Exelon Signals Readiness to Re-file PECO Rate Case After PA Stakeholder Alignment

Signals that would prompt re-filing (and what would encourage filing) for the PECO rate case

What would prompt re-filing the PECO rate case (data points / regulatory signals)

From Exelon’s management discussion, the “prompt” to re-file is not described as a single threshold event, but rather a bundle of constructive regulatory and stakeholder signals in Pennsylvania—especially from the PA PUC and the governor’s office—combined with evidence that Exelon can address affordability and governance concerns before filing.

1) Constructive settlements and progress on active rate cases at the PA PUC

Management cites “constructive data points” including “constructive settlements that have already occurred” and “constructive discussions on the active rate cases currently underway” at the PA PUC as an input to deciding when to file again. ¹²

2) Ongoing stakeholder discussions that indicate alignment on the “key points” Pennsylvania is looking for

Exelon links the re-filing decision to continued engagement with “key stakeholders in Harrisburg,” including “the governor’s office,” and states that the key issue areas the state is looking for are:

• Customer value / customer benefits from investments
• Transparency on ROE
• Using every lever to address affordability
  These are explicitly described as the categories Exelon is working to address so that, when it files again, it addresses concerns raised by the state and statutory intervenors. ¹²

3) Clear indication that the investment-and-reliability rationale is understood as necessary for Pennsylvania’s goals

Exelon says it has seen indicators that Pennsylvania remains a “solid regulatory framework” and that officials “view PECO as an economic partner and job creator,” while also acknowledging Pennsylvania needs “financially strong, viable utilities and sustainable investments” to encourage economic growth. ³

This matters as a regulatory signal because it suggests the state’s posture is not simply affordability-focused in isolation, but also supportive of maintaining a system capable of reliability and growth. ³

4) Demonstrated track record of reliability and reliability-focused communications as part of the regulatory narrative

Exelon emphasizes that investments should be “justified not only through the rate case process, but prior to the rate case process as we go,” and it points to communication and alignment around categories like “safety, reliability, and resilience.” ⁴

While the excerpt doesn’t provide PECO-specific outcome metrics in the re-filing decision, it does provide the type of evidence management says it will want to have ready: clear alignment between planned investments and reliability/resilience needs, supported with communication before filing. ⁴

5) Receipt of supportive funding/grants that help demonstrate customer and policy value (a “proof point” style signal)

Management references a specific PECO-related award: PECO “was awarded a RISE PA grant of $50 million” for a gas plant investment in West Conshohocken. ⁴

In a practical sense, while a grant is not itself a regulatory rate-case outcome, it can function as a “constructive data point” that supports Exelon’s argument that investments can be tied to state-recognized priorities and value categories. ⁴

---

What would encourage filing at this time (what management says increases confidence)

Exelon’s “encouragement” to file now is framed around readiness and confidence that concerns will be addressed upfront, supported by both negotiations and execution credibility.

1) Confidence that Exelon can address the state’s and intervenors’ concerns in the next filing

Exelon states it is “continuing to work with the governor’s office, the PUC, and the statutory intervenors, like the Consumer Advocate’s Office and the Small Business Advocate’s Office,” so that “when we file again, we are addressing each of their concerns.” ²

That is the clearest “encouragement” signal: not just goodwill, but a planned structure for the re-file designed to map to the specific affordability/ROE/transparency and value expectations. ²

2) Increased comfort from constructive momentum in Pennsylvania rate proceedings (not waiting for silence or delay)

Exelon says it is “seeing indicators” that Pennsylvania is still a “solid regulatory framework” for its operation and that PECO is considered an “economic partner and job creator,” which supports confidence that a re-filing could be “productive.” ³²

3) An “inflection point” is effectively whether stakeholders are aligned that investments produce customer value and affordability mechanisms are adequate

The question posed in the transcript asks about “inflection points” Exelon “hope[s] to see before filing again,” specifically “what would encourage you to file at this time.” ¹
Management’s response operationalizes those inflection points as: settlements/discussions, stakeholder alignment on the affordability + ROE transparency agenda, and ongoing dialogue to ensure the filing is responsive. ²³

4) Financing and execution credibility supports readiness (even though it doesn’t replace regulatory signals)

While not a regulatory signal per se, management’s broader readiness to execute appears to support the timing question. For example, Exelon describes being largely through its 2026 debt financing needs (“approximately 86%”) and having priced a substantial portion of planned equity needs through 2029 via forward contracts under its ATM program (“approximately 37%”), with expected average credit metrics of about “14% through 2029.” ⁵

This matters because it reduces the likelihood that Exelon would be forced to delay purely for balance-sheet or financing constraint reasons; it provides capacity to move forward once regulatory/stakeholder conditions are met. ⁵

5) Management’s broader platform approach implies PECO re-filing is not “binary,” but timing depends on PA alignment

Exelon notes it “pulled the Pennsylvania rate case” and “reaffirmed our guidance,” and it emphasizes that its model isn’t dependent on any single jurisdiction. ⁶
That suggests filing timing is responsive to regulatory alignment, rather than being driven by a need to “just complete” the process. ⁶

---

Bottom line (direct answer)

• Data points/regulatory signals that would prompt re-filing: constructive PA PUC momentum (including “constructive settlements” and active case discussions), continued engagement with Harrisburg/governor stakeholders, and clear alignment that the next filing will (a) demonstrate investment customer value/benefits, (b) provide ROE transparency, and (c) incorporate “every lever” to address affordability—with readiness to address concerns of intervenors like the Consumer Advocate and Small Business Advocate. ¹² Additional supportive “proof points” like a $50 million RISE PA grant and ongoing emphasis on safety/reliability/resilience communication serve as reinforcing indicators that the investment narrative matches state priorities. ⁴

• What would encourage filing now: management’s stated confidence that its continued discussions with the governor’s office, PUC, and intervenors will translate into a next filing that addresses each party’s concerns, and that Pennsylvania remains a “solid regulatory framework,” with PECO viewed as an economic partner that requires sustainable investment to support reliability and growth. ²³