable generation technologies in response to continued robust load growth in our service territory. The IRP update demonstrates a continuation of our focus on an all-of-the-above approach to ensuring reliability, affordability, and increasingly clean generation.

On customer affordability, as shown on Slide 16, our current residential electric rates at DEV and DESC are 9% and 11% below the U.S. average, respectively. Based on the build plans proposed in both states' latest IRPs, both will maintain customer bill growth rates through the forecast periods below current electricity inflation levels. In conclusion, we've summarized key highlights from today's call on Slide 17. We realize how important it is to meet the commitments we provided at the conclusion of the business review. We are 100% execution-focused. We will deliver for our customers, our employees, and our shareholders. With that, we're ready to take your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Blue. Ladies and gentlemen, the floor is now open for your questions. If you would like to ask a question, please press the star key, followed by the number one on your telephone at this time. If at any time you would like to remove yourself from the question queue, please press star two. Again, that is star one to ask a question. We'll go first this morning to Shar Pereza of Wells Fargo.

Oh, thank you. Appreciate it. It's good to be back. Bob, just on the elections, I mean, there seems any source you're looking at, there's obviously a strong possibility the gubernatorial process may flip parties. Governor Youngkin has obviously been really supportive of CVOW, the biennial process. I guess, how do we price in any risk on the construct? Should we see this flip? I mean, are we going to wake up one day and the Trump administration now blocks this project, just given the lack of connection with the Republican governor? Have you spoken to Spanberger? Just any thoughts around the political backdrop would be great.

Yeah, Shar, thanks a lot for that question. Let's start with the fact that every statewide candidate running, regardless of party, supports CVOW. That's consistent with the bipartisan support that this project has gotten at every level: federal, state, local government, including congressional leadership. If you think about it, there are really good reasons for that. It's the fastest way to get 2.6 gigawatts on the grid that's going to serve AI and technology companies, defense security installations. It's critical to important infrastructure upgrades at the Oceana Naval Air Station. If you stop it now, it causes energy inflation. It's not surprising that we're seeing bipartisan support at all levels of government, and we expect that to continue after the election.

Got it. Okay. Perfect. Lastly, on Charybdis, can you just give us a little bit of a sense, if you can, on just the nature of the punch list for the project? When do you kind of expect the quality assurance items that you obviously highlighted to be completed, which are underway? Thanks.

Yeah. That's a great question. Let me give you a little context, walk you through where we are. As you know, this is the first Jones Act-compliant wind turbine installation vessel to be built in the U.S. and subject to U.S. regulatory oversight. It's a big ship. It's 472 feet long. It's 184 feet wide, weighs 27,000 tons. It's got some complex systems on it. It's got a 2,200-ton capacity crane. It's got a jacking system that's capable of creating a 40-meter air gap under the hull when the ship is jacked up.

Those systems, the crane, the jacking system, the dynamic positioning system, they are all operating very well. Earlier this month, local regulators, when it arrived in Portsmouth, conducted a standard nude-to-zone inspection. That identified two primary areas of concern. The first was the material condition of certain components, primarily within the ship's electrical systems. The second was the need for documentation that confirmed that the systems we'd built, as built, met U.S.-approved codes and standards. That created this punch list of about 200 items that have to be addressed before we can begin loading turbines. Let me talk a little bit about what we're doing. The ship's divided into 63 zones. Our crews, including qualified marine electricians, are doing detailed surveys, and they're either documenting or immediately mitigating discrepancies. To date, we've done over 4,000 inspections across 69 electrical systems, including 1,400 cable inspections.

We've got 200 people working around the clock. Of that original 200 punch list items, we've closed out about 120. It's important to know not all those items are created equal. Some punch list items are a little more complex and will take longer to resolve. The progress has been really good. Based on the pace of work, the commitment of the team we've got there, highly confident that we'll work our way through all the punch list items and be ready to start operating in November.

Okay. That's perfect. Thanks again, Bob. That's a helpful caller. See you guys in a couple of days. Appreciate it.

Thank you. We go next now to Nick Campanella at Barclays.

Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions here.

Morning. One follow-up on the ship. After you get this punch list done, I just wanted to confirm there's no other approvals needed across offshore wind supply chain, the boat, or with federal government that would allow you to install turbines. It's just really getting past this punch list.

Yep. Once we get through the punch list, we're ready to go.

Great. Can I just ask about the capital plan comments then? I know you're going to be updating things in the fourth quarter. I think you talked a little bit about the bias of that capital plan update being more back-end weighted, if I heard you correctly. On the funding, you did de-risk equity for '26 and '27 here. What's the balance sheet capacity to kind of absorb higher CapEx at this point? Should we still expect equity in '26 and '27 on the next pro forma plan? Thanks.

Hey, Nick. It's Steve.I'll take that. Yeah. We talked a little bit about the update we'll provide on the fourth quarter call, in probably February of '26. I fully expect at that time we're going to see upward revisions to our capital plan across distribution, transmission, and generation that effectively reflect what we filed in the IRP, which is some significant increases in the amount of generation. One example is the South Carolina CCGT that we're now authorized and seeking approval to build with our partner, Santee Cooper. None of that capital, for instance, was included in the most recent capital update. We've identified opportunity for additional generation in Virginia, and much of that's not been included. We've talked about transmission and the opportunity with the PJM open window.

We're in a fortunate position to have a lot of really high-quality opportunities to deploy regulated capital to the benefit of our customers, which we'll provide sort of a full update early next year. With regard to our balance sheet, I'm really pleased with where our balance sheet is. When we came out of the business review, we talked about being at 15% FFO to debt starting in 2025. That's still where we're tracking. That's about a 100 basis point cushion relative to our downgrade threshold at Moody's, 200 basis points at S&P. We mentioned at the time Moody's is going to be slightly lower than that 15%, just given the methodology they deploy relative to sort of our more simplified metric for FFO to debt. We're in a very good position, and we've taken steps, as you noted, to do a lot of de-risking for our planned ATM.

When we update the capital plan early next year, we'll at the same time give you an updated perspective on our financing needs. We've been very effective at deploying ATM and hybrid equity, very cost-competitive. We'll look at all the tools available to us. As we've always said, we'll look at all the available tools to source capital from the most attractive source. I don't want to get out in front of that, but you can assume we're going to finance the growth of our business in a way that maintains that balance sheet conservatism. In so doing, it should also provide value to our shareholders.

Thanks, Nick. We'll go next now to Steve Fleischman of Wolfe Research.

Yeah. Hi. Good morning. Thanks. Just one other question on the Charybdis.Just want to confirm there's nothing related to the government shutdown or any political stuff that's affecting the timing. It's just this punch list.

That's it, Steve. There is nothing related to the government shutdown or anything else.

Okay. Once we start seeing turbines come in, can you give us a sense of cadence there? My recollection is maybe the first set a little slower, but then it gets into a cadence. Can you maybe talk a little bit about what we should be looking for on turbine cadence?

I think exactly what you just described. If you think about monopiles, for example, at the beginning, we're a little bit slower and then got into a rhythm. We'll update the installation cadence as we go along, but you should expect that the first few are going to be slower and then we'll pick up the pace as we move through. We'll be able to give regular updates on how we're doing on turbine installation cadence.

Okay. Off topic, when we get these PJM open window wins or not, how should we think about how much of that might already be in your plan or additive? Is it all additive? How should we think about that?

Steve, I'd say we've made reasonably conservative assumptions in our forward capital plan with regard to wins across PJM open window, as well as opportunities to deploy capital that don't go through that PJM open window, which are organic maintenance capital and growth capital within our—and what we've seen historically and more recently is upside to what we've assumed. I can't tell you. Sort of specifically what that will look like, but I'd say there's about—we run rate in our forward projection $2.5 billion or so a year for electric transmission.

That's up pretty significantly from what it was just four or five years ago. To the extent we continue to see opportunities, there could be continued upside to that.

Yep. And then last quick one. Just the IRP was interesting. On the nuclear, where it looked like, at least for now, you actually delayed the SMR new nuclear by five years. Could you just talk to what is driving that? Y

Yeah. Steve, I mean, it's a variety of circumstances. We're taking a look at the financing and technology. We're also taking a look at how it fits within everything else that we're projecting to construct. I mean, we're talking about pretty far out in the first place and now a little farther out with the update. I wouldn't read too much into that.

Thanks, Steve. We'll go next now to Paul Zimbardo with Jefferies. Hi.

To follow up on Steve a little bit, to the extent that some of those final turbines do slip into the following year, are there any supply chain, labor, or other kind of constraints to be mindful of? Is there any way to think about what a financial impact of that could be?

There are no supply chain or other issues. As to financial impact, we're talking about a small number of turbines, so it's not a meaningful financial impact.

I would just add, as you might suspect, years ago when we put this plan together, which had us completing all the turbines at the end of 2026, which is actually where we still intend to do, we obviously gave ourselves a little bit of latitude as it relates to what the ultimate timing would be.

In fact, I think we're very pleased that here we are some years after that original timeline was produced, and we're effectively on target for these dates. We've made accommodations in advance that gave us some cushion to the extent that anything caused us to go anywhere beyond that end of 2026 timeframe. I think we're very well buttoned up on that, quite frankly, with regard to suppliers and vendors and so forth. As Bob mentioned, I think in the prepared remarks, one thing that's really important for our stakeholders to recognize is we'll be energizing these turbines throughout 2026.

Deploying that rate base effectively and beginning to collect depreciation in our revenue requirement throughout the time period that we're installing through 2026, the actual impact of a couple of turbines slipping into 2027 is pretty de minimis, all things considered, which makes it a little bit different, I think, from something that's a bit more chunky. By doing it on a string, we've effectively dechunkified that revenue stream. I think that acts as a fairly significant de-risker or mitigant to the type of risk you might see from a standard power plant where you can't collect anything until everything's ready to go. This is 176 individual power plants that we'll be able to collect on in real time through 2026 as we deploy strings of turbines.

Thank you for that. I like that phrase, dechunkify. One other I had. You call it out that you've had some weather and other headwinds year to date, but you still expect to be midpoint or better. Could you just go through what some of those are and the positive offsets? It looks like sales are coming in stronger. If you could go through that, it'd be helpful. Thank you.

Sure, Paul. I'm really pleased with 2025 financial performance year to date. We are now in a weather deficit, a $0.02 weather deficit. The biggest driver of that has been sales across two primary sources. One is faster and more ramping on our data center customers. That's been pretty consistent through the year. Over the summer, we saw increased usage per customer on our residential class, which was something we're trying to understand better, but it was a departure from what we've seen in the past.

The two of those combined have been a tailwind, as I've mentioned in the past. That's been the most positive driver that gives us that confidence. We've seen some true ups on our riders, which allow us, as we deploy capital, to the extent we deploy it faster, we get some true ups there. That's been a little bit of a help as well. Primarily, it's been sales.

Great. No, thanks for taking the questions. Appreciate it.

We'll go next now to Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs.

Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. Maybe just on the data center update, just any color that you're able to share on the sort of timing to in-service for the 9.8 gigawatts of load that's now under ESA and just how to think about that cadence looking forward. Y

eah, Carly, it's.ur data center load just continues to grow, and the demand continues to grow, which is something considering that we've connected 450 data centers already, and we've got more than 25% of our sales going to data centers in Virginia. We're not seeing any decrease. We're actually seeing the opposite. The whole PJM DOM zone is seeing quite a bit of new capacity requests. They continue to choose us because we've got really good fundamentals. We've got great connectivity to global fiber networks. We've got a very business-friendly environment in Virginia. We've got the largest data center workforce in the U.S. We've got reliable and affordable electricity thanks to us. We've gotten 370 delivery point requests since 2020, which is over 58 gigawatts of capacity, 17 gigawatts of that just in 2025. That's across our service territory and also the co-ops that we serve from a transmission point of view.

We've now communicated firm dates for over 100 delivery point requests, which represents over 25 gigawatts of capacity in the DOM zone. Those energization dates stretch through 2031, which matches up with everything that we've been saying already. Typically, from the time of a delivery point request until we've got a customer hooked with a meter is about four to seven years, and then they ramp in over time from the date. We've got sales growth off that 10 gigawatts of ESAs as they ramp in. The current four gigs of meter demand just continues to increase steadily just off those ESAs over the coming years.

Great. That's really helpful. Thank you. Maybe just a clarification question on slide 11. To the extent that costs through the end of 2026 on CVOW do trend above that $11.3 billion level, and recognize that what you're outlining here is not materially above that level, are you still assuming that Stonepeak will continue to contribute incremental capital there? If so, just what is your sort of confidence level there?

Yeah. Under the agreement we have with Stonepeak, capital between $11.3 billion and $11.8 billion is shared about two-thirds with Dominion and a third with Stonepeak. That agreement, without getting into too many details, provides incentives for them effectively to do that, to fund that. That's what we've assumed. As you mentioned, it's only a very small amount. I think in rounding terms, it's even less than the full $100 million that we're over through 2031, 2026 on slide 11.

Thank you We'll go next now to Jeremy Toney at JP Morgan.

Just one last one, if I could, on CVOW here. I recognize a lot of progress and a lot of frontier, but just wanted to turn to the inter-array cable fabrication. Not as much progress on that side, quarter over quarter, and just wondering if you could touch on that a little bit, the drivers.

It's not necessarily a linear production, Jeremy, but we are totally on track on inter-array cable manufacturing and installation. I would read nothing into, if you're sort of doing the math on how much per month or quarter, anything like that. We are right on track.

Got it. Thank you for that. Just wanted to come back to the question on nuclear, if I could.

Granted, as you said, it's pretty far off at this point, but we have seen the federal government kind of step up with new efforts to support development here. Just wondering if there's anything out there that you would be looking for that you think could materially, I guess, change views on the potential for nuclear's role going forward.

Our view is, we're in the most, in Virginia at least, the most nuclear-friendly state in the country. The policy support here is very strong. The public and policymakers' support, whether it's the nuclear navy or the big parts of the supply chain or the reactors that we've been operating safely here in Virginia since the 1970s. I think, as we've described before, as we think about new nuclear, cost overrun risk being borne by our customers and our shareholders is a concern.

First-of-a-kind costs being borne by our customers is a concern. The balance sheet that we've worked very hard to get in shape and our business risk profile can't change. If there are ways to work through that, that's the MOU that we entered into with Amazon. They've expressed some interest in helping finance an SMR at North Anna 3. We continue to work our way through that. Fundamentally, as we think about new nuclear, which could be very beneficial for the state, we need to think about. First-of-a-kind costs, cost overrun risk, and our business risk profile.

Got it. It sounds like backstops on catastrophic risk and just cost overrun risk would be the key things to pull forward, I guess, the timeline at this point.

Got it. That's very helpful. Thanks. The last one, if I could.

As we think about data center development here, and clearly, there's been a focus for you guys well ahead of others here, but equipment availability as it stands right now, transformers, transmission equipment, everything for CCGT, just wondering how long the queues are at this point. How do you think about, I guess, lining that up with more data centers, just given how timelines are on both sides at this point for demand?

If you think about the sort of timeline on components for generation, our IRP that we just filed with the dates that we've got for new gen line up with what we expect on timelines for the supply chain. More broadly, I think everyone is experiencing there's more demand for transformers and other equipment. I think we're advantaged because of our size, because of the long relationships that we have with suppliers.

We've been doing a lot of transmission work at this company for quite a while, and I think that puts us in a good place as we try to connect the data center load that we've got. It's a big lift, but we're very much up to the task.

Got it. Just one last one, if I could. Speaking about timeline, if anything for CVOW, if anything slips into 2027 here, do you think that that would impact, I guess, the 2026 guide at this point, or is that kind of just a small at this point and wouldn't really think of it as much of a headwind when it comes to the 2026 guide?

Jeremy, I feel very, very good about our financial plan. We've constructed it to be appropriately, though not unreasonably, conservative. If something like that were to occur, I feel very good about our ability to maintain our ability to hit the commitments we made to our investors at the conclusion of the business review.

We'll go next now to Anthony Crodell at Mizuho.

Hey, good morning. I'm going to ask this is my last one three times. Just quickly, is there a cadence of generation needs that you guys look at in two to three years, whether it's like a gig a year? How much generation will you be bringing onto the grid as we look out towards the back end of your plan?

I mean, the best way to look at it, Jeremy, is we outline it in the IRP. I'm not going to walk through sort of what comes on each year. I will say we've got 2.6 gigawatts coming on in offshore wind by end of next year. Chesterfield Energy Reliability Center, which is in front of the commission right now, that's a gig of natural gas peaking that would come on in 2029. We've got a cadence roughly of a gig of solar a year between us and PPAs coming online. Plus, we've got another, I guess, half a gig-ish, 500 megawatts of uprates on our existing gas fleet in Virginia. It's all in the IRP sort of by year, which is probably the best way to look at it.

Great. No, that's perfect. Just one follow-up. When Charybdis finally clears to, I guess, begin installation, does the company issue a press release or an AK? Just how best can we track that?

We've noticed a lot of people track where Charybdis is on the web, on one of these vessel finder sites. You'll see it. It won't be at the dock anymore. It'll be out at a turbine. I would not anticipate us issuing an AK or a press release when it's done because it's another step in the project, a project that is going extremely well. We didn't issue a press release when we started installing other components. We just moved through this efficiently and effectively as we've been doing throughout our offshore wind project.

Dominion Energy (D) Q3 2025 Earnings Call Transcript

Company Participants