TC Energy Corporation Aktie

Good morning. My name is John Lowe, and I'm the Chair of the Board of TC Energy Corporation. I'd like to extend a warm welcome to our 2026 Annual Meeting of Common Shareholders. We sincerely appreciate your participation in our meeting today. I'd like to start today with an acknowledgment of the indigenous ancestral lands on which TC Energy operates across North America and affirm our commitment to understanding how the histories, cultures, and rich traditions of the peoples of these lands have been shaped by the past, how they influence our presence and what we can learn to prosper together in the future. We are committed to working with the original keepers of the land to advance shared ownership and prosperity. Joining and presenting with me are Francois Poirier, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Jane Brindle, Vice President, Law and Corporate Secretary.

Jane will be acting as our secretary for this meeting and assisting with the moderation of any questions you submit. Also available to answer relevant questions are Brad Owen and Petre Kotev from KPMG, our independent external auditor. Before we begin, I need to note that certain statements made in this meeting contain forward-looking information that are subject to important risks and uncertainties. For more information on these risks and uncertainties, please refer to our 2025 annual report and the Management Information Circular dated March 5, 2026. I will now call the meeting to order and open the online balloting. For our agenda today, registered common shareholders and appointed proxyholders who have registered for this meeting are entitled to participate in our online platform. Questions from shareholders and proxyholders may be submitted using the messaging icon on your screen.

Please submit your questions as soon as possible to allow us to address them at the most appropriate point in our meeting. Guests, including those of you who are not registered shareholders nor are appointed proxyholders, are invited to view and listen to the meeting. As outlined in the Management Information Circular, the purpose of this meeting is for TC Energy common shareholders to receive the 2025 consolidated financial statements and auditor's report to elect the directors, to appoint the auditors and to consider and approve on an advisory basis TC Energy's approach to executive compensation. The meeting will proceed in the following manner. First, Jane will provide some additional instructions on how shareholders and proxy holders may vote and participate in our meeting today.

Next, we will appoint Computershare Trust Company of Canada as our scrutineers for the meeting and confirm that a quorum to conduct business has been met. We will then address each item of business set forth in the Management Information Circular and answer questions, if any, related to such formal items of business. For the purposes of our meeting today, Jane or I will be moving and seconding each motion. We are each duly appointed proxyholders. Next, the voting results will be announced. Finally, after the formal business of the meeting has concluded, Francois will provide an update on the business and will have an opportunity to answer shareholder questions. I'll now pass the meeting over to Jane to review the process for voting and asking questions.

Thank you, John. I will now provide some additional guidance on how to use our online platform. If you are a registered shareholder or a duly appointed proxy holder, you will be able to vote on each item of business. The online balloting is already open. To vote, click on the balloting button on the navigation bar, and simply select your voting choice from the options shown on screen. A confirmation message will appear to show your vote has been received. If you wish to change your vote, simply click the cancel button and vote again. Online balloting will remain open throughout the meeting and while we discuss each item of business. Proxies held by management will be voted on the ballot as indicated in the proxies. If you have a question, select the messaging icon on your screen and to your name in question and click the send button.

We ask that you submit your questions early so we can address them at the appropriate time. We are committed to transparent communication at the meeting. Questions asked related to the business of the meeting will not be curated and will be presented as submitted, unedited and uncensored. Questions will be answered in the order received for each item of business. If the question is more general in nature and not specific to an item of business or the meeting itself, we will plan to answer them in the general question-and-answer period following the CEO's remarks. We may not have time to get to every question. However, if you include your contact information, we will endeavor to provide you with a written response.

Thank you, Jane. We will now move to appoint our scrutineers. In accordance with bylaw #1 of the company, I now appoint Stephen Bandola and Stephanie Tuss, representatives of Computershare Trust Company of Canada to act as scrutineers for this meeting. The preliminary report by the scrutineers indicates that a quorum has been met, and I would ask that they submit their final report on attendance when ready. Jane will now report on the mailing of the notice calling this meeting and advise us about the process the meeting will follow.

Thank you, John. The mailing of the notice of availability of meeting materials and the form of proxy commenced on March 31, 2026, to common shareholders of record in accordance with applicable law. An affidavit of mailing dated April 14, 2026, attesting to the mailing of the notice and form of proxy was delivered to us by our transfer agent Computershare Trust Company of Canada in advance of this meeting. Where required or requested, the Management Information Circular and the annual report were mailed to shareholders. These documents have also been made available on our website.

Thank you, Jane. As notice of the meeting has been given and a quorum has been confirmed, I hereby declare this meeting is duly called and constituted for the transaction of business. As a reminder, the balloting is open and you may vote on all items of business now or as we go through them. The first item of business is the tabling of TC Energy's 2025 annual report which includes the consolidated financial statements and the related auditor's report. It has been made available for review by shareholders in accordance with applicable law. The next item of business is the election of directors each of whom will hold office until the next Annual Meeting of Shareholders or until their successors are earlier elected or appointed.

The Board has set the number of directors to be elected today at 13. Our director nominees for this year are: Scott Bonham, Cheryl Campbell, Michael Culbert; William Johnson, Susan Jones, Dawn Madahbee Leach, Francois Poirier, Una Power, Mary Pat Salomone, Sim Vanaselja, Thierry Vandal, D Verma and myself, John Lowe. I now move to nominate the 13 individuals named and described in the circular to serve as directors of the company to hold office until the next Annual Meeting of Shareholders or until their successors are elected or appointed.

I second the motion.

We will now open the floor for any questions on this item of business. Jane, have we received any questions on this item?

No, John, we have not received any questions on this item of business.

We will now move on to the next item of business. I now move to appoint KPMG LLP chartered professional accountants as the auditors of the company until the next Annual Meeting of Shareholders and authorize the directors of TC Energy to fix their remuneration.

I second the motion.

We will now open the floor for any questions on this item of business. Jane, are there any questions on this item?

No, we have not received any questions on this item of business.

The next item is the approval on an advisory basis of an ordinary resolution approving TC Energy's approach to executive compensation. The text of the resolution is set out in the Management Information circular. While the vote is on an advisory basis and not binding, the Board will take the result of the vote into account when considering future compensation policies and decisions. I now move the resolution to accept on an advisory basis the company's approach to executive compensation.

I second the motion.

We will now open the floor for any questions on this item of business. Jane, are there any questions on this item?

No, John, we have not received any questions on this item of business.

Thank you. As we have now concluded each item of formal business, I will pause for a moment to allow shareholders to complete the online ballot.

[Voting]

The balloting is now closed. The Corporate Secretary has received the scrutineers' preliminary report on attendance and the results of the votes. Jane, would you please provide the results to the meeting?

The preliminary scrutineers' report on attendance at the meeting has now been received. It shows that 67.2% of the issued and outstanding shares of the company have voted on TC Energy's 2026 items of business. I have also received the preliminary reports of the scrutineers. The scrutineers' report indicates that each item of business has received the requisite number of votes to pass. The detailed results for each item of business will be filed on SEDAR+ on or before May 8, 2026.

Thank you, Jane. Based on the results, I declare that all items of business have passed. I now direct that the scrutineers' report on the ballots be annexed to the minutes of the meeting. As this now concludes our formal business, I move to conclude the meeting.

And I second the motion.

Thank you, Jane. As we conclude the formal business of the meeting, I want to reiterate the Board's confidence in the direction of the company. TC Energy is strongly positioned in a North America energy system that is growing in both scale and complexity supported by high-quality assets and people who know how to operate and lead through change. That confidence rests in large part with our employees, more than 6,500 across North America whose experience, judgment and commitment underpin our performance every day. I also want to thank my fellow directors for their counsel and stewardship and our shareholders for the trust you continue to place in this company. With that, we'll share a short video and then welcome Francois to speak about our performance, our priorities and how we're positioning TC Energy for the future.

[Presentation]

Thank you, John. Good morning, everyone, and thank you to our shareholders and stakeholders for being with us today and for the confidence you place in TC Energy. For 75 years, this company has been integral to the energy systems that serve North America, built across regions and through many periods of change. This experience has shaped how we operate today with a laser focus on safety and supported by a clear focused strategy that guides our decision-making. Today, North America's energy landscape has entered another period of significant change, defined by rising demand and increasing complexity. At the same time, geopolitical uncertainty has reinforced the importance of energy security, underscoring North America's opportunity to supply energy both continentally and globally, seizing that opportunity requires more than ambition.

It requires infrastructure, experience and the ability to execute. We are primed to deliver North America's energy advantage by safely and reliably connecting supply to demand and doing so at scale. Companies with a track record of investing with discipline, and adapting without losing focus on our best positioned to succeed in this evolving energy landscape. That is the TC Energy you see today. In 2025, that approach delivered another strong year of performance. As we enter 2026 with energy markets continuing to rapidly evolve, our commitment to shareholders remains resolute solid growth, low risk and repeatable performance. This year, we marked the 75th anniversary of TC Energy. 3/4 of a century of nation-building projects, and operating infrastructure essential to the North American energy market.

Over that time, we've grown into one of the largest and most integrated energy networks on the continent moving more than 30% of the natural gas used every day. That scale has built -- was built deliberately through long-term investments, a sustained focus on safety and operational excellence and generations of employees who understand how to deliver infrastructure designed to last. Our infrastructure is built for resiliency and one that becomes more important as demand continues to grow. That growth follows the same principle this company was founded on. We were born connecting the nation of Canada. Today, we're connecting North America. And increasingly, we're connecting energy from the continent to the world. The reality is clear, and it's one we are experiencing every day. Energy demand is rising.

Natural gas for electricity generation continues to grow, driven by data center development, population growth and power systems under increasing strain from extreme weather. Many jurisdictions rely on natural gas to support power generation and industrial activity while also achieving sustainability objectives. LNG exports add to that demand, connecting North America's natural gas to global markets, seeking to diversify supply and strengthen energy security. All this highlights one undeniable truth this demand is structural and it's long term. Our latest forecast anticipates natural gas demand rising by roughly 45 billion cubic feet per day by 2035. That increase alone is equivalent to the size of today's entire European gas market.

This question isn't whether the energy is needed. It's whether the required infrastructure can deliver it when and where it matters. That's where TC Energy plays a distinct role. Our natural gas network connects low-cost supply to major demand centers across the continent supported by deep experience in transmission, storage and power generation. Our power business anchored by Bruce Power, one of the world's largest operating nuclear facilities provides reliable non-emitting electricity supplies for roughly 30% of Ontario's electricity, supporting grid stability across the province. Together, our gas and power assets and the customer relationships behind them, support dependable energy delivery as demand continues to grow.

The demand we see across our footprint is exactly why execution matters and why our performance over the past year is so important. And 2025 was a defining year for the company. We operated safely executed projects with discipline and allocated capital in a way that generated solid risk-adjusted returns. At the core of that performance is our commitment to safety. I'm exceptionally proud of the team's work in 2025, delivering our best safety results in 5 years, which directly supports strong operational and financial outcomes. So as a result, we also saw strong utilization across our natural gas pipeline network with numerous system-wide flow records. Together, our strong safety performance, disciplined delivery and high utilization translated directly into solid financial performance. Comparable EBITDA grew 9% year-over-year, and we continued to strengthen our balance sheet.

Over the course of the year, we also delivered a significant portfolio of projects, bringing more than $8 billion of infrastructure projects into service on time and approximately 15% below budget. That will expand our footprint and reflects the range of communities we operate in. Canada reached a historic milestone with the first LNG shipment to global markets, made possible by our Coastal GasLink pipeline, which entered service in November of 2024. This milestone underscores the importance of our Canadian natural gas network in unlocking global market access. In the U.S., we completed the Virginia reliability and Wisconsin reliability projects. Together, these represent more than USD 1.2 billion in investment, generating over USD 1 billion in economic output and supporting thousands of jobs.

Not to be outdone, in Mexico, our Southeast Gateway project entered service, completed approximately 13% under budget through a first of its kind public-private partnership with the Comisión Federal de Electricidad, or CFE. And in our Power business, teams at Bruce Power continued to advance major component replacement work on schedule and on budget meeting Ontario's growing need for affordable nonemitting electricity. Delivered on time and under budget, all of these projects provide predictable long-term cash flows that contribute to our 5% to 7% 3-year comparable EBITDA growth outlook. During 2025, we were able to sanction projects at a weighted average after-tax internal rate of return of 12.5%, which represents an increase of about 400 basis points since 2020, all while maintaining our low-risk investment framework.

This performance gives us clear visibility to future disciplined capital investment into the next decade, reinforcing our strategy is working, again, delivering solid growth, low-risk and repeatable performance. Now the discipline that defined our performance in 2025 provides us with the conviction to strive for transformational growth as we enter 2026. Our strategic priorities remain unchanged. We are focused on: first, maximizing the value of our assets through safety and operational excellence, along with commercial and technological innovations. Second, executing safely on our selective portfolio of growth projects on time and on budget. And thirdly, maintaining the financial strength through disciplined capital allocation. That clarity, these 3 simple objectives matter. It allows us to allocate capital deliberately, execute consistently with excellence and respond to demand without stretching our balance sheet.

Last week, we reported our first quarter 2026 results, marking a strong and disciplined start to the year, amid continued global energy volatility. We delivered operational and safety excellence, performing when demand was highest across our natural gas assets. During the quarter, our systems set multiple all-time delivery records including through winter storm Fern. We advanced low-risk growth aligned with our strategy, announcing the Appalachia supply project, a USD 1.5 billion project that will strengthen our U.S. pipeline network and creates a new platform for us to serve a high-growth power and industrial corridor. At the same time, we strengthened long-term growth visibility entering into commercial agreements with LNG Canada, establishing a new framework to advance a proposed Coastal GasLink Phase II expansion.

Financially, we delivered a strong quarter, generating for the first time ever over $3 billion of comparable EBITDA, up 14% year-over-year from the first quarter. That disciplined approach to execution and capital deployment keeps us on track to meet our long-term target of 4.75x debt to EBITDA. Together, these results mark a solid start to 2026. But how we deliver results to us is just as important as the results themselves. We're a purpose-driven organization. We are proud to connect the world to the energy it needs, and this guides how we operate every day and our values shape the way we work and the way things get done safety in every step, personal accountability, one team and active learning these 4 values are reflected in the decisions made in the field in control rooms and in meeting rooms across the company.

That work is carried out by more than 6,500 employees across all 3 countries operating some of the most critical energy infrastructure on the continent. Their experience, their judgment and care are what allows us to operate complex infrastructure safely and reliably day in and day out. We do that work in partnership with indigenous rights holders with communities and other stakeholders across our footprint recognizing that infrastructure built to last depends on strong long-term relationships and mutual respect. This is how trust is earned over time, how credibility is sustained and how resilience is built into the way we work.

Together, these values position us to continue delivering reliable energy and contributing to a strong secure energy future. So thank you for your time and engagement today. North America is entering a period of profound change. One that brings both complexity and a generational opportunity. With over 75 years of experience and a disciplined strategy and a great team, we will continue to play a critical role in safely and reliably connecting the world to the energy it needs. So with that, I'll turn it back to Jane to begin the question-and-answer period. And John and I welcome your questions.

Thank you, Francois. Now we will take this opportunity to respond to any additional shareholder questions. We would ask you to keep your questions to approximately 1 minute each to provide enough time for all questions to be answered. We are committed to facilitating a productive and orderly meeting, where all participants engage in respectful dialogue. We have received a question from Gaagwiis, a duly appointed proxyholder who is on the line to ask his question. Gaagwiis, please go ahead.

Hello, everyone. I'm the President -- Vice President of the Coastal First Nations-Great Bear Initiative, and I've been formally appointed to address the AGM by a shareholder with over $30 million in assets under management. I just want to share that or reiterate a proposed crude oil pipeline through the northwestern Canada is making headlines. However, the federal government has repeatedly stated that no project would proceed without the support of affected First Nations or the province in which it is proposed. As the legally recognized rights and title holders under both Canadian and international law, we did not support this proposed oil pipeline, which could see over 200 oil tankers in our waters. And we, along with the province of British Columbia, have called on the federal government to uphold their oil tanker moratorium act in its entirety with no exceptions or carve-outs.

So there's no offer of equity and ownership that will change our position. And I just want to reiterate, in 2016 Enbridge reported costs of $656 million on a never built Northwestern pipeline with total impairment of $373 million before tax adjustments so we want to proactively save TC Energy and our investors from the other company's past mistakes and recognizing that the Board assesses decision-making quality through regular reviews of major projects and capital allocation decisions and a recent update to your health, safety, sustainability and environment committee charters are made to include oversight of all indigenous manners to be implemented this year. Can you -- can members of the Board, please describe how this oversight will be provided to ensure indigenous rights and titleholders positions on the proposed pipelines and tanker moratorium are respected? And when a related risk assessment would be disclosed to investors in your decision-making process?

John, this question centers on board oversight and governance. I'll ask you to address it, please.

Thank you for your question. As a reminder, TC Energy does not operate oil pipelines, but I think your question is broader than that. And I'll talk a little bit about the oversight but I think Francois will also address this as well. So as a Board, it's our responsibility to act in the best interest of our company and our shareholders. Strong governance and early engagement with rights holders are critical to responsible project development, risk management and long-term value creation. The full board maintains oversight of our indigenous engagement strategy, including the risks and opportunities associated with material projects and indigenous equity participation. In reviewing proposed projects, management provides a comprehensive assessment of all material risks, including potential impacts on indigenous peoples and relevant policy considerations to inform our decision-making.

We have further strengthened our board level oversight of indigenous relations by formalizing responsibility within the health, safety, sustainability and Environment Committee and increasing the cadence of updates from management including through standing reports and a dedicated annual discussion. Last year, we also added Dawn Madahbee Leach of the Aundeck Omni Kaning First Nation to our Board of Directors, strengthening our Board-level perspective on indigenous matters. So that summarizes our Board processes, but I'll turn it over to Francois to build on that.

Thank you, John and Gaagwiis, thank you very much for your question. Just a few principles as the leader of the company in terms of how we engage with rights holders, indigenous groups that are rights holders, not just stakeholders. First of all, equity participation is something that we believe when there is support from all stakeholders for a project is essential. We've made an equity investment option available to all 20 of the First Nations across the Coastal GasLink route. To date, 17 of the 20 nations have agreed to pursue this. We've actually extended the deadline for the investment to be made to afford each community the opportunity to raise financing for the purchase at effective a cost as possible. On our Ontario pump storage project in Ontario, we've been working very closely in partnership with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation.

From the early days of design, in fact, based on our discussions with our partners the SON, we made significant changes to the design of the project to address and benefit from their traditional knowledge. So I guess the other thing, as the leader of the company, that -- what I tell my team is if the first time you engage with the First Nation, it's to ask for something you've already lost. This is about building relationships and building trust. And everyone, every group needs to have the same information at the same time in order to make timely decisions. It's just not right for project proponents to retain information and then ask for feedback on very complex matters in very short time line. So we work very hard to accommodate those. The one thing I will say though, however, is we are at a very unique point in time in our country and in the world.

And there's an opportunity here for North America to play a more significant role in providing energy to the world. What that means is that our customers may not be in Canada, our customers may be anywhere around the world that we want to serve. And we -- the project proponents and all of our key rights holders and stakeholders, we don't dictate the time lines. So we have to work together, build alignment as quickly as we can and respect the time lines that are established by those who want to make an investment decision. So keeping all of that in mind, the key is for everyone to have an open mind, the key is to build trust as early as possible and also to be as transparent as possible. So Gaagwiis, I very much appreciate the question. And thank you for the group you represent who are shareholders in the company. We appreciate your end and their confidence in the company. So with that, I'll turn it back to Jane. Are there any other questions, Jane?

Thank you, Francois. No, we do not have any further questions.

Okay. All right. Sorry -- thank you for the thoughtful question, Gaagwiis. And thank you all for the discussion today. On behalf of the Board of Directors and our employees, thank you to our shareholders for your continued confidence in TC Energy. For more than 75 years, the company has delivered infrastructure that performed through cycles, guided by disciplined execution, a strong balance sheet and a long-term view of energy market dynamics. That focus continues to guide how we operate, how we invest and how we support the reliable delivery of energy that powers communities and economic growth across North America. We appreciate your engagement and look forward to updating you on our progress. Thank you.

Thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to the TC Energy First Quarter 2026 Results Conference Call.

[Operator Instructions]

I would now like to turn the conference over to Gavin Wylie, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you. I'd like to welcome you to TC Energy's First Quarter 2026 Conference Call. Joining me are Francois Poirier, President and Chief Executive Officer; Sean O'Donnell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; along with other members of our senior leadership team. Francois and Sean will begin today with some comments on our financial results and operational highlights. A copy of the slide presentation is available on our website under the investor section. Following the remarks, we will take questions from the investment community. We ask that you please limit yourself to 2 questions. And if you are a member of the media, please contact our media team.

Today's remarks will include forward-looking statements that are subject to important risks and uncertainties. For more information, please see reports filed by TC Energy with Canadian securities regulators and with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Finally, we'll refer to certain non-GAAP measures that may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other entities. A reconciliation is contained in the appendix of this presentation.

With that, I'll now turn the call to Francois.

Thanks, Gavin, and good morning, everybody. We entered 2026 with strong momentum, delivering against a clear and consistent set of strategic priorities.

First and foremost, we had our best safety performance in 6 years. We generated over $3 billion of comparable EBITDA, up 14% year-over-year, demonstrating strong stable results amid ongoing market and geopolitical volatility. We reached settlement agreements with customers on our Canadian mainline, ANR and Great Lakes assets with outcomes largely in line with expectations, further supporting our comparable EBITDA outlook.

Today, I'm pleased to announce a strategic investment on our Columbia Gas system. The USD 1.5 billion Appalachia supply project, which extends our reach into a high-demand corridor and creates a scalable platform for future growth. Customer demand continues to validate our strategy with consecutive open seasons in Ohio and on our Crossroads system, seeing strong response, supporting incremental growth visibility.

In Canada, we reached an important milestone with new commercial agreements for Coastal GasLink Phase II under a disciplined risk allocation framework, while execution of the Bruce Power MCR program remains firmly on track. These outcomes reinforce our confidence in delivering on our 2026 comparable EBITDA outlook, maintaining disciplined capital spending and preserving balance sheet strength as we continue to deliver solid growth, low-risk and repeatable performance. The U.S. Heartland is one of the most strategically important regions in our portfolio and one where we have a clear competitive advantage. With over 27,000 miles of pipeline infrastructure, we operate more natural gas pipeline and storage in the region than any other company, offering unmatched access to low-cost supply and key demand markets.

Today, the heartland represents approximately 3/4 of our U.S. deliveries with natural gas demand expected to grow an additional 40% through 2035, driven by diversified demand from power generation, including data centers, LDCs and LNG exports. Our ANR system sits at the core of our Heartland footprint and exemplifies the strength of our incumbent position in the U.S. Midwest. Including our Heartland and Northwoods projects, we've announced nearly USD 3 billion of investment on ANR over the last 6 years, adding more than 1.1 Bcf per day of incremental capacity by leveraging existing rights of way and infrastructure.

On our Columbia Gas system, natural gas demand across the footprint has increased by approximately 50% and we expect an additional 4 Bcf a day of incremental demand by 2035. We expect this momentum to continue to unlock additional accretive growth opportunities, further reinforced by the strategic investments being made today in our Appalachia supply project. This project further extends our reach into this high-value, high-growth market.

The USD 1.5 billion expansion project on our Columbia Gas system is supported by a long-term 20-year take-or-pay contract backed by an investment-grade utility and is expected to deliver solid risk-adjusted returns and a 7.3x build multiple. The project will add 0.8 Bcf per day of capacity to support new power generation development with an anticipated in-service date of 2030. But importantly, the project will be capable of up to 2 Bcf a day of total capacity through future expansions, creating line of sight for capital-efficient growth projects relating to overall economic development, demand from data centers and as broader electrification continues to scale. This strategic investment reinforces the strength of the Columbia Gas system while positioning us for several potential follow-on accretive opportunities.

Accelerating power-related load growth is driving customer demand across our footprint and it's reflected in the results of our 2 most recent open seasons. As we noted in our fourth quarter earnings call, the Columbus, Ohio open season was approximately 3x oversubscribed. This strong response reflects Ohio's projected natural gas demand growth of more than 30% over the next decade, the largest increase nationally outside of LNG exporting states. Growth is being driven by power generation, industrial expansion and grid reliability needs, including significant incremental load from more than 40 new data centers, positioning Ohio as a top 5 U.S. data center market.

Our Crossroads open season received a similarly strong response with bids exceeding 2.5x the capacity offering. What's important is not just the level of demand we're seeing, but how we're well positioned to capture it. We are intentionally strengthening connections across our systems, linking assets with access to premium low-cost supply such as Columbia Gas to systems serving high-quality, long-duration demand such as ANR. In corridor expansion opportunities on established systems like Crossroads allow us to respond quickly to customer needs, deploy capital efficiently and meaningfully reduce execution risk.

Turning to Bruce Power. The MCR program continues to execute safely, reliably and with improving economics. We've seen successive MCR costs come down by applying lessons learned and using new tools like robotics for removal and installation activities. That execution excellence underpins the long-term visibility of cash flows from the asset.

By 2030, distributions will begin to meaningfully exceed capital spend. And by 2032, Bruce is expected to generate approximately $1 billion of annual free cash flow increasing to approximately $2 billion once the MCR program is complete in 2035. Strong execution reinforces confidence in the team's ability to deliver significant free cash flow growth from Bruce Power that creates further optionality supporting growth across our entire portfolio as well as the potential expansion of Bruce C.

And with that, I'll turn it over to Sean to walk through the numbers.

Thanks, Francois. Good morning, everybody. Turning to our first quarter performance. TC delivered 14% year-over-year growth in comparable EBITDA, marking a very strong start to 2026 from each of our 4 business units. Both our Canadian and U.S. natural gas pipeline businesses continued to perform exceptionally well, setting 7 new all-time delivery records during the quarter. The results underscore the strength of our footprint and the value that are highly contracted in Corridor assets provide to our customers.

In the Power and Energy Solutions business, Bruce Power achieved 88% availability in the quarter, which is in line with our plan and which also includes the planned outage on Unit 8. For full year '26, we continue to expect Bruce's availability to be in the low 90% range, which is consistent with 2025.

Our Alberta cogeneration fleet also delivered exceptional performance achieving 99.5% availability. On the right-hand side of the page, we summarize our quarterly EBITDA performance. I would highlight that this was a record quarter marking the first time that we generated more than $3 billion of comparable EBITDA from continuing operations in a single quarter. Growth was led by our Mexico and U.S. natural gas businesses who placed over $8 billion of new assets into service in 2025.

Canadian Natural Gas Pipelines benefited from higher flow-through depreciation and NGTL incentive earnings, while Power and Energy Solutions saw higher contributions from Bruce Power. These results reflect strong execution across each of our lines of business and reinforce the momentum that underpins our financial outlook for the portfolio this year.

Looking ahead, we are reaffirming both our 2026 and 2028 comparable EBITDA outlook, which reflects our customers' steady demand for access to our assets under our unique long-term low-risk take-or-pay and rate-regulated commercial constructs. For 2026, our comparable EBITDA outlook remains at $11.6 billion to $11.8 billion, which represents roughly a 7% actual to midpoint increase relative to an exceptional performance in 2025, and it represents an 8% actual to midpoint annualized increase relative to 2024.

Looking out to 2028. We continue to target comparable EBITDA of $12.6 billion to $13.1 billion, implying a 6% actual to midpoint 3-year annualized growth rate that is fully underpinned by sanctioned projects advancing towards in-service date.

Moving to the right-hand side of the page, we summarized several additional factors that could influence our EBITDA outlook over time. While our EBITDA is highly contracted, we have ongoing revenue enhancement initiatives and cost and capital optimization programs across the organization that are in flight, each of which have the potential to drive incremental upside. We've added a project execution dashboard to provide a unique level of visibility on the key projects that are driving EBITDA growth over the next few years.

Collectively, these projects account for the majority of our capital allocation and expected EBITDA growth. You'll note that we have a clear line of sight to our in-service date and our build multiples. Similar to 2025, where we placed over $8 billion of projects into service on time and 15% below budget. The team is carrying that momentum into 2026 where our projects are tracking on schedule and on or under budget. We're providing a lot of detail on this slide, but you'll note that the majority of investment activity is concentrated in the U.S. where we are seeing commercial and regulatory tailwinds that are supporting a weighted average build multiple of 6.2x.

Notwithstanding the attractive positioning of the portfolio today, Project execution continues to be a strong focus, given how critical it is to our continued growth. Strong execution is a direct reflection of the discipline embedded in our low-risk project selection process and the strength of our cross-functional project delivery capabilities. It is this consistency in our team's execution excellence year in and year out that is foundational to our ability to deliver the financial outlook we provide and also reinforces the confidence we have in both our near-term forecast and our longer-term growth trajectory.

I'll wrap this slide up by underscoring that the visibility we are sharing on our next wave of projects continues to validate the quality, repeatability and low-risk nature of our project backlog. It's that backlog and our team's ability to execute that underpin our EBITDA outlook and continued shareholder value proposition.

I'd like to turn to our investment outlook with our updated capital allocation dashboard. This chart further demonstrates the depth diversity and continued growth of our project portfolio through the end of the decade. With today's announcement of the Appalachia supply project, we converted approximately $2.2 billion of investment capital from pending approval into sanctioned. Last quarter, we also added over $2 billion of new high conviction, substantially derisked projects to our pending approval bucket, which continues to support near-term project announcements. Beyond the project portfolio on this slide, we have about $15 billion of additional projects in origination that are competing for capital allocation this decade.

To give you a sense for where some of this $15 billion backlog stands and our confidence in converting them to sanction capital over the next year or 2. Francois mentioned that we recently conducted 2 open seasons in the U.S. that were substantially oversubscribed, that we're extremely excited about. Similarly, in Canada, we've launched the first in a series of expected new offerings on NGTL, while continuing to advance parallel discussions on a new growth investment framework with customers.

I'll wrap this slide up with a few comments about how we are thinking about capital allocation going forward. Over the next couple of years, we will continue to look to optimize and bring forward capital to support up to $6 billion of annual net capital deployment. As we look out to the latter part of the decade, and are considering the project backlog we discussed, it is this high value largely in Carter opportunity set that will define our level of net investment. We remain committed to maintaining the balance sheet strength and our 4.75x leverage target, and we will continue to execute projects with excellence.

These guide rails are fundamental to our risk and capital allocation screening process, which supports the ability to exceed the $6 billion annual level, particularly as we near the conclusion of the Bruce MCR program post 2030, as Francois highlighted earlier. That is the scenario which is now in our planning window. That sets us up very well for continued EBITDA growth towards 2030 and beyond.

With that update, I'll pass the call back to Francois.

Thanks, Sean. We've got an exciting year ahead, and our strategic priorities remain clear and firmly in place. We'll continue to maximize the value of our assets through safety and operational excellence, while leveraging commercial and technological innovation. We will prioritize low-risk, high-return growth. More announcements are expected throughout this year. And thirdly, we will maintain our financial strength and agility to support long-term value creation.

Operator, we are now ready to take questions.

[Operator Instructions]

The first question comes from Praneeth Satish with Wells Fargo.

The first question comes from Aaron MacNeil with TD Cowen.

Appreciating the implication that the Appalachia supply project arguably has a bit of pre-spend for future growth. Can you give us a sense of what the economics of a fully loaded project that 2 Bcf might look like from a build multiple perspective? And then what needs to happen to get to 2 Bcf per day and when do you think that could happen by?

This is Tina Faraca. I'll kick off with the response to that question. We're really excited about announcing our Appalachia supply project this morning for many reasons over and above the headlines that we talked about. When we make capital allocation decisions, we look many years ahead and the scenarios around placing this line into service gives us a strong long-term growth trajectory. So the nature of these facilities in terms of pipeline extension and compressor modifications is an opportunity for us to leverage future opportunities in the region. The corridor that this project passes through is a high-growth power corridor for us. We see gas demand growing in that region of our footprint by about 4 Bcf through 2035. So it's important for us to look to the future as we develop the scope for this project.

As you look at the opportunity to increase the capacity of this project to up to 2 Bcf, that can be accomplished with minor facility modifications. And so as you kind of contemplate what that might look like, that this will be a very economic expansion for us going forward.

Makes sense. Maybe just switching gears to Canada. The slide deck as you've launched an open season on NGTL. Can you give us a bit more details there and how a project like that would compete for capital versus sort of the other opportunities across the portfolio?

Sure. We did launch an open season on NGTL. We are seeing increased demand across the system, including incremental load growth in the Greater Edmonton area, which is what's triggered the recent open season. And we've also seen just a step-up in general interest across NGTL that we're responding to as a result of the open seasons. Our goal is to aggregate that customer demand in the most efficient way to serve the market. We look at these investments from the lens of ensuring that they earn a competitive risk-adjusted return with the rest of the portfolio.

So you'll recall our NGTL settlement which runs through 2029, that enables an investment framework through incentive shared mechanisms to support competitive returns on invested capital for our multiyear growth plan. And as we look ahead for the next expansion beyond multiyear growth plan, we're discussing with our customers an opportunity for a new investment framework, which will continue to allow us to compete for capital in the market.

The next question comes from Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan.

Just wanted to start with Appalachian supply, again, the project here. And just curious, when you mark the 2 Bcf of capital efficient expansions -- is 2 Bcf a specific point as far as capacity-wise for the system that you see? Or is it line of sight to customer interest. And when you talk about this being a platform for future growth, are you talking just moving to 2? Or are there other opportunities as well?

Yes, we marked the 2 Bcf based on a very economic expansion through just compression or minor modifications. It could be expanded beyond that with the pipeline or extensions. But it's in such a great high-growth corridor that not only can we serve growth along that corridor, we can extend that forward or to reach for additional opportunities.

Got it. That's helpful. And then I just wanted to turn to ANR real quick here. And as far as the settlement, I'm just wondering if you could share any thoughts on how that, I guess, compares to your guidance expectations, is there room for upside here from this? Or anything else, I guess, across your system as you're looking as more settlements could come into place in the future?

The outcome of that settlement in principle is a positive result for ANR. We're pleased to have received a unanimous agreement with our customers on all major issues. As reflected in the interim rate filing, we have settled with an increase over prefiled rates. The outcome of that settlement is consistent with estimates. We typically look at sort of a conservative approach, but that doesn't mean that that's not what we're expecting related to an outcome with our customers. So this remains, again, a settlement in principle and within our predictions.

The next question comes from Theresa Chen with Barclays.

Turning back to NGPL, given the clear need for incremental residue egress out of the area, can you elaborate on the new investment framework in discussion? And how has the framework and precedents established by the Canadian Mainline settlement informed your discussions with shippers on NGPL?

Theresa, it's Francois. I'll take this one. The mainline was -- and those terms are now out in public. It was really a win-win in that we were able to commit to adding roughly 300 million cubic feet a day of capacity over a 4-year period with a $200 million capital commitment, which obviously is a very efficient use of capital in exchange for being able to maintain the incentive programs that were established in the last settlement. This is effectively an extension of that original settlement.

A win-win in terms of shippers being able to see expansion of capacity, and we're able to have our Canadian projects compete for capital in our internal processes. So that was the signal in addition to in the very recent few months, a significant increase in demand for service on our NGTL system that urged us to enter into a dialogue with our customers on a new investment framework. So we're doing 2 things in parallel.

With the open seasons, we are gauging interest in capacity in 3 or 4 parts of the province at the same time as we're discussing a new investment framework. It's early days in terms of that conversation. But suffice it to say that on a risk-adjusted basis, what we have put on the table, we feel is a win-win and would compete for capital within our capital allocation framework.

And in the U.S., following the successful and highly oversubscribed Crossroads pipeline open season, what are the gating items to FID from here? And just taking a step back as the Midwest is increasingly becoming a focal point for data center build-out and is also experiencing a step-up in power demand growth more broadly. Can you elaborate more on your view of the magnitude of our opportunity size for your assets here and your relative competitive positioning?

Theresa, this is Tina. I'll start with Crossroads and then move maybe to the more broader discussion on the Midwest growth. As you have heard, we -- our open season was very successful we had interest that exceeded what we had advocated for by 2.5x.

So our focus is now shifting to thoughtfully developing that demand in a means that will drive a capital-efficient expansion for our customers and to try to get the largest size project we can in the most efficient way possible. So we're in the process of working with all of our customers who participated in that open season to refine the commitments and scope and there's, as I mentioned, certainly the potential to upsize based on current discussions, and we'll continue to target sanctioning that project in 2026 within our 5 to 7x build multiple range.

In terms of the Midwest, we are seeing incredible opportunities across that corridor, specifically in the power demand sector, we see about 5-plus Bcf per day of incremental gas demand across the Midwest corridor over the next 10 years. And from a competitive standpoint, our incumbency there is really a critical opportunity for us with our Columbia, ANR, Crossroads, Northern Border and Great Lakes system gave us a highly advantaged footprint in that region.

We're the #1 operator across several of those states. We have over 200 connections to electric and gas utilities in that Midwest corridor, specifically on ANR. So it really positions us well to capture that new demand. Additionally, we bring supply optionality that's becoming more and more important to our customers. We can access Appalachia, Gulf Coast, Mid-Continent, Bakken and WCSB supply to bring that diversity to our customers.

And then finally, our storage access is unparalleled in that region with over 532 Bcf of storage opportunities for our customers. So all in all, we're really excited about our opportunity for compete for that growth in that corridor.

The next question comes from Rob Hope with Scotiabank.

Can you speak to how your project development pipeline is progressing. So you sanctioned roughly $2 billion of projects this quarter and even with that appears like the project development pipeline has increased to over $21 billion. So can you just maybe help us understand how -- what the book-to-bill ratio is looking like for you?

Yes, Rob, it's Francois. I'll take this one. As we've said in the past, project development life cycles for pipeline lines is many years. It takes a good solid year to develop a project and then a couple of years typically to get your permits before you've got shovels in the ground. So we have pretty good visibility on what's coming for us down to the specific projects. We have within a 50 basis point plus or minus range, a very good sense of what the returns look like. And therefore, the EBITDA build multiple and I can tell you that everything in that pipeline, in aggregate, the full $21 billion is solidly within that 5 to 7x EBITDA build multiple and in that 12% on levered IRR after-tax range, consistent with what we've seen over the last couple of years.

It's true that the backlog is building, and that's because even with the projects that we've been working on for many months, if not years, our utility customers are coming back to us and saying, we want to upsize as a project to supply electricity gains credibility and is looking firmer and firmer that is attracting additional load, either from electrification with large or from additional data centers that want to benefit from the certainty of a project. So it's true that we see the momentum continuing. And it's not surprising that our backlog has grown even from what we had a quarter ago, which was fairly robust.

Appreciate that. And maybe a bit of a broader and longer-term question. Canada is looking to develop an electricity and nuclear strategy what would you look for in the strategy to help underpin future investment in Bruce C? And when should we think that discussions could kick off?

I'll start with a very high level, and I'll ask Greg to provide some detail. We're the only investor-owned owner and operator of nuclear in Canada. Bruce Power is best-in-class, they are INPO 1-rated reactors, which means top decile operating efficiency and safety performance you may have seen that we've entered into cooperation agreements with Alberta and Saskatchewan. And so we absolutely have ambitions over the next many decades because these projects take quite a bit of time to develop, to invest and allocate capital to nuclear across the country. That, of course, will come after we prosecute Bruce, and evaluate Bruce C.

So I'll turn that over to Greg.

Sure. Thanks. Appreciate the question, Rob. To me, it's quite flattering and kind of feather in the cap for a great management team at Bruce to be invited not only into some of the conversations around a federal strategy, but obviously, with the recent announcements in Saskatchewan, Alberta. And obviously, the experience and credibility that Bruce has built over the last couple of decades, the large-scale operator and seen some of the critical work delivery on the MCR program safely on time or under budget and ahead of schedule is really leading to them being the team to call on as we think about the next nuclear build in Canada.

Just to Francois' point, I just want to reiterate that like our immediate focus, obviously, is the safe delivery of the remaining MCR program and driving Bruce expansion is the next nuclear facility in Canada. We just believe given the existing footprint, infrastructure, the highly skilled labor that we have in place and the strong local support and you have an integrated Canadian supply chain, which just makes Bruce kind of that next project we'd like to see happen. But the longer-term prospects and optionality across Canada and having Bruce at the table is extremely important.

The next question comes from Praneeth Satish with Wells Fargo.

Sorry for the technical difficulties before. So you have $6 billion of late-stage projects now pending approval. I'm just wondering if you could talk conceptually about what's in the bucket there. I think last quarter, you said that Crossroads in Colombia gas are not in there. It sounds like that's still the case. And -- but Bruce Power MCRs are included. So if Crossroads and Columbia Gas are not in that bucket, does that imply just adding up the MCRs, does that imply you have another couple of billion of undisclosed U.S. gas projects that are close to FID?

Praneeth, this is Tina. Yes, our backlog continues to grow. You're correct. Those projects were not included in the pending capital. We're advancing those this year. based on our customer discussions and the increasing demand across our footprint.

As we look towards the end of this year, we're continuing to see growth in our power generation sector, which allows us to bring more and more of these advanced projects into that queue. So we are continuing to find opportunities, particularly in the Midwest corridor of our system, where power generation growth continues to exceed our expectations, but importantly, our footprint is allowing us to capture those opportunities.

Got you. And I guess, in light of all these projects, as you think about longer-term capital planning, particularly 2029, 2030, when a lot of the CapEx for these projects that you're sanctioning is going to hit, leverage should be lower, you're reaching that free cash flow inflection at Bruce. So given that backdrop, I guess, maybe if we can revisit how much flexibility you have to increased CapEx, maybe pulled forward some of the Bruce free cash flow. On our math, I mean, it seems like you could raise it by a couple of billion, but just trying to understand the range of outcomes.

I'll speak to capital allocation and then I'll ask Sean to talk about funding and impacts on leverage. We've -- we'll remind you all that the first criteria is around maintaining project execution excellence. That is a nonnegotiable as we contemplate growing our net capital spend beyond $6 billion. We've satisfied ourselves, our Board that we have the capability to do that with, I think, a fairly detailed and rigorous amount of planning and preparation. Obviously, having -- maintaining balance sheet strength is very important.

Toward the latter end of the decade, we will allow the opportunity set within those guardrails to drive the size of our capital program rather than a self-imposed $6 billion net capital limit. We feel that we're in a generational point in time where the returns are quite attractive. We're investing at very attractive returns and build multiples, and we want to make sure that we capture that for the benefit of our shareholders.

And over to you, Sean.

Yes. I think, Praneeth, the only thing I would add to that, thank you for kind of calling out Bruce, right? It is in our planning window now. So as you see this program, we'll have work for a decade to deliver the cash flow profile beginning in 2030. It's a ton of fun to think about what Bruce can help GasCo do in 2030 and beyond, and it's a fundamental game changer in just how we think about capital allocation within the guide rails that Francois just talked about. So 2030 and beyond, our degrees of freedom and optionality subject to team discipline and capability and high return projects is just a lot of fun.

Next question comes from Robert Catellier with CIBC.

A couple of things here on the NGL side. First, with the revised CGL framework, just walk through how that limits TC Energy's construction and cost exposure and what it means for some of the returns you might get if the project goes FID for CGL Phase II later in the decade?

Rob, this is Tina. I'll take that question. We entered into a new commercial agreement framework with LNG Canada and the partners. What will happen on that -- under that agreement is that LNG Canada is going to lead the project execution. As the execution manager and our team will provide technical advisory services. We're actively operationalizing that new execution model. In practice, what that means is that as the project executionally, LNG Canada will manage some of the cost and schedule activities, and that puts limits on our capital commitments and overall liability for construction cost and schedule risk. So this is consistent with our strategic objectives to produce project execution and capital allocation risk within our tolerance.

And Robert, your question on returns, as you know, we equity account for CGL. We own 35% of the equity. So we look at that project on a levered return basis, only our equity cash calls are included in the capital table given the project financing that is expected to be in place once we're -- we've got shovels in the ground. So on a levered basis, it is an extremely attractive returning project for TC, albeit a small project in the grand scheme of things.

Okay. Understood. And then turning to the U.S. Obviously, you have a pretty good market share there. Deliveries were up significantly year-over-year. But as you look to the next wave of U.S. LNG projects, what factors will determine whether you can continue to grow versus maintain your market share there? And what type of spare capacity do you have versus likely requirement for new builds?

Rob, you may be familiar that over the last several years, we've progressed several LNG export projects across our entire footprint. We've put in service about CAD 16 billion a project to provide natural gas transportation capacity to LNG export terminals with a total of over 7 Bcf per day. So we've, over the last several years, really developed a very strong approach to serving this corridor.

In the U.S., we have 2 projects -- well, 1 project underway with our Gillis Access extension projects that will be going into service later this year. And in Canada, we have our Cedar Link project that's in execution as well.

So we're continuing to develop solutions for the LNG export model. And as we look into the future, we have great connectivity, not only to the U.S. Gulf Coast, but to the West Coast of Canada. So we're well positioned to capture additional opportunities through expansion of those facilities.

Your next question comes from Spiro Dounis with Citi.

Wanted to go back to the $15 billion backlog and maybe a bit of a follow-up to Praneeth's question. So clearly, that backlog now 25% higher since the last update, seems to imply things are accelerating here. So I guess in the context of elevating your CapEx cadence later on in the decade, just curious how much of that $15 billion could potentially result in pre-2030 spending?

Thanks. I'll go ahead and answer that question. So the $15 billion backlog is primarily in the U.S. business for our pipeline facilities. As we look at the life cycle of a project, it typically takes, as Francois mentioned, several years from origination into in-service. So typically the largest spend on a project is the year that you're actually going into construction. So oftentimes, that spend is weighted towards the end of that cycle. And so that's kind of how we think of the spread of that capital. Most of our projects are now targeting anywhere from 29, 30, 31 types of in-service dates.

Great. That's helpful. And then a question just on the Canadian pipeline side, and you mentioned it there a little bit. But -- it sounds like that region is getting closer to competing for capital at a larger scale. And so I guess I'm curious how much of the Canadian expansion is in that $15 billion backlog. It sounds like not much. And I guess maybe another way to ask it is, what's the opportunity set there? How much could be added if this framework starts to be scaled up higher?

So very little of the NGTL expansion is in the $15 billion backlog. As I said earlier, Spiro, we're early days in our conversations with our customers around the new investment framework, and it would be premature to put it in our backlog based on our criteria. It could be several billion dollars. We've seen since the MOU between Canada and Alberta was announced, a significant uptick in interest in service. And that has been the catalyst for us. Kind of in between our typical annual demand assessments to come out with sort of a off-cycle service offering. So it's moved very quickly, and it could be quite meaningful subject to a new investment framework.

The next question comes from Maurice Choy with RBC Capital Markets.

Just wanted to start with a big picture question. You mentioned earlier the nonnegotiables on project execution, balance sheet strength and competitive returns. From your perspective at the very top, and as you think about times beyond the next 3 years, what are the areas of your business that you're seeing as being perhaps an emerging limiter to your durability of your growth?

Maurice, it's Francois. I'll take that one. It's certainly not demand, and it's not the return profile of the projects we're seeing. It's really human capital. As I said, we've gone through a very rigorous and detailed organizational readiness assessment in order to be able to execute on projects. We feel that we developed processes and mechanisms to have a good couple of years of visibility around where the points of tightness might be in terms of our people, in terms of contractors, supply chain for steel and compressors, et cetera.

So I would say that would be the one limit when you're looking into the 2030s. The other would be the permitting and policy environment. We're seeing some tailwinds there, both in Canada and the United States with respect to a desire of governments to accelerate infrastructure spending for affordability and also energy security purposes. So our base case right now is that those constraints will not present themselves, but we have to plan for all scenarios. We have to be disciplined. And the last line of defense will always be our ability to safely and efficiently deliver our projects on time and on budget and with an impeccable safety record.

And maybe as a quick follow-up. Is supply chain an area that you spend more time in? Or is it the fact that you're quite large, you've got a kind of scale and ability to demand?

Maurice, we do have to pay close attention to the supply chain. It is a bit tighter in the United States than it is in Canada. That's one of the reasons why Canada -- it seems like an attractive opportunity for us to deploy more capital. There's a bit more slack in capacity there. But we're taking different practices to manage supply chain risk. We're entering into strategic alliances and long-term agreements with OEMs.

We're contemplating doing that with construction firms as well, just to make sure that we have not only the project backlog, but the certainty in our ability to execute. So we do see the need for us to be a bit more strategic and do things a little differently than we have in the past. But it's a very high-quality problem, as I would say.

Understood. And if I could just finish off with a quick follow-up to one of Tina's earlier response on the Appalachia supply project. The initial phase is 7.3x build multiple, and you suggested that there should be better returns and economics for future phases. Is it fair to say that after all these phases are built, you'll probably be averaging down to within the 5 to 7x target range and potentially maybe even closer to the lower end of that range.

Thanks, Maurice. Yes, given the fact that we can very efficiently expand that new infrastructure up to 2 Bcf per day, you could -- you could quickly see how we could move that down towards the end of that 5 to 7x range.

The next question comes from Sam Burwell with Jefferies.

I wanted to clarify when the Appalachian supply project was only in the pending approval bucket for a quarter. I'm just curious if the PJM backstop procurement announcements have had just any bearing at all on sanctioning it any more quickly or if this was more fully baked and that was a nonfactor, but potentially PJM developments might be a tailwind for future project origination or just conversion converting backlog?

Yes, I'll start with just the market drivers there. that was not a consideration as part of this sanctioning the project as well as the development of the opportunity set could be a tailwind, certainly, but that wasn't the driver for the customer demand here.

Okay. Understood. And then the $200 million that you flagged for Canadian Mainline investment, just any color on how that exactly increases egress capacity out of Western Canada? Does that mostly address Eastern Canada? Just curious if there's anything we can read through and potentially sending more Canadian gas on into the U.S. on your pipeline systems on downstream.

Yes. Thanks, Sam. The capital that we are looking at for our mainline expansion supports primarily capacity from Empress to Emerson. So that enables us to feed expansions down stream of Emerson on the Northern Ontario line and into the Eastern Triangle. So that's where we're focused with that capital right now.

The next question comes from Ben Pham with BMO.

I had a question on your 3 different buckets of the backlog. You got the $23 billion secured, the $6 billion and the $15 billion. I know you've talked about this in your earlier remarks. But can you just find maybe a bit more context on what are project needs to achieve to fit in the $6 billion and then also the $15 billion plus in origination.

Yes. Ben, it's Sean. I'll take that one, just to echo a little bit of Francois's comments what has to be true for a project to compete for capital. Obviously, it's -- it's got to be a high-returning low-risk project and predominantly in corridor is what you're seeing in that -- in everything on that slide. And then the human capital internally as well as supply chain control and visibility, right? Those are really the guide rails as we talk about. And as we get into that 2030 and beyond, as Tina was mentioning, the 4.75 remains true in all years, and it gets even easier at the post 2030 kind of time period for that or better to be our metric given the cash flow profile. So that's really the triangulation, right? And in terms of the difference between pending and in our advanced business development, pending, we may not have contractually committed the capital, but in our minds, we've committed the capital. So it's a very, very high bar to make it into the pending bucket.

We haven't seen anything as of yet to fall out of the pending bucket other than to become a sanctioned project. And there is deal flow and opportunity set of conversations that are not even in the advanced business development, the $15 billion that we put there for projects to make it into that $15 billion number, we have to have had concrete conversations with customers where we have a good idea of what the capital commitment would be that it translates into a toll that's competitive. We may be in the process of bidding against our competitors.

Certainly, there is no certainty if you're in that $15 billion number that it will transpire. You would have had to win a bid but still be working through some of the details to make it into the pending bucket. So there's even another bucket that's more in the preliminary stages that's in addition to the $15 billion that's there.

So the $15 billion has a fair amount of substance in it. Obviously, with our Columbus, Ohio project and our Crossroads project, those are in that $15 billion and not yet in the pending despite the fact that we have had very robust open seasons. There's a lot of work that needs to be done after you've had an open season supporting through all the details of the contracts, making sure the credit provisions the delivery points that customers are asking for, looking at reaffirming capital cost given you have a much better sense of what the actual demand is.

So just a whole bunch of tailwinds in all 3 of those categories that give us a lot of confidence in our ability to extend our growth well into the next decade.

And it sounds like when you think about this fourth even bucket prospective that you have, it sounds like you have a multiyear runway of constant replenishment then on the $6 billion to $15 billion.

Very much so. As I said, it takes multiple years to develop and permit projects. We benefit from a very high degree of visibility many years into the future. So that is absolutely the case, Ben.

Okay. That's great. Maybe just my follow-up on NGTL, the new investment framework to clarify that. That doesn't require you to go back in the existing settlement and open it up. It's something that could be outside of that framework?

You're correct, Ben. That would be outside of the existing settlement, it would be specific to any new investments past the multiyear growth program.

Our next question comes from John Mackay with Goldman Sachs.

Maybe I'll do a quick one on the backlog, not to fall too far into semantics around pending approval versus origination, et cetera. But when you talk about that $15 billion, is there a general time frame for that, Francois, you mentioned kind of project cycling in cycling out. Would you be able to put a kind of number of quarters or a number of years around that $15 billion?

John, this is Tina. I'll talk maybe more about the timing for in-service, but these projects span various in-service dates anywhere from 2028 through 2031. So depending on where we're at in the discussions with the customers and the commitment for earlier in-service dates around that earlier '28, '29, '30 time frame would require sanctioning in the next year or 2. We look towards when those need to be sanctioned in order for us to need to start the development activities and move those into execution with our regulators. So hard to say, but we have a long runway of opportunities to sanction these projects over the next several quarters and several years.

All right. That's fair. A quick second one for me. You and a couple of your peers were talking about a lot of Midwest gas demand growth. Can you spend a second on where you see the gas supply coming from those. And more specifically, are you having conversations with Appalachia producers that are looking to effectively boost overall basin egress, get Marcellus production higher than it's been and move, I guess, effectively incremental production to the West?

Yes. Thanks, John. It's really been interesting with our customer discussions where supply optionality in that region is becoming more and more important. And that's why you're seeing projects like our Crossroads project becoming over 2.5x oversubscribed because customers are looking for optionality.

So in the Midwest, access -- our supply opportunities give us access to Appalachia, the Gulf Coast region, Mid-Continent, Bakken and the WCSB. So we're really well positioned to provide that optionality that the customers want. A couple of our projects into Wisconsin over the last several years have brought in more WCSB supply. Some of the producers are interested in that opportunity, but it's really the demand component of that, that's looking towards sanctioning projects here in the near term.

I know we're at the top of time, maybe just a quick clarification on that. On ASP specifically, is that bringing incremental Marcellus egress? Or is this just, I guess, you can say, improving connectivity to existing Marcellus/Utica supply?

Given the large amount of supply that's required for that project. We are the #1 transporter of Appalachia supply in the region. This project will allow for additional egress out of the basin.

Next question comes from Zack Van Everen with TPH.

Maybe going back to the last question a bit. I know you mentioned 4 Bcf of demand around your assets, but then mentioned 5 Bcf of demand in the Midwest. Do you guys have an internal total demand number for the Northeast. It seems like some of your peers as well as the producers keep increasing that to the, call it, 5 to 8 Bcf range. I was just curious if you guys had an internal number on a total demand?

Yes. When we -- Zack, this is Tina. Thanks for the question. The numbers continue to exceed our expectations. Our new forecasts are coming out soon and looking at those recently, we are seeing the power generation component that demand actually moving up into that 5 to 8x -- 5 to 8 Bcf range in that Midwest corridor.

Our facilities are primarily weighted towards the Midwest where a lot of that growth is. So as I mentioned before, we're the #1 operator across several Midwest states that allows us to advance that connectivity and serve that growing demand.

Got it. That makes sense. And then you mentioned diversity of supply. I'm curious if you're still seeing demand from the Gulf Coast, maybe down ANR or Columbia Gulf, or are most of these projects now in the Northeast is basically absorbing all of the incremental supply, there might not be a need for a longer haul project just because there's enough projects in the Northeast.

There certainly are lots of projects out there right now. But as I mentioned before, the supply optionality has really been an important component of our discussions with our customers and our ability to access not only all the Appalachian supply and the Mid-Continent supply, but our connectivity to the Gulf Coast in Haynesville is an important differentiator for us as well. So we are seeing our customers look to all supply basins right now that we are connected to, to provide them with supply optionality into the various regions that they're seeing their demand growth.

The next question comes from Keith Stanley with Wolfe Research.

On Crossroads, I wanted to follow up. Your competitor was also oversubscribed on their competing projects, open season in that area. So it feels like demand is overwhelming. Going forward, would you say you're competing with them for securing this demand in that area with binding agreement? Or do you see your project is mostly separate from them and a different set of customers you're negotiating with?

Thanks for that question. Keith, this is Tina. As I've mentioned before, we -- our competitive position in that region is very strong, and we're well positioned to compete for and win our fair share of opportunities in that region. Our connectivity to over 200 electric and gas utility city gates in that corridor gives us, I think, a substantial competitive edge.

However, where you're located and where you're connected is really important as well. And that, again, goes to our interconnectivity with all the electric and gas utilities in the region. The oversubscription of our project and some of our peers' projects, I think, is just translating into this increasing opportunity set for supply diversity across the region. But importantly, many of our customers are looking for some level of redundancy and perhaps even just some optionality. So I think there's room for more expansion in this corridor, but I'm very confident we're going to win our fair share.

Second question for the Graybar projects awaiting finalization, would you say they're fairly diversified across the asset base? Or are they very concentrated in this Heartland area you've been pointing to with Colombia and ANR.

I think you could say, Keith, there's a fair degree of diversification in that pending approval bucket.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the question and answer session. If there are any further questions, please contact Investor Relations at TC Energy. I will now turn the call over to Gavin Wylie for any closing remarks. Please go ahead.

Well, thank you again for participating this morning. The great questions that we've been asked and for your interest in TC Energy. If we didn't get to your questions, as the operator mentioned, please do reach out to the Investor Relations team. We're always happy to help. And with that, we'll close out and look forward to our next update in late July. So thank you very much.

This brings to a close today's conference call. You may disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating, and have a pleasant day.

Thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to the TC Energy Fourth Quarter 2025 Results Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] And the conference is being recorded. [Operator Instructions]

I would now like to turn the conference over to Gavin Wylie, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you. I'd like to welcome you to TC Energy's Fourth Quarter 2025 Conference Call. Joining me are Francois Poirier, President and Chief Executive Officer; Sean O'Donnell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; along with other members of our senior leadership team. Francois and Sean will begin today with some comments on our financial results and operational highlights. A copy of the slide presentation is available on our website under the Investors section. Following remarks, we'll take questions from the investment community. Please limit yourself to two questions. And if you're a member of the media, please contact our media team.

Today's remarks will include forward-looking statements that are subject to important risks and uncertainties. For more information, please see reports filed by TC Energy with Canadian securities regulators and with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission. Finally, we will refer to certain non-GAAP measures that may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other entities. A reconciliation is contained in the appendix of the presentation.

With that, I'll turn the call to Francois.

Thanks, Gavin, and good morning, everyone. 2025 was a defining year for TC Energy. We laid out a clear set of strategic priorities and we delivered. First, I'm exceptionally proud of the team's safety performance, our best in 5 years, and that is directly enabling our strong operational and financial results, reflected in our 9% year-over-year increase in comparable EBITDA.

Importantly, in less than 18 months since we spun off our Liquids business, we have replaced nearly all of its EBITDA with high-quality natural gas and power projects. On execution, we placed $8.3 billion of projects into service on schedule and over 15% under budget. That same focus is evident at Bruce Power, where Unit 3 remains on track for a return to service this year.

As we enter 2026, we're building on our strong base business performance, consistent execution and disciplined capital allocation that continues to deliver solid growth, low-risk and repeatable performance. Driven by LNG exports, rising power generation and increasing reliability needs for local distribution companies, we expect North American natural gas demand to increase by 45 Bcf per day from 2025 to 2035. This is equivalent, for context, to adding the entirety of the European gas market over the next 10 years and demand is materializing real time.

As the only major energy infrastructure company focused solely on natural gas and power across Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, we have an advantage to capture outsized value from our diversified portfolio. We serve 7 LNG facilities representing 30% of North American LNG feed gas across 3 countries. We serve 170 power plants positioned near high-growth markets like PJM and MISO. And we are approximate to 60% of projected U.S. data center growth. We are also the only midstream company to have a stake in the world-class nuclear facility, Bruce Power, in a market where electricity demand is expected to grow by 65% through 2050.

Our competitive position combined with this compelling backdrop is creating for us a broad set of opportunities across geographies, customers and each of our strategic growth pillars. In the fourth quarter, we advanced $5 billion of projects at various stages. We placed $2 billion of assets into service on time and under budget, and we expect to place approximately $4 billion into service this year. We continue to optimize our capital plan, shifting $0.5 billion of capital forward into 2026 to capture in-year EBITDA while creating capacity for higher return growth in the outer years.

We added $600 million of new projects in the fourth quarter, including additional NGTL expansion facilities and a brownfield U.S. compression expansion project at a 5x build multiple. We continue to advance commercial discussions with customers across a diverse set of high-quality opportunities moving roughly $2 billion of late-stage derisked opportunities into our pending approval bucket. With recent sanctioning and ongoing optimization of our opportunity set, our high conviction pending approval portfolio now sits at about $8 billion. Sean will walk you through how this will impact our capital spend through the end of the decade.

Outside pending approval, we see an additional $12 billion of projects in origination, supported in part by our recent nonbinding open season on Columbia Gas that was 3x oversubscribed. That $12 billion represents a relatively conservative view. It doesn't, for instance, include potential developments like Bruce C, where feasibility and early development work are progressing. Importantly, the projects we're pursuing are consistent with our targeted build multiple range of 5 to 7x.

Collectively, this progress reinforces our confidence in 2026 to fully allocate our $6 billion annual target in net capital expenditures through 2030. And I believe our opportunity set gives us the optionality to surpass this level of investment sanctioned this year for the latter part of the decade.

Wide-scale electrification, ongoing coal retirements and the rapidly growing energy needs of AI and data centers are driving a significant and sustained increase in North American electricity demand. Our strategy has been very intentional to capture this growth without increasing our risk exposure. Our primary focus is on brownfield and corridor expansions that leverage our existing footprint to primarily serve investment-grade utility customers, particularly in regions where we hold long-standing incumbent positions.

Notably, the majority of the 10 Bcf per day of expected growth in power demand is concentrated in markets that directly overlap our footprint. Recent project announcements like TCO Connector, Northwoods, Pulaski and Maysville, are all strong examples of this strategy and practice. Our resilience is anchored by long-term take-or-pay contracts that further benefit from a diverse and durable set of demand drivers. This low-risk strategy positions us well to deliver sustained value for our shareholders, and this same opportunity extends to Bruce Power, which I'll turn to next.

Bruce Power's top focus remains delivering the highest level of reliability, availability and safety performance across all 8 units. Alongside the major component replacement program, the team is executing a proactive targeted initiatives to strengthen the reliability of critical equipment. The net benefit of these initiatives is improving plant reliability and availability that has a meaningful financial impact. Every day a unit remains available, it leads to roughly $1 million per day of incremental revenue for TC Energy. And as shown in the chart on the right, Bruce Power's availability has steadily improved with expected availability in the low 90s percent range for 2026. As realized power prices also trend higher, we continue to strengthen our financial performance. And with that, I'll turn it over to Sean to walk through the numbers.

Thanks, Francois. Good morning, everybody. In the fourth quarter, TC delivered 13% year-over-year growth in comparable EBITDA. It was a solid quarter to end an exceptional year. Our pipeline businesses set new all-time high delivery records, a direct result of our team's outstanding focus on safety and operational excellence.

In our Power and Energy Solutions business, Bruce Power achieved 86% availability, which includes the planned outage on Unit 2 and is in line with our expected annual availability in the low 90% range for full year 2025. On the right-hand side, we show our comparable EBITDA bridge for the quarter. You'll see that we generated almost $3 billion in EBITDA.

Let me walk you through the components of how each business helped us get there. Starting with Canada Gas. EBITDA increased by $110 million due to higher incentive earnings and flow through depreciation on both the NGTL and Mainline systems. In the U.S., EBITDA increased by $188 million, primarily from our Columbia Gas settlement as well as additional contract sales and higher realized earnings related to our U.S. natural gas marketing business. In Mexico, EBITDA increased by $163 million, which was a 70% increase relative to last year due to the completion of Southeast Gateway. The increase from Southeast Gateway was partially offset by currency and tax items, which remain well managed within our overall financial hedging framework.

And finally, in our Power and Energy Solutions business, equity income from Bruce Power was lower quarter-over-quarter. That is primarily from Unit 4 being off-line for its MCR program at the same time, Unit 3 is off-line for its MCR program. We also saw lower availability due to planned maintenance outages which was partially offset by higher contract price.

In summary, it was a strong quarter due to high availability and EBITDA contributions from the assets our teams helped place into service in 2025. With the $4 billion in projects expected to go into service in 2026, including Bruce Unit 3's return to service, we continue to see strong EBITDA momentum heading into 2026.

Shifting to our investment outlook and our capital allocation dashboard. We have a few new features to highlight here in order to bridge you from our last call in November. In November, we shared that by the end of 2026, we expected to have fully allocated our $6 billion annual target through 2030, with project build multiples in the 5x to 7x range. We have made the progress we expected towards that objective.

In the past few months, we've added approximately $2 billion of high conviction derisked projects, which are shown in the gray bars. This brings our late-stage pending approval opportunity set to approximately $8 billion. That increase is net of the $600 million of new projects announced earlier today, along with ongoing optimization and high grading of our capital program.

As the pending approval bucket continues to grow, we have been successful in pulling forward capital by 1 to 2 years, as shown in the arrows on the top of the page. We are optimizing short-cycle maintenance capital into our 2026 plan, which earns an immediate return on and of our invested capital.

To give you a sense for other optimization opportunities that our teams are finding, we have pulled forward the in-service date of our NKY Gate Enhancement to late 2027 and have several other opportunities under evaluation. This not only adds EBITDA to our 2028 outlook, but also creates investment capacity for growth capital in the later part of the decade. Looking ahead, we will continue to evaluate similar NPV positive capital optimization opportunities where it makes sense to accelerate EBITDA and optimize balance sheet capacity that we can redeploy in future periods.

To wrap up the capital outlook, I'd like to highlight that the increase in our pending approval bucket, together with our $12 billion of additional opportunities in origination, we anticipate capital investment to not only approach our $6 billion target, but as Francois mentioned, to potentially surpass this level toward the latter part of the decade, consistent with our messaging in prior quarters.

Turning to our long-term financial outlook on Page 13. This chart, as we presented in November, continues to reflect the solid trajectory we see this year and looking towards 2028. We are reaffirming both our 2026 outlook with comparable EBITDA of $11.6 billion to $11.8 billion, as well as our 2028 outlook, where we are positioned to deliver comparable EBITDA of $12.6 billion to $13.1 billion. This sustained performance in the fourth quarter and this outlook both underscore the strength and repeatability of our base business.

Turning to the right-hand side. I'm pleased to share that our Board of Directors has declared a first quarter 2026 dividend of $0.8775 per common share, which is equivalent to $3.51 per share on an annualized basis. This results in a 3.2% year-over-year increase, which is within our 3% to 5% range, and represents the 26th consecutive year that TC Energy has delivered dividend growth to our shareholders. We continue to be proud to deliver this growth year after year as part of our total shareholder value proposition.

I will wrap up by summarizing why our portfolio is increasingly 1 of 1 amongst our peers. TC Energy is delivering strong total shareholder returns while operating one of the largest, most straightforward and focused capital backlogs in the sector. Perhaps most importantly, we're doing that with lower-than-average execution risk in the fastest-growing energy markets in North America. We have the largest portfolio of natural gas and power investment opportunities relative to our size through the end of the decade.

Importantly, our growth projects continue to be underpinned by long-term contracts regulated frameworks and strong counterparty quality. We're growing in the deepest growth markets, and we are growing in the right way with respect to our well-established risk preferences. We are deploying capital where we see the highest risk-adjusted returns, extracting more value from existing infrastructure, and remaining disciplined on project selection and capital allocation. As a result, TC Energy offers a compelling lower risk investment proposition, durable growth, execution strength and attractive risk-adjusted returns.

With that update, I'll pass the call back to Francois.

Thank you, Sean. Now as we begin 2026, our strategic priorities remain consistent with what drove success over the last 2 years. We will continue to, firstly, maximize the value of our assets through safety and operational excellence. And this year, we're adding -- we're going to do so while leveraging commercial and technological innovation, including the use of artificial intelligence.

Second, we're going to prioritize low risk, high return growth, including placing projects in-service on time and on budget or better. And based on what we're seeing in our project development pipeline, we expect this year to sanction $6 billion of net annual capital expenditures through 2030 and have visibility to increasing that level of investment for the latter part of the decade, and all consistent with targeted build multiples in the range of 5x to 7x. With a diverse set of high conviction late-stage projects, we expect continued durable growth with clear visibility to disciplined capital investment through the early part of the next decade.

And thirdly, we will maintain financial strength and agility to support long-term value creation. Building off the momentum from strong operational performance, consistent execution and disciplined capital allocation, I'm confident in our ability to continue to deliver solid growth, low risk and repeatable performance.

Operator, we're now ready to take questions.

[Operator Instructions] The first question today comes from Praneeth Satish with Wells Fargo.

Based on the recent open season announcement, it seems like average project sizes that you're looking at are getting larger. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the projects now appear to be moving kind of well past the $1 billion mark. So in that context, I wanted to revisit balance sheet capacity, and I know you show capacity out through 2030 on the slide deck. But can you give us an early sense of what 2031 looks like? How much of that year is already committed? How much is pending, waiting for approval? And how much is true white space? Because I imagine most of the projects, once these large projects, if you sanction them today, will have 2031 in-service dates. So just trying to get a sense of that long-term balance sheet capacity.

Praneeth, this is Tina. I'll kick off and then turn it over to Francois. We are continuing to see a deep pipeline of opportunities of all scope and scale. And as you look at the projects that we have in origination, primarily focused on power generation opportunities, we've got about almost $12 billion in the pipeline of projects that run the gamut from, say, $200 million to over $1 billion.

The open seasons that you mentioned, our focus there is to really try to aggregate as much of the demand as possible so that we're not advancing multiple projects and able to bring larger scale projects into service. And so those open seasons that you mentioned, one, the Columbia open season, where we launched a 500 million a day open season with 1.5 Bcf of bids that came in. We're going to be working to aggregate that and determine what is the right path forward for that project.

On Crossroads, a great example of the value of steel in the ground. We have a pipeline there that capacity is about 250 million cubic feet a day, looking at expansion there of about 1.5 billion. So a lot of great opportunities we're progressing, but again, a wide range of scope and scale. Those open seasons, our approach to that is getting those across the finish line this year, so we can move into execution going forward.

And Praneeth, on the extension of our capital program, some of the projects we're pursuing are, as you mentioned, with 2031 and even 2032 in-service dates. Some of the projects that we've sanctioned, we're being asked by customers to move earlier, as they're being responsive to their data center customers and other customers. And some of the projects we're looking at are even shorter cycle than that.

So the beauty of our capital program is that we've got visibility and duration out several years, and it is starting to spill into the early 30s, and that just gives us more confidence in our ability to continue to deliver on that 5% to 7% compound annual growth of EBITDA.

Got you. That's helpful. And maybe just turning to the Crossroads project. I know you're an open season, but maybe if you could just talk about the strategic rationale there? Is it primarily data centers, coal-to-gas switching? And then we know of at least one other midstream operator that's targeting similar markets. So just any high-level color on the competitive dynamics. Yes, just trying to get -- and the other question here is given the scale of it, could this project create a pathway to additional projects over time?

Yes, Praneeth, the Crossroads expansion project is driven primarily by power generation requirements or gas for power generation that could take the form of data center demand, coal-to-gas or electrification. Several of our large electric utilities are looking for additional capacity to support some of the projects in the Midwest. Other customers are looking for more supply diversity. So looking at Appalachia supply and Mid-Con supply, et cetera. So it kind of -- it's taking all shapes and forms there. But the interest level has been really picking up in that area. And if you think about our footprint in the Midwest, I think it's really second to none. And you look at the growth in the Midwest, we're excited about capturing those opportunities.

Maybe to add to Tina's comments on that, Praneeth. It's a good reminder that we have 13 pipelines across the United States. A lot of our growth has been driven by our Columbia and ANR systems, but we are looking at growth projects across the entire fleet and the entire footprint of our projects in all 3 countries.

The next question comes from Theresa Chen with Barclays.

Also had a question related to one of your recently highly successful open season. On Columbia, Tina, your comments on how this project could evolve going forward. Can you just remind us what is the expansion capability on the system at this point? And what are the gating factors to upsizing the original scope?

Thanks, Theresa. We had advertised this open season as a 0.5 Bcf opportunity set. But because of the significant demand of 1.5 Bcf. We're looking what is the best way to optimize that capacity and try to satisfy as much of the demand as possible. What we want to do is look for that sweet spot where we are still competitive in the market and can address as many of the customer requirements as possible. So early days yet as we're continuing the negotiations with all of the customers, but the plan would be to sanction that project this year.

And Francois, when you mentioned the projects coming under budget by 15%, can you just talk about what has allowed this to happen? And to what extent is that repeatable with your current investments underway. And just as we think about spending and balance sheet capacity on a go-forward basis, I would love to get your thoughts here.

I appreciate the question, Theresa. We were obviously very prudent with project planning and having high-quality estimates for our projects. Clearly, we had a bit of a tailwind over the last few years as contractor capacity was a bit looser than we had anticipated during the planning process so that we had some tailwinds when we came to actually signing up some of those contracts.

So the combination of those things allowed us to deliver really impeccable execution, in addition to the fact that we had our own internal initiatives to look for value wherever we can, using AI and using best practices to make sure that we're being as competitive as possible.

I expect our execution to continue to be excellent going forward. And the double-edged sword of having large contingencies being returned to the mother ship, if you will, is that you've lost an opportunity to put in another growth project if the capital was held on to for the 3 or 4 years it takes between sanctioning and in service. So you're going to see us maybe challenge ourselves and be a little bit more aggressive and proactive in our estimation going forward. We want to make sure that we're not missing out an opportunity. It is such an opportunity-rich environment.

But having said that, we now, in our processes, invest a lot more capital upfront in developing higher-quality estimates, making sure that our project planning is far more advanced than we ever have in the past before we sanction something. So I fully expect our high-quality execution to continue in the future.

The next question comes from Rob Hope with Scotiabank.

So it's interesting to see how the shape of the capital expenditures through 2030 has changed since Q3 with a pretty good step-up in 2030. So when you think about the kind of, we'll call it, white space in '28 and around those years, how do you think about layering on short-duration projects? Or how quickly could you be comfortable in going above that $6 billion to $7 billion capital range in the outer years?

Yes. Thanks for that question, Rob. I'll start, and I'll ask Sean to provide some color. Part of the reason like in 2028, we have more white space than we had a quarter ago is that we took advantage of some optimization that is NPV positive to bring forward some of our maintenance capital on which we earn a return from '27 and 2028 into 2026, where we still had some spare capacity. That does 2 things. It brings forward EBITDA growth earlier into our growth delivery. But secondly, it creates capacity for additional growth projects in the future. So you're going to see us continually optimizing and smoothing out that portfolio.

Things are unfolding as we expected with respect to the sanctioning of projects. As we mentioned in prior quarters, the size of projects is increasing. So we had to go and reoptimize some of our projects as part of utility bid processes. The PUCs are providing more clarity around what they expect in terms of routing clarity in order to sanction projects. So the utilities themselves have been very prudently making sure that they can meet those requirements. But we see, for example, 2 sizable projects we're competing for that we expect to be awarded here over the next few weeks to a couple of months. So things are proceeding as planned.

Rob, it's Sean. I'll -- please, go ahead.

No, no, go please.

I was just going to tack on a little bit of the balance sheet. I'm sitting here next to Tina and Greg, and yes, there are projects. We're talking about kind of by weeks and months. And candidly, '25, '26, '27, we're given the balance sheet continued time to breathe. And it creates capacity. And like I said -- as Francois said, we're maybe a month away from having better visibility on that '28, but the balance sheet continues to appreciate that time for that optionality in '28.

Sorry, on to your question now.

Sorry. Maybe just in terms of kind of the $12 billion of additional projects in origination, based on the commentary that the Columbia project could be sanctioned this year, how do you think about the conversion of moving that into the pending approval? And could we see some of these $12 billion even being sanctioned in '26?

I think where we launch open seasons, typically, we're having conversation with potential customers before we even launch them. So we have a fair degree of confidence that there's market interest. The purpose of the nonbinding open seasons is to confirm that interest and allows us to optimize the size of the projects, as Tina mentioned. So when we talk about Ohio, when we talk about Crossroads, those are in that $12 billion bucket. They are not in the pending approval bucket, which is restricted to 90-plus percent probability projects. And we still expect projects like that to be sanctioned this year.

So that all together, when you put it all together, is what gives us confidence that not only are we going to fill all of the white space to $6 billion out to 2030, but there's a very good chance we're going to be looking to go above that $6 billion level, starting in '29 or more than likely '29, but possibly also '28.

The next question comes from Maurice Choy with RBC Capital Markets.

Just wanted to pick up on your early response on growth rate. You've accelerated $500 million capital this quarter. And it sounds like there are more opportunities like these to pull forward projects by 1 or 2 years. Would these generally lead to a higher growth rate than 5% to 7%? Or are these filling up white space and therefore meant to be supportive of your 5% to 7% rate?

Maurice, it's Sean. Good question. The $500 million that we're pulling forward, they will contribute to EBITDA. But I'll tell you, that's -- we're going to be in range. Those are healthy numbers, but not big enough to kind of move our range at this point in time.

But we need to pull forward more than $500 million in the coming quarters, at least in the ending year, would it be upgradable to some extent?

If we're successful in pulling together sizable dollars, then we'll revisit that, of course. But at this point, we are within range on the '28 and '27 pull forwards.

Got it. Makes sense. And then just to finish off, I wonder if you could just help us compare and contrast the characteristics of the $8 billion projects pending approval and the $12 billion that are in the origination. And specifically, what I'm hoping to understand is, by geography, gas versus nuclear, are the returns quite similar or are some of them green versus brownfield?

Maurice, it's Sean. I'll maybe kick that one off to make sure we were clear on the characterization of what is pending versus what we have in flight. As Francois said, what we have in plan for pending are what we characterize as 90% or more likely, very advanced, fully documented, typically requiring only management or Board-level approvals to sanction. That is the characterization of our pending. As it relates to kind of a heat map and distribution of the pending, maybe I'll turn that over to Tina to give you a sense for where those dollars are coming from.

Thanks, Sean. As we talked about earlier, given we're in 3 countries, and we have multiple pipelines spanning coast-to-coast, border-to-border, we're seeing opportunities across our entire portfolio in the U.S. in particular, where we see the bulk of the growth those opportunities are really focused primarily in the Midwest. But we are seeing, as we just noted, projects developing along our West Coast systems, our East Coast systems, really all over the map there.

In terms of your question on brownfield versus greenfield, our approach has always been to leverage our footprint wherever possible to produce the most economic, efficient build with minimal disruption. So this won't change going forward.

I noticed there's no mention about nuclear in any of these responses. And do these numbers have the remaining MCRs or even Bruce C in any of them?

So the MCRs are included in those numbers, but Bruce C is not. Bruce C is still in early stages of development. And so that would be upside to even the $12 billion of advanced projects in advanced BD.

The next question comes from Zack Van Everen with TPH.

Maybe starting on the power and data center side. I know your historical and continued plan has been to focus on the utility customers. I was curious if the more recent political push to keep utility rates flat, has changed any of those conversations and maybe push you guys more towards supplying gas to the mobile power solutions.

So I'll start at a high level here, Zack, and ask Tina to provide some proof points. As I talked about in my prepared remarks, particularly in the U.S., we really are focusing in front of the meter with our utility customers. To the extent a data center wants to get serviced directly for gas and is willing to provide a long-term contract that is consistent with what we get from the utility customers, we will, of course, contemplate those. We're not looking at any power project development and ownership behind the meter at this time.

But Tina, any additional color?

Yes. Our strategy is really working. We are continuing to have close collaborations with our utilities to develop those solutions that a reliable and cost-effective, and in most instances, serve more than one type of load, not just data center load. You mentioned some of the cost allocation issues, Zack, and there are jurisdictions such as Wisconsin that are tailoring their regulatory framework to better balance system reliability with cost recovery. So we're seeing a lot of utilities figuring it out to kind of say the phrase there, but there are opportunities with many of these utilities where those cost issues are being reconciled.

Got you. That makes sense. And then maybe one on Gulf Coast demand. We continue to see LNG facilities pull more and more from the Northeast as much as they can to the Gulf Coast. Was curious if you could remind us of the ability to expand ANR and/or Columbia Gulf and what that could look like as far as size and timeline if there is demand to expand those pipes?

We placed 8 LNG projects into service in the last few years, Zack. We've got 2 more that are under construction our [ Gap ] West project and on the East Coast of Canada, our Cedar project. So we've put in about almost 10 Bcf per day of LNG opportunities, primarily in the U.S.

What we're seeing right now is a lot of the growth in the Louisiana Gulf Coast has already contracted for much of their pipeline capacity, including on our projects. But to the extent there is an opportunity or a need for additional egress from Appalachia in particular, our pipes are well suited to do that with our Columbia Gulf and our ANR systems. At this time, we're not seeing that draw, but we stand ready to support that when it does show up.

The next question comes from Ben Pham with BMO.

I was wondering if you can comment on the stickiness of your 5 to 7x EBITDA build multiple on new projects. And particularly, what internal -- external factors do you need to see that to be sustained?

So when we look at, obviously, our pending approval projects, which are in the 90-plus percent category, even when you look at the advanced BD group of $12 billion, Ben, we're still looking in aggregate at a 5 to 7x EBITDA build multiple. So the return profiles that we've been able to sanction projects at in the last couple of years are sticking. And the general dynamic is that the utility space has continued to be very creative at finding more brownfield expansion capacity.

The data centers have learned that being flexible in their location to go where those efficient deliveries are available has helped us do that. And so we fully expect the return profile in aggregate to be in that 5 to 7x range. And it's got to do with our ability as a company to execute with excellence. We've been able to enter into strategic joint ventures with OEMs and sometimes even with contractors. And what's being reinforced here is the value of pipe in the ground and the value of incumbency has allowed us to continue to earn premium rates of return relative to history.

Okay. Got it. And maybe second question just going back to some of the questions on the balance sheet capacity. You mentioned the size of your projects increasing, customers looking to accelerate projects, but you need the balance sheet to [ debreath ] in the next couple of years. How are you guys thinking about the asset recycling equation of it? Just kind of where valuations are right now in the pipe sector. And then maybe also thoughts on JVs such as the Columbia one.

Ben, it's Sean. I'll take that one. As we talk about asset recycling, I'll just point you to Crossroads as an example, right? Probably a project nobody asked us about 2 years ago. And just the value of incumbency, the value of optionality, it gets better every quarter, right? So we're in the process of re-underwriting, have been for several months, re-underwriting every asset so that we know where the growth projects are, right? And are we best served to capture them? Or if over the next kind of couple of years, we want a capital rotate, we know exactly where the growth projects are on any asset we might want to rotate.

So it's just understanding the new dynamics, the new growth projects on every asset we have. And we've got a couple of years, right, probably before we have to make that FID decision above $6 billion towards $7 billion. So we've got time. And we're just -- we're tuning up our capital rotation inventory. It's quite simple, while we grow cash flow on those assets.

The next question comes from Aaron MacNeil with TD Cowen.

Maybe just to build on Ben's question or get some additional clarification. You've talked about the balance sheet capacity, potential uptick in spend in 2028 or 2029. What's your just higher level evolved thinking about how to finance a potential step-up in the spend profile? Like I guess, I'm getting a sense that you may be able to do that organically or should we still expect some form of external financing if it's equity or asset recycling?

Thanks for the question, Aaron. It's Francois. I'll take this one. It's very important for us as heavy deployers of capital to have efficient cost of capital. So we want every tranche of our capital structure to be investment grade. As you know, we're heavy users of hybrid and subordinated capital. So with the 2 notches below senior unsecured capital, we want to continue to maintain our credit rating in that BBB+ or equivalent range.

Right now, the long pole in the tent in terms of credit metrics is the 4.75x debt-to-EBITDA. So that's important to us. But as Sean mentioned, we've got time to get there. And the first way to get there is the dollar you don't spend is the best approach. So we're going to look to outperform and deliver our projects under budget as the first source.

The second source is getting more EBITDA out of your existing assets. And we're just at the front end of using technological innovation and to allow us to do that. We've got a couple of very promising pilot projects that have allowed us to monetize capacity in different parts of our system that we weren't even aware we had. There's obviously complex algorithms that allow us to be aware of capacity to sell in the short term when it's really very, very valuable.

So there are a number of things we can do through commercial innovation and technological innovation. We're going to do those first because obviously, growing cash flow without raising internal or external equity is going to be the most efficient way to do that. And we have a couple of years to pursue those before we have to make any decisions.

Okay. No, that makes a ton of sense. Maybe just switching gears to Canada. I can appreciate that it's not a focus of the quarter. But can you give us an update on the Canadian Mainline settlement that should happen later this year? And just given tightening fundamentals for Canadian Natural Gas egress even with LNG Canada Phase 1 ramping, is there any appetite to expand capacity on the system as part of that settlement? Is it in the $12 billion bucket? Maybe just any updates there would be helpful.

Yes, thanks. I'll take that question. The current Mainline settlement is in effect until the end of 2026. And this current settlement has really been a win-win as evidenced by the strong system flows we've had lower tolls for our customers and the returns we're seeing on the Mainline. We've been in discussions with our customers over the last several months on a post-2026 settlements with more meetings planned over the coming months, but we're very optimistic we're going to see an opportunity to extend that settlement as we continue those discussions.

Multiple factors that are taking into effect when we are in those discussions, including the ability to invest capital. And so as the settlement progresses and moves into actuation there, we'll give you more updates. But right now, our plan is to develop another win-win solution to meet the customers' needs.

The next question comes from Manav Gupta with UBS.

Like one question with a subpart. But basically, I'm trying to understand, can you -- right now, you obviously have one unit down at Bruce, but going past 2031, we see significant free cash flow inflection from Bruce as all units are up and running and life is extended by multiple decades. So if you can talk about the free cash flow inflection that happens post-2031 with all units of Bruce running.

And then the question we sometimes get from investors is if you do decide to move with Bruce C, that would be a significant spend, would you expect some kind of government support, government bonds, what would be the financing in place for -- if you would decide to move ahead with Bruce C?

Sure. Thanks, Manav. It's Greg Grant here. So just as it pertains to Bruce C. So I'll start there. We are continuing to work with some of our pre-FEED studies, includes technology selection, preconstruction work. And we do have funding in place for that. So that actually has been provided by the federal government, and we're currently working on our next tranche of funding from the ISO in Ontario. So that will kind of take our funding to the end of the decade, but it's self-perform funding through that mechanism.

Great point, as you talk about cash flow near the end of the decade, we had a great slide on the last quarter material that talked about that inversion point where we've been investing about $1 billion a year into Bruce. By the end of the decade, you'll see about $0.5 billion starting to come back, and then that's upwards of over $2 billion once the MCR program is complete.

So when you look at a nuclear construction project, that's going to take 10 to 15 years as you think about the next phase of Bruce C and the units we'd be adding. So $2 billion plus of cash flow and then a long construction period, you're actually going to be able to not only self-fund should we choose to and finance it within Bruce, but also pay distributions. So if you think we're well positioned within Bruce to handle the financing and deal with the expansion, but also just a great management team, and really excited about the opportunity as we see the support for nuclear in the province.

The next question comes from John Mackay with Goldman Sachs.

I want to go to the $6 billion to $7 billion kind of annual range you guys are talking about, is that -- particularly in the context of looking at 2030, which is already pretty full and some of these bigger projects, you might be FID-ing soon that could have some capital kind of hitting in 2030. Should we think of that $6 billion to $7 billion as a kind of average over several years, but you'd be willing to go above it in a single year if you're not able to move some of the timing around? Maybe just talk through some of those dynamics with, again, how much of 2030 specifically looks relatively full at this point?

I appreciate the question, John. As you've heard me say in many times in prior quarters, the first filter we run this through is our human capital and our ability to execute our projects on time and on budget. I can tell you that, that work is more or less complete. We just concluded Board meetings over the last few days, where we presented our human capital plan and execution plan and readiness to upsize our capital program with the Board. And I can tell you, we stand ready for a ramp-up in the size of our capital program going forward.

At this point, in terms of the individual bars in each year that are in the pending approval bucket, we haven't -- we don't really go through the optimization and smoothing out of our capital until it's been approved. So I wouldn't be too fussed by a peak in an individual year. We can smooth things out. We can move some capital forward, some capital back. And we still have room in my view, to add capital in the 2030 year, if required.

So as our cash flow grows and as our readiness and our human capital also grows, you're going to see the program steadily grow. And so starting in that '29 year likely and then in '30 and '31, you'll see us sustainably be above $6 billion, and I won't put any limitations on where it's going to go at this point. The opportunity set is there, and we're going to pursue what are generationally the highest returns I've seen in my 35 years in the business.

Next question comes from Keith Stanley with Wolfe Research.

I wanted to ask on the Crossroads pipeline. So you referenced it's 250 million cubic feet a day today. How would you expand that by 1.5 Bcf a day? Is that a lot of new build construction in looping? And then on the demand side of the project, is it primarily targeting Indiana demand in Northern Indiana? Or are you trying to get to the Chicago hub or somewhere else with it mainly?

Thanks, Keith. On the first question, what we would do is leverage our existing corridor to increase the capacity of that system. So again, we like our brownfield in corridor approach so primarily depending on the volume that we put under contract would be likely moving and/or compression along the existing corridor. That again will be dependent on the volume.

As far as the location, it's all of the above. We're seeing demand across that entire corridor but also outside of that corridor. So Crossroads can facilitate volumes into ANR or from ANR and facilitate volumes from Northern Border or to Northern Border. So it's a unique pipeline that will allow us to basically wheel capacity between multiple pipelines and not just focus on the market along that pipeline.

Got it. Second one, just -- sorry if I missed this, but the gray bar pending approval capital buckets, how much of that relates to negotiated rate pipeline projects versus more regulated investments like NGTL?

The most prevalent deals we are working on for -- in that bucket or in the U.S. And for the most part, those will be negotiated rate contracts given the size and the demand components of those. So the majority of that would be negotiated rate contracts.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the question-and-answer session. If there are any further questions, please contact Investor Relations at TC Energy.

I will now turn the call over to Gavin Wylie for any closing remarks.

Yes. Thanks, everybody, for participating this morning. As the operator mentioned, if there were any questions that we were unable to get to for the call, please do contact myself or the Investor Relations team. We'll be happy to walk through.

We thank you very much and appreciate your interest in TC Energy and look forward to our next update with our first quarter results. Thank you.

This brings a close to today's conference call. You may disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating, and have a pleasant day.

Thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to the TC Energy Third Quarter 2025 Results Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] The conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Gavin Wylie, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thanks very much, and good morning. I'd like to welcome you to TC Energy's Third Quarter 2025 Conference Call. Joining me are Francois Poirier, President and Chief Executive Officer; Sean O'Donnell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Tina Faraca, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Natural Gas Pipelines; and Greg Grant, Executive Vice President and President, Power and Energy Solutions.

Our agenda for today will start with Francois and our strategic update. Tina and Greg will walk you through our business in more detail, and we'll wrap up with Sean's quarterly update and financial outlook before moving to Q&A.

A copy of the slide presentation is also available on our website under the Investors section. Following opening remarks, we'll take questions from the investment community. Please limit yourself to two questions. And if you're a member of the media, please contact our media team.

Today's remarks will include forward-looking statements that are subject to important risks and uncertainties. For more information, please see the reports filed by TC Energy with Canadian securities regulators and with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Finally, we'll refer to certain non-GAAP measures that may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. A reconciliation of these measures is contained in the appendix of the presentation. With that, I'll turn the call to Francois.

Thanks, Gavin, and good morning, everyone. I want to begin by expressing my sincere appreciation for our team's unwavering commitment to safety and operational excellence. These are the cornerstones of how we operate and the reason we continue to deliver strong results quarter after quarter. I'm proud to report that our safety incident rates continue to trend at 5-year lows.

And through the first 9 months of the year, comparable EBITDA has increased 8% year-over-year. We've successfully placed $8 billion of assets into service on schedule, and we're tracking approximately 15% under budget for those projects with 2025 in-service dates.

Today, I'm also pleased to announce an additional $700 million in new growth projects at a weighted average build multiple of 5.9x. This takes our total sanctioned projects up to $5.1 billion over the last 12 months, largely capitalizing on the extensive demand we're seeing for power generation and data centers.

Driven by exceptional project execution and capital optimization, we now expect 2025 net capital expenditures to be at the low end of our $5.5 billion to $6 billion range. When you combine that with our expected growth in comparable EBITDA, we have clear line of sight to achieving our long-term target of 4.75x debt-to-EBITDA, ensuring continued financial flexibility for future growth.

These strong results continue to demonstrate that our focused strategy is delivering solid growth, low risk and repeatable performance. Across North America, the policy environment is becoming increasingly supportive, enabling more timely and cost-effective delivery of our projects to further ensure our infrastructure projects can meet the unprecedented growth in demand. In Canada, recent developments are improving the regulatory environment for projects of national interest. This includes LNG Canada Phase 2, which is directly enabled by our Coastal GasLink pipeline.

In the U.S., recent actions to clarify NEPA's scope, accelerate agency review processes and implement FERC and Department of Energy permitting reforms are all supportive of streamlining the process and reducing delays, driving further demand for natural gas as a reliable, dispatchable power source. To be clear, this can be achieved without compromising core principles of safety, reliability and environmental protection.

And in Mexico, the economy is poised for significant expansion, driven by strong fundamentals and President Schein-baum's plan Mexico 2030, which aims to attract over $270 billion in investment through public-private partnerships. By 2030, the Mexican government plans to bring 8 gigawatts of new installed natural gas capacity online, and our assets are strategically positioned to support this necessary build-out.

So when you look across all three countries, policy tailwinds are enabling growth initiatives that reinforce the value of our incumbent network.

Over the past 12 months, our natural gas forecast has been revised 5 Bcf a day higher, now calling for 45 Bcf a day increase in natural gas demand by 2035. This is driven by electrification, LNG exports and the rapid expansion of data centers. Meeting the increase in demand, we've set 14 new natural gas pipeline flow records across our systems in 2025, further reflecting our focus on operational excellence.

Looking beyond North American demand and driven largely by global electrification, we are the only operator capable of delivering natural gas to every major LNG export shore line in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. And today, as a result of that, we move approximately 30% of all feed gas bound for LNG export.

Now additionally, TC Energy is the only midstream peer with a significant interest in nuclear power generation. In Ontario, nuclear capacity requirements are expected to nearly triple by 2050, highlighting the long-term potential opportunity for Bruce Power and our power portfolio. As the outlook for natural gas and power demand continues to trend higher, TC Energy's extensive footprint is uniquely positioned to capture this growth.

The robust fundamentals we're seeing in energy demand has generated over $5 billion in new high-quality executable projects that we have sanctioned over the last 12 months without moving up the risk curve. We remain focused on predominantly brownfield in-corridor expansions that leverage our existing footprint, minimize execution risk and are underpinned by long-term contracts with utility and investment-grade customers. The three new projects announced today are prime examples of how our strategy is working.

Strategically located along our network, these investments are directly responding to accelerating incremental load growth, especially from data centers and power generation demand. Looking ahead, we expect the steady cadence of similarly high-quality project announcements to continue into 2026 with attractive EBITDA build multiples in the 5x to 7x range, further demonstrating our disciplined value-driven approach.

This next chart highlights the consistent upward trend in returns from our sanctioned capital program since 2020, all without compromising contract duration or taking on additional market risk. With the addition of the three new projects announced today, our sanctioned portfolio for the year now stands at an implied weighted average unlevered after-tax IRR of approximately 12.5%, a meaningful increase from 8.5% just a few years ago.

Looking ahead, we remain committed to our disciplined approach to capital allocation, ensuring that every dollar we invest is focused on maximizing returns and long-term value for our shareholders. So over the next decade, natural gas and electricity are expected to account for about 75% of the increase in final energy consumption, highlighting our role in the energy mix of the future.

We believe our portfolio is of one amongst our peers and highly aligned with the fastest-growing segments of the energy market. We are over 85% long-haul natural gas pipelines, almost entirely take-or-pay or cost of service commercial frameworks. We're one of the largest operators of natural gas storage, providing our customers with integrated pipe and storage solutions, which is a key competitive advantage. And we have over 30 years in the power business across multiple fuel types, including our ownership in one of the world's largest operating nuclear facilities, Bruce Power.

So these assets, combined with our low-risk business model and the momentum from powerful market and policy tailwinds position us to continue to capture accretive opportunities. After adjusting for company size, we are leading our peers in sanctioned natural gas and power capital opportunities, converting these into our project backlog that is further extending our growth visibility through the end of the decade and beyond. And with that, I'll turn it over to Tina to speak in more detail on this opportunity set.

Thanks, Francois. With over 94,000 kilometers of pipelines across North America, TC Energy's network is delivering reliable supply at scale. The competitiveness of our footprint and our extensive customer relationships position us to win our fair share of this growing market.

Natural gas demand from power generation continues to accelerate, propelled by widespread electrification, coal-to-gas conversions and the rapid expansion of data centers and AI infrastructure. In Alberta, our systems have seen an 80% increase in gas for power volumes over the past 5 years. And with the queue of data center interconnections tripling over the last year, we are working closely with customers to ensure our assets can meet the market's evolving demand.

In the U.S., approximately 40 gigawatts of coal-fired generation is expected to retire over the next decade with the majority of that capacity anticipated to be replaced by natural gas generation. Across the full landscape, the 170 gigawatts of current operational coal capacity equates to over 20 Bcf per day of potential natural gas demand. Additionally, our assets are strategically positioned in key power growth markets like PJM and MISO, where forecast for natural gas power capacity additions through the end of the decade have doubled compared to last year. Nearly 60% of U.S. data center growth is expected within reach of our asset footprint, and we're collaborating across the entire value chain to deliver the natural gas that powers this transformation.

And finally, in Mexico, our assets supply 20% of the nation's gas to power plants and will feed 80% of the new public tender natural gas generation projects entering service over the next 5 years. We have a 30-year relationship with the CFE, Mexico's national electricity provider. CFE is the primary driver behind the country's generation capacity expansion initiatives that we support through assets such as Southeast Gateway.

Our connectivity to low-cost supply, extensive footprint and market reach is the foundation for cost competitive system expansions. Additionally, our ability to deliver innovative commercial offerings is fundamentally rooted in the long-term customer relationships we've built across our footprint. It is these relationships that allow us to anticipate market opportunities and move quickly, bringing new projects into service and optimize capacity.

Our ability to sanction over $5 billion of high-quality executable projects in the last 12 months is a direct result of this collaborative approach. Today's announcements demonstrate our ongoing ability to capitalize on gas for power demand within our footprint. And what we are seeing today and the evolution over the past 18 months gives me confidence that our development queue will continue to grow with high-quality, low-risk and executable projects. We are at the forefront of natural gas pipeline growth.

Within our development portfolio, we are originating growth opportunities representing $17 billion of potential value. Our strategy is anchored by 4 growth pillars. First, power generation is the greatest source of North American natural gas demand, and it is accelerating, thanks to electrification, coal conversions and the surging energy needs of data centers. Our footprint along expanding power markets and our long-standing relationships with our utility customers has resulted in a pipeline of origination opportunities that exceeds 7 billion cubic feet per day that have not been sanctioned to date.

North American LNG is entering a new era with over 60 million tons per annum of U.S. export capacity reaching FID in 2025. And over the next decade, we expect more than 10 new facilities to come online. Our existing assets enable us to efficiently serve this expanding market through brownfield developments. Local Distribution Companies, or LDCs, account for 20% of our average daily demand, supplying energy to 80 million homes. And during peak periods such as extreme cold, demand can triple.

Our sizable natural gas storage portfolio and projects like our Southeast Virginia energy storage project, a template for future reliability initiatives play a critical role in ensuring reliable supply and resilience for our customers. By 2035, we expect that 60% of North American gas production will move through TC Energy connected basins, providing our pipeline long-term abundant low-cost supply. This strategic advantage allows us to respond swiftly to market shifts, supply migration and support the evolving needs of our customers.

We are growing our capabilities, harnessing technology and innovation to meet safety, reliability and regulatory standards while unlocking new commercial and operational potential. Every day, our teams process vast amounts of information, quickly draw insights and then make smart decisions that can translate into higher EBITDA contribution while mitigating risk.

Our approach to AI adoption is to break it down into focused initiatives to ensure faster execution. We have developed an integrity-focused AI platform that automates document verification and compliance workflows, cutting review times from hours to minutes and reducing risk across our asset base. And recent breakthroughs in the ability to reliably train AI with large volumes of data are allowing us to enhance safety and sustainability. Our pipeline blowdown emissions reduction program uses advanced methods and automation to minimize emissions during maintenance, supporting our environmental commitments and regulatory compliance.

Commercially, we are driving smarter decisions across capacity optimization and short-term marketing by using Agentic AI. We are also using advanced algorithms to recommend optimal pipeline configurations and available capacity on our U.S. assets in real time, improving throughput and reliability while maintaining safety and compliance. And we have developed a commercial intelligence platform to simplify access to external and third-party commercial information, overlaying it with our own data and capacity modeling to understand our customer needs and market conditions. This means we can respond to customer needs more quickly, optimize asset utilization and capture incremental revenue opportunities while maintaining transparency and governance. We are identifying opportunities to implement innovation and technology at scale across our organization, and we see a significant potential for our systems to be smarter and drive even stronger performance.

For projects being placed into service this year, I'm extremely pleased to report that our teams have delivered, and we are currently trending approximately 15% under budget. Over the past few years, we have developed a series of enhancements that have fundamentally improved our capital allocation and project development rigor, increasing capital efficiency and cost management across our capital programs. We have enhanced our project risk reviews prior to sanctioning, enabling capital allocation decisions to be grounded in robust validated project fundamentals, ensuring that risk funding is precisely targeted, estimates are more accurate and overall capital efficiency is significantly enhanced.

We have also strengthened our front-end project development discipline, allowing for deeper rights holder and stakeholder engagement and more thorough project analysis. This has resulted in high-quality estimates and risk assessments, driving more reliable cost projections and enabling us to manage risks with greater confidence and precision. The result, we have delivered 23 out of 25 of our sanctioned projects on or ahead of schedule while tracking 15% under budget for the year, fully aligned with our strategic priorities. Again, an exceptional job by all the respective teams. With that, I'll pass to Greg to update you on our Power and Energy Solutions business.

Thank you, Tina. As Francois noted, our portfolio is one of a kind, highly aligned with the fastest-growing segment of the energy market. Anchored by our position in nuclear power, our Power and Energy Solutions business is designed to deliver complementary solutions that drive incremental shareholder value.

Importantly, this portfolio is built for scalability. We can grow with market demand, adapt to evolving energy needs and capitalize on opportunities that allow us to deliver solid growth, low risk that are repeatable for decades to come. In the near term, our focus is on maximizing the value of our existing assets. At the core of this effort is the on-time, on-budget execution of our Major Component Replacement program, or MCR at Bruce Power. These extend reactor life until at least 2064, while improving the availability of our nuclear fleet.

As realized prices continue to rise and availability improves, with the completion of each unit's MCR, this performance is translating into incremental revenue and stronger financial results. By leveraging our expertise across natural gas and power, we're also capturing value through commercial marketing, system optimization while maximizing availability of our cogeneration fleet. Our 118 Bcf of nonregulated natural gas storage in Canada is a prime example of where we have the ability to generate incremental EBITDA in a highly dynamic market.

Looking ahead, we're positioned to build on the incumbency of our North American footprint, deep customer relationships core capabilities in natural gas transmission, storage and nuclear power. We have a strong foundation to scale our operations and deliver complementary solutions at the intersection of the molecule and the electron that will unlock incremental value across the energy chain.

The proposed Ontario pump storage project is a great example of the optionality we have in our portfolio. The 1,000-megawatt storage project will provide critical fast response reliability to the grid and complements our nuclear position in Ontario. By utilizing long-duration storage, we can store excess electricity during low demand periods and help meet peak needs. This reduces overall the capacity requirements across the province.

Looking to the next decade, Bruce Power is uniquely positioned for growth, in a market where electricity demand is expected to grow by 75% through 2050. With a brownfield site, greater than 90% Canadian-based supply chain and strong alignment from all levels of government, Bruce Power is uniquely positioned to support the required baseload expansion in the province. While a decision to advance a new build is still years away, we have initiated a federal impact assessment for the potential 4,800-megawatt [ Bruce C project ]. This early work creates the optionality for long-term expansion backed by Bruce Power's prudent management team and execution capabilities.

At the same time, we're building low-carbon capabilities to ensure that we're prepared to respond to market shifts and capitalize on strategic growth opportunities when market signals and customer demand emerges. These strategic investments in technologies and innovation not only create new opportunities, but have application in supporting emissions reduction in our natural gas infrastructure, enhancing the long-term value of our systems.

There are many attributes that make Bruce Power exceptional and unique. The Bruce Power team is best-in-class, and we're seeing that in project execution. The team continues to deliver on time, on budget across our replacement program. The MCR program replaces critical reactor components, extending operational life by at least 35 years per unit while simultaneously increasing availability. With a focus on enhancing both refurbishment efficiency and ongoing reliability, Bruce Power has been a pioneer in automation technologies. The team deployed the world's first robotic tooling machine on a reactor face, enabling skilled tradespeople to perform complex maintenance tasks safely, successfully and on schedule, all while minimizing radiation exposure.

As shown on the left-hand side, these innovations have transformed Bruce Power's operational performance. Units refurbished under the MCR will see increased availability, like Unit 6, which achieved over 99% availability in 2024 after the completion of its MCR. That's compared to a historical average of 84% before the program began. And the financial impact is clear. More megawatt hours made available, combined with increased realized prices that reflect our capital investment, inflation and some other factors will drive stronger financial performance for decades. Through innovation and disciplined execution, Bruce Power continues to be a leader in this space.

Today, we're investing approximately $1 billion annually in Bruce Power. This is expected to increase site capacity to over 7 gigawatts by 2033. All of this output is secured under a long-term power purchase agreement with Ontario's ISO through 2064. This provides visibility to predictable cash flows and long-term revenue.

As shown on the chart, the financial upside is very compelling. Equity income is expected to double from $750 million today to $1.6 billion by 2035. Over the same period, free cash flow is projected to grow substantially, generating nearly $8 billion in net distributions. This growing free cash flow gives us the flexibility to deploy capital where it creates the most value. whether that's capturing growth opportunities across the natural gas system, expanding our nuclear footprint, accelerating low-carbon initiatives or capitalizing on opportunities that enhance the complementary service offering across our footprint. We can leverage our scalable, differentiated portfolio to invest in areas aligned with long-term market trends and deliver repeatable performance. I'll pass to Sean now to walk through the numbers.

Thanks, Greg. Good morning, everybody. I'll start with a few of the operational and financial highlights achieved in the third quarter. Most notably, each pipeline business increased its average daily flows on their way to setting the 14 all-time high delivery records that Francois mentioned. I would highlight our U.S. natural gas business in particular, which saw LNG flows increase 15% this quarter as well as setting a new peak delivery record of 4 Bcf per day.

In Mexico, our network is tracking towards 100% availability year-to-date at the same time that Mexico's daily gas imports are averaging 4% higher in 2025 than 2024. Mexico also saw its highest peak import day of record in August for over 8 Bcf a day. We also had our first full quarter of EBITDA contribution from Southeast Gateway, driving our comparable results up 57% in the quarter.

In our Power and Energy Solutions business, Bruce Power achieved 94% availability, which includes the planned outages on Units 3 and 4 and is in line with our expected annual availability in the low 90% range for full year 2025.

Turning to the top of the EBITDA bridge on the right-hand side. You'll see that we generated $2.7 billion in comparable EBITDA in the quarter, which was a 10% increase year-over-year. The 10% growth reflects a 13% increase in our natural gas pipelines network, partially offset by an 18% reduction in our Power and Energy Solutions segment.

Let me walk you through the components of those changes, starting with Canada Gas, where EBITDA increased by $68 million due to higher incentive earnings, higher depreciation, higher income taxes on the NGTL system, partially offset by lower flow-through financial charges.

In the U.S., EBITDA increased by $60 million, primarily from our Columbia gas settlement, partially offset by higher O&M costs. We also continue to see incremental earnings from new customers and commercial innovations and monetizing available capacity on existing pipelines and the nine new projects that our teams placed into service this year.

Our Mexico business EBITDA increased primarily due to Southeast Gateway, which was partially offset by lower equity earnings from certain payoffs as a result of the strengthening peso.

Lastly, in our Power and Energy Solutions business, equity income from Bruce Power was lower quarter-over-quarter as we began the 2-unit MCR outage program earlier this year versus only a single unit being in its planned MCR outage in the third quarter of 2024. That said, execution of the dual MCR program is going very well, slightly ahead of schedule, as Greg mentioned. And our unregulated natural gas storage portfolio's EBITDA is benefiting from the increased volatility in storage spreads in Alberta.

Turning to our financial outlook. We are reaffirming our 2025 outlook for comparable EBITDA that we revised higher last quarter. As a reminder, we delivered year-over-year growth of 6% from 2023 to '24, and we remain on track to achieve 7% to 9% growth from 2024 to '25.

Looking ahead to 2026, we anticipate delivering another year of strong performance with year-over-year growth of 6% to 8%. This sustained performance underscores the strength and repeatability of our base business. With the inventory of growth projects over the next 3 years that Francois and Tina highlighted, we are positioned to deliver EBITDA growth of 5% to 7% with a 2028 comparable outlook of $12.6 billion to $13.1 billion of EBITDA.

On the right-hand side of the page, we're recapping some of the tailwinds that have been mentioned this morning that we're working on. We have several items supporting our 3-year outlook. We have multiple revenue-enhancing rate case outcomes in process and several more pending. We have increasingly supportive regulatory frameworks that could accelerate our project delivery time lines. We have multiple strategies for increasing asset availability, and we're working on technological and commercial innovations that each improve our capital efficiency across operations and project development. Any combination of those drivers will position us to maximize the value of our existing assets and our financial results.

Shifting to our investment outlook. We introduced this capital allocation dashboard at last year's Investor Day to demonstrate that TC has uniquely clear visibility on its growth drivers through the end of the decade. Over the past year, we sanctioned an additional $5.1 billion of primarily in-corridor brownfield projects, predominantly in the U.S. natural gas pipeline business unit. The steady momentum of project approvals, particularly in the U.S., demonstrates the attractiveness of our assets to utility, LNG and data center customers, which will position us for steady growth through the end of the decade and beyond.

By the end of next year, we expect to FID a series of projects that will fill out our $6 billion net annual investment allocation target through 2030, all with build multiples in the 5 to 7x range. This will be achieved through sanctioning the $6 billion of late-stage opportunities currently pending approval shown in the gray bars on the slide. And allocating the remaining only $3.5 billion of white space from a large portfolio of earlier-stage projects that are currently competing for internal capital.

Given the level of advanced activity in gas origination and the overall $17 billion of projects under review, we feel confident in our ability to fill this chart to the annual $6 billion level through the end of the decade. Our disciplined capital allocation framework enables growth by underwriting projects that deliver the highest possible risk-adjusted returns while also ensuring we preserve our financial strength and flexibility and our long-term leverage target of 4.75x.

From a sources and uses perspective, our 3-year plan requires approximately $31 billion in aggregate funding. About 80% of that funding is expected to come from operating cash flows, which is an improvement from last year's internal funding ratio of only 77%. The remaining 20% of our funding is expected to come from a combination of bond and hybrid issuances. The $6 billion in external funding is supported by the incremental annual EBITDA growth we expect to generate by 2028, which will create additional balance sheet capacity at or below our 4.75x leverage target. The key takeaway is that our strong operating cash flows and balance sheet capacity result in no equity issuance required to deliver this plan. With that update, I'll pass the call back to Francois.

Thanks, Sean. In summary, our strategy is working. As we look ahead, our focus remains squarely on the priorities that have proven successful. First, maximizing the value of our assets through safety and operational excellence while leveraging commercial and technological innovation; second, prioritizing low-risk, high-return growth, including placing projects in service on time and on budget or better and allocating our remaining net annual investment capacity through 2030 within our targeted build multiples range of 5 to 7x without moving up the risk curve. And third, maintaining that financial strength and agility to support long-term value creation through capital discipline and efficiency. With our asset base and strong momentum, I am confident we can deliver low-risk, repeatable growth into the next decade. Operator, we're now ready to take questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Praneeth Satish with Wells Fargo.

I think if we just zoom out for a second and think about EBITDA growth on a longer time frame than 2028, it would seem to me like the current mid-single-digit CAGR guidance can be sustained for a long time past 2028. The backlog is very large on the gas side, ROIC is increasing. And then when you get out to 2030, there's at least $1 billion to $2 billion per year of CapEx capacity that opens up with Bruce Power. So I know you aren't formally guiding past 2028, but can you maybe walk us through the puts and takes that shape your long-term EBITDA growth trajectory and how long that 5% to 7% CAGR can be maintained?

Praneeth, it's Sean. I'll take that question. Great question. You highlighted on Francois's Page 9, those IRRs going to kind of 12.5% right now, that is that's critical, right, for us to continue to see those types of return levels to be able to allocate capital in that '29 and '30 period. And I'll tell you a little bit of what's happening. Small to midsized projects were taking down very quickly, but projects are getting bigger and more complex. And that just -- that's where we want to wait to see. Can we continue to push returns and capital allocation up in the '29 to '30 time frame. So if these returns remain true, then I do think you'll see the same kind of midpoint of growth, if not potentially better, but the projects are just taking a little bit longer for us to have that degree of clarity.

Got it. That's helpful. And maybe if I could follow up on that. line of questioning here. So as leverage trends lower over the next few years, it seems like there's a lot of balance sheet capacity that opens up, especially as you get out to 2028. So I know you kind of reiterated the $6 billion per year of CapEx, but is there room to scale towards $7 billion or even $8 billion at some point over the next few years? Or should we kind of assume a more conservative leverage targets over time? Any update on kind of how you're thinking about that longer-term CapEx cadence?

Praneeth, it's Francois. I'll take this one. our goal is that 12 months from now, we've essentially filled up the project backlog at the $6 billion level through 2030 inclusively. I think the opportunity set we have will give us the opportunity at that point to consider going above that $6 billion level. A couple of really important criteria, which we are not going to lose sight of, however. First one is human capital. It's the most important consideration. We've made the progress we've made because we've executed our projects with excellence. So wanting to make sure that if and when we consider going above $6, we can continue to execute with the performance that we've demonstrated over the last 2 or 3 years.

Second is the 4.75 is going to continue to be a targeted cap for us irrespective of the size of our capital program. So we could make excellent progress on efficiencies, on technological innovation and commercial innovation that could allow us to go above six without looking to rotate capital or any other sources of funds. I would say though, as I said before, the opportunity set will absolutely allow us to go there. But I would say it's within those two caveats.

And then when you look at the lead time for projects, realistically, that's probably 2028 or 2029 before we could go there just with the time it takes to develop projects and then the time it takes to get them permitted.

And the next question comes from Robert Hope with Scotiabank.

Maybe to follow up on your commentary that the projects are becoming larger and more complex. Can you maybe add a little bit more color on what size of projects that you are now seeing and why they're more complex? And are you more willing to go for larger projects given the increasingly more favorable regulatory outlook in the U.S.

Thanks, Rob. This is Tina. We are really encouraged by the development pipeline that we have, primarily related to the growth in the power generation sector. Along our entire footprint, we see opportunities in scale of volumes that could be anywhere from just 0.5 Bcf all the way up to more than 1 Bcf, depending on the type a project we're pursuing. The value of our footprint is such that it allows us to capture all of these opportunities, whether they're on a smaller scale or the larger scale. The hyperscalers that we're working with behind the utilities do take more time just because of the supply chain constraints. But certainly, we continue to see those opportunities progress, and we'll pursue those as we see them advance. So the larger ones are taking a little bit more time, but we're able to capture some of the more single, doubles, triples along the way.

Yes. And I'll add a little bit to that, Rob. I appreciate the question. When we talk about increased size and complexity, we're not talking about SGP or CGL like multi-jurisdictional multibillion-dollar projects. These are still in-corridor expansions. The average size of our projects in our backlog right now is about $0.5 billion. You might see projects announced over the next year, creep up around that $1 billion level or maybe still a little bit north of that, but they are still in corridor in -- with existing customers and very straightforward from a construction execution standpoint. So we don't view, despite the larger size, any execution complexity increase. Simply, we've had a number of projects this year that we -- 6 months ago, we would have expected to have announced by now, but they're getting pushed out into next year because they're getting upsized. Demand is increasing so quickly that our utility customers are looking to increase the scope of our projects, and we just have to go back to the drawing board a little bit.

Appreciate that color. And then maybe continuing on the theme of the project backlog. So you have $17 billion of projects in the backlog, six are in advanced development. How do you expect that kind of overall size to progress over the next year as you're seeing increasing demand for your system? Are you seeing projects -- are you having to turn away projects just given the organizational requirements? Or could we see that backlog expand a little bit further over the next, we'll call it, 12 to 24 months?

Yes. We have -- just to be very clear, Rob, thank you for the question because it gives me the opportunity to point out that we have not turned down a single project because of balance sheet or capital. We still have even with our expectation of bringing in all of the pending projects to full sanctioning, we still have $3.5 billion of room under the $6 billion level. And as we talked about, with careful consideration of our human capital, we think we can go beyond that. So we're not capital constrained in that we're turning away projects. We simply want to make sure that we maintain our 4.75 level and that we're continuing to execute projects with excellence.

So the great thing, for example, if you look at our guidance for 2028 of $12.5 billion to $13.1 billion, with EBITDA growing the way it is, it's natural that our backlog and annual capital spend can grow along with it. So as I said, the opportunity set is definitely there for us to go there if we choose to. And based on the cadence of projects we expect to be announced regularly through 2026, I think at this time next year, we're going to be thinking long and hard about increasing that $6 billion level, starting in maybe '28 or '29.

And the next question comes from Theresa Chen with Barclays.

On the theme of gas to power for data centers, you've clearly chosen to stay focused on transmission, supporting your customers rather than competing with them in power generation despite your deep expertise in that space. What drove this strategic decision? And what are the key considerations behind it?

Thanks, Theresa. This is Tina. I'll focus on the U.S. because that's where we're seeing the majority of our data center growth right now. And the attractiveness and depth of our portfolio of data center projects, primarily accessed through our interconnections with key utility customers provides us with a low-risk, compelling return approach to capturing that data center growth. We're actually not seeing a big pull from customers to develop behind-the-meter projects in the U.S.

And in instances where we have seen those requested, there have been limiting factors, including contract term or requirements to procure long lead time items, just inconsistent with our risk preferences. And we have a deep pipeline now of those opportunities with our long-standing relationships with our key utility customers. Additionally, when we're working with those utility customers, we're not just solving the needs for their data center growth. It's all of the other electrification needs that they have, whether it's coal to gas conversion or economic development.

Got it. And in regards to Bruce C, can you walk us through the current status on the path to FID, the next key milestones, how you plan to manage cost and execution risk if the project proceeds? And on the heels of Greg's comments related to the technological advancements and use of robotics for the NCR program, it seems that you're incorporating additional efficiencies and innovative solutions in general here. But what are the key lessons from the NCR process that you'll be applying to Bruce if FID-ed?

Sure. Thanks, Theresa. Appreciate the question. It's Greg. We do continue to progress Bruce C. We actually just received the notice of commencement from the IAC here in August. As we talked about in the last quarter, there's still a lot of work to do when you think about moving towards FID in the early 2030s. But what the next step for us is we're actually working with the ISO and our next tranche of funding. As a reminder, we're currently using federal funding through Enercan and the next tranche will help provide us the funding as we move towards FID towards the end of the decade.

Nice for you to point out the Slide 19. I think there's many innovations that Bruce have been using both operationally and through the MCR program with the robotics that I talked about earlier. you'll see successive efficiencies being taken through all those lessons learned when you think about -- this is almost a decade-long plan. And the reason that we actually put robotics and other things in as we progress through Unit 3 was to be able to continue that over through all the success of MCR programs. So the team have been doing a great job on time and on budget. And what you'll continue to see is that time shrinking in terms of how long it's taken us to do the MCR program and get these units back online.

And the next question comes from Aaron MacNeil with TD Cowen.

The negotiated settlement on the Canadian Mainline expires in 2026. You mentioned several rate cases over the next several years. So I guess, just very simply, have toll increases or rate cases been contemplated in the 2028 guide? Or could we think about that as potential upside very much like we saw with Columbia earlier this year?

Yes. Thanks for the question, Aaron. We do have several rate cases in flight. As you're familiar, we have the ANR, the Great Lakes rate cases that we have just recently filed and are in settlement discussions. We had a successful settlement on the Columbia Gas system. We have a cadence going forward on other U.S. pipes. Specific to Canada Gas, we have the mainline settlement, which goes through the end of 2026. in our NGTL settlement that ends at the end of 2029. The projections for those rate cases or rate settlements include conservative estimates in our budgeting and forecasting. And each rate case is very different depending on the rate base, the capital investment, but you will see the proposed uplift on those rate cases already embedded into our forecast.

Okay. Understood. And then I wanted to dig in on the cost savings that you've realized on capital. As we look to the future and just given the broader investment in energy infrastructure across North America, are you starting to run into challenges or bottlenecks with contractors? Or can you speak to any other pressure points that we should be aware of or risks that you're actively mitigating? And ultimately, I guess I'm just wondering if this level of outperformance can be sustained.

Yes, thanks. Market pressures haven't really had a material impact yet, but we do see industry backlogs building, and we're continuously monitoring our suppliers and our contractors. Francois earlier highlighted our human capital, and that's one of our also top considerations when we're sanctioning and executing projects. This applies also to our contractors and skilled labor workforces.

We've been through these cycles before. We learn when it gets busy. It's increasingly important to retain top-tier suppliers, contractors, crews. And we're able to attract some of those top suppliers and contractors in two ways: one, through our long-term relationships and our contracting strategies that we deploy; and two, our portfolio. Our contractors like this long-term portfolio that we have, whether it's small, medium-sized in quarter projects and all of our maintenance capital, we're able to develop long-term relationships with them for that long-term backlog.

Yes. And I'll add to that, Aaron, it's Francois. With respect to outperforming plan going forward. Remember that the risk of our portfolio is decreasing. If you look over the last 2 or 3 years, we had CGL and Southeast Gateway in there. The small- to medium-sized projects are much more straightforward to execute. The predictability of cost estimates is very high because we know the right of way, we know the terrain. The time lines are quite predictable. So we do tend to take a more conservative approach in an inflationary environment to our costs. Projects we're putting into service now were sanctioned in 2022 and 2023. Remember, we were in a much higher inflationary environment back then. But I'm optimistic that we can continue that execution excellence with a recognition that we're in a generational time in terms of allowed rates of return or rates of returns on projects we sanction. And to some extent, we might be a little bit more aggressive in terms of our estimation simply because we want to be able to allocate more capital to growth.

Over the last few years, as we've been deleveraging any outperformance on projects, the proceeds have gone to accelerating our deleveraging. Going forward, the balance sheet is in good shape right now. We're more focused on growth. So we're going to want to allocate more capital. There are some great examples that our team, our supply chain team have been working with some of our key suppliers on long-term contracts, things like turbine maintenance, things like delivery of new equipment for new projects with the long backlog that Tina mentioned, we are a preferred customer that our contractors very much like to deal with. That means we get the A teams on our projects. And project execution is always about people and our human capital. And our team is very strong, and we get the strongest teams from our contractors, which leads to the results we've been getting, and we hope to continue those.

And the next question comes from Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan.

Just wanted to turn to Slide 23, if I could revisit that. On the right-hand side, piling up tailwinds and headwinds for the guide here, if I recall correctly, it seems like there's a lot more tailwinds than headwinds at this point. So just wondering, is it fair to think that, that is the balance when you're thinking about the guide period?

Jeremy, it's Sean. I'll take that question. Candidly, I think you're right. We are feeling more tailwinds than headwinds at the moment, whether that be the jurisdiction regulatory reforms that Francois mentioned, the customer kind of demand pull on our systems, we're being asked to do more than we ever have been. And to Francois's point, we're able to drive kind of project IRRs up, and we're able to drive rate case outcomes higher than we've ever seen before. So it is a bit of an imbalance towards the tailwinds for the first time in a long time. But towards that -- outside of that 29 and 30, we've been asked a few times about why not 5 years guidance. We just want to maintain a few -- another year to make sure that all of these tailwinds remain durable through the end of the decade. But so far, so good.

Got it. That's helpful. So the 3-year guide looks really conservative here given that backdrop. So that's helpful to understand. And then just wanted to go to Mexico, I guess, there have been comments in the past with regards to potential for monetization there. I'm just wondering any updated thoughts you might be able to provide there.

Yes. I'll take that one as well, Jeremy. No updated thoughts, but just let us recap kind of where we've been on that one. Look, Mexico is a phenomenal business for us, right, putting SGP into service this year and kind of demonstrating the commercial viability of that. CFE has a major campaign underway, right, with their $20-some billion kind of power and transmission build-out and given that a couple of quarters to continue to develop. So we're still committed to looking at alternatives in 2026. We'll have USMCA, some clarity there by hopefully, June or July. We'll have progress on the CFE side with connecting a number of different power plants that will be served primarily by SGP and other assets. And we'll look at capital market and partnership opportunities starting in 2026 and hopefully have an update by mid to fall of 2026.

And the next question comes from Maurice Choy wit RBC.

I just want to come back to a comment earlier that Francois, you made about your ability to go above $6 billion without rotating capital. It doesn't sound like you need this program. But from everything you shared today, you're also not short of opportunities. So how do you see the company being more engaged on an active capital rotation program just from a financial discipline perspective, particularly for mature or derisked projects?

Thanks for the question, Maurice, and it gives me an opportunity to maybe be a bit clearer based on my prior response. What I wanted to indicate is that the first source of deleveraging is always growing your EBITDA. And before we consider capital rotation or any outside form of equity, we always look to improve the ROIC on our existing assets. So through commercial innovations and increasingly interesting technological innovation, the use of AI more specifically, we see an opportunity to accelerate EBITDA growth through optimization and efficiencies in our system. And I would like to see those carried out and run through before we consider any outside capital or deleveraging.

Obviously, we hold share count dearly. Our bias to the extent we need -- to the extent we want to grow our capital program above 6 and we decide that we do need some equity the bias will always be the capital rotation first. But first, let's see what we can do with the EBITDA. We've had some really good successes here in improving the efficiency of our systems, getting our OM&A down and getting the ROIC on our existing assets up. And that's what I meant by that comment.

That makes sense. And if I could just finish on the question about returns. On a forward-looking basis, you mentioned that you are expecting 5 to 7x build multiple. Compared to the Investor Day last year, has there been certain assets or project types that you're seeing evolving returns? Or have they broadly been quite steady over the past 12 months?

Maurice, it's Sean. The answer is the latter. We have seen the 5% to 7% guidance from Investor Day last year to this year, we have executed right in the middle of that range. So it is steady. The proof points are there, and they are why we're extending that guidance through '28 at this point.

Yes. And just to add to that, as we talked about our priorities for 2026 and our goal of filling out the slate of growth projects at the $6 billion level through 2030, along with that is at a 5 to 7x EBITDA build multiple. As you can imagine, our $17 billion BD pipeline, we have pretty good visibility on the returns of those projects. And so we think that, that outcome is very achievable. And the clear implication there is that we expect the build multiples to hold at the levels that you just referred to.

So just a quick follow-up. I think earlier, there was a mention, I believe, by Tina that just we've not seen a whole lot of cost pressures, but perhaps there may be some on the horizon if all the resources are directed towards data centers, for example. What you're saying is that even if costs globally goes up, your returns should hold. Is that fair?

Francois

Yes. Look, I think we compete with our peer company pipelines for projects, particularly in the U.S. My presumption is that if all competitors are impacted by the same inflationary environment, we're competing on a level playing field, and those costs will be reflected in all of our bids, and we expect to be able to hold our returns to deliver that 5 to 7x EBITDA build multiple.

And the next question comes from Manav Gupta with UBS.

You recently got an upgrade from S&P. They finally moved you to stable outlook versus negative. I know you had been working with them. Help us understand what that process was and finally, what pushed them to acknowledge that the outlook is actually stable and not negative.

Manav, it's Sean. I'll take that one. Look, without speaking to any particular agency, we've simply delivered on the plan that we introduced at Investor Day last year, right? Obviously, getting SGP done on time and on service and living within our $6 billion to $7 billion capital raise. Those were commitments that we made to the market. And to be fair, the agencies held us accountable and wanted to see a couple of quarters of performance under that new strategy. So we've delivered and better. So yes, we're grateful for recognition of that, but it was always kind of part of our plan and expectation to get to this point.

A number of question we are getting from investors is when you look at 2026, your guide is 6% to 8% and people feel it's slightly conservative. Help us understand what can get us closer to 8% versus the 6%, if you could talk a little bit about that.

Yes. Happy to take that one again, Manav, it's Sean. Look, we have a little over $8 billion going into service kind of driving that. So these are new assets. And as it relates to the optionality that we have with all of our assets, right, customer-driven events, weather-driven events, outperformance. -- it's -- we need a little bit of time with our new assets in particular, but we are seeing new counterparties come across all of our systems with really kind of commercially innovative strategies to express hedging across molecules to electrons. So with these new assets, in particular, we'll be conservative in how much more we can do from a new customer standpoint, but we look forward to having all the new inventory kind of up and running here by the end of the year.

And the next question comes from Olivia Foster with Goldman Sachs.

I wanted to go back to some of the comments which were made on improving IRRs across the footprint. Could you talk about specific drivers of the improved project returns we are seeing versus earlier this decade? And specifically, are there insights you can share on customer willingness to sign up for rates underpinning these improved project returns? And on the other hand, any balancing factors from project competition in regions where TC operates?

Olivia, this is Tina. I'll take that question. There are various factors that are driving our higher returns and our strong build multiples. One is our project execution capabilities. We've really have advanced our skill set, our governance are the way we advance our projects on early development. And so I feel like our project development and execution experience has really driven us a long way in executing on time and under budget at returns that are continuing to increase.

Second is the capacity in the market on the pipeline side continues to be more and more utilized. And so as we're working with our customers, the optionality in our systems requires expanding. And as we're working with them, they are highly valuing the new capacity as well as the security of supply. So we are able to negotiate, in some cases, returns that are providing us stronger options there. In addition, just the amount of growth across North America is really providing a big landscape for us to be able to select projects that have the highest return and strong build multiples. That's really the value of our footprint. Our footprint is a strategic advantage for us to find those low-risk, high-return opportunities that we can filter into our $6 billion to $7 billion capital.

Got it. That's clear. And for my second question, I wanted to ask a follow-up on one of Praneeth's questions, specifically on the leverage build and annual CapEx outlay. How much cushion specifically would you like to build under the 4.75 target on a run rate basis before we could see annual CapEx trend towards the higher end of the range? And then maybe this is a clarifying question as well, I'll tag on. But is TC contemplating moving towards the higher end of the $6 billion to $7 billion range or eventually moving above the upper end of the range over time?

Yes, Olivia, it's Sean. I'll take the first part of that question. Look, as it relates to having a specific target below 4.75, our objective is really capital efficiency. And as Francois mentioned, our per share metrics at 4.75 or below are really how we kind of triangulate balance of total shareholder return. So -- and we are being below $6 billion here for the next kind of couple of years, we are giving the balance sheet time to breathe. We could have gone to $6 billion, but we have chosen not to. We're not chasing projects in favor of giving -- lower return projects in favor of giving the balance sheet time to breathe. That's a critical takeaway.

As it relates to going from 6 to 7 or 7 to 8%, if the project returns are there, and it works within our -- that 12.5%, that glide path up that we're seeing, if that continues to be true and our teams can deliver on time and on budget, and it works at 4.75 or lower, those are the ingredients for both growth and continued preservation of balance sheet strength.

And the next question comes from Robert Kadller with CIBC.

Rob Catellier from CIBC. First of all, congratulations on your ongoing safety record. I just wanted to follow up a little bit with Tina, just on the project execution we've seen recently. You gave a whole host of reasons on how you got there. But I wondered if you could maybe highlight the one or two top reasons why you -- the projects are coming in on time and on budget recently.

Thanks for the question, Rob. I'd love to talk about our project execution teams because they have been delivering time and time again. Our human capital there is really the #1 driver, in my opinion, of why we're executing on time and on budget. We've really advanced our internal leadership execution skills, more due diligence on risk we are engaging our stakeholders much earlier in the process, in the development cycle. We are negotiating strong contractors with our third-party constructors to provide the A teams. All of that allows us to execute on time and on budget and drive that increasing returns on our invested capital.

And just to add to that, Rob, I really appreciate the question. We don't talk about culture enough on these types of calls and having a one-team approach to project execution, creating a psychologically safe environment where our teams feel comfortable identifying challenges early on so that we can manage them and manage risk. is critical to the high-quality execution on projects. So we've worked really hard on creating a strong culture with strong psychological safety, and it's definitely benefited us.

Yes. It sounds like you put in a really sustainable framework there that should benefit you for years to come. My second question was for Greg Grant on the power side. On Slide 18, there's a comment in the midterm bucket about exploring complementary services in high-demand power and energy solution markets. I wondered if you could give us a flavor of what you think the highest likelihood opportunities are there, in your opinion, as we stand here today and whether or not you're contemplating any behind-the-meter power in that bucket.

Sure. Yes. Thanks, Robert. Happy to talk a bit about that. We've talked about areas where we do have some of the complementary gas and power solutions. Obviously, we have to be quite strategic with our footprint on both the gas and power side. We've talked about we're not just trying to build out the power business on its own. Certainly, Alberta has been the one area that I've talked about in the past, just given we have that energy supply chain footprint, whether it goes from the gas storage all the way to the end of power.

So that's a natural area where we would be looking to potentially look to colocation and/or power solution. The one thing I just want to highlight, and I think Tina highlighted it earlier, we have a great pipeline of growth. And so we're going to be very selective. Some of the projects that we have seen are probably taking on a bit more risk than we would like to, especially given the footprint and the pipeline that we have. But certainly, in Alberta, when you see over 20 gigawatt queue on the data center front, whether we're developing it or we see other developers come in and build out some more demand, that's great for our existing footprint on the gas and power side.

And the next question comes from Sam Burwell with Jefferies.

Given the LNG build-out on the Gulf Coast, it seems like there's at least some opportunity to send more Canadian gas south. So are possible brownfield expansions on your system something that might make sense for you to pursue? And if so, how would those projects rank within your opportunity set?

Yes. Thanks for the question, Sam. This is Tina. Yes, LNG opportunities are continuing to evolve. It is a large market, as you know, from a demand perspective. If you think about it across our portfolio, we've placed 8 LNG projects into service over the last few years, primarily related to Gulf Coast projects. Recently, you're familiar, we have built our Coastal GasLink project to the West Coast, and we think there's great opportunity to continue to provide egress out of the WCSB to the West Coast for LNG exports there. As you think about coming down into the U.S., we certainly have a corridor there through our ANR pipeline system and other systems where we have had some expansions in the past to bring gas from Western Canada down to the Gulf Coast, and we'll continue to evaluate those as necessary. There are about 10 more LNG projects proposed along the Gulf Coast that we'll be looking for additional supply. But again, I think the West Coast of Canada and building that out is going to be an incredible opportunity for us to move that gas west.

Okay. Understood. So I guess on that point, I mean, any updates you can share on Coastal GasLink expansion?

Sure. We're excited to have Coastal GasLink in service and flowing gas, Train 1 and Train 2 now moving forward. We are working really closely with LNG Canada right now to evaluate the Phase 2, and we're supporting them in the development related to what would be necessary on the pipeline. So the FID does rest with them, but we are working jointly to evaluate what would be necessary to expand Coastal to get to the Phase 2.

And recall, Sam, that LNG Canada Phase 2 is part of the projects and the national interest that the federal government has identified. So from a permitting standpoint, I think that process is well underway with the major projects office. And really, the decision now rests with the proponent for the LNG facility.

And the next question comes from Ben Pham with BMO.

I appreciate the update. A couple of maintenance questions from me on the 5% to 7% EBITDA growth guidance. So there's a couple of questions earlier on this topic. But I'm wondering, could you provide the building blocks on that CAGR, that 5%? Like what amounts growth? What is rate cases? What is the efficiencies? And then what takes you to the 6% and the 7% or beyond?

Ben, it's Sean. Thanks for the question. Look, we maybe do a better job on that kind of offline, but just to give you a sense for it. there's another big chunk of that with capital coming into service kind of over the next 2 years, right? That's always our baseline, capital kind of coming into service. We could have up to a half a dozen rate cases kind of in flight during this plan. So that's probably the biggest driver of the range and what has to be true over the course of the next kind of couple of years. And then the smaller kind of bucket, but things that we've had real kind of demonstrable experience and results from asset availability, commercial and technology.

Those -- it's a small but kind of growing kind of influence on the growth. And you heard both Tina and Greg kind of mentioned we've got active robotics. We've got AI, we've got preventative maintenance that are all showing early signs of kind of cash flow productivity and contribution. So those are really the three big buckets, but happy to take that offline in more detail.

Okay. That's great. And maybe the other maintenance question that I had is on the dividend growth side, are you still expecting the ranges you've highlighted in the past on dividend growth?

Yes. So just to be clear for all the listeners, our 3% to 5% range is consistent. We are just given the returns that we're seeing in our new projects, right, well above our cost of capital, we are going to direct as much capital as we can into new projects, which implies we will keep the dividend growth at the low end of that range for the foreseeable future because the projects just warrant as much growth at 12.5% or better. That's the highest and best use of capital we see across the entire system.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the question-and-answer session. If there are any further questions, please contact Investor Relations at TC Energy. I will now turn the call over to Gavin Wylie for any closing remarks.

I just wanted to say once again, thank you for attending the call this morning and for the great questions. As the operator stated, if we didn't get to your question or if there was anything that was outstanding, please feel free to contact us in the Investor Relations team. We're always happy to help. And of course, we look forward to providing you our next update likely in mid-February. Thank you.

This brings to a close today's conference call. You may disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating, and have a pleasant day.

Thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to the TC Energy Second Quarter 2025 Results Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] The conference is being recorded. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the conference over to Gavin Wylie, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thanks very much, and good morning. I'd like to welcome you to TC Energy's 2025 Second Quarter Conference Call. Joining me are Francois Poirier, President and Chief Executive Officer, Sean O'Donnell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, along with other members of our senior leadership team. Francois and Sean will begin today with some comments on our financial results and operational highlights. A copy of this slide presentation is available on our website under the Investors section. Following opening remarks, we'll take questions from the investment community.

Please limit yourself to two questions. And if you're a member of the media, contact our media team. Today's remarks will include forward-looking statements that are subject to important risks and uncertainties. For more information, please see the reports filed by TC Energy with Canadian Securities regulators and with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Finally, we'll refer to certain non-GAAP measures that may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other entities. A reconciliation is contained in the appendix of this presentation. With that, I'll turn the call over to Francois.

Thanks, Gavin, and good morning, everyone. Through the first half of 2025, TC Energy's performance remains strong, delivering across all key priorities we set at the beginning of the year. First and foremost, our safety record remains exceptional with incident rates holding at 5-year lows. This is a direct reflection of our team's unwavering commitment to safety in every step. Safety drives operational excellence, which allows us to maximize the value of our assets and supports our strong financial results. So during the second quarter, we delivered a 12% year-over-year increase in comparable EBITDA and are increasing our 2025 comparable EBITDA outlook to $10.8 billion to $11 billion, which represents an approximately 9% increase over 2024.

Contributing to this increase, we have reached a settlement in principle with customers on our Columbia Gas system that is expected to result in an increase relative to pre-filed rates as evidenced by the interim settlement rates that Columbia Gas put in effect, which reflects a 26% increase in pre-filed FTS rates. This outcome underscores both the demand we see across our assets and our ability to collaborate effectively with stakeholders. To date, we've completed or placed into service approximately $5.8 billion of capacity projects, including Southeast Gateway and our East Lateral XPress Project. Our results continue to emphasize TC Energy's resilient low-risk business model that continues to deliver solid growth and repeatable performance.

The fundamentals underpinning our business have never been stronger, and our assets are strategically located to benefit from incumbent positions in the markets we serve. This strengthens our ability to compete for and capture the next wave of growth. North American natural gas demand is now forecast to grow by 45 Bcf per day by 2035 as opposed to our prior forecast of 40 Bcf per day. And this driven by LNG exports, power generation and industrial demand growth. This growth is structural and long term in nature. And we're seeing this play out across our entire footprint. Electrification, coal-to-gas conversions and the rise of AI and data centers are accelerating the need for reliable, low-emission baseload power.

In response, strong customer demand is emerging for incremental service on new and existing projects, such as our Pulaski and Maysville projects, which were sanctioned last year and have now been upsized to meet growing needs. Our origination pipeline also remains robust. We are currently engaged in commercial conversations with more than 30 counterparties across the data center value chain, several of which have indicated the potential to require greater capacity than originally planned. These developments reinforce our confidence in our rising cadence of project announcements through the second half of the year and into 2026. So 2025 is stacking up to be an excellent year for TC Energy as we continue to expect to place approximately $8.5 billion of assets into service, roughly 15% below budget.

July of this year, the newly constituted CNE approved our regulated rates required to provide service to potential future interruptible service users on the Southeast Gateway pipeline other than the CFE. In addition, we placed approximately $300 million of projects in service in our U.S. natural gas business, including the East Lateral Xpress project, an expansion on our Columbia Gulf system that enhances connectivity to the U.S. Gulf Coast LNG export markets. Looking ahead to the second half of the year, we have multiple projects under construction. This includes the Virginia and Wisconsin Reliability Projects, ANR Oak Grove and the VNBR Project in Canada, all of which are tracking below budget or ahead of schedule and on budget.

Across our North American footprint, we're consistently executing on a diverse set of projects totaling approximately 3 Bcf per day of incremental capacity expected to be operational this year. These results reflect the strength of our disciplined approach to excellence in project execution. Now since 2020, we've seen a steady upward trend in the returns of our sanctioned capital program. In 2024, our projects achieved an average unlevered after-tax IRR of approximately 11%, up meaningfully from 8.5% just a few years ago. And looking ahead, we expect this upward trend to continue as we high-grade a growing set of competing opportunities to optimize returns and maximize long-term value. In fact, year-to-date, our sanctioned projects have an expected average unlevered after-tax IRR of approximately 12% and for new projects going forward, we continue to expect to deliver EBITDA build multiples in the 5x to 7x range that translates to low to mid-teens IRRs.

Importantly, and similar to the Northwoods project we announced earlier this year, these opportunities are predominantly brownfield in corridor expansions that leverage our existing footprint and long-standing customer relationships. Contracts are underpinned by long-term take-or-pay agreements with investment-grade counterparties and in many cases, have upside potential. For instance, the strategic upsizing of the Pulaski and Maysville Projects that we sanctioned last year has enabled us to further improve the low 6x build multiples expected on both projects. Turning to Bruce Power, an asset that continues to deliver long-term value and plays a central role in Ontario's energy future.

Our investments through the major component replacement program are enhancing the reliability and availability of our nuclear fleet. These are long-duration investments that support the province's clean energy goals while delivering strong returns for our shareholders. As shown on the left-hand side of this slide, Bruce Power's availability has steadily improved from the mid-80s percent range in prior years to an expected average in the low 90s for 2025. And at the same time, the realized power price we receive continues to trend higher as the contract price is adjusted annually to reflect capital investments, inflation and other factors.

Combined with Project 2030, these investments are expected to nearly double our equity income from Bruce Power by 2035. Ontario published its latest electricity demand forecast in April that indicates a 75% increase needed by 2050, with Bruce Power playing a key role in meeting that need. The Bruce C Project is progressing, supported by up to $50 million in federal funding for development and assessment. We are proud to be part of this essential infrastructure and to continue delivering value through disciplined strategic investment. With that, I'll turn the call over to Sean.

Thanks, Francois, and good morning, everybody. TC's operations teams delivered exceptional utilization rates across our natural gas and power portfolios during the quarter, which coincided with increased customer demand across our North American footprint. On the left-hand side, we highlight a number of volume increases and new record set in each of our three pipeline business units. On the bottom of the slide, in our Power and Energy Solutions business, Bruce achieved 98% availability in an exceptionally strong quarter while also receiving its annual price adjustment as of April 1.

We continue to expect Bruce's overall availability to be in the low 90% range for full year 2025, which includes the planned maintenance outage on Unit 2 in the third quarter. Shifting to the EBITDA bridge on the right-hand side, you'll see that each of our business units increased their EBITDA contribution over the comparable quarter last year. Canada gas EBITDA increased due to increased contributions from Coastal GasLink following its in-service date last October and higher flow-through regulated costs. In the U.S., EBITDA increased mainly due to the settlement in principle and the application for higher transportation rates on Columbia Gas, which became effective on April 1.

We also saw incremental earnings from new customer contracts on several existing pipelines and new projects placed into service in the quarter. Our Mexico business increased due to higher earnings in TGNH, primarily related to the completion of the Southeast Gateway pipeline, partially offset by lower equity earnings from Sur de Texas as a result of the strengthening peso and higher income tax expense. Lastly, our Power and Energy Solutions business had higher contributions from Bruce due to increased generation output and a higher average realized price of $110 per megawatt hour, which is up $8 per megawatt hour relative to the second quarter last year.

Our Alberta co-gen continued to deliver strong performance with greater than 90% availability, which maximizes our capacity payments. That was partially offset by lower Alberta power prices that continued to average approximately $40 per megawatt hour in the second quarter. Turning to our 2025 financial outlook that Francois mentioned. We now anticipate 2025 comparable EBITDA to be $10.8 billion to $11 billion. For context, the increase in our 2025 outlook reflects two drivers: first, the strong operational results and market pricing realized during the first half of the year; and second, our high degree of confidence in our execution plan for the remainder of the year.

A key to our execution plan is continuing to place our projects into service on schedule and under budget. That remains a top priority and a tailwind to capital efficiency and EBITDA performance. The combined value drivers of strong asset performance and capital optimization allow us the flexibility to most efficiently fund our incremental growth and prioritize our leverage metrics. On the balance sheet, we expect further deleveraging to approximately 4.75x by the end of 2026 based on the full year contributions of Southeast Gateway and the 7 other projects expected to be placed into service later this year. Looking out to 2027, we continue to target EBITDA of $11.7 billion to $11.9 billion, which implies a 5% to 7% 3-year growth rate that again highlights the predictability of our base business.

A few reminders that we like to offer each quarter on FX. We systematically hedge our U.S. dollar net income to insulate our comparable earnings from FX volatility. So we do not expect a material impact related to FX on our 2025 comparable earnings. Longer term, on an unhedged basis, a $0.01 change in the USD-CAD corresponds to roughly a $0.01 change in comparable EPS. So to wrap up our financial overview, with 97% of our EBITDA being underpinned by rate-regulated or long-term take-or-pay contracts and management's clear visibility on a low-risk repeatable project backlog, TC continues to operate a resilient business model with a durable long-term value proposition as highlighted by our 25 years of consecutive dividend growth.

Finally, we released our 2025 report on sustainability this morning. The report provides a comprehensive overview of our sustainability performance and progress, including how TC Energy has reduced absolute methane emissions by 12% over the last 5 years, while increasing throughput by 15% and increasing comparable EBITDA in our natural gas business by 40%, it highlights how we're continuing to work to drive down methane emissions, including the introduction of a new methane intensity reduction target of 40% to 55% by 2035 as measured by 2019 levels. And finally, how our strong safety performance is the foundation of our operational excellence and a key driver behind the financial results we shared with you this morning. We hope you read more about our team's important sustainability efforts in the report on our website. With that, I'll pass the call back to Francois.

Thanks, Sean. As we look ahead, our focus remains squarely on those three priorities we continue to drive our success on. First, maximizing the value of our assets through safety and operational excellence; second, executing on our high-quality capital-efficient growth portfolio, including completing or placing approximately $8.5 billion of assets into service this year, and third, maintaining financial strength and agility to support long-term value creation. Strong momentum across our operations and capital program, we remain confident in our ability to deliver low-risk, repeatable growth through 2025 and beyond. Operator, we are now ready to take questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question will come from Praneeth Satish of Wells Fargo.

Congrats on a strong quarter here. Maybe I'll start with the Columbia Gas settlement filing. So I think in the filing, it mentions the establishment of rates over three defined periods. Can you maybe just provide more details on the rates during these periods? What are the conditions to see a step-up in rate? What's the magnitude? And I understand it's not conditional on CapEx investments. So I guess what are the gating factors there to step the rate higher over the next few years.

Praneeth, this is Tina Faraca. I'll take that question. We're really excited about the outcome of the PUCO or the Columbia Gas rate settlement in principle. We've had a constructive agreement with our customers that resolved all major issues in the case. As you're probably familiar, the settlement in principle established interim rates that were put into effect that reflects about a 26% increase to our pre-filed firm transportation rates. The rates obviously are subject to final settlement once we have filed and seen approval by FERC.

There were several key issues that were addressed by the settlement in principle, including the establishment of rates for three defined periods, also 3-year moratorium and a required comeback in 6 years and roll-in treatment for a couple of our recent reliability projects. Related to your question on the step-up in rates, that is not detailed in the settlement at this stage, and the step-up in that detail of rates is going to be provided in the final filing. So at this case, we can only communicate. There are three defined periods established and more details will come in the final filing.

Got it. Okay. And maybe switching gears. I mean, I don't think it's a secret that Meta is actively building out its campus in New Albany, Ohio, including a planned multi-gigawatt cluster there. So I know Columbia Gas is already feeding one of the behind-the-meter projects in that data center park. But I guess how much available capacity do you have upstream of that interconnect point if, let's say, gas demand there grows significantly? I guess how much more gas can you push into New Albany off of the Columbia system? And I asked that in the context of Meta's earnings last night where they said they're targeting a 30% increase to CapEx to over $100 billion. So potentially, there's a lot of spending coming to that region.

In that region, Praneeth, we obviously have a lot of pipelines that run through the New Albany area, and we're in a very strong position as these opportunities develop to serve capacity or transport capacity into that region. We have had some recent open seasons in that area. that were secured by various entities. We'll continue to see how we can optimize capacity in that region. And in addition, we are certainly positioned to expand if necessary, depending on where the supply is required from, given our footprint in that region. Also, as you know, we have several utility connections with some of our major customers there. So if any of these opportunities progress within their service territory, we're very well positioned to serve that demand.

The next question comes from Aaron MacNeil of TD Cowen.

I guess this one is probably for Sean. I know it's unchanged in the disclosures, but how should we be thinking about your 2027 EBITDA guide given the increases in 2025 and positives you've outlined in the prepared remarks, including the Columbia rate case, increasing gas demand forecast, improving IRRs and improved visibility on growth projects since you outlined the target at the Investor Day.

Yes, Aaron, it's a good question. A couple of parts to that. Look, the back half of our guidance this year is fundamentally underpinned in our confidence to execute on a lot of these emerging trends that Tina just talked about. So look, it's still a little bit early. We're very confident in that 11.7% to 11.9% range. We have a handful of rate cases in flight this year that I'm sure Tina could talk about. And importantly, and what Francois mentioned in his Slide 8, that IRR slide, what you're seeing right now in terms of '25 EBITDA performance, this is really the vintage of projects we're bringing online right now were sanctioned 2 and even 3 years ago. So when you look at that slide and see the projects we're sanctioning now and kind of the 12% range, it will take 2 or 3 years for them to come online. So we want to give it just a little bit more time for these projects to season and for the backlog projects to kind of get up and running from a sanctioned basis. We'll have more for you on that in the fall with a fully detailed long-term plan update.

Fair enough. Francois, this one is probably for you. The recent Alliance settlement is top of mind for investors, and that sort of got me thinking about if other Canadian pipeline assets may experience sort of negative toll revisions in the future. I can appreciate that you can't directly link Alliance with the Canadian Mainline, and I'd like to get your perspective on the differences. But the asset does generate an ROE in excess of stated ROE due to the incentive sharing mechanism, and that's obviously benefited from meaningful volume growth over the settlement period. With that settlement expiring at the end of '26, do you think we'll see a resetting of the sort of revenue and cost assumptions embedded in that sharing mechanism?

Yes. Perhaps I'll start, Aaron, and I'll ask Tina to provide some additional detail. And I'll just focus on sort of the macro backdrop across our whole Canada gas network. We did a capacity expansion on the mainline last year for the first time in many, many years. Every time we run an open season, either on NGTL or the Mainline, we get very robust subscriptions for our service at full rates. When you look at our settlement on NGTL as an indication, we got accelerated depreciation to allow us to get a return of capital more quickly, but that was in exchange for adding capacity.

So fundamentally, our system being the incumbent system in Canada to transport WCSB natural gas to all markets needs to expand in order for producers to have access to other markets. We are their distribution channel. So it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison, and I don't really see any concern or potential for us to have downward pressure in returns. But over to you, Tina.

Yes. Thanks, Francois. Through our customer and regulator, we worked very collaboratively to get the approval of the 2021 to 2026 mainline settlement. And as part of that settlement, we had incentive sharing mechanisms. That has resulted in significant optimization of our operations, and we've realized value through those efforts, including the fact that we've had very strong system flows, which have resulted in lower tolls for our customers. It's been a real win-win, and that has driven commencement returns for the mainline. So as we look forward to post 2026 settlement discussions, we're going to look to carry forward elements of this approach with the goal of maximizing return of and on capital in our business while continuing to provide competitive tolls for our customers.

The next question comes from Jeremy Tonet of JPMorgan.

Just wanted to pick up a bit on the visibility into a steady cadence of project announcements in the back half of '25 and into '26 here. And wanted to dial in a little bit more in Pennsylvania here, given the recent Pennsylvania Energy and Innovation Summit. It seems like your pipelines are nicely positioned around some of those assets there. I was just wondering if you could elaborate a bit more, I guess, on TRP's ability to maintain or gain market share as far as logistics opportunities in that area based off announcements at that summit.

Thanks, Jeremy. I'll start and Tina will provide some detail. I'll just focus on the macro picture here. As I mentioned in my prepared remarks, we've seen an increase in our long-term forecast of natural gas demand growth out to 2035 from 40 Bcf a day to 45. You see the Pulaski and Maysville capacity increases despite the fact that those projects were sanctioned last year. Essentially, what's happening is when a utility or a data center developer announces energy supply, it's attracting other demand to that location. And that dynamic is going to manifest itself not only in those two projects, but you could potentially see us upsizing other projects that we've recently announced over the coming months. So just a really good picture in terms of our ability to be competitive. And as to Pennsylvania and the Appalachian Basin in general, I'll pass it over to Tina.

Thanks, Francois. Our assets sit on top of some of the largest demand centers in North America and -- whether that's data centers, power demand or the like. So that really gives us optionality across our footprints. I won't speak to any specific projects in Pennsylvania, but we do have a number of conversations underway. Those are continuing to progress well. We currently have, as we talked about earlier, over 30 conversations with data center developers across the entire value chain.

And our primary focus is going to be working collaboratively in the U.S. with our utility or LDC customers where we see we have the most alignments with the long-term trends. Really, our job is to take this significant opportunity set and select high-grade projects that deliver compelling returns in the 5 to 7x build multiple with long-term contracted cash flows. And that discipline is really paying off, and we'll continue to see that as we progress more projects, whether it's in Pennsylvania or other places.

Got it. That makes sense. And then I think TRP has shown a good ability to reduce capital in projects coming under budget there. I'm just wondering if you could talk about the ability to, I guess, to continue doing that in the future, how you think about that? And really want to hear more of your thoughts on the incremental ability to add projects as this opens up balance sheet capacity and how you think about that?

Jeremy, it's Francois. I'll take that one. It's -- I think our performance on project execution demonstrates a huge focus within the organization on achieving project execution excellence. That comes with better preparation, deploying more development capital at risk prior to sanctioning so that we have -- we're able to deliver outcomes consistent with Board approval and what we've communicated to the marketplace. And we expect that to continue. I think the thing to make note of here is that if you look at our forward pipeline, it is nothing but brownfield in-corridor expansions.

And the average size of our projects is down to around $450 million per project. And our performance this year in terms of bringing them in under budget is a good indication of that. We look at the projects that are midstream for going into service in '26 and beyond. Our performance is tracking to sort of a similar outcome. Part of the reason why we're seeing improved returns in that 12% unlevered after-tax range this year is because there's more competition for our capacity.

The industry only has a finite amount of expansion capacity available on a brownfield basis, and there's an increasing number of customers pursuing that. So that places more negotiating leverage in the hands of the pipeline companies. And I would say, as we look at our forward pipeline, not only the $30-plus billion that's been sanctioned, but the next wave, the next $30 billion beyond that, we feel we have the ability to do the vast majority of that with brownfield expansions and not really looking to any large greenfield projects. So the dynamics are just very positive for us right now.

The next question is from Theresa Chen of Barclays.

On the heels of these positive developments, with the significant milestone of SGP now being in service and collecting tolls even 1 month earlier than previously anticipated, plus solid performance across the business in general and financial discipline and organic growth. Can you give us an update on the path forward to get to your 4.75 deleveraging target?

Theresa, it's Sean. I'll take that one. Yes, top of mind, just a couple of table setters. We're bringing $8.5 billion of projects into service this year. This is really a peak year for us from a capital and service standpoint. We're going into our $6 billion to $7 billion range from here forward. So we're at a peak kind of delivery this year at $8.5 billion. We're also at our peak leverage. I think we've been pretty clear that 2025 will be in the 4.9 range in large part due to SGP, right, kind of only really getting a half years' worth of cash flow out of that. So it's really full year 2026 that we talked about in our prepared remarks that we are on track for our 4.75 in large part due to the 10 projects that Francois highlighted all coming into service by the end of 2025 and then converting to cash flow and organic deleveraging over the course of 2026. But to be clear, our 4.75 leverage is absolutely part of the long-term plan.

On Mexico, seeing that the past two administrations have prioritized expanding gas supply to the Southeast, namely the Yucatan Peninsula, but Northern Mexico seemingly also has a dire need for additional capacity, especially after 2030 when the legacy domestic production is expected to decline more sharply. You have assets that span multiple regions within Mexico. Curious to hear what is your outlook for utilization, understanding that the capacity by and large part is spoken for. But for utilization and growth for this set of infrastructure as your assets service these unique drivers of regional demand there?

Yes, Theresa, it's Francois. I'll take this one. Our assets in the northern part of Mexico are those that have been in service the longest, 10-plus years. Mexico has been very forward-looking in terms of anticipating growth and capacity. But you're quite correct. The utilization rates on our assets in the north have steadily gone up. And we are at the stage now where we, along with our very important customer, the CFE, need to be thinking about expansions. The good news is for expansions of those systems, they're relatively capital efficient. Really, they're just about compression increases.

And so any capital required to increase throughput there would be fairly modest in nature. We will, however, balance that with the need to make sure that the percentage of our EBITDA coming from Mexico is along the lines of our long-term direction. So balancing those two, there are some growth opportunities for us in the northern half, as you said. But I think since there are only really compression additions and maybe some minor looping, we don't think that it will really stress increasing amounts of capital allocated in Mexico.

The next question comes from Maurice Choy of RBC Capital Markets.

Maybe just focusing a little bit on Canada here. I just wanted your updated macro view of the Canadian energy policy landscape. Bill C-5 has obviously become law and your views of the path forward for what we may see across the space, including at TC Energy, fully recognizing that the lion's share of your discretionary capital will still flow to the U.S.

Thanks, Maurice. It's Francois. I'll take this one. Look, Bill C-5 is definitely a positive from our perspective. I think it's nice to see a federal government that understands the sense of urgency around deploying capital to help make Canada an energy superpower. In our interactions with the federal government, we believe very much that, that is a sincere objective on their part. We will benefit from that, we believe, if LNG Canada sanctions Phase 2 of -- the Phase 2 expansion of that -- at that site with a doubling of throughput capacity on CGL. Our obligation there, again, is to work with them to provide a bona fide estimate to factor into their FID process. We're nearing the final throes of doing that, and that will be factored into their assessment on their own time line.

With respect to other infrastructure around the country, I think there's a much better appreciation for the role that natural gas is going to play in terms of increasing the role Canada can play in reducing the world's emissions. I've spoken publicly about the fact that I believe there's a huge potential for Canada to be the largest exporter of LNG to Asia and that, that could create up to $75 billion incremental GDP for the country. The provinces appear to be supportive. The policy support now appears to be there. And so it's up to Canada, the provinces, indigenous communities and the private sector to get out there and send the message to international markets that Canada is open for business again.

Understood. And just finishing off on the U.S. data center and new project seen. I know in your prepared remarks, you mentioned that several customers have indicated potential of requiring a greater capacity than originally planned. Can you elaborate a little bit more on that and what customers are asking -- they request materially changed from your last conference call? I fully recognize you've not changed your messaging on the timing of new projects, but just curious how the customers are -- customer discussions are going.

Maurice, this is Tina. I'll elaborate on that a bit. As we talked about with our Pulaski and Maysville project that we sanctioned last year, as we're starting to develop those projects, there's continued growth on the power generation sector that is driving some of our customers to want to plan for greater capacity as they continue to see that power generation requirement grow. So those are great examples of how we're in process and then have been asked to "upsize" the facilities for additional projects that they're seeing behind their service territories. Other examples, you may remember, last year, we had -- earlier this year, we were looking at a project in Wisconsin that was a bit delayed.

And that project was in the process of looking at increased capacity as well. And then as we're looking down the road related to power generation, we see this robust pipeline of about 5.5 Bcf per day and $8 billion of opportunities, which include coal-to-gas conversions or data center-driven demand. And that demand continues to grow. So as we're developing the projects, we continue to see increased needs that are causing us to, in some cases, add additional facilities before we're able to sanction those projects.

The next question comes from Rob Hope of Scotiabank.

Maybe continuing on the data center theme. So it does appear that we're seeing the size of the data center campuses getting larger. How is that getting reflected in the project pipeline? Are we seeing some consolidation of projects? Or in aggregate, are we just seeing larger projects overall with the same number? And I guess, could this also result in project sizes above the average of 450 that you just mentioned?

Thank you, Rob. I'll take that question. This is Tina. We're seeing several demand drivers in addition to just data centers when you think about power generation. And in the U.S., in particular, you'll recall that our strategy is to primarily work with our utility companies to support the power gen behind their systems. So as we look at those opportunities, they may include coal to gas, they may include a general electrification, they may include data centers. So a lot of our utility customers are looking at this in a much more aggregated fashion related to how much power they need to serve these loads. That's working really well for us because then we're able to put sizable projects together that are not just specific to an individual data center. It's more for general power generation demand. And we are going to continue to see a cadence of those type of opportunities in the second half of '25 and '26.

And Rob, it's Francois. Just to add to that, sort of the second part of your question, yes, we definitely could see projects getting larger than otherwise or originally planned. But in many instances, what that means is you go from a 30-inch pipe to a 36-inch pipe. The complexity of the project doesn't really increase dramatically. And -- for instance, a 25% increase in capacity throughput does not necessarily imply a 25% increase in the capital cost if it's just a larger diameter pipeline. So while the projects are trending to get a little bit larger, it does not mean that the complexities also increasing.

Appreciate that. And then maybe on a longer-term theme, here in Ontario, we're seeing, I would say, continued or increasing support for nuclear. When we think about Bruce C, and I know it's a number of years out, but what are kind of some of the key milestones we should be looking for over the next couple of years on that project?

Yes. Thanks, Rob. It's Greg Grant here. Maybe just to start with, one of the things that we're very excited about, certainly, whether it's Bruce or OPS, we did have the recent publication from the Ontario government on the integrated energy plan. And I just want to highlight that when you look through that document, it talks about affordability, security, reliability and clean energy. And I happen to know two projects that do that with Bruce C and OPS. So we're very happy with the progress of both of those projects, having both the Ontario and federal government support there. With Bruce C in particular, we continue to progress with the federal dollars that were given to us, the $50 million.

We're looking at various environmental reviews, archaeological and really, it goes towards site preparation and continuing on some of the engineering work. So we're going to continue to progress that work. I just would add that it still is fairly early. Like when you think about the work that goes into building a Bruce C, it's going to continue on until the end of the decade, and you shouldn't expect an FID on that until early 2030. But you will see also in the early 2030s, Francois mentioned in the remarks, almost a doubling of EBITDA just from the existing work that we're doing. So some great work from the team and looking forward to progress Bruce C.

The next question comes from Ben Pham of BMO.

A couple of questions. Can you update us on the status or success of shoring up that $6 billion to $7 billion through the 2030 time frame? I'm thinking specifically the 2026 wedge and also any comments on those elevated years 2 years beyond that.

Yes, Ben, it's Francois. I'll start and invite Sean to add some comments. As we talked about last year, looking out to 2030 in terms of unallocated capital, we had about $8 billion of room remaining. We've done a good job actually starting to fill that $8 billion. And when we look at our forward pipeline, we certainly expect that we'll be able to fill that up by the end of 2026 for all of the thematic reasons that we've expanded upon on this call. But Sean, anything you want to add there?

Very little. Ben, We monitor the white space, we've worked off probably 1/3 of that just in the last 6 months relative to Investor Day, and it's is really this dual track process, $6 billion for at least the next 2 years so that the balance sheet and the pipeline both get to kind of work in the way that they both need to. So we're capturing the growth on these 12% projects while still respecting and preserving the 4.75. So we're going to go slow with this kind of $6 billion to $7 billion range and another at least 2 solid years of kind of execution before we really consider doing anything different.

And this increased cadence of the data center projects or LNG, recognizing its small scale. It sounds like you sanction those projects, you'll still be more at the $6 billion level. I'm just trying to gauge your comfort level in that $6 billion to $7 billion range.

Yes. Look, it -- as you know, Ben, it takes 2 or 3 years to get regulatory approval before you put shovels in the ground. You're making financial commitments from the time you sanction a project. But in terms of cash going out the door and being deployed for construction, which is where most of the capital goes, that only starts happening when you put shovels in the ground. And so it's getting harder and harder to contemplate having projects with meaningful spend even in 2027, given the fact that we're in July of 2025 already. So as I've said before, some of the lessons that we've learned from our past that have driven our project execution excellence are a respect for human and financial capacity.

And first and foremost, as we look at executing a larger backlog of projects in the future, the focus will be first on human capacity. Do we have the bench, the breadth of bench and do we have the management attention to govern over a larger capital program. So we're going to do that very carefully and very judiciously and continue to focus on a large number of smaller projects that are brownfield and in corridor. But that sort of points you to it being challenging for us to consider a larger program really until 2028 or beyond.

The next question comes from Robert Catellier of CIBC.

Question maybe for Tina. I just wanted to follow up on the data center theme here. It sounds like from your comments that you're really focusing on serving the LDC customers and sticking to brownfield and pipeline expansions. But what's your view on pursuing behind-the-meter power?

Rob, I'll start, and then I'm going to turn it over to Greg Grant. But as we've stated in the past, our strategy in the U.S. is to work with our utility customers to serve data center load, given that there's additional load typically from a portfolio perspective that they're trying to serve with power gen. And then we have an attractiveness and depth of our portfolio by doing this. It provides us a low-risk compelling return approach to capturing data center growth, and we can proceed with build multiples in the 5 to 7x range. In select instances, we'll be looking at direct connections to data centers where there's utility service limited. But again, that would need to be in the 5 to 7x range with low risk. From a behind-the-meter perspective, there are opportunities that we would be considering in Canada, given the different construct there. I'll turn it over to Greg to walk through that.

Sure. Happy to comment on that, Tina. Just that we are open to opportunities and having many conversations where we can leverage our experience and capabilities in that complementary solution, we talked about a couple of quarters ago on both the gas and the electron side. And I think in Alberta, we do have that strategic footprint. We do have the gas storage. We have power assets. We have renewables. We have -- on the co-gen side. So we have a great footprint to work from. I would just add, we will be very thoughtful and selective in that approach. We do know that we'll have to compete for capital, and we're working with our customers here on some win-win solutions that you can actually bring some capacity on quite quickly. But obviously, they have to compete. And we think with that footprint, we can get competitive risk-adjusted returns to compete with some of the great projects that Tina has been bringing forward.

Okay. And then just wondered maybe a question for Sean here. What are the practical impacts of the budget reconciliation bill, the One Big Beautiful Act (sic) [ One Big Beautiful Bill Act ] in the U.S. on your project pipeline as well as cash taxes.

Yes, Rob, the short answer is not much. We're a regulated service provider, right? We don't get the benefit of bonus depreciation. But on the flip side, we also don't get the interest limitations that unregulated folks do in the U.S. So it's pretty good for our customers, right? We're bringing new unregulated capacity online. And what you've heard Tina and Francois and Greg talk about today is, I think, only going to get better from the Big Beautiful Bills. We're an indirect beneficiary of it.

One point I'd like to add, Rob, it's Francois, is our EBITDA guidance long term, our -- the execution of our growth plan is not reliant on any prospective reform, permitting reform or concessions or stimulus in the bill you referenced. It's based on the status quo. So any improvements that come prospectively will simply either improve time lines or improve returns from what's stated in our guidance.

Okay, great. That's the perspective I was looking forward, thank you.

The next question comes from Olivia Halferty of Goldman Sachs.

I wanted to start on the multiyear growth plan on NGTL, specifically that today's announcement brings total commitments under the plan to roughly $700 million within the plan's $3.3 billion framework. Could you share how we should think about the cadence of project announcements from here in order to add 1 Bcf a day of capacity by 2030? And secondly, how do you think about allocating capital towards NGTL under this framework versus pursuing, let's say, incremental U.S. gas projects with potentially higher returns?

Thank you, Olivia. I'll take the question, and then I'll pass it over to Francois for any additional comments. The multiyear growth program obviously was completed as part of a multiyear settlement we have on NGTL. And as we are evaluating the need for egress, we'll continue to have a cadence of how those projects will be supported. We have recently announced the Program 1 and Program 2, and we'll continue on a cadence through the next several years. Nothing really prescriptive about that, but the opportunity will be there to continue to provide egress from that. We were able to procure that opportunity set through that settlement that gives us opportunity to earn more than we would otherwise. And so the criticality for us is to continue to be able to provide egress from the basin, and we have a solution for that with this program.

And to add to that, Olivia, and by the way, the capital spend for the multiyear growth program is back-end loaded in the 5-year period. The first two waves that we've sanctioned are fairly modest in size, as you referenced. In terms of capital allocation going forward, and we are going to honor our commitments, obviously, to our customers in Canada, very important customers. Part of the settlement was for a commitment on our part subject to board sanctioning of each individual project is to increase -- meaningfully increase egress from the basin. Beyond that, however, Canada gas has to compete for capital with the other business units in the company. And currently, the risk-adjusted returns in the U.S. are meaningfully higher than in Canada. So for our discretionary capital, you can expect that we are going to be allocating capital predominantly in the U.S. as and until competitive projects in other jurisdictions present themselves that compel us to allocate capital elsewhere.

Got it. That's clear. Appreciate the color there. Maybe a second question for me. I wanted to touch on the willingness to lean into partnerships on future projects as discussed last quarter, which could allow TC to capitalize on the numerous project opportunities across the footprint while managing capital requirements. Could you frame up, first, your willingness to pursue projects with partners versus pursuing projects independently? And second, where partnership opportunities are most interesting across your current footprint? And then maybe last, zooming out, how might partnership opportunities compare and contrast in the different business segments like U.S. versus Canada gas or power?

Olivia, it's Sean. Let me take that question generally, and maybe I'll pass it over to Greg to talk about some of the past partnerships. Look, as Francois mentioned, our average project size is $400 million to $500 million, and its brownfield on our current systems. We do not need partners for projects of that type. That being said, right, as part of our capital efficiency, capital rotation partnership, always looking for partners that can either add value through capabilities, through cost of capital. But by and large, on our brownfield strategy, we're perfectly well suited and capitalized to prosecute most of that, if not all of that. I would tell you on maybe some of the larger projects, maybe, Greg, particularly in [indiscernible], if you want to talk about how we think about some of the JV opportunities there.

Sure. No, happy to. I think that there's plenty of opportunities strategically to bring in partners. I think there's a strategic in the capability's perspective in financial. Obviously, when you look at in OPS, we're working quite closely with the SON, Saugeen Ojibway Nation as equity partners. We have numerous partners when you think about CGL. We're partners with OMERS on Bruce. And -- so I think there's plenty of opportunities where we will look strategically for partnerships and JVs, and we've been quite successful in prosecution and execution of those.

The next question comes from Burke Sansiviero of Wolfe Research.

Just curious if you've met with S&P since you've received payment on Southeast Gateway. Just any thoughts on when you think they might deal with a very long 29-month negative outlook.

Burke, it's Sean. I'm happy to take that one. Look, let me just say we're in constant contact every quarter, every agency and they kind of move through their review cycles, obviously, independent of one another. So without speaking specifically about any recent conversation, that report has been 29 months, as you say. S&P was pretty clear in that February report as to what they were looking for this year. SGP obviously coming online on time and under budget was an important one. And the second element of the conversation with the S&P team and candidly, all of the agencies was maintaining the capital discipline and the project delivery kind of 5 to 7x. We've done everything that we said we were going to do. We've completed everything that the agencies kind of had on their watch list. So as it relates to each agency's review period from here towards probably the fall, I'm not at liberty to say it, I don't know. So we stay in constant contact.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the question-and-answer session. If there are any further questions, please contact Investor Relations at TC Energy. I will now turn the call over to Gavin Wylie.

Thank you, and thanks, everybody, for participating this morning. As the operator mentioned, if we didn't get to your question today, please do contact the Investor Relations team. We're always happy to help. And of course, as always, we appreciate your interest in TC Energy and look forward to our next update that's likely going to be early November. Enjoy the rest of your summer. We'll see you soon.

This brings to a close today's conference call. You may disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating and have a pleasant day.