NJR — what changed in the latest 10-Q
A section-by-section comparison of NJR's newest periodic SEC filing (10-K/10-Q) against the prior same-form filing: paragraphs added and removed per section, with verbatim excerpts. Purely a deterministic text diff — no similarity scores, no directional read, not investment advice.
Comparing 10-Q · 2026-08-04 vs the prior 10-Q · 2026-05-05
| Section | Outcome | Added | Removed | Minor | Unchanged |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD&A | Text added/removed | +52 | −40 | ~57 | 128 |
| Market risk (Item 3) | Text added/removed | 0 | 0 | ~7 | 11 |
| Controls & procedures | Text added/removed | +1 | −1 | ~1 | 0 |
| Legal proceedings | Text added/removed | 0 | 0 | ~1 | 0 |
| Risk factors | No material changes reported (points to the 10-K) | — | — | — | — |
| Other information | Text added/removed | 0 | 0 | ~1 | 0 |
Counts are paragraphs; added/removed means text added or removed vs the prior filing — no direction or judgement implied.
Representative excerpts
Up to 5 excerpts of about 300 characters per section, quoted verbatim from the two SEC filings.
MD&A
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-08-04
•$19.3M increase at ES related to favorable pricing spreads; and
•$6.5M increase at CEV due primarily to higher REC sales and the recognition of ITCs associated with the solar sale leaseback financing transactions.
•$38.1M increase at ES due to market volatility and favorable pricing spreads related to colder weather;
•$16.9M increase at NJNG due to higher base rates, along with customer growth; and
•$9.9M increase at S&T due to higher firm transportation and storage rates at Adelphia and Leaf River; partially offset by
Text removed vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-05-05
•$8.4M increase at ES related to market volatility due to the colder weather;
•$4.0M increase at NJNG due to higher BGSS incentives and customer growth.
•$20.9M increase at NJNG due to higher base rates and BGSS incentives, along with customer growth;
•$7.1M increase at S&T as previously discussed, partially offset by;
•$39.8M decrease at CEV due to the gain on sale of the residential solar portfolio in the prior period.
Controls & procedures
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-08-04
We periodically review our internal controls over financial reporting as part of our efforts to ensure compliance with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. In addition, we routinely review our system of internal controls over financial reporting to identify potential ch…
Text removed vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-05-05
There has been no change in internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f)) that occurred during the quarter ended March 31, 2026, that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, internal control over financial reporting.
How to read Risk Factors (Item 1A) in a 10-Q
A 10-Q risk-factor section usually takes one of three forms; this page classifies it as one of:
- Pointer — the filer states there have been no material changes and points back to the annual 10-K risk factors; there is no own risk text to compare this quarter.
- Partial update — the filer carves out specific updated risks ("except as set forth below"); the excerpts show exactly what is new this quarter.
- Restated in full — the quarter carries the complete risk-factor text. When the prior quarter was only a pointer there is no prior full text to diff against, so the page flags the section as restated instead.
This describes the filing structure only — it is never a judgement on whether risk went up or down.
Source: text-level diff of the two SEC EDGAR filings · deterministic (no AI-generated content) · for reference only · not investment advice