Alliant Energy Corporation Q1 FY2026 earnings call

• 2026年开局良好，第一季度持续经营收益约占全年指引中点的25%，尽管服务区域气温非常温和。- 推进2 - 4吉瓦大型负载机会，4月与爱荷华州一家超大规模客户签订370兆瓦电力服务协议，预计2030年底满负荷运行，还签订了天然气设施建设协议。- 已有5份完全执行的数据中心协议，约3.4吉瓦合同需求，3个项目在建，已确保服务这些负载所需的发电资源，使当前峰值需求增加超60%。- 在监管事项上，爱荷华州公用事业委员会批准新风电项目解决方案，威斯康星州批准Bentree North风电项目。- 员工奉献，近期风暴活动后恢复服务表现出色。

First quarter ongoing earnings delivered approximately 25% of the midpoint of the full year guidance despite very mild temperatures. Details on product segment financial performance not explicitly broken down by absolute terms and revenue contribution % in detailed product - wise figures.

• 重申2026年收益指引，第一季度持续经营收益约占全年指引中点的25%。- 长期收益前景 intact，预计2027 - 2029年复合年收益增长率为7%以上。- 将评估长期收益增长潜力，更新资本支出计划。

Forward - looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially. Risks are described in last night's earnings release and in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Q: Just on the 370 megawatts ESA that was signed... Are we thinking EPS disclosures, some sensitivities around the opportunities? And do we ever get to a point where we could see a more definable EPS guidance range given that you're already at the higher end of that 7% and visibility is improving for you?

A: So what we're going to do... looking forward to that call.

Q: Obviously there's been a lot of noise in Wisconsin... Can you just talk a little bit about, you know, where your conversations are directed with potential hyperscalers?

A: Sure. So, I mean, Iowa does... conversations do continue in Wisconsin.

Q: Hey, good morning. Thanks for the update. Hey, so it just sounds like you're going to do a 370 megawatt simple cycle for this build. for the ESA that you just signed. So just what's the right kind of dollar per kilowatt cost that you're seeing for those types of investments right now?

A: Sure. So as we mentioned... you can expect those to be in line with what you're seeing in the marketplace today.

Q: Yeah. So, you know, there really is no one specific answer to any of that... Could I just ask one follow - up just on the 370? Is that something as it ramps into 2030 that could be increased and you can put that customer and do more of, and does that represent part of this two to four?

A: Well, we're not going to talk really specifically about the 370... the two to four is in essence made up of new entities as well as entities that might want to further expand.

Q: Hi, good morning, team. Thank you. Thank you. And just to follow up quick on my friend Nick's question, just for the 370 megawatts, is there land and kind of zoning capability for that customer to expand if they so choose to in the future? Or is that more a constrained site?

A: So, you know, any of that information is really theirs to share rather than ours to share... make your assumptions, as you wish.

Q: Well, that's why we're so thrilled to have that really flexible resource planning process that we have in both states. And we really see that as a strategic advantage to Alliance Energy. So what we will be doing this later on this year, basically filing a resource plan. It will take into account what we need in terms of reserve margins... absolutely. That makes a lot of sense. And if I could sneak in one unrelated question. Just checking, is there any update on the timeline for the FERC policy for those self - funded network interconnection upgrades? And I just assume the opportunity set for yourself would be larger, assuming that goes in one direction, just given how much new generations have been added. But just curious on the timeline there, if you have one.

A: We are anxiously waiting, as are you. But no, no, no, I have a line of sight on that.

Q: Morning, Bill. Hi, good morning. Just a question you've mentioned a couple times, but the MISO accreditation assumption impact... how does that maybe differ from what your base plan assumes? Or I would assume that they're sort of, you know, net capacity value of the installed base would be somewhat less and so that require more generation or maybe you can just sort of speak through what the potential implications are of the accreditation assumptions A: So we take this into account in terms of all of our modeling... we'll have a cleaner line of sight as we get closer to q3.

Q: The other question here is just on the generation, I know we're trying to get in front of what you're going to update on Q3, but the resource mix that you see, I mean, is it really sort of a full boat of capacity fixes in terms of storage and peakers, or is that going to include baseload potentially as well, or is it more around shaving the peaks and having the capacity resources there to satisfy the MISO requirements?

A: It's primarily batteries and peakers. Recall that we have focused on simple cycles that allows us to basically invest later in these facilities should we need the energy resources... Not everybody can do that.

Q: Yeah, the CT you referenced today, what's the size of that? Is that roughly the size of the load, or I assume there would be some reserve margin to that?

A: Yes. When it basically, you know, 1.1 megawatts. Oh, okay. So the CT you're talking about today is 1,100 megawatts. Up to. Up to. Okay. Helpful. Thank you.

Q: Great. Congratulations on a great quarter. In terms of the two to four gigawatts, can you give us a sense of how many potential developers are represented in that two to four? Now, all we can say really is that they are, you know, very high quality counterparties... Great. And is all of the two to four in Iowa? No, it's not. And can you give us, like, any type of a distributional breakout of what would be Wisconsin versus Iowa? You know, it's really fluid, Paul, so we can't. It's one of these things where it's always a moving target. Great. And then you've given us sort of aggregate rate - based Is it fair to think about year - end 25 rate base as being sort of $6 billion Wisconsin and $11 billion Iowa?

A: Yeah, we provided that information in the slide that we've disclosed publicly, Paul... We'll have Susan follow up with you to share that information and point you to the right direction there. Great, and then the last question for me, the 5% to 7% EPS growth, what should we use as the base for that? 7% plus. Yeah, we update it every year once we complete the year, so you can use the 25 final number that we accomplished there, and then we'll just keep on updating that each year after we complete the year. So it's 25 actual. Thanks.

Q: Hey, Andrew. Thank you. Hi. Good morning. Different question on the new CT. Are you able to share the e - service date? Would it be online by the end of 2030 to match the new ESA? 31. Okay. Great. Thank you. And then, wow, 1.1 gigawatt for a new CT seems quite large. You also reminded us that you have the 720 megawatt CT going through the approval process. My question is, help us understand the thinking behind pursuing simple cycles as opposed to bigger baseload CCGTs with higher run times, especially you've had such a fast growth in demand and you've got the two to four gigawatts that are potentially coming next. Is it a question of speed or cost? And then longer term for these assets, could they be converted to CCGTs if demand justifies it? And would the hyperscalers pay for those upgrades?

A: Yeah, great question. So, you know, we are always, you know, very focused on, you know, certainly customer affordability and flexibility and making sure that we can move at the pace of our customers... allows us to take into consideration a lot of different moving parts, we have a slice of system approach so we're. Thinking about all of the needs that we have from an investment standpoint. Okay, that's very helpful. So, if the 2 to 4 gigawatts were to come to fruition, should we expect more CTs for capacity and that would be more likely than CCGTs?

A: Yes, yes. CTs, batteries, I mean, we've always had an all of the above approach with respect to generation. That's all a part of that resource planning process. Again, as I mentioned earlier, we're basically tying it with, you know, low, medium, and high, low growth opportunities, right? So that allows us to basically be very flexible in our process. All of the above except CCTT. Sorry, teasing, just kidding about myself. Thank you very much. Appreciate the help there.

Q: Hi, Lisa and Robert. Thanks very much for taking. Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my question. I just had a quick one. You know, when I look at slide four and it talks about the two to four gigawatts of upside load and the 370 megawatts that you just added in, can you talk a little bit about what that does in Iowa for your ability to potentially stay out longer than the five years you've agreed to? Because, you know, when we look at our numbers, you know, we think just even in the base plan before adding these 370 megawatts, you were probably, you know, pretty able to keep rates flat and potentially provide benefits to customers. And so just want to hear how that kind of continues to shape up as you add more load and we go into the middle of the next decade.

A: Great question, Stephen. Yeah, that planning is very dynamic right now given the volume of kind of data center interest that we have right now in the changes we've seen, but think of it as incrementally it's going to be beneficial... okay that makes sense and then just on the CTs uh or the potential CT you know you talked about 31 but you and you talked about speed to construction can you just give a flavor if like a CCGT takes four years to build like what's a typical CT build time A: It's about three to four years. Okay thanks very much appreciate it that's all I had