PEG

Utilities

Public Service Enterprise Group

Price Chart

Market Data

Financials

XBRL · SEC EDGAR

2007–2025(19yr)

Revenue

Net Income

Free CF

Metric	FY 2007	FY 2008	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011	FY 2012	FY 2013	FY 2014	FY 2015	FY 2016	FY 2017	FY 2018	FY 2019	FY 2020	FY 2021	FY 2022	FY 2023	FY 2024	FY 2025Latest	YoY
Revenue	$12.7B	$13.3B	$12.0B	$11.8B	$11.1B	$9.8B	$10.0B	$10.9B	$10.4B	$9.1B	$9.1B	$9.7B	$10.1B	$9.6B	$9.7B	$9.8B	$11.2B	$10.3B	$12.2B	+18.3%
Gross Profit	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	$6.2B	$6.3B	$6.5B	$6.7B	$6.5B	$6.2B	$5.8B	$8.0B	$6.9B	$8.0B	+16.1%
Gross Margin	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	68.0%	69.4%	66.7%	66.5%	68.2%	64.0%	59.0%	71.0%	67.0%	65.8%	-1.2pp
Operating Income	$2.8B	$2.6B	$3.1B	$2.9B	$2.7B	$2.3B	$2.3B	$2.6B	$3.0B	$1.6B	$1.4B	$2.3B	$1.9B	$2.3B	-$856.0M	$1.4B	$3.7B	$2.4B	$3.0B	+26.6%
Operating Margin	22.5%	19.6%	25.9%	24.9%	24.7%	23.3%	23.1%	24.1%	28.4%	17.4%	15.7%	23.7%	19.3%	23.6%	-8.8%	14.1%	32.8%	22.9%	24.5%	+1.6pp
Net Income	$1.3B	$1.2B	$1.6B	$1.6B	$1.5B	$1.3B	$1.2B	$1.5B	$1.7B	$887.0M	$1.6B	$1.4B	$1.7B	$1.9B	-$648.0M	$1.0B	$2.6B	$1.8B	$2.1B	+19.1%
Net Margin	10.5%	8.9%	13.2%	13.3%	13.6%	13.0%	12.5%	13.9%	16.1%	9.8%	17.3%	14.8%	16.8%	19.8%	-6.7%	10.5%	22.8%	17.2%	17.3%	+0.1pp
Free Cash Flow	$573.0M	$574.0M	$61.0M	$4.0M	$1.5B	$213.0M	$347.0M	$340.0M	$56.0M	-$888.0M	-$929.0M	-$999.0M	$213.0M	$179.0M	-$983.0M	-$1.4B	$481.0M	-$1.2B	$26.0M	+102.1%
FCF Margin	4.5%	4.3%	0.5%	0.0%	13.3%	2.2%	3.5%	3.1%	0.5%	-9.8%	-10.2%	-10.3%	2.1%	1.9%	-10.1%	-14.1%	4.3%	-12.1%	0.2%	+12.3pp
EPS (Diluted)	$2.62	$2.34	$3.14	$3.08	$2.96	$2.51	$2.45	$2.99	$3.30	$1.75	$3.10	$2.83	$3.33	$3.76	$-1.29	$2.06	$5.13	$3.54	$4.22	+19.2%

Total Debt$22.5B

Cash & Equiv.$132.0M

Net Debt$22.4B

3 min read

1. THE BIG PICTURE

Public Service Enterprise Group is transforming itself into a "pure-play" regulated utility and carbon-free generator, betting that New Jersey’s decarbonization goals will fund its massive infrastructure pipeline. By prioritizing regulated investments like the $2.9 billion energy efficiency program, Public Service Enterprise Group is trading the volatility of competitive power markets for the "predictability" of rate-payer-funded returns (10-K Item 1).

2. WHERE THE RISKS HIT HARDEST

The "consistent and reliable" nuclear fleet—a stated competitive strength—is increasingly vulnerable to rising operational costs and fuel supply constraints. Management cited higher refueling costs at the Hope Creek facility and the expiration of zero-emission certificates as significant drags on recent performance (8-K). Furthermore, the strategy of "allocating capital primarily toward regulated investments" (10-K Item 1) is directly threatened by "affordability" concerns; if PJM capacity prices continue to rise, regulators may limit Public Service Enterprise Group’s ability to recover costs for its $1.4 billion gas modernization program (GSMP III) to protect consumer rates.

3. WHAT THE NUMBERS SAY TOGETHER

Public Service Enterprise Group is currently the most efficient operator in its peer group, leading in both net margin (19.5%) and revenue growth (+18.3%) (XBRL). However, this growth is capital-intensive: Public Service Enterprise Group carries $23.0 billion in net debt to support a 2.4% FCFFCFFree Cash Flow — cash left after paying for operations and capital investments; what the company can actually spend, save, or return to shareholders margin, which, while leading the peer group, remains slim relative to its massive investment needs. The 18.3% TTMTTMTrailing Twelve Months — the most recent full year of financial data, updated on a rolling basis each quarter revenue growth significantly outpaces peers like Consolidated Edison (+10.9%) and Exelon (+5.3%), reflecting the aggressive rollout of infrastructure programs like the Energy Cloud project completed in 2024. With short interest at a low 2.0% of the float, market sentiment appears broadly supportive of this high-spending trajectory (Yahoo Finance).

4. IS IT WORTH IT AT THIS PRICE?

At 17.6x forward earnings, Public Service Enterprise Group is priced exactly in line with the peer median (Yahoo Finance). At this multiple, the market is pricing in ~2.0% long-term growth (CAPM analysis). This valuation appears justified given Public Service Enterprise Group’s superior margin profile—its 26.1% operating margin is second only to Entergy—and its 3.2% dividend yield, which sits comfortably in the middle of the peer range. If Public Service Enterprise Group can push growth toward 2.5% through its $2.9 billion energy efficiency pipeline, the sensitivity analysis suggests a justified multiple of 19.2x, offering roughly 9% upside. However, with long-lived assets making up 73% of the balance sheet, any regulatory shift that triggers an asset impairment would quickly erode this premium.

5. WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS VIEW?

Cautious if the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities or FERC denies cost recovery for the $1.4 billion GSMP III program scheduled for 2026.
Constructive if FCFFCFFree Cash Flow — cash left after paying for operations and capital investments; what the company can actually spend, save, or return to shareholders margin expands beyond 2.4% as the GSMP II and Energy Cloud projects move from the heavy investment phase into the recovery phase.
Cautious if nuclear operation and maintenance costs continue to rise, as seen in the Q4 2025 results, offsetting the benefits of federal production tax credits.

6. BOTTOM LINE

Structural Advantage: High-margin regulated transmission formula rates and a nuclear fleet protected by federal production tax credits. Bottom Line: Public Service Enterprise Group is a top-tier utility performer priced for mediocrity, making it an attractive bet on infrastructure modernization.

Source: Synthesis · LLM Analysis

4 min read

1. Top 5 Material Risks

Capital Investment Recovery: Public Service Enterprise Group’s business plan relies on extensive capital improvements, including transmission, distribution, and nuclear uprates. Failure to obtain regulatory approvals or timely recovery of these costs through rates could materially affect Public Service Enterprise Group's financial position and cash flows.
Regulatory Uncertainty and Affordability: Increasing electric demand and supply constraints in PJM have led to higher energy and capacity prices. Policymakers are considering measures to mitigate rate increases, which creates regulatory uncertainty for Public Service Enterprise Group’s investment initiatives and could adversely impact its growth rates and financial condition.
Asset Impairment: Long-lived assets account for 73% of Public Service Enterprise Group’s total assets. Significant adverse changes in regulation, business climate, or prolonged periods of low commodity and capacity prices could trigger impairment charges, negatively impacting Public Service Enterprise Group's financial condition.
Cybersecurity and Operational Failure: Public Service Enterprise Group faces increasing risks from sophisticated cyberattacks, asset failures, and natural disasters. A significant event could result in loss of revenue, repair costs, fines, and reputational damage that may not be fully covered by insurance.
Liquidity and Credit Ratings: Public Service Enterprise Group depends on access to capital markets to fund its investments and refinance debt. A loss of investment-grade credit ratings would require Public Service Enterprise Group to provide significant additional collateral, which would materially affect its liquidity and cash flows.

2. Company-Specific Risks

Nuclear Fuel Supply: Each nuclear unit operated by Public Service Enterprise Group has contracted with a single fuel fabrication services provider; transitioning to an alternative provider could take an extended period, potentially impacting the financial results of specific plants.
Peach Bottom Ownership: Public Service Enterprise Group holds a 50% interest in the Peach Bottom nuclear plants but lacks operational control, limiting its ability to mitigate risks associated with those facilities.
Contractual Dependencies: Public Service Enterprise Group derives significant revenue from a long-term Basic Gas Supply Service (BGSS) contract with its utility subsidiary and an Operating Services Agreement (OSA) with the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA); discontinuation of these contracts would negatively affect financial results.
Nuclear Decommissioning Trust (NDT) Funding: A decline in the market value of the NDT Fund could increase funding requirements for Public Service Enterprise Group, necessitating additional cash contributions that would negatively impact its financial position.

3. Regulatory/Legal Risks

FERC RTO Membership Incentive: The potential elimination of the 50 basis point adder for RTO membership would reduce Public Service Enterprise Group’s annual net income and cash inflows by approximately $40 million.
Environmental Remediation: Public Service Enterprise Group retains remediation obligations for its former fossil generation portfolio under the New Jersey Industrial Site Recovery Act and the Connecticut Transfer Act, which are expected to be material in the aggregate.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Oversight: Non-compliance with NRC regulations or licenses could lead to increased oversight, fines, or the forced shutdown of a nuclear unit, with limited insurance coverage available for such losses.
FERC Order 1000: Increased competition for transmission projects under FERC Order 1000 could decrease the value of new investments subject to recovery in Public Service Enterprise Group’s rate base.

4. Financial Impact Map

Capital Investment Recovery → Results of Operations and Cash Flows → Failure to recover costs through rates could materially affect these items. Regulatory Affordability Measures → Growth Rates and Financial Condition → Policymaker actions to reduce rates could adversely impact these metrics. Asset Impairment → Financial Condition → Future impairment charges could have a material adverse impact on Public Service Enterprise Group's financial position. Cybersecurity/Operational Failure → Revenues and O&M Expenses → Events could adversely impact revenues and increase costs to repair and maintain systems. Loss of Investment-Grade Rating → Liquidity and Cash Flows → Requirement to provide significant additional collateral would have a material adverse effect on these items.

Source: 10-K Item 1A · LLM Analysis

Recent Filings

Form	Filed	Period
8-K	Feb 2026	—
10-K	Feb 2026	Dec 2025
10-Q	Nov 2025	Sep 2025
14A	Mar 2025	—