Earnings call transcript: TC Energy Q3 2025 sees EPS beat, revenue miss

TC Energy reported its Q3 2025 earnings, revealing a slight earnings per share (EPS) beat with $0.77 compared to the forecasted $0.76, representing a 1.32% surprise. However, the company’s revenue fell short of expectations, coming in at $2.63 billion against a forecast of $2.65 billion, a miss of 0.75%. In pre-market trading, TC Energy’s stock showed a modest decline of 0.02%, with shares priced at $50.34.

Key Takeaways

• TC Energy’s Q3 EPS exceeded expectations, albeit slightly.
• Revenue fell short of forecasts, indicating potential challenges.
• The company reported a 10% year-over-year increase in comparable EBITDA.
• New growth projects totaling $700 million were sanctioned.
• Natural gas pipeline operations set new flow records.

Company Performance

TC Energy demonstrated resilience in Q3 2025, with a 10% year-over-year increase in comparable EBITDA to $2.7 billion. This growth was primarily driven by a 13% rise in natural gas pipeline operations. Despite missing revenue forecasts, the company continues to focus on expanding its infrastructure, particularly in power generation and data center sectors.

Financial Highlights

• Revenue: $2.63 billion, a shortfall from the $2.65 billion forecast.
• Earnings per share: $0.77, slightly above the $0.76 forecast.
• Comparable EBITDA: $2.7 billion, a 10% increase year-over-year.

Earnings vs. Forecast

TC Energy’s EPS beat the forecast by 1.32%, marking a positive note in its financial performance. However, the revenue miss of 0.75% suggests potential areas for improvement. The company’s ability to slightly exceed EPS expectations reflects its operational efficiency, despite revenue challenges.

Market Reaction

Pre-market trading saw TC Energy’s stock decrease by 0.02%, with shares priced at $50.34. This movement reflects investor caution following the mixed earnings results. The stock’s performance remains within its 52-week range, highlighting moderate market sentiment.

Outlook & Guidance

Looking ahead, TC Energy maintains a positive outlook with expected EBITDA growth of 6-8% in 2026. The company targets $6 billion in annual capital investment through 2030 and anticipates filling its project backlog by the end of 2026. Dividend growth is expected to remain at the lower end of the 3-5% range.

Executive Commentary

CEO Francois Poirier emphasized the company’s strategic positioning, stating, "Our strategy is working," and highlighted TC Energy’s role in LNG exports, noting, "We move approximately 30% of all feed gas bound for LNG export." Poirier also addressed capital allocation, asserting, "We are not capital constrained in that we’re turning away projects."

Risks and Challenges

• Revenue misses indicate potential market or operational challenges.
• Fluctuations in natural gas demand could impact future performance.
• Regulatory changes in energy markets pose ongoing risks.
• Execution of large-scale infrastructure projects may face delays.
• Economic conditions could affect overall energy consumption.

Q&A

During the earnings call Q&A, analysts inquired about the potential monetization of Mexican assets in 2026 and improvements in project returns. The discussion also covered technological advancements in project development and the possibility of increased capital allocation to support growth initiatives.

Full transcript - TC Energy Corp (TRP) Q3 2025:

Speaker 2: Thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to the TC Energy third quarter 2025 results conference call. As a reminder, all participants are in listen-only mode, and the conference is being recorded. After the presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To join the question queue, you may press star, then one on your telephone keypad. Should you need assistance during the conference call, you may signal an operator by pressing star, then zero. I would now like to turn the conference over to Gavin Wylie, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Gavin Wylie, Vice President, Investor Relations, TC Energy: 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 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.

Francois Poirier, President and Chief Executive Officer, TC Energy: 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 five-year lows, and through the first nine 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 5.9 times.

This takes our total sanctioned projects up to $5.1 billion over the last 12 months, largely capitalizing on the extensive demand we are 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-$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 4.75 times 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 two, 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. In Mexico, the economy is poised for significant expansion driven by strong fundamentals and President Sheinbaum’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. 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 a 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 shoreline in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. 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 are seeing in energy demand have 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 5-7 times 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 unlabored 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. 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 one 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. 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. 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. With that, I’ll turn it over to Tina to speak in more detail on this opportunity set.

Tina Faraca, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Natural Gas Pipelines, TC Energy: 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 five years. 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 forecasts 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. 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 five 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 optimized 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. 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 four 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. 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. 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 pipelines 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. 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. 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 driving 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 results?

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.

Greg Grant, Executive Vice President and President, Power and Energy Solutions, TC Energy: Thank you, Tina. As Francois noted, our portfolio is one of a kind. It is highly aligned with the fastest-growing segments 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 co-generation fleet. Our 118 bcf of non-regulated 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 Pumped 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 base load 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 proven management team and execution capabilities. At the same time, we’re building low-carbon capabilities, ensuring 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 is compared to a historical average of 84% before the program began. 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.

Sean O’Donnell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, TC Energy: 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 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 solution 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, and higher income taxes on the NGPL 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 in 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 is partially offset by lower equity earnings from Topolobampo Power Plant 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 two-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.

Our unregulated natural gas storage portfolio’s EBITDA is benefiting from the increased volatility and 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 2024, and we remain on track to achieve 7%-9% growth from 2024 to 2025. Looking ahead to 2026, we anticipate delivering another year of strong performance with year-over-year growth of 6%-8%. This sustained performance underscores the strength and repeatability of our base business. With the inventory of growth projects over the next three years that Francois and Tina highlighted, we are positioned to deliver EBITDA growth of 5%-7% with a 2028 comparable outlook of $12.6 billion-$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 three-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 timelines. 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’ve sanctioned an additional $5.1 billion of primarily in-quarter 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 five- to seven-times 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 4.75 times. From a sources and uses perspective, our three-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 4.75 times 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.

Francois Poirier, President and Chief Executive Officer, TC Energy: 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. Allocating our remaining net annual investment capacity through 2030 within our targeted build multiples range of five to seven times without moving up the risk curve. 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.

Speaker 2: We will now begin the question and answer session. To join the question queue, you may press star, then one on your telephone keypad. You will hear a tone acknowledging your request. Please limit your questions to two, and if you should have additional questions, please re-enter the queue. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing the keys. To withdraw your question, please press star and then two. Our first question comes from Praneeth Satish with Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Good morning. I think if we just zoom out for a second and think about EBITDA growth on a longer timeframe 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. When you get out to 2030, there is at least $1 billion-$2 billion per year of CapEx capacity that opens up with Bruce Power. I know you are not 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%-7% CAGR can be maintained?

Sean O’Donnell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, TC Energy: Praneeth, it’s Sean. I’ll take that question. Great question. You highlighted on Francois’s page nine, those IRRs going to kind of 12.5% right now, that’s critical for us to continue to see those types of return levels. To be able to allocate capital in that 2029 and 2030 period. I’ll tell you a little bit of what’s happening. Small to mid-sized projects were taken down very quickly, but projects are getting bigger and more complex. That’s what we want to wait to see. Can we continue to push returns and capital allocation up in the 2029 to 2030 timeframe? If these returns remain true, then I do think you’ll see the same kind of mid-point of growth, if not potentially better. The projects are just taking a little bit longer for us to have that degree of clarity.

Francois Poirier, President and Chief Executive Officer, TC Energy: Got it. That’s helpful. Maybe if I can follow up on that line of questioning here. 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. 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? Should we kind of assume more conservative leverage targets over time? Any update on kind of how you’re thinking about that longer-term CapEx cadence?

Hey, 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. Wanting to make sure that if and when we consider going above six, we can continue to execute with the performance that we’ve demonstrated over the last two or three 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.

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. I would say it is within those two caveats. When you look at the lead time for projects, realistically, that is 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.

Very helpful. Thank you.

You’re welcome.

Speaker 2: The next question comes from Robert Hope with Scotiabank. Please go ahead.

Francois Poirier, President and Chief Executive Officer, TC Energy: Morning, everyone. 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? 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 a half a bcf all the way up to more than a bcf, depending on the type of 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 the 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. Certainly, we continue to see those opportunities progress, and we’ll pursue those as we see them advance.

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.

Yeah, 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, multi-billion dollar projects. These are still in-corridor expansions. The average size of our projects in our backlog right now is about $500,000,000. You might see projects announced over the next year creep up around that $1,000,000,000 level or maybe still a little bit north of that. They are still in-corridor with existing customers and very straightforward from a construction execution standpoint. We don’t view, despite the larger size, any execution complexity increase. Simply, we’ve had a number of projects this year that six 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. Maybe continuing on the theme of the project backlog. 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 12-24 months?

Yeah. Just to be very clear, Rob, and 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. As we talked about, with careful consideration of our human capital, we think we can go beyond that. 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. The great thing, for example, if you look at our guidance for 2028 of 12.5-13.1.

With EBITDA growing the way it is, it’s natural that our backlog and annual capital spend can grow along with it. As I said, the opportunity set is definitely there for us to go there if we choose to. 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 2028 or 2029.

Appreciate it, caller. Thank you.

Speaker 2: The next question comes from Teresa Chen with Barclays. Please go ahead.

Good morning. 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, Teresa. 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. 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. In instances where we have seen those requested, there have been limiting factors, including contract term or requirements for procure-long lead time items, just inconsistent with our risk preferences. 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. 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? On the heels of Greg’s comments related to the technological advancements and use of robotics for the MCR program, it seems that you’re uncovering additional efficiencies and innovative solutions in general here. What are the key lessons from the MCR process that you would be applying to Bruce C if FID?

Sure. Thanks, Teresa. Appreciate the question. It’s Greg. We do continue to progress Bruce C. We actually just received the notice of commencement from the IAAC here in August. As we talked about in the last part, there’s still a lot of work to do when you think about moving towards FID in the early 2030s. 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 NRCAN, and the next tranche will help provide us the funding as we move towards FID towards the end of the decade. Nice of you to point out the slide 19. I think there’s many innovations that Bruce has 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. The reason that we actually put robotics and other things in as we progressed through unit three was to be able to continue that over through all the successive MCR programs. The team has been doing a great job on time and on budget. 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.

Thank you.

The next question comes from Erin McNeil with TD Cowen. Please go ahead.

Francois Poirier, President and Chief Executive Officer, TC Energy: Hey, morning, all. Thanks for taking my questions. The negotiated settlement on the Canadian mainline expires in 2026. You mentioned several rate cases over the next several years. 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?

Yeah, thanks for the question, Erin. 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. Our NGTL settlement ends at the end of 2029. The projections for those rate cases or rate settlements include conservative estimates in our budgeting and forecasting. Each rate case is very different depending on the rate base, the capital investment. You will see the proposed uplift on those rate cases already embedded into our forecasts.

Okay. Understood. 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? Ultimately, I guess I’m just wondering if this level of outperformance can be sustained.

Yeah, thanks. Market pressures have not really had a material impact yet, but we do see industry backlogs building, and we are continuously monitoring our suppliers and our contractors. Francois earlier highlighted our human capital, and that is one of our also top considerations when we are sanctioning and executing projects. This applies also to our contractors and skilled labor workforces. We have been through these cycles before. We learn when it gets busy. It is increasingly important to retain top-tier suppliers, contractors, crews. We are 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. Two, our portfolio. Our contractors like this long-term portfolio that we have, whether it is small, medium-sized, and quarter projects. All of our maintenance capital, we are able to develop long-term relationships with them for that long-term backlog.

Yeah. I’ll add to that, Erin, as Francois, with respect to outperforming plan going forward, remember that the risk of our portfolio is decreasing. If you look over the last two or three 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 timelines are quite predictable. 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. 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 return on projects we sanction. 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’s in good shape right now. We’re more focused on growth. 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. Project execution is always about people and our human capital. 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.

Thanks for the detailed answers. I’ll turn it back.

Welcome.

Speaker 2: The next question comes from Jeremy Tonet with J.P. Morgan. Please go ahead.

Francois Poirier, President and Chief Executive Officer, TC Energy: Hi. Good morning.

Morning.

Morning.

Just wanted to turn to slide 23 if I could and 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. Just wondering, is it fair to think that that is the balance when you’re thinking about the guide period? Hey, 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 in our systems. We’re being asked to do more than we ever have been. 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.

It is a bit of an imbalance towards the tailwinds for the first time in a long time. Towards that, outside of that 2029 and 2030, we’ve been asked a few times about why not five years’ guidance. We just want to maintain another year to make sure that all of these tailwinds remain durable through the end of the decade. So far, so good.

Got it. That is helpful. The three-year guide looks really conservative here, given that backdrop. That is helpful to understand. I just wanted to go to Mexico, I guess. There have been comments in the past with regards to potential for monetization there. I am just wondering any updated thoughts you might be able to provide there.

Yeah. 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. Mexico is a phenomenal business for us, right? Putting STP into service this year and kind of demonstrating the commercial viability of that. CFE has a major campaign underway, right, with their $27 billion kind of power and transmission build-out and giving that a couple of quarters to continue to develop. We are still committed to looking at alternatives in 2026. We will have USMCA, some clarity there by hopefully June or July. We will have progress on the CFE side with connecting a number of different power plants that will be served primarily by STP and other assets. We will look at capital market and partnership opportunities starting in 2026 and hopefully have an update by mid to fall of 2026.

Got it. That’s very helpful. I’ll leave it there. Thanks.

Welcome.

Speaker 2: The next question comes from Maurice Choy with RBC. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I just wanted to come back to a comment earlier that Francois, you made about your ability to go above $6 billion without rotating capital. It does not sound like you need this program, but from everything you shared today, you are also not short of opportunities. 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 de-risk projects?

Thanks for the question, Maurice. 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. Before we consider capital rotation or any outside form of equity, we always look to improve the ROIC on our existing assets. 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. 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 six, and we decide that we do need some.

Equity, the bias will always be to capital rotation first. 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. That’s what I meant by that comment.

That makes sense. If I could just finish on the question about returns. On a forward-looking basis, you mentioned that you are expecting a five to seven times bill multiple. Compared to the investigate last year, have 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?

Hey, Maurice, it’s Sean. The answer is the latter. We have seen the 5-7% guidance from investor day last year to this year. We have executed right in the middle of that rate. It is steady. The proof points are there, and they are why we’re extending that guidance through 2028 at this point. Yeah. 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 5-7 times EBITDA build multiple. As you can imagine, our $17 billion BD pipeline, we have pretty good visibility on the returns of those projects. We think that that outcome is very achievable.

The clear implication there is that we expect the build multiples to hold at the levels that you just referred to.

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 go up, your returns should hold. Is that fair?

Yeah. 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. We expect to be able to hold our returns to deliver that five to seven time EBITDA build multiple.

That’s great. Thank you very much.

You’re welcome.

The next question comes from Manav Gupta with UBS. Please go ahead.

Thank you so much. 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.

Hey, Manav and 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-$7 billion capital range, those were commitments that we made to the market. To be fair, the agencies held us accountable and wanted to see a couple of quarters of performance under that new strategy. We’ve delivered and better. Yeah, we’re grateful for recognition of that, but it was always kind of part of our plan and expectation to get to this point.

Perfect. A number of the questions we are getting from investors is when you look at 2026, your guide is 6-8%, 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.

Yeah. Happy to take that one again, Manav and Sean. Look, we have a little over $8 billion going into service kind of driving that. These are new assets. As it relates to the optionality that we have with all of our assets, right? Customer-driven events, weather-driven events, outperformance. 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. With these new assets in particular, we’ll be conservative in how much more we can do from a new customer standpoint. We look forward to having all the new inventory kind of up and running here by the end of the year.

Thank you so much.

The next question comes from Olivia Foster with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Hey, good morning, team. Thanks for the time. 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? Could you share any insights on customer willingness to sign up for rates underpinning these improved project returns? On the other hand, are there any balancing factors from project competition in regions where TC Energy operates?

Tina Faraca, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Natural Gas Pipelines, TC Energy: Hi, 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 advanced our skill set, our governance. The way we advance our projects on early development. 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. As we’re working with our customers, the optionality in our systems requires expanding. As we’re working with them, they are highly valuing the new capacity as well as the security to supply. 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 is really the value of our footprint, the strategic advantage for us to find those low-risk, high-return opportunities that we can filter into our $6 billion-$7 billion capital.

Got it. That’s clear. Thank you. 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? Maybe this is a clarifying question as well I’ll tag on, but is TC Energy contemplating moving towards the higher end of the $6 billion-$7 billion range or eventually moving above the upper end of the range over time?

Yeah, Olivia and 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. As Francois mentioned, our per-share metrics at 4.75 or below are really how we kind of triangulate balance of total shareholder return. 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 six to seven or seven to eight, if the project returns are there and it works within 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.

That’s clear. Appreciate the time. Thank you.

Great question. Thank you.

Speaker 2: The next question comes from Robert Catellier with CIBC. Please go ahead.

Hey, good morning, 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 the projects are coming in on time and on budget recently.

Tina Faraca, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Natural Gas Pipelines, TC Energy: 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 number one 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.

Just to add to that. Rob, I really appreciate the question. We do not talk about culture enough on these types of calls. 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 high-quality execution on projects. We have worked really hard on creating a strong culture with strong psychological safety, and it has definitely benefited us.

Yeah, it sounds like you’ve 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. Yeah. Thanks, Rob. 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. That is 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. We are 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. Certainly in Alberta, when you see an 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. Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks so much.

Speaker 2: The next question comes from Sam Burwell with Jefferies. Please go ahead.

Hey, good morning, guys. Given the LNG buildout on the Gulf Coast, it seems like there’s at least some opportunity to send more Canadian gas south. Are possible brownfield expansions on your system something that might make sense for you to pursue? If so, how would those projects rank within your opportunity set?

Tina Faraca, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Natural Gas Pipelines, TC Energy: Yeah, thanks for the question, Sam. This is Tina. Yeah, 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 have placed eight LNG projects into service over the last few years, primarily related to Gulf Coast projects. Recently, you are familiar, we have built our Coastal GasLink project to the West Coast, and we think there is 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. We will continue to evaluate those as necessary.

There are about 10 more LNG projects proposed along the Gulf Coast that will be looking for additional supply. 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. 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 one and train two now moving forward. We are working really closely with LNG Canada right now to evaluate the phase two. We are supporting them in the development related to what would be necessary on the pipeline. 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 two.

Recall, Sam, that LNG Canada phase two is part of the projects in the national interest that the federal government has identified. From a permitting standpoint, I think that process is well underway with the major projects office. Really, the decision now rests with the proponent for the LNG facility.

Okay. Great. Thank you, guys.

Speaker 2: The next question comes from Ben Pham with BMO. Please go ahead.

Hi. Thanks for the morning. I appreciate the update. A couple of maintenance questions from me on the 5%-7% EBITDA growth guidance. There were a couple of questions earlier on this topic. I’m wondering, could you provide the building blocks on that CAGR, that 5%? What amounts to growth? What is rate cases? What is the efficiencies? What takes you to the 6% and to the 7% or beyond?

Hey, Ben Sean, thanks for the question. Look, we may do a better job on that kind of offline, but just to give you a sense for it. There is another big chunk of that with capital coming into service kind of over the next two years, right? That is always our baseline. Capital kind of coming into service. We could have up to half a dozen rate cases kind of in flight during this plan. That is probably the biggest driver of the range and what has to be true over the course of the next kind of couple of years. The smaller kind of bucket, but things that we have had real kind of demonstrable experience and results from, asset availability, commercial, and technology. It is a small but kind of growing kind of influence on the growth.

You heard both Tina and Greg kind of mention, 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. Those are really three big buckets, but happy to take that offline in more detail.

Okay. That’s great. Thanks, Sean. Maybe the other maintenance question I had is, on the dividend growth side, are you still expecting the ranges you’ve highlighted in the past on dividend growth?

Yeah. Just to be clear for all the listeners, our 3-5% 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.

Okay. Got it. Thank you.

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.

Sean O’Donnell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, TC Energy: 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 did not get to your question or if there was anything that was outstanding, please feel free to contact us in the Investor Relations team. We are always happy to help. Of course, we look forward to providing you our next update, likely in mid-February. Thank you.

Speaker 2: This brings to a close today’s conference call. You may disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating and have a pleasant day.

This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.