Elia Group Stock

Good morning, and welcome to the half year results call of Elia Group. I'm Stephanie Luyten, Head of Investor Relations, M&A and Financial Partnerships. And here with me are our Group CEO and CFO, Bernard Gustin, Marco Nix. Welcome both.

Good morning.

Before we start, please take a moment to read the disclaimer on screen. It contains the important information that we kindly ask you to review. As always, today's slides are available on our website, and the full script will also be published shortly after the live stream event ends.

Bernard, if we take a step back from the numbers and look at the first half of the year, what are, for you, the most significant developments of Elia Group?

Well, good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. I'm pleased to report that the first half of 2026 has been another period of solid execution for Elia Group. Across Belgium and Germany, our teams continued to deliver strong operational and financial performance while advancing one of Europe's largest electricity infrastructure investment programs. What stands out to me is our ability to combine growth with discipline.

We continue to invest at scale, strengthened our capital structure, made tangible progress on key infrastructure projects and reinforced the foundations needed to support the energy transition and our long-term growth ambitions. These results reflect the commitment and expertise of our colleagues across the group who work every day to build the electricity system that Europe will need tomorrow. Before we discuss our financial and operational performance in more detail, it's worth taking a step back and looking at the broader context in which we operate. The world around us continues to evolve at fast pace.

The energy landscape, technology, geopolitics, industrial demand and societal expectations are all changing very rapidly. So if we want to continue creating long-term value, we need to remain closely connected to those needs. Our role is not simply to build infrastructure. It is to understand where society is heading and ensure that the electricity system evolves with it. Increasingly, the energy transition is no longer viewed solely as a climate imperative. It has become a matter of competitiveness, energy sovereignty and resilience. Europe's dependence on imported fossil fuels has repeatedly exposed it to geopolitical shocks.

This has driven up energy costs, weakened industrial competitiveness and highlighted the importance of strengthening energy security. And of course, the energy crisis demonstrated the strategic value of electrification and renewable energy integration. Both can help reduce reliance on importing fuels and limit exposure to volatile global markets. Today, around 70% of EU electricity is already generated from homegrown clean energy sources. Yet the electrification of energy demand has remained stuck at 23% for more than a decade. So clearly, accelerating electrification across industry, transport and buildings is essential. Recognizing this, the European Commission is assessing an indicative electrification target of 46% by 2040. This could reduce the EU's fossil fuel import bill by EUR 260 billion a year. Achieving this ambition will require investment at scale, supported by stable and predictable market frameworks.

Now last month, European Union Energy Ministers reached agreement on a common negotiating position for the European grid package. While the legislative process is ongoing, its direction is significant. The package reinforces many of the principles that Elia Group has advocated for years, coordinated infrastructure planning, accelerated permitting procedure, stronger interconnections and deeper cross-border cooperation. In short, Europe is increasingly recognizing that achieving its climate competitiveness and security of supply objectives requires not only renewable generation, but also the infrastructure capable of transporting clean electricity where it is needed.

The message across Europe is becoming increasingly clear. The grid is not a consequence of the energy transition. The grid is a precondition for it. And that creates a substantial long-term opportunity for our Group. At the same time, it would be misleading to suggest that the challenge is simply about building more infrastructure. The next phase of the energy transition is fundamentally about execution. Can we build the required infrastructure fast enough? Can permitting process keep pace and growing demand -- with growing demand? Can supply chain deliver the required equipment? Can society support infrastructure development at the scale required? Can the necessary capital be mobilized? And can regulation provide sufficient predictability? These are not separated challenges. They are all dimensions of the same execution challenge.

That's right. A supportive regulatory framework remains a critical enabler of our investment program. If we look first at Belgium, we have reached an important milestone at the end of June with the publication by the Belgian regulator of the final tariff methodology for the 2028-2031 period. Overall, we see this as a constructive outcome. The regulator has clearly opted for stability and continuity, preserving the key strengths of the current framework and providing greater visibility through 2031.

Importantly, the framework continues to offer strong incentives to deliver. In fact, the number of incentives increases from 16 to 18 with a stronger focus on efficient execution of our growing investment program. In particular, the new incentives encourage projects to be delivered on budget and support the timely reinforcements of the Belgian grid as electrification continues to accelerate.

From a returns perspective, these incentives become even more meaningful and are expected to contribute around 2 percentage points to the return on equity. This ensures strong alignment between shareholder returns and a broad set of societal objectives, including efficient delivery of the critical infrastructure for society. Based on current assumptions and as highlighted on the slide, the framework supports an average post-tax regulatory return on equity of around 8%, including the fair remuneration component, incentives and the unchanged MACH-Prämie. Overall, we believe this framework provides a good balance. It offers investors greater visibility while supporting the significant investments needed to strengthen Belgium's electricity systems for the years ahead.

And with an eye on Germany, the regulatory consultation process is still ongoing. BNetzA continues to engage with stakeholders ahead of the final framework determination expected later this year. While the process is still at draft stage, the proposals already provide greater visibility on a number of key principles. These include a harmonized framework for onshore and offshore activities, a unified return on equity across all assets, a cost-plus model with incentive mechanisms and a standardized approach to capital remuneration and cost of debt.

Importantly, the regulator has adopted a comprehensive consultation process, and we remain actively engaged in the dialogue. The final methodology is expected to be determined in autumn 2026, while the key financial parameters, including return on equity and cost of debts are expected to be finalized during the year '27, ahead of the start of the new regulatory period. At this stage, it remains too early to draw definite conclusions, but we are encouraged by the constructive stakeholder engagement and the recognition of the significant investment needs required to support Germany's energy transition.

Well, let me now turn to a second challenge, which is procurement and supply chain resilience. The scale of infrastructure required across Europe is unprecedented. This puts increasing pressure on specialized equipment manufacturers, engineering resources and critical supply chains. Over recent years, we've witnessed substantial cost inflation in key technologies, particularly in HVDC infrastructure and offshore equipment. The Princess Elisabeth Energy Island illustrates both the opportunity and the challenge. The strategic importance of the project remains unchanged.

It will serve as the world's first artificial energy island and become a cornerstone of Belgium's future offshore energy system. At the same time, unprecedented increases in the cost of HVDC technology have required project optimization to ensure affordability while preserving the strategic objectives. Managing the supply chain realities has therefore become a strategic capability in its own right. And at Elia Group, our scale increasingly provides an advantage. Our infrastructure program spans Belgium, Germany, the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, allowing us to build long-term partnerships with suppliers and create visibility across the value chain.

Example of this approach can be seen in recent contract award related to LanWin 6, our ongoing offshore development and the broader offshore collaboration initiatives in which we play a leading role. These projects contribute not only to the energy transition, but also to the development of Europe's industrial supply chain. LanWin 6 is indeed a project we are very proud of. And in many ways, it is far more than an energy infrastructure project. It's one of the largest industrial programs currently being developed in Europe.

At a time when the continent is seeking to strengthen its competitiveness and strategic autonomy, projects of this scale drive investment, stimulate innovation and sustain entire industrial value chain. By bringing together manufacturers, engineers, construction companies and technology providers, LanWin 6 create high-value economic activity and skilled employment. Recent contract awards linked to the project are expected to support the creation of up to 1,000 new jobs in the Rostock region, underlying its tangible economic impact across Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.

And at the same time, infrastructure that is needed for a climate-neutral future is being built. It's a powerful example of how the energy transition can also support an industrial renaissance in Europe. Now building out the grid through projects of this scale is essential because we are seeing a rapid increase in demand for grid access across both Belgium and Germany. But when people hear the word congestion, they often assume the grid is simply too small. In reality, the picture is more complex. Many connection requests are submitted long before projects are really ready to move forward. And as a result, requested capacity can significantly exceed the demand that will actually materialize. The challenge is, therefore, not to build more infrastructure. It's also to ensure that available capacity is allocated efficiently.

Building the grid for every theoretical scenario would be neither affordable nor efficient. Instead, we need a clearer view of future demand and mechanism that prioritize projects that are mature, credible and deliver the greatest value for society. That's why regulators and system operators across Europe are moving away from a purely first come first served approach. Greater emphasis is being placed on project maturity, smarter queue management and more flexible connection arrangements. And there, Germany is a very good example. While continuing its major grid expansion program, it introduced a maturity-based connection framework in 2026. Under this framework, projects are prioritized based on factors such as permitting progress, technical readiness, financial viability and system value.

Additional reforms are also being considered to better align new generation project with grid development and reduce congestion costs. Ultimately, the objective is clear, not simply to build more grid, but to ensure that scarce network capacity is used where it delivers the greatest benefit for consumers, the economy and the energy transition.

And that is exactly why, in our view, robust long-term planning is becoming increasingly important. As Bernard highlighted, the challenge is not simply to build more infrastructure, but to ensure that investments are aligned with future system needs and deliver the greatest value for society. In both Germany and Belgium, these investment decisions are guided by formal grid development planning processes that translate future energy scenarios into concrete infrastructure requirements. Let us briefly look at where these planning processes currently stand.

So starting with Germany, the current network development plan is built around 3 scenarios that reflect different assumptions on electrification, renewable development and the role of hydrogen. What is encouraging is that all 3 scenarios point towards significant growth in electricity demand. The real debate is, therefore, no longer whether electrification will happen, but rather how quickly it will happen and how much demand will ultimately materialize. This is exactly what the current network development plan process is trying to address.

The 4 German TSOs have completed a comprehensive scenario analysis and submitted a second draft of the plan to the regulator, BNetzA earlier this year. The process attracted close to 1,000 stakeholder responses. These cover topics such as electrification, battery storage, hydrogen, flexible loads and offshore development. Depending on the final scenario pathway, the plan currently points to total grid investments between EUR 365 billion and EUR 392 billion through 2045. We are currently in the public consultation phase, which remains open until the end of August.

After that, BNetzA will take over the review process and move towards confirmation of the final network development plan. We expect much greater clarity on the preferred pathway and the resulting long-term investment needs during the second half of the year '26 or early '27.

Turning now to Belgium. The federal development plan is a key planning instrument for Belgium's energy transition. It is updated every 4 years and looks ahead over a 10-year horizon, providing a long-term view of the infrastructure required to support the country's evolving energy system. The new plan is being developed in a significantly more complex context than the previous edition published in 2022. In recent years, the energy debate has broadened considerably. Alongside decarbonization objectives, questions around security of supply, affordability, industrial competitiveness and energy sovereignty have become increasingly important in shaping energy policy choices.

Against this backdrop, the plan seeks to define how Belgian electricity system should evolve through a combination of electrification, low carbon generation, increased flexibility and stronger market integration, all supported by a robust and resilient transmission network. The draft plan was submitted to the CREG at the end of June. Its official advice on the draft development plan is expected to be published in late August or early September. A public consultation will follow later this year before the plan is submitted to the Federal Ministry of Energy in 2027 and ultimately approved.

The German and Belgian planning exercise point in the same direction. The energy transition is no longer only a climate story. It is increasingly about competitiveness, affordability and energy security. And regardless of the scenario, the grid remains a critical enabler. That gives us the confidence that the infrastructure we are building today will remain highly relevant over the coming decades. But of course, identifying the need for infrastructure is only part of the challenge. As Bernard highlighted earlier, the next phase of the energy transition is ultimately about execution.

The key question can be -- is, can we deliver it on the ground? And that is where we have made significant progress during the first half of the year. Let me start, perhaps, with the Princess Elisabeth Island. During the first 6 months of the year, we have completed the fabrication of all caissons and continued offshore installation activities. By the end of June, 19 of the 23 caissons have already been successfully installed offshore. This marks another important step in the construction of the world's first artificial energy island. We also continue to advance the island's electrical infrastructure with manufacturing of the AC modules and offshore cables progressing according to plan. Let's have a look.

I'm always impressed by this video and shows that what we do is technology at its peak. Another major milestone was achieved on Ventilus -- following several years of preparation, the environmental permits were granted in April, allowing us to move from planning into execution with construction work starting this summer. As a reminder, Ventilus will provide around 6 gigawatts of transmission capacity through a new 380-kilovolt corridor in West Flanders and will play a critical role in integrating additional offshore renewable energy into Belgium's electricity system.

Beyond Ventilus, we continued to reinforce the backbone of the Belgian transmission grid. During the first half of the year, we commissioned the Massenhoven-Meerhout-Van Eyck 380-kilovolt transmission line, started reinforcement works on the Gramme-Van Eyck corridor and continued progress on the reinforcement between Mercator and Bruegel. We also reached an important permitting milestone on the Lonny-Achêne-Gramme project. Following the granting of the urban planning permit in May, construction activities are expected to begin in '27.

In addition to strengthening the transmission backbone, we're also investing in to support a growing industrial demand and cross-border exchanges. Good progress continued on Baekeland, our new 380/150-kilovolt substation in the Port of Ghent. Once operational, it will provide additional capacity to support industrial electrification in one of Belgium's most important economic regions. We also successfully commissioned the new Kallo-Mercator transmission circuit as part of the Brabo III project. This represents another important step in completing the 380-kilovolt loop around the Port of Antwerp and further strengthening interconnection capacity with the Netherlands.

Together, these projects demonstrate that Belgian energy transition is increasingly becoming visible through concrete infrastructure investments. But our execution challenge extends well beyond Germany -- well beyond Belgium. Germany is currently delivering one of the most ambitious grid expansion programs in Europe with major developments both on onshore and offshore. Marco, can you walk us through some of the achievements of 50Hertz?

Absolutely. 50Hertz continued to make substantial progress on a range of strategic projects. These projects are strengthening energy security, enabling the integration of renewable energy at scale and laying the foundations for a climate-neutral economy. And importantly, this progress was evident both onshore and offshore. An important milestone was reached with Ostwind 3, the grid connection project for the Windanker offshore wind farm. The offshore platform was successfully installed in the Baltic Sea, around 40 kilometers northeast of the island Rügen. Once operational, the platform will collect electricity from the 300-megawatt Windanker wind farm, transform it to 220 kilovolts and transmit it to the new Stilow substation onshore. This is an important step, not only because Ostwind 3 is progressing towards completion, but also because this is the first offshore platform in the Baltic Sea for which 50Hertz is fully responsible for construction and operation. It therefore marks another step in the development of our offshore capabilities.

It also demonstrates our ability to deliver complex infrastructure in challenging marine environments. At the same time, we continue to advance the next generation of offshore connections. For Ostwind 4, application documents were submitted for the remaining route sections. This means that all sections of the project are now undergoing approval. Ostwind 4 will be the first 2-gigawatt high-voltage direct current offshore grid connection in the German Baltic Sea. Once completed, it will connect offshore wind generation northeast of Rügen to the transmission grid via the Stilow substation.

This is a significant step-up in scale compared with earlier Baltic Sea offshore connections and reflects the increasing maturity and ambition of Germany's offshore wind expansion. We also reached a major milestone in the North Sea. In June, 50Hertz awarded a EUR 1 billion contract for the construction of a 2-gigawatt offshore converter system for the North Sea Connector 2 program. This is particularly important because for the very first time, offshore converter platforms of this new 2 gigawatt standard will be built predominantly in Germany. North Sea Connector 2 comprises the offshore grid connection LanWin6, as Bernard pointed out, and the DC link DC32 as part of the NordOstLink. Beyond the project itself, this is also an industrial milestone. It supports the development of offshore manufacturing capabilities in Germany. It also strengthens the European supply chain for critical energy infrastructure.

As Bernard mentioned earlier, supply chain resilience is becoming a strategic capability in its own right. Projects like this show how grid investments can also contribute to industrial value creation, skilled employment and technological expertise in Europe. Cross-border cooperation also remained a key theme for 50Hertz and therefore, the Group during the first half of the year. In January, Germany and Denmark reached an agreement on the Bornholm Energy Island project. This is the first of its kind hybrid offshore interconnector that will connect offshore wind generation in the Baltic Sea with both the Danish and the German electricity system. The project is expected to connect 3 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity and will combine renewable integration with cross-border electricity exchange.

Another example of this cross-border approach is the Baltic-German Power Link. In February, Germany, Latvia and Lithuania signed a joint declaration of intent to explore a new hybrid electricity connection in the Baltic Sea. The project would connect Germany with the Baltic countries through an approximately 600-kilometer submarine cable and could integrate around 2 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity. The transmission system operators involved have been tasked with developing a technical and economic implementation concept.

A decision on the next steps is expected later this year. While still at an early stage, the project underlines the growing importance of the Baltic Sea as a strategic energy region and the role of interconnections in strengthening European security of supply. This is exactly what disciplined execution at scale means for us. It is not only about delivering individual projects, but about building the infrastructure, capabilities and partnerships that Europe will need for a more electrified, resilient and interconnected energy system.

Alongside our focus on grid development, digitalization and AI, we continue to place a strong emphasis on proactively securing the financial resources needed to deliver our investment program and to support our long-term growth ambitions. At the same time, we continue to assess opportunities where we can lever our expertise and partnerships in support of Europe's evolving energy infrastructure needs. And this brings me to an important development that we announced this morning our planned investment in Project Tarchon, a subsea interconnector that will connect the U.K. and Germany through WindGrid, our grouped project developer. Tarchon is a 1.4 gigawatt HVDC interconnector designed to facilitate cross-border electricity exchanges, strengthen security of supply and support the integration of renewable energy across European markets.

As a regulated transmission assets, it is progressing through the relevant regulatory approvals processes in both countries. What makes this opportunity particularly attractive for us is the partnership structure. CPP Investments will be the majority investor and provide most of the capital, while WindGrid will participate as a minority strategic partner with a 25% look-through stake. This allows us to contribute our transmission expertise while maintaining a disciplined approach to capital allocation. WindGrid's share of the project equity is expected to amount to approximately GBP 200 million over the construction period, which is expected to last until the mid-'30s. The majority of the project funding is expected to come through project financing, resulting in a measured capital commitment for Elia Group within the context of our broader investment program. In addition to the financial discipline of the structure, the transaction further strengthens our partnership with CPP Investments, a long-term partner that shares our conviction in the critical role of transmission infrastructure in the energy transition.

Bernard, perhaps you can elaborate how Tarchon fits within the overall strategy of Elia Group.

Yes. Thank you, Stephanie. From a group perspective, Tarchon is a very good example of how we can leverage the capabilities we've built over decades as a transmission system operator beyond our core regulated business in Belgium and Germany. While our primary focus remains the successful delivery of the unprecedented investment programs in our home markets, we also see selective opportunities to apply our expertise in developing, building and operating transmission infrastructure in areas that are closely aligned with our core competencies.

And Tarchon fits that framework particularly well. It is a regulated transmission asset. It supports European market integration and the energy transition. And it allows us to participate alongside a trusted long-term partner through a structure that preserves our financial flexibility. Importantly, this is not about pursuing growth for growth's sake. It's about being selective and investing in opportunities where we can create value through our expertise while maintaining a disciplined approach to risk and capital allocation.

More broadly, the transaction illustrates our strategy of combining strong execution in our regulated business with a targeted partnerships that allows us to support Europe's energy transition beyond our existing footprint. Together with CPP Investments, we are able to participate in attractive infrastructure opportunities while keeping our focus firmly on delivering the substantial investment programs that lie ahead in Belgium and Germany. This balanced approach enables us to create long-term value for all stakeholders while supporting the development of the infrastructure needed for a decarbonized European energy system.

And this also underlines the importance of maintaining a disciplined financial approach as we continue to execute on our investment program and pursue selected growth opportunities. Let me take you through the key financing transactions completed during the first half and how they support the group's financial position. We continue to execute our funding toolkit in a disciplined way. The key milestone was the issuance of a EUR 900 million hybrid bond. This provides attractive non-dilutive equity-like funding with 50% equity credit from Standard & Poor's and further strengthen our capital structure.

In parallel, we reinforced our liquidity position by signing more than EUR 2 billion of revolving credit facilities across the group. This enhances financial flexibility and supports the delivery of our substantial investment program. We also continue to diversify our funding sources through additional debt financing initiatives, including an inaugural Schuldschein note issuance at 50Hertz. At the same time, the group's strong liquidity position allows us to repay early the EUR 300 million term loan maturing in '27. Overall, these transactions further derisk our funding profile, support our credit metrics and ensure we remain well positioned to fund the next phase of our growth.

If we look at the Group's net debt position, net debt excluding EEG, increased by only EUR 0.5 billion to EUR 14.6 billion. This moderate increase reflects the strength of our funding profile. We continue to execute our investment program while maintaining balance sheet discipline. During the first half of the year, we invested around EUR 1.9 billion across Belgium and Germany. This was funded through a combination of operating cash flow, proceeds from the '25 equity raise and disciplined use of debt funding. Our financing profile remains robust with an average cost of debt of 3%. Furthermore, our debt portfolio is entirely fixed-rated, providing protection against interest rate volatility, while our BBB rating with stable outlook from S&P supports continued access to capital markets.

Please note that the hybrid bonds are not reported as net debt as they are accounted for in equity. Let me now take a moment to elaborate on some of the headline figures for the first half of the year. It was another period of solid execution for Elia Group. Across Belgium and Germany, we continue to deliver on our investment program while maintaining strong operational and financial performance. As I just mentioned, CapEx reached EUR 1.9 billion, reflecting continued progress across our infrastructure portfolio. While investment spending is naturally weighted towards the second half of the year as it has constantly been the case in previous years, the underlying execution of our program remains on track. At the same time, net profit Elia Group share increased to almost EUR 349 million. We also continue to strengthen our organization, welcoming more than 330 new colleagues during the first half of the year, and we made further progress on our sustainability ambitions through our sustainability program, ACT NOW.

Let us now take a more detailed look at the financials for the first half of the year. The adjusted profit for the period increased by 26% to almost EUR 411 million, reflecting strong performance across all segments. Belgium and Germany continued to benefit from asset growth and higher underlying returns driven by increased interest rates, while the contribution from our international and holding activities also improved. Our third segment previously referred to as the nonregulated and Nemo Link segment has been renamed International & holding activities and will be presented as such going forward.

Profit for the period amounted to almost EUR 420 million. This includes a EUR 9 million positive one-off item related to the fiscal year '23 after Elia Group successfully challenged the discretionary tax treatment that had previously applied when combining the group contribution regime with the dividend received deduction regime for that year. After noncontrolling interest and hybrid remuneration, including the newly issued hybrid, net profit attributable to Elia Group shareholders reached EUR 348.7 million.

If we turn to the profit evolution in Belgium, adjusted net profit increased by 25.8% to EUR 163 million. The main driver was a higher fair remuneration, up by EUR 21 million. This reflects the continued growth of our asset base, the full year benefit of the EUR 1 billion equity injection completed last year and higher regulated returns driven by the higher Belgian risk-free rate. We also saw a positive contribution from incentives, reflecting again another solid operational performance over the first half of the year, while the growing level of assets under construction led to higher capitalized borrowing costs.

In addition, the regulatory review of the Saldi 2025 resulted in lower rejections. All these positive effects were partially offset by the one-off tariff coverage of the costs linked to the capital increase that benefited last year results. Overall, the results demonstrate the continued strength of the Belgian regulatory framework and our stability and ability to translate sustained investment growth into earnings growth.

Moving now to Germany. Adjusted profit for the period increased by almost 21% to EUR 250.8 million. This growth was mainly driven by the continued expansion of the regulated asset base with the execution of the investment program. In addition, the higher equity remuneration rate compared to last year provided further support to earnings. These positive drivers were partially offset by higher depreciation and operating expenses, both consistent with the business undergoing substantial growth. Financing costs also increased as additional debt was raised to support the investment program, although this effect was partially mitigated by the capitalization of borrowing costs on assets under construction. Overall, the message remains unchanged. Continued investment and asset growth are translating into higher earnings and demonstrate the strength of the German growth platform.

And finally, turning to our International & holding activities. The adjusted net loss improved significantly decreasing by EUR 8.6 million to minus EUR 3.2 million. The main driver was a stronger contribution from the holding segment, which improved by EUR 11.5 million. Following the hybrid issuance and the group's strong liquidity position, the EUR 300 million term loan maturing in 2027 was repaid early. This resulted in lower net financing costs, while the cost of the hybrids are accounted for in equity. The holding also benefited from a EUR 6.8 million tax deduction following last year change in law with regard to Group contribution, while operating costs increased further.

The positive evolution was partially offset by higher project development expenses at WindGrid, reflecting continued work on future growth opportunities. Nemo Link continued to perform very strongly operationally, maintaining 100% availability, while its financial contribution was marginally lower due to the regulatory cap mechanism and lower power price spreads. As a result, the adjusted profit for the period amounted to a small loss of EUR 3.2 million. Profit for the period, however, reached EUR 5.7 million, benefiting from a EUR 9 million positive one-off tax item linked to a successful claim on the fiscal year 2023 tax declaration following changes in the Belgian tax law.

Marco, let me now hand back over to you for the outlook for the remainder of the year.

Thank you, Stephanie. Following the first year half -- following the solid first half-year performance, we are, of course, reiterating our full year guidance and continue to expect the net profit Elia Group share to range between EUR 690 million and EUR 740 million. This guidance includes the hybrid costs. For Belgium, the higher order rates observed over recent months support our expectations to deliver adjusted net profit towards the upper end of the EUR 290 million to EUR 320 million guidance range. We also remain on track to invest around EUR 1.7 billion in the Belgium grid in '26.

In Germany, we expect adjusted net profit to range between EUR 585 million and EUR 625 million based on a regulatory equity return base rate of 3%. Full year investments are now expected to amount to around EUR 4.8 billion compared to our previous outlook. And as mentioned earlier, this reflects a modest reduction driven by project phasing effects, optimized payment schedules and procurement efficiencies across several major offshore projects. Importantly, the underlying investment program and long-term growth trajectory remain unchanged.

Finally, turning to our International & holding activities. We now expect this segment to contribute around breakeven to adjusted net profit in '26 compared with our previous expectation of a loss between EUR 10 million and EUR 30 million. This improved outlook is mainly driven by lower holding financing costs and a stronger contribution from Nemo Link. Subject to continued availability, Nemo Link alone is expected to contribute around EUR 30 million this year.

Before we conclude, I would like to say one last thing. We have talked today about investments, infrastructure, digitalization and growth, but none of it happens without people. In particular, I would like to thank our colleagues in the field, the technicians, operators and project teams who are out there every day, making sure the system runs safely and reliably while building the grid of tomorrow. With the exceptional temperature we are experiencing across Europe this week, that's not always an easy job. Yet they continue to show up with professionalism, commitment and a strong sense of responsibility.

Electricity is one of those things people rarely think about when it works. It's simply there. And that's exactly how it should be. But behind that reliability are thousands of people working together across Belgium and Germany, often out of sight, but never without impact. That's why I'm genuinely proud of what we achieved in the first half of this year. Not only the projects we deliver or the milestones we reach, but the way our teams continue to make things happen every single day. So my sincere thanks to all our employees, partners and stakeholders. The months ahead will bring challenges, but also tremendous opportunities. And if the first half of this year has shown us anything is that we are stronger when we work together. Thank you.

Thank you, Bernard. In the meantime, Yannick Dekoninck, Head of Corporate Finance, has joined us. So I suggest we can start now with our Q&A.

Let's see. We have a first question coming from UBS.

Three questions, if I may. The first one is, Marco, on the 2026 CapEx, you trimmed by EUR 300 million for a number of reasons. How much of EUR 300 million is moved into '27, '28? How much is basically gone because you deliver CapEx cheaper than you anticipated.

Question number 2 is on the 50Hertz EBITDA in H1. It looks a bit low when I look historically because historically, you were closer to 50%. If I take roughly EUR 700 million of H1 and compare it to consensus, I get closer to 40%. So can you please help us understand what happened in H1?

And the last one is on the ongoing regulatory review in Germany. There haven't been any milestones since May, I think, but can you please comment on any talks with the regulator, any takeaways from the workshops that you attended since May? And where do you see the largest pushback from the regulator?

Thanks, Wanda. So it's already a long list of questions, but all of them valid. Maybe to the CapEx, it's indeed the fact that several reasons led us to the revision of the guidance. As a rule of thumb, I would name it like this, 1/4 around of the reduction is affecting this year due to savings and the other 3/4 are more for the next years to come, not only push back into the next year or the year after, it was really, in particular, in connection with the LanWin 6 announcement, a kind of rescheduling, which is being allocated over a longer term. So it's not simply a shift from 1 year to the other. So from that perspective, you potentially need to spread it a little bit over a longer period.

Regarding the EBITDA at 50Hertz, it is indeed right that in the past, we often saw higher result in the first half compared to the second half due to the ramp-up of the operational costs, which play less and less a role, to be fair. On one hand, it's still a valid track, but we are prudent in the consideration of effects from commissioning. And as we have a huge commissioning expected end of the year on the Ostwind 3 project, that's something which is not reflected in the current results, not proportionally, but will affect the year-end results once we are able to commission. But even though we are good on track and quite confident that we will reach it, the recognition of that effect, the so-called hockey stick effect will happen once we are able to commission technically that asset.

Last but not least, on regulatory side, it's indeed right that there's no official announcement between the last publication and the public consultation and the next step. However, we are in constant talks to the regulator, discussing several kind of designs, in particular on the WACC model that's still work in progress. Like you can imagine the kind of underlying rates, how it is being reflected in the WACC model, the cost of debt considerations, whether there's a rating consideration or not. These are elements which are up and running as we talk. However, one big item is still outstanding, and that was the discussion on incentives. And there's likely that BNetzA will launch an official process in the course of the month of September, which is usually a public consultation. And that will be, for our understanding, the next visible step then in that kind of discussion before a kind of fixing at year-end of the framework is going to happen. So hopefully, that gives you a little bit more color on the 3 items.

I see the next question is coming from ODDO, Thijs.

It's Thijs Berkelder, ABN AMRO, ODDO BHF. Great performance in Belgium, thanks to the return of the project or the acceleration in Energy Island project probably. But coming back on Germany, can you further specify the delay in CapEx you explained now it's primarily LanWin 6 related. It's not also Ostwind 3 related. And can you further clarify when you then exactly expect commissioning of Ostwind 3 to happen? Is this somewhere in November, December? And that's the key reason why you are cautious in your recognition of the project in H1 already.

Then can you maybe give an update on your U.S. investments? What is happening there? What is the progress there?

And thirdly, can you maybe give an update on what is expected from the second interconnector between Belgium and the U.K.

Okay. Maybe I'll pick one first. So on -- it's indeed the fact that we can confirm that Ostwind 3 will be commissioned end of the year. So -- you named November, December. We hope for to do it a little bit earlier to derisk a little bit that midnight effect, but that was the main reason not to consider it for the time being. Cable has been laid, connected platform is installed. So installation work is finished, but commissioning testing is starting. And usually, it takes 6 weeks, maybe more depending on the findings there. So from that perspective, we are prudent in that guidance at this stage and in the consideration in the figures.

But yes, the CapEx revision has mainly been caused by the question on LanWin 6 and the shift in the yards in LanWin 3 as well. So as likely with the announcement on LanWin 6, we will go with the LanWin 3 projects to the yard in Rostock as well. So that will be a shift from the Spanish yard to the German yards. And there are some savings connected to that. But on the other hand, some rescheduling as well. So that was the main reason for this program, I would name it like this or caused by this program, which led us to the revision of the guidance on the CapEx numbers.

Well, on the U.S., as you know, we are basically following 3 projects at the moment, plus continuing our activities over energyRe Giga. The 2 projects that are onshore are SOO Green and Clean Path New York, and there is one offshore project, which is called Leading Light Wind. I think we continue to very closely monitor the development of these underlying projects. And at the moment, at least on the 2 onshore projects, it's premature to provide an updated fair value assessment at this stage because not a lot has changed. And as you know, in the United States, there is a big issuance coming up with the midterm. So we will see much clearer after that period.

However, I was reading no later than yesterday in the Handelsblatt that the green energy is booming in the U.S. despite what we might think, because, of course, the AI-related needs are very important. And of course, the quickest way to build up generation is via renewables. So while we think that -- and there is a clear federal government approach against the renewable, there are still a lot of developments happening on that side, which I think can be comforting. On Leading Light Wind, which is the offshore project, as you know, it's a project that was subject to a potential reimbursement of the lease acquisition cost of that project. We have a rather small stake in that project. And at the moment, we are still trying to assess the consequence if this reimbursement process would happen because on the one hand, well, we have to see how it's -- what are the proceeds with it, knowing that we have a very small stake in there, energyRe has only 12.5%. And I remind you, we have 25% of energyRe.

And secondly, you know that while there are negotiation with the federal state, there are also individual states that basically sue this process of reimbursement. So I think it's too early to draw conclusions at the moment. But as you can imagine, we are following that very closely.

On the Princess Elisabeth Island and the DC part, so the Nautilus interconnector. Well, I think on our side, as we said, we've worked on a renewed basically design that allows to have substantial savings versus what we had initially planned while keeping the main aspects of the project. And now we are, of course, waiting for -- it must be part of the federal development plan. And so we are waiting for the government and the regulator to confirm the project. I must say I'm prudently but rather optimistic that the project will happen because it's a key project for Belgium energy strategy. And as I commented during the video, I think, as Europeans, we must be very proud that those type of projects, Bornholm or Princess Elisabeth Island happen because it's really high technology. It's the future of Europe. And as Elia Group, we are very proud to be part of those 2 projects that are really flagship project for Europe.

The following question is from Morgan Stanley, Arthur.

The first one is just on the net profit guidance for 2026. So obviously, you've increased your divisional indication for the other division. You're indicating you will be in the upper end of the range in Belgium. So I was just wondering, as a result of these 2 changes, why didn't you increase your guidance at the group level as well? Are there any negatives in other parts of the business that maybe I've been missing? Or is it just that you're being conservative at this stage? So that's the first question.

The second one is just on Germany. Given you have less CapEx -- less CapEx for the year, I imagine that can have a bit of an impact on your allowed revenues for the year. So -- and here, you didn't change the guidance on net profit in Germany. So I was wondering if there was an offset in there on the positive side to offset that impact.

Maybe I'll start and then let Yannick to complement on that one. So the profit for the shareholder, which we're guiding on is including the cost of the hybrids and the better performance of the operating entities gives us some flexibility in approaching the market on the hybrid side, and we took momentum to derisk the funding while executing on our toolkit. What has some costs, but the headroom has been used to lock in favorable costs for the future on behalf of that year. So from that perspective, we took the momentum with the higher range of profit to be achieved in operations and launched the hybrid issuance, which is now, of course, something we need to pay for, and that is reflected in the profit, which is then left for the shareholders.

So that's maybe the comparison between both. On the German CapEx, we must admit that the EUR 200 million revision doesn't play a big role, to be honest, in the results itself. So usually, you get remunerated only for half of that over the year and then 40% on that one with a rate of 6%. So this few millions usually is something which has been offset by the higher underlying return rate at all. So from that perspective, we are confident to stay within the guidance as this is something which could be absorbed by the evolutions in the business itself.

And just as a quick follow-up on the first question because you're referring to the cost of the hybrid. But if I remember well, when you put -- when you presented the guidance initially, you already had a bit of a delta between your -- the sum of your divisional targets and the net profit for shareholders. So I thought the cost of the hybrid was already or at least some sort of financing measures was already included in the initial guidance.

That's right, but the timing was a different one, to be fair. So as we were relatively cash long at the end of the year. So from a liquidity perspective, there was no need to approach the market. And that was indeed a more opportunistic move in spring this year as we saw quite still favorable conditions before the windows are going to close, and that's why we entered the market as from a liquidity perspective and from a story perspective, something later in the year would have been more economically being favorable in that regard. So that's the mismatch you may refer to.

And the next question comes from ING, Dirk.

Yes, following the previous question, if I add the different components on your updated guidance and also appreciating the comments on the hybrid. But still, I arrive at the higher end around EUR 740 million, anyway I look at it. So maybe clarifying maybe that requires some further clarification if I'm missing something in the composition of the guidance. And then the more a recurring question, I think, is the midterm outlook for your CapEx now that the network development plans, there's becoming some more clarity in Germany, maybe also in Belgium. So being at a EUR 6.5 billion run rate on CapEx as it is in the current plan, you're getting close to that also in this year. What -- also for modeling purposes beyond '28, what is a fair assumption going forward? And I hope you can share some insights here.

Maybe on your question on the guidance, it's true that if you count the 3 segments that you will end up higher, but you shouldn't remember to forget to take out the 20% -- that is linked to KfW, obviously. So you should take that out. And then you have now the hybrid cost is around on an annual basis, EUR 57 million. So that's where you should come out in the guidance.

Well, on the grid development plan, as we stated, it's still ongoing. And there are a couple of legislative procedures, in particular in Germany running, which set a scene for one or the other path, in particular, with an eye on the big DC links, whether they are being executed via overhead line or fully underground cables, which play a significant role in the difference of the costs connected to that one. And of course, the offshore scenario to be chosen is one of the elements, which are essential for building up our plans.

That being said, we stated several times that the CapEx will not go down from that perspective. If you make the math on the previous plan or on the current plan, which is running '24 to '28 with a total CapEx of EUR 31.6 billion, which we announced, then there are EUR 7.5 billion left to be executed in the next 2 years to come and likely that this number will not be lower on the plan, which we are announcing beginning of next year. So from that perspective, we are not giving that clear guidance right on a new CapEx plan for the time being as there are too many very significant unknown items outstanding. However, we can confirm that the group will further grow in the future.

And we hope to be able to announce something at the latest at the Q4 results next year.

Then we can go now to the next question from Citi, Piotr.

Piotr Dzieciolowski from Citi. So I wanted to ask about this smaller CapEx in Germany. Is it a one-off or there is some read across into the future periods? You said some of it is some cost savings on the CapEx level. So how does this -- would that -- shall we extrapolate into the future periods as well? And then on the grid development CapEx plan, into the future periods. I wanted to ask you, do you see a scenario that the CapEx runs materially higher, so accelerates from EUR 7.5 billion so that you would have to go back to the kind of equity you have to like raise equity or use more hybrids? Or because the way I think about it, if the CapEx stays flat, the whole structure of Elia slowly starts to degear, kind of. If it survives '28 and the CapEx stays flat, the incremental -- the EUR 7.5 billion versus the kind of a growing base becomes smaller burden to finance. So how do you think that playing out in beyond '28?

Yes, we changed a little bit the concept in that regards. And of course, our intention is to land on a certain run rate. So as this has been mentioned already in one of the questions, whether this run rate will be slightly higher or lower, it depends, of course, on the regulation and the ability to finance that. And there are some discussions still running in the regulatory system, whether there is a kind of cash consideration for the TSOs, which helps us then to fund more of the CapEx out of the cash flows, like, for instance, shortening depreciation periods. That's one of the debates which is running. It's not disclosed, but that could help to finance the plan.

So in general, we are more outspoken in that regards that, of course, affordability is not only a subject of the consumer, it's a subject for ourselves as well. So -- and from that perspective, we are -- we want to build a comprehensive plan, which is considering all the constraints which we may have, and that's consisting on supplier markets, our own workforce and our financing capabilities, knowing that, of course, there are requests to execute infrastructure in a certain way.

But what we are going to do is for the time being with the plan, which is outstanding, shaping a little bit the project is already up and running in terms of scheduling, in terms of payment milestones on an annual basis to make sure that we are in certain boundaries. And so from that perspective, coming back to your first question, the savings, you potentially will not see in the total envelop as we likely will accelerate other payments to earlier stage to make sure that there's a balance which is de-stressing the entire profile long term.

Okay. Then we can go to KBC, Wim.

Yes, I'll limit myself to questions on the Tarchon. I've got 5 small of them, very quick answer questions. So I'll just pose them one by one, I suggest. So first, Stephanie, if I understood it well, you're going to invest GBP 200 million, and that's a total equity consideration.

Correct. Over the period going till the mid-30s?

Yes. Yes. So if I get it right, about GBP 170 million at the completion and then the rest at the end, okay. Now like I said, very small questions. Secondly, the -- you obviously have a lot of experience negotiating with the U.K. regulator. Will this be something like a Nemo style remuneration system?

Yes, indeed, it's a regulated asset. As we said, it will be regulated on the one hand under a cap and floor for 50% of the project and the other 50% will be operating under the German regulation, so a RAB remuneration.

Okay. Fine. Then on the final, let's say, total CapEx, I think commissioning could be something like 2033. Can you give an idea what the total amount of CapEx spend will be so we can have an idea on the leverage or the eventual leverage?

Yes. So the estimated total CapEx spend would be below GBP 5 billion, I would say, and it's more foreseen towards mid of the '30s, I would say.

'35, yes.

Okay. And then fourth one on cross-selling because obviously, you have an equity stake. You have a lot of experience in building these interconnects. Is there maybe a profit opportunity for other divisions? I'm thinking on consulting-wise that you can realize on top of this project?

Well, absolutely. That's -- the purpose of this project is, first, we see that in Europe, the North Sea developments are very important, and we certainly want to be part of it, but we want to be also very strict on our financing discipline. So here, it's really an opportunity for us to be part in a very exciting project, but next to a very strong financing partner and where we focus on what we are good at.

And what we are good at is basically building, operating transmission systems. And that we will do, of course, by using the resources of WindGrid, but also, for example, the resources of EGI, which is our consulting arm and so that we can really participate to the development of interconnectors in the North Sea while limiting our financing exposure and concentrating on what we are good at, which is basically the management of transmission infrastructure. It's also, as you mentioned, a way to have a Nemo type of regulation, and you know how Nemo contributes to our results, and we are very happy about that. And it's also a way to diversify our source of revenues.

Okay. And then last question is really a bit on the -- maybe on the technical side, because obviously I noticed that you have the NordOstLink plant. Is there any timing linked to the NordOstLink? And is that where it will connect into and that it follows on to that project?

In that regard, it's not the case. The Tarchon link will be connected to the grid of TenneT. So -- and from that perspective, there's no link to the NordOstLink. And the technology is slightly different as we are talking about a 1.4 gigawatt interconnector while NordOstLink is being executed in a 2 gigawatt standard. So from that perspective, there's a difference in technology as well, but there's no direct connection.

Let's now go to the questions from Goldman Sachs, Mafalda.

I have 2. The first one, I think Stephanie, you mentioned you would be -- you feel you would be in a position to give us a bit more detail on your plan beyond '28 at the full year results, hopefully, early '27. Do you have any idea what -- until what year could you be or are you thinking guiding us towards?

And then the second question is, I mean, based on what you know today, what's the level of financial flexibility you think you will have at the end of your current plans at the end of 2028? And what is the level of annual CapEx growth you think your balance sheet can cope with beyond that without compromising your leverage target metrics?

So on your first question, we -- I believe once we have the clarity on the regulation, the grid development plans, we are looking then to roll forward our CapEx plan in line with the regulatory period. So it will be '27, '31, most probably. However, we're still waiting to get all the final figures, et cetera, but that is the -- that would be the aim. We would then do that most probably through a Capital Markets Day as well, yes. And then maybe for the financial questions, Marco.

That's honestly one of the reasons that we are not guiding at this stage is, of course, the financial flexibility heavily depends on the visibility on the regulatory framework and the components included in there. Of course, what we're working on is the execution of the CapEx program as this is giving us a favor as well. That's one of the items which we know a little bit better, even though it's exposed to external factors.

But from that perspective, we are not in a position today really to guide you on that kind of elements you ask for. However, as we said, the likelihood that the group will further grow is there. And of course, our intention is to land on a certain plateau, which is still affordable for the group. And that means, of course, from the financial capabilities perspective as well as from the rating perspective and from the kind of growth, which is appreciated and absorbable for the group.

So the next question will be from Sakchin, Bartik.

This is Bartik Kubicki, Bernstein, Sakchin. I would also like -- and apologies for lack of the camera, but it simply doesn't work. Those 3 questions, if you don't mind. Firstly, on those -- again, I will come back to the CapEx savings, but I will come back to the savings per se. And because I think, Marco, you mentioned it's like 1/4 of this EUR 300 million is savings. What is going to happen to those savings? Is it something which is basically 100% shared with the customers? Or are you incentivized by the regulator to keep -- to actually -- to have those savings and you can keep some of them for yourself? That will be question number one.

Question number two, on the -- when you presented the plan, not the plan, but the kind of -- you did a capital increase last year, you also mentioned the potential for disposing of some of the assets. So if you can update us on that. And I would be more specifically interested in the Belgian entity because I think you had to do some changes to the company laws in order to allow for a potential disposal, okay? I'm not speculating here or anything. I just wonder where you are at this stage in terms of being ready for selling the assets.

And the third question is more like a curiosity because obviously, you are issuing hybrids, a lot of network companies are issuing hybrids to fund the growth. But you are putting the hybrids on the, let's say, holding company level, not on the OpCo company level. And I just wonder whether there are any discussions with the regulator either in Belgium or in Germany so that they would remunerate you for hybrids sitting on the OpCo level and then you will move hybrids into OpCo level. So consequently, this will mean probably higher allowed cost of, let's call it, debt.

So maybe starting with the easiest one. So indeed, the savings are fully passed through to the consumers. So that's currently nothing which we can keep, even not partially. Might be a discussion in regards to any incentives putting in. On the other side, the framework so far is protecting us against cost increases. So from that perspective, it's more than fair that this is given back at this stage to the consumer. So that's a little bit the ambiguity where we are in, but we currently taking the order of magnitude are more in favor to take the protection instead of the opportunities as, of course, we are talking about high scale CapEx numbers, and we are not always able to really generate savings.

But where we do see the opportunity, we're, of course, jumping on that one as our merit is, of course, generating new flexibility in using the means otherwise in investing into projects which are then up and running and hopefully sooner being commissioned. That's our intention there that we are going to take a portfolio optimization. As I said, in the total CapEx number, you potentially will not see this amount over the period where we have given visibility on. Maybe starting from back on our toolkit. It's still valid. So all funding options, which we have disclosed in '25 are valid options. We are working on all of them. And one of the examples is, of course, the execution of the hybrid as a non-dilutive solution to raise equity-like instruments. That being said, a discussion on issuance hybrids on an OpCo level is, for the time being, a tricky one.

So in principle, we could do that, but the likelihood that we are not able to charge the entire cost into the regulatory system is relatively big. There might be a change in the future on the German side, less on the Belgium side as the embedded debt principle in Belgium is still in favor of the cheapest raise. And of course, straightforward senior bond is a cheaper instrument compared to a hybrid issuance. In Germany, that heavily depends on the final configuration of the WACC model. So that could bring this instrument back on the table. There is a discussion on that one, whether this is a good thing to consider. Currently, in the setup of the group, we do see more favor in doing it on a group level, also on a topco level for 2 reasons.

On one hand, we are not able with the ring-fencing, which we have put in place to upstream the full equity credit then up to the entire group once we are issuing on the OpCo. And secondly, as you mentioned, there's currently no real scheme in place, which ensures the coverage of the costs connected with the hybrid. So that's for this regulatory period a little bit set in stone, whether the new regulation leads to a kind of change in our financial policy in that regard, that's a little bit the subject of the final setup of the regulation. So that's maybe the third question connected to the second. As we said, disposal of an asset is something which we are not excluding. Currently, due to the fact that the CapEx plan is backloaded, there is no need to enter the market with that one.

As, of course, on one hand, we have plenty of money. The capital structure is quite healthy. Rating has been confirmed. We have the time to consider the next step. We are working on all of the options to be fair. Yes, for straightforward opening of the capital of the subsidiary in Belgium, adjustment of the electricity law is being needed to grant governance rights. Meanwhile, there are a couple of instruments in place, which are not necessarily required. So from that perspective, there is other complexity to be managed, but that opens a little bit the floor to other instruments, which might consider at a certain point of time. But no decision is being made. We are working on that one to have all the means available so that we have ample flexibility to choose once it is being needed, one of or the other instruments to make sure that the funding is being served in a proper and sufficient way.

The next question comes from Kepler Cheuvreux, Juan.

Most of them have been already answered, but I just do want to clarify this hybrid issue included on the guidance. Because at the beginning, you said all options were included. Now you said that you signaled that, okay, some of the parameters in Belgium and the holding costs have been on the upper side, but now you're including hybrids on 2026 guidance. Do you have any hybrids included on '27, '28 on your budget? That's what I would like to clarify from now. And what would push you from a minority stake disposal over hybrids in the second -- on all the financing options toolkit that you have available?

I think what we try to say on the guidance is that our current guidance that we initially put in the market includes actually all different kind of financing options. And that's why we don't have to revise the guidance because different scenarios were taken into account. As Marco explained to went for the fact that we did the hybrid because the market was there very opportunistically. And hence, we don't need to adjust the guidance because we had that already at different options were included, and hence, we can reconfirm the guidance.

And we haven't guided to '27, '28, if I'm not mistaken. So that will be updated then with the year-end result of '26 and for the year '27.

Yes. And our EPS guidance that we have guided at the Capital Markets Day, obviously, that is still standing.

If I may follow. So in your EPS guidance for 2028, do you have any hybrids included for '27, '28?

We have all different financing options included in that guidance. So it works under different scenarios, the guidance we've given because we have said that we will have an EPS growth that is double digits.

The next question will come from Deutsche Bank, Olly.

So just a few here. So the first one, with regard to the CapEx being lower in Germany, I know that's taken up some of the call today. And you mentioned LanWin 6 being a primary driver of that. Do you have any other types of assets that you're bringing on in '27 or '28 where the same kind of pushing out of the CapEx potentially could occur? Are any discussion happening on any of those other assets? Or should we consider this just a one-off with LanWin 6?

And then we've spoken about the grid development plan in Germany quite extensively, but just to reaffirm with your current understanding of how that's developing that most of the changes there you expect to see in the back half of the 2030s rather than the front half of the 2030s. That's been the messaging previously, if I'm not mistaken. And then the last question to the extent to which you can comment on this, which might not be a lot. But with regard to the WACC for the next regulatory period and how that might be calculated with conversations that you've been having, any other thoughts you might have on the risk-free rate or the 40 bps adder, how that -- how those conversations are evolving to what they might look like at all? Any crumbs you can give would be helpful. Yes, I'll leave it there.

I'm not sure whether I catch your second question, but maybe I'll start with the first one. So in regards to the CapEx program, which we have disclosed between '24 and '28, we reiterate that still the target to execute the EUR 31.6 billion as we're, of course, following a portfolio approach, which might lead to some reshuffling of payments from 1 year to the other to make sure that we are not distressing the year after, which we haven't disclosed yet, but we make sure that there's a constant execution, which is absorbable for the Group. So from that perspective, even there might be some bigger investments underway, which might trigger some rescheduling, we will do other rescheduling to make sure that this is being compensated or balanced to a certain degree.

So as we meanwhile have entered into main commitments for the project, which have an impact on the 3 years horizon, which have been left in terms of execution, the likelihood that there are others who were requiring that reshuffling is not that big. But as I said, once it has been happening, we will look into the schemes of the big projects running to make sure that there's a kind of compensation of that one to land on the number which we have disclosed. And I maybe take the third one, and then we look how you -- we are going to answer your second question.

On the WACC, it's still a little bit open, I must say. So there are several streams being followed. Currently, likely that there will be a 40-60 split on equity and debt. That's rather sure. On the equity side, there's a big debate what is the underlying risk-free rate. That's one. Second, what is the beta factor to consider as there are different kind of consultations in the scientific scene, which say it must be higher or lower. That's a debate which is running and that finally gives a number, which is likely higher than the number which is currently applicable for the existing assets, what is 4 percentage points post tax. But the question is how big the adder looks like. So that's one.

The second, on the debt side, it's a little bit dissimilar of its kind as, of course, the first question is, will it be a scientific rate, which is a kind of benchmark? And if so, which kind of benchmark is being used is a 10-year, 20-year issuance of German industrial issuers or something different. And of course, the longer it is, the more favorable it is for us as we are a long-term holding company, and we are striving for long-term financing. That's our argument. But of course, you can argue that for instance, a 10-year reference is more liquid to absorb and that's why regulator is more in favor on that one compared to a longer term. But these are debates which are running. There's an extreme that we are lending in a cost plus mechanism, what I don't believe, but at least it's not fully off the table.

So from that perspective, it's really hard to predict what the final outcome will be as, of course, BNetzA's ask on top of in favor to make a rating adjustment of that scientific grade, which is something we appreciate, but wondering how this will be administrated as this will potentially not fully absorbable from their perspective. So there are a couple of instruments which might lead to different outcomes and maybe then later on to different kind of optimization or positioning.

So from that perspective, it's really hard to guide you on, but that gives a little bit the room of maneuver, which we are talking about for the time being. And of course, we appreciate then kind of constant involvement on that one. But to be fair, there's a little bit of back and forth sometimes in that debate. So we are still cautiously optimistic that there will be a result which enables us to perform at least as we have done in the past. That being said, there needs to be a couple of elements being fixed over the next months. And hopefully, prior to the launch of the discussion of incentives, there will be a little bit more robust visibility on these kind of elements.

And maybe coming back to your second question, Olly, can you repeat? Sorry, I didn't catch it neither.

Yes. Sorry, I was just talking about the German grid development plan. And what you said on this previously, if I remember this correctly, is that you mainly expect the impact to be in the second half of 2030. So the first half of the 2030 not necessarily too dissimilar to what we've seen previously. Is that still right that where we expect to see changes is probably the back half of the 2030s?

It will depend a little bit on which scenario will be chosen. So you have scenario A, B and C, and that will determine a little bit the profiling. And as today, that scenario has not yet been chosen for us, it's a bit hard to really communicate yet on where the higher peaks are going to be.

So to give you an example, if the government decides for a scenario, which is consisting of lower offshore capacity and, of course, likely that one project is being taken out of the portfolio, which otherwise would be directed to 50Hertz and the time line will be adjusted in that regard. If this is not going to happen, then, of course, we are relatively soon being forced to launch a tender, which is requiring payments once we are awarding a company to provide the cables and the offshore converter platform on that one. So these kind of elements are really essential to make sure that we know the path. We know which kind of execution models we are entering in to make sure that we can build up on that one, our maps and our plans in terms of execution and in terms of financing.

And just coming back to your WACC comments, is the 40 basis point adder, is that still a live debate as to whether that could or could be included or not?

That's a fair question. At least we are keeping it alive. Currently, there's no discussion around that, to be fair. That's not being said that's that. But of course, as I said, there is a back and forth on that debate. Could be something which pops up again with the discussion on incentives as this will be something which is likely more dedicated to the transmission system operators.

So from that perspective, I could tactically understand a little bit the view on view on BNetzA's are not to include it in the general debate on the return rate. However, that could be a way out in granting a higher return for the entire industry where they do see maybe more need for companies like us who are exposed to an extraordinary situation in terms of CapEx requests compared to the size of the company. So -- but as I said, it's not fully dead, but it's currently nothing which I do see in the papers there.

Thank you. I think we are at the end of today's live stream event. I think I want to say a big thank you to everybody that has contributed to today's presentation. Thank you, Bernard, Marco, Yannick. I wish you all a very nice day and see you soon.

Good morning. Thank you for joining us as we present Elia Group's Full Year Figures and have a look at what 2026 will bring for the Group.

I'm joined today with our CEO, Bernard Gustin; and Marco Nix.

Good morning.

Good morning, both. Before we start, please take a moment to review the on-screen disclaimer. It contains some important information you should take note of. And as always, the slides will be and the script will be published on our live stream afterwards.

Bernard, I'll let you kick off.

Thank you, Stephanie. I want to start by saying how proud I am of what we've achieved this year. Three achievements stand out. First, we secured financing for significant growth and reestablished market trust. When I took on this role, there were questions about our capacity to fund ambitious growth and deliver on our promises. Addressing this was my main focus. And I'm pleased to say that we are back on track.

Second, we delivered operationally investing EUR 5.2 billion in CapEx this year, more than triple our historical annual average. And third, we are attracting exceptional talent. Despite challenges, people want to join us because they see Elia Group as a place to make a real difference and help build the energy infrastructure of the future. That tells me we have the right people and the right vision.

Thank you, Bernard. Before Marco takes us through the financials, let's have a look together at the major highlights that defined the year.

[Presentation]

Well, 2025 was indeed a year marked by major milestones, collective achievements and moments that shaped who we are and where we are heading. When it comes to project execution, 2025 was a year of real tangible progress. In Belgium, we continued to advance on several strategic infrastructure projects that form the backbone of the country's future electricity system.

Ventilus and the Boucle du Hainaut, both critical missing links in connecting large volumes of offshore wind and reinforcing Belgium's North-South transmission corridor progressed through key regulatory and construction milestones. These projects are essential for integrating the Princess Elisabeth zone, strengthening system reliability and ensuring Belgium can transport renewable energy efficiently across the country.

BRABO III also entered its final stretch, further reinforcing the Antwerp region and enhancing cross-border capacity with the Netherlands. The construction of the Princess Elisabeth Island also continued to advance steadily. The installation of the concrete caisson made solid progress with 11 of the 23 caisson already installed at the sea. And the remaining units are ready for deployment as soon as weather conditions allow it. This brings Belgium another step closer to achieving its decarbonization targets.

And in Germany, we also saw real progress. On SuedOstLink+, one of the country's most important North-South transmission corridors with permitting moving ahead and technical preparation advancing, the project is now getting much closer to implementation. At the same time, offshore progress stayed on track. We successfully completed the cable laying for Ostwind 3, the link for the next wave of wind projects at the German Baltic Sea, securing future capacity to integrate more renewable energy.

And on Bornholm Energy Island, Germany and Denmark signed a landmark agreement for 3 gigawatts of offshore wind connected through new hybrid grid links to both countries. It's a major step forward future toward future cross-border offshore grids in the Baltic Sea and support Germany's vision for a more meshed and resilient offshore system. We also put 2 new high-voltage lines into service, each over 100 kilometers, boosting our transmission capacity and strengthening stability across key parts of the German grid.

So overall, it was a year of strong delivery with our teams moving forward the strategic projects, but at the same time, congestion is becoming more visible. As more renewables connect to the system, and that's a good thing, our consumption patterns also evolve and that is putting pressure on our grid. And this isn't just a Belgian or a German challenge, it's a European one. Our recent study on storage shows just how quickly the landscape is changing. Storage and batteries, in particular, will be a cornerstone of the future system. But equally important is the question, how, where and when storage operates.

Today, the current wave of connection request isn't always a healthy growth. We are seeing a huge number of speculative projects across Europe. In Germany alone, TSOs are facing requests equivalent to the load of 100 million households. That's not sustainable. It strains the grid, dodge the queue and delays more mature investments that society actually needs.

This is why we advocate for a new approach. We need to prioritize system relevant mature projects and move away from a first come, first serve logic that is now being exploited and risk driving up cost for all consumers. This is where the EU grid package helps set the direction. It supports anticipatory investment and clearer rules so that flexibility, renewables and storage can work together as aligned pillars of a sustainable, affordable and secure system.

And another key factor for our long-term investment needs is the right regulatory frameworks. Based on what we know so far about the German regulation, we welcome BSR's ambition and its recognition that the full package matters for investors. However, the draft framework still does not provide the balanced and internationally competitive returns needed to attract the level of capital required for the grid expansion.

Key adjustments are still necessary, particularly on return on equity level, debt cost coverage, OpEx predictability and the effectiveness of the incentive schemes to ensure the framework truly supports the unprecedented investment effort ahead. We remain committed to constructive dialogue to help shape the final determination that safeguards investments capability and supports Germany's long-term energy goals.

To speak about 50Hertz goals, we will now share a short video from the CEO of 50Hertz, Stefan Kapferer, on the progress made and the milestones still ahead of us.

With a new focus on resilience of the energy infrastructure and affordability of energy transition, it became clear in 2025 that an overarching responsibility for the electricity system is urgently needed. This can only be delivered by companies like Elia Group with 2 national TSOs, ETB in Belgium and 50Hertz in Germany.

In 2026, 50Hertz will once again invest a record high amount of money in additional grid infrastructure, substations and new connections for consumers, EUR 5.1 billion. So affordability of the energy transition will be key. We have to harvest efficiency potential, and we have to take care that only those projects are included in the next grid expansion development plan, which are really needed to make the energy transition happen.

And to finance these challenges, the current review of the regulatory framework in Germany has to deliver an internationally competitive return on equity to guarantee that the engagement of the investors will be the same also in the upcoming years.

2026 will be a year in which significant regulatory developments and grid planning milestones emerge in both our countries, giving us much more clarity on the investment landscape and its associated returns.

To build on that, I'd like to turn to the CEO of Frederic Dunon. He will walk us through the challenges and opportunities shaping our next steps.

Discussions will begin on our regulatory framework for the period '28, '31. Two major objectives are at stake. First, to ensure that market parties have the right incentives to allow safe and efficient system development and operation. And second, to ensure that Elia has a financial and human means to realize the plans approved by the authorities.

The design of our '27, '37 federal development plan will be at the center of attention of our authorities. Indeed, it will define the boundaries of possible futures in terms of energy, industrial and economical policies. Whereas development plans were seen in the past as an administrative process, it is now well understood that they are the foundation of our major society for the coming decades.

Now that we've looked at Belgium and Germany, let's shift to what's happening internationally.

As you know, we took a minority investment in energyRe Giga at the end of 2023 with a clear understanding that this is a long development cycle model and that progress would not be linear. Since then, the U.S. environment has evolved. At federal level, the current administration has created uncertainty for offshore wind with slower permitting and approvals while at the same time, many states continue to actively push for grid expansion.

In parallel, the U.S. power system is facing rapidly rising electricity demand driven by electrification and data centers, which reinforces the structural need for additional transmission capacity. Last year, we also saw the acceleration of the phaseout of the wind and solar tax credits. This puts pressure on the developers to bring the projects forward and required adjustments in project structures and portfolios across the sector.

Against this backdrop, we have taken a disciplined approach, prioritizing value protection over speed. As a result, contributions from energyRe Giga to the Group results will come later than initially expected, but we remain supportive of the investment and of its long-term strategic rationale.

As we already flagged at our Q3 results, Clean Path New York faced a setback. For SOO Green, the picture is more positive. Permitting is close to completion and land acquisition is largely secured. Finally, the offshore project, Leading Light Wind is, as you know, currently on hold under the present federal administration.

Translated in financials, this means the group recognizes an impairment on its U.S. assets of EUR 99.1 million. This consists of 2 elements. On the one hand, a EUR 70.8 million write-off on the energyRe Giga portfolio, an additional provision of EUR 28.3 million, reflecting the group's remaining commitment to invest USD 150 million to reach its 35.1% ownership stake.

Let me remind you that this impairment is a noncash and reflects a prudent reassessment of, on the one hand, value and timing, and it's not at all a change in our discipline or our financial strength. Our exposure remains well controlled. Our commitments are fully manageable within our balance sheet, and we retain flexibility on the pace of future capital deployment.

Thank you, Stephanie. Let me now elaborate on some of the headline figures for '25.

We delivered strong progress across all fronts in 2025. Our 5-year CapEx plan remains fairly on track. We invested EUR 5.2 billion, EUR 1.4 billion in Belgium and EUR 3.8 billion in Germany. As a result, our regulatory asset base expanded to EUR 22.6 billion. Our hiring drive in '25 was also a success. We welcomed again more than 760 new employees, strengthening our operational capabilities and supporting the growth objectives we laid out during the Capital Markets Day.

On the operational side, system performance remained outstanding. Grid reliability reached 99.9% in Belgium and 99.8% in Germany, positioning our TSOs among the most reliable grid operators in Europe. These figures highlight our continued focus on operational excellence and the effectiveness of our investments in technology, infrastructure and talent.

In terms of financial results, the group delivered a strong performance with net profit attributable to Elia Group shareholders of EUR 556.6 million. This corresponds to an adjusted return on equity of 7.3% and earnings per share of EUR 5.51 per share.

As shown on the slide, we indeed had a busy year on funding as well. We proactively secured the funding needed to support our strategic priorities in Belgium and Germany. We executed a well-diversified financing program across entities and instruments, reflecting the greater flexibility we have embedded into our funding strategy.

A key focus early in the year was strengthening the balance sheet. We completed a EUR 2.2 billion equity package, which reinforced our capital base, broadened our strategic partnerships and provided significant financial flexibility.

On the debt side, we raised EUR 3.6 billion in green financing through loans and bonds and both Elia and Eurogrid issued their first EU-labeled green bonds, an important milestone that broadened again our investor base and reinforced the central role of sustainable finance within our capital structure.

At the start of the year, Standard & Poor's reaffirmed the credit ratings of all entities. We also strengthened liquidity, bringing the total available funds at year-end at EUR 11.9 billion, which underpins our prudent risk profile and supports our investment-grade ratings. Overall, the group's investment plan is backed by a robust financial framework designed to maintain its current ratings, ensuring continued strong access to capital markets and providing funding flexibility.

Finally, the group is progressing on the various options of the funding toolkit as outlined to the market. Elia Group delivered strong operational and financial results reflected in a sharp increase in adjusted net profit. These figures excludes material one-offs and reflects the group's underlying performance.

Adjusted net profit rose by 39.8% to EUR 716.5 million, driven by CapEx execution, higher equity remuneration and solid operations. Additionally, the third segment benefited from the first time of a tax benefit linked to the application of tax consolidation in Belgium.

Germany remained the largest contributor, delivering just over 60% of the group adjusted result. Belgium added around 38%, while nonregulated activities and Nemo Link contributed EUR 5 million, including EUR 33.4 million in one-off adjustments, the reported net profit reached EUR 683 million. After noncontrolling interest and hybrid costs, net profit attributable to Elia Group shareholders increased by 32% to EUR 556.6 million.

On this slide, we show that the reported figures include several nonrecurring items, both in Germany and in the nonregulated activities. We adjust for those to show the underlying performance. Starting with Germany, the reported net profit includes a EUR 46.5 million deferred tax impact. This relates to the revaluation of deferred taxes following the planned reduction in the German federal corporate tax rate from 15% down to 10% between the years '28 to '32.

Turning to the third segment. There are 2 main adjusted items. As said by Stephanie, the U.S. impairment amounting to EUR 99.1 million negatively. On the positive side, the tax consolidation had a positive impact due to the application of the Belgium tax consolidation mechanism and linked to the tax periods prior to '25. It is there of a one-off effect, not reflected of a recurring tax benefit. After adjusting for all these items, adjusted net profit amounts to EUR 716.5 million at Group level.

The RAB remains the core driver of the group's regulated remuneration. Supported by the execution of our investment program, Elia Group's RAB increased by 22.5% year-on-year, reaching EUR 22.6 billion at the end of '25, up from EUR 18.5 billion in 2024. This increase reflects the acceleration of major infrastructure projects in both Belgium and Germany that are critical to integrating growing volumes of renewable generation, reinforcing cross-border capacity and strengthening the overall system resilience. These investments ensure we can deliver the energy transition at the lowest societal costs, while contributing to Europe's long-term energy autonomy.

When we look ahead, we expect an average annual RAB growth of over 20% for the period '24 to 2028, supported by around EUR 21.6 billion of cumulative CapEx over the next 3 years. As we have invested EUR 5.2 billion across our Belgium and German grids, the impact on our funding metrics remains well under control. Net financial debt increased by around EUR 1 billion, bringing the total to EUR 14.1 billion.

This limited increase reflects the successful capital increase and the fact that a large share of our investment was funded through operating cash flows. Our average cost of debt rose slightly to 2.9%, and the portfolio remains very well protected from interest rate volatility with 98% of our debt held at fixed rates.

Finally, our credit profile remains solid. Standard & Poor's reaffirmed our BBB rating with a stable outlook, underscoring the resilience of our financial structure and the strength of our funding strategy.

As this concludes the group overview, let me guide you through into the segments, starting with Belgium.

In '25, adjusted net profit rose by 27% to EUR 272 million. This was mainly driven by a EUR 30 million increase in fair remuneration, reflecting continued RAB growth, higher equity and improved risk-free rate to 3.2% Incentives were up slightly by EUR 1.1 million. Beyond the regulatory result, the outcomes was also influenced by IFRS restatements.

These were mainly driven by higher capitalized borrowing costs from the larger portfolio of assets under construction as well as tariff compensation for the costs linked to the capital increase. This compensation is recorded as equity under IFRS, but these costs are fully passed through to the tariffs under the embedded debt principle. In total, the Belgium segment delivered a return on equity of 6.2% for the year.

For Germany, the adjusted net profit rose to EUR 439 million, up 42%. This strong performance is the result of several key factors. First, asset growth continues to be the biggest driver of the result, combined with imputed depreciation and cost of debt coverage. This was further supported by a slight increase in the allowed equity remuneration on new investments, reaching 5.7% for the year.

On the cost side, the onshore OpEx outperformance declined slightly by EUR 3 million. The inflation index-based year revenues helped to offset most of the operational cost increases, associated with our expanding activity footprint. At the same time, a number of offsetting effects also incurred. Depreciation increased as several major projects were successfully commissioned and brought online.

Financial costs rose due to the higher interest expenses from debt financing. This was balanced by capitalized interest during construction, which increased and interest income from a prefinancing agreement. After including a one-off deferred tax revaluation gain of EUR 46.5 million, net profit reached EUR 485 million. Considering the adjusted net profit, 50Hertz achieved a total return on equity of 11.1% for the year.

Finally, the nonregulated activities and Nemo Link segment delivered an adjusted net profit of EUR 5.3 million in '25. This performance was mainly driven by the application of group contributions for the '25 financial year, which contributed EUR 24.7 million to the result. This reflects the Belgian tax consolidation mechanism that allows to utilize a tax loss at the group level and Eurogrid International.

The positive impact followed a legislative change adopted at year-end, which removed the discriminatory treatment previously applicable when combining the group contribution regime with the dividend received deduction regime. This positive effect was partly offset by several factors, mainly higher holding company costs, a lower contribution of our consultancy business, EGI. Finally, Nemo Link contributed slightly less to the result. After taking into account net adjusted items, the net loss amounts to minus EUR 74.5 million.

Before we move to the final part of the presentation, our financial guidance for 2026, I'd like to briefly touch on the group's dividend policy.

Elia Group proposes a dividend of EUR 2.05 per share. This dividend proposal will be submitted for approval at the Annual General Meeting and is expected to be paid in June 2026.

Ending with the outlook for '26, Elia Group expects a net profit at Elia Group share in the range between EUR 690 million and EUR 740 million. In Belgium, we plan to invest around EUR 1.7 billion, delivering an adjusted net profit between EUR 290 million and EUR 320 million. While in Germany, we plan to invest around EUR 5.1 billion and an adjusted net result in the range of EUR 585 million and EUR 625 million. The nonregulated and Nemo Link segment is expected to report an adjusted loss of minus EUR 10 million to EUR 30 million.

Well, thank you, Stephanie. Thank you, Marco. Before we move into our Q&A session, let me share some closing remarks with you. Earlier this year, the Hamburg North Sea Summit highlighted the urgency of building an integrated offshore grid with European TSOs presenting a joint framework for hybrid interconnections and shared cost models capable of enabling up to 1,000 terawatt hour of clean energy by 2050.

At the same time, the Hamburg declaration committed key North Sea countries to delivering 100 gigawatts of joint offshore wind projects, underscoring that system security and sovereignty will increase, increasingly depend on collaborative offshore development rather than isolated national solutions.

Complementing this, Mrs. von der Leyen, underscored at the recent Antwerp Industry Summit that Europe's continued dependence on fossil fuels exposes industry to volatile price swings and highlighted the urgent need to reduce this exposure by accelerating the shift towards stable homegrown clean energy sources.

The current war in the Middle East underlines once again how vulnerable Europe remains to external shocks. Strengthening and interconnecting the European grid is, therefore, essential, not only to expand access to affordable clean electricity, but also to reinforce Europe's energy sovereignty and reduce dependence on increasingly unstable fossil fuel supply.

In this context, Elia Group stands out as the only international electricity transmission group in Europe, combining a multi-country footprint, deep operational presence in both the North and Baltic Seas and a public-private capital structure capable of aligning public anchors with long-term private investors behind strategic and critical infrastructure. This combination is exceptionally unique in our sector and precisely what Europe needs in these troubled times.

Our leadership is most visible in our flagship hybrid interconnector portfolio, the first of its kind in Europe and the foundation of tomorrow's meshed offshore grid. Kriegers, yes, thinks and acts on European scale. Together with Energnet, they already have put the world's first hybrid interconnector Kriegers Flak into operation. Furthermore, together with Denmark, they will realize Bornholm Energy Island, unlocking large-scale offshore wind in the Baltic Sea and connect through hybrid HVDC links.

And in Belgium, Princess Elisabeth Island and Nautilus could form one of Europe's earliest true hybrid offshore hubs, pulling up to 3.5 gigawatt of offshore wind, while interconnecting Belgium and the U.K. HansaLink, a key project of our entity WindGrid, expands this logic across new cross-border corridors, drawing private capital into offshore infrastructure at scale.

And with Nemo Link operating reliably for years, we have already proven our capability to deliver, operate and maintain complex interconnectors safely and efficiently. This portfolio is unmatched in Europe. No other player combines so many hybrid assets across the 2 strategic European sea basins under one group, not as concept, but as concrete investable projects that show how offshore wind and interconnection can be planned, financed and built together.

Thank you for your attention. Stephanie, I think we are now ready to move to the Q&A section.

Yes. Thank you, Bernard. And in the meantime, Yannick Dekoninck, our Head of Corporate Finance, has also joined us.

So let's turn to the screen. I see that our first question comes from UBS, Wanda.

Congratulations on the results and the CapEx delivery because there were some concerns last year if you will deliver.

The first question -- I mean, 2 questions to Marco. The first one is on the capitalized cost at the net income level. I mean, what was it in 2025 for 50Hertz because I couldn't see it disclosed. And what is embedded in your 2026 guidance? And also, if you could give us any rough guidance on the capitalized cost until 2028, that would be much appreciated. It's a very hard to model item.

And the second question is on the S&P. As you said, back in September, S&P confirmed the rating, but they also said that the Elia Group consolidated business risk has marginally increased. And they raised the FFO to net debt threshold by 100 bps. And they also assume that your CapEx post-2029 will moderate. So does a higher FFO to net debt requirement worry you when thinking about CapEx plan or funding beyond 2028?

Maybe start with the technical question then on the capitalized borrowing costs. It's indeed something we are mindful of in the figures of '25, which are subject to disclosure finally, with the annual accounts at year-end, there's a part close to EUR 90 million considered in the German figures. So what is a noncash result contribution. So -- and that puts a little bit 11% into a certain perspective as, of course, this is being included in the 11% guidance.

For the future growth, it's indeed linked to some degree with the investments to be taken. However, it's not linear simply as we try to limit the impact to some degree, and it's being connected to a relatively short period between 2 milestones of the projects, where I must admit that that's a little bit hard to model in the future. But I assume on one hand, that the IFRS standard is subject of a change, which might help us then in the future to limit that impact. However, it will grow. And as a rule of thumb, potentially, it's good to look into the investments in the year being taken compared with the previous year, how it will be growing in the year '26.

So what should we -- what is embedded in your guidance because your guidance for 50Hertz was running much, much above consensus?

In the guidance of 50Hertz, it's a similar area, so between EUR 90 million and EUR 100 million. So that's currently what we have embedded there.

And then...

So then on the FFO to net debt. So currently, after the capital raise, we feel rather comfortable, in particular, with an eye on the liquidity position the group currently has. So therefore, we are not in a rush. Of course, we are looking into the horizon beyond '29. But as we stated, it's subject of the new CapEx plan, which is still under development as both the grid development plan in Germany and the federal development plan in Belgium is still under construction, if you want to say it like this.

And as this is the underlying combined with the regulation of our future capacity in funding and of course, in remuneration, that is a necessary input for our funding plans. And of course, the rating will play a significant role in there as, of course, we don't expect that the growth will stop and taking that into perspective, there's a solid investment-grade position being needed to fund the investments in the future as well.

Thank you, Wanda. Let's go to the next question. I believe it's from Bank of America, Julius.

I have 2. The first one is on German regulation. So in the draft methodology that came out in December, I think the BNetzA for now ruled out the concept of a return on equity adder. But I believe since then, you've and the other TSO have provided some evidence why there should be an adder. So if you have any update, do you still believe that this could come in the final methodology? Any update on the reception that would be quite useful.

And then the second question is a little bit more high level. But if I look out to like beyond the summer and towards the end of the year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think at that point in time, you should have the new Belgium returns, the final methodology in Germany and a good idea on the grid development plan in both countries. Could there be a point in time where you will upgrade the market -- update the market on your investment plan and maybe roll forward to 2030 with the new CMD? It would be useful to know.

Maybe starting from the last question and then developing to the other ones.

Our expectation will be more towards year-end or beginning of next year to have that clarity as there are some specific aspect that you name a few of them in the regulation, but on the CapEx plan as well. To name a few, in Germany, that will be the total amount and the sequence of the offshore grid connections, which will play a big role in our CapEx program, or the question on overhead lines versus cabling in the big DC corridors. And that will, of course, change significantly the means being needed to realize that CapEx program. And this debate, to be fair, is still open. So there, we do not see really a landing zone for the time being.

A little bit the same in Belgium with the Princess Elisabeth Island and the DC components or the interconnector there. Even though government will potentially take a position then in the second quarter, you do see kind of delay in that decision-making as this was originally being foreseen in March. So therefore, likely that it's more towards the end of the year where we have that kind of clarity.

So on the point you mentioned in regards to the framework, in the conference, BNetzA hosted, they stated a little bit that they are not convinced yet on an adder to the return on equity. That's still a subject of a discussion, at least they opened the door for, and we provided some evidence that this is being needed. But it's fair to say there's an ongoing discussion on that one. What is, first of all, a positive sign that the door has not been closed. But so far, it's not being drafted in any adjustment of the determination of the return rates for the future.

Thank you, Julius. Are there any other questions? I do not see -- Temi. Good morning, Temi, please go ahead. We have you here with us.

Congrats also on the results presentation this morning. I've got a couple of questions, but I'll keep it to 2. One is just clarity on your 2026 net debt expectations. If you can provide an update on that, that would be very helpful.

Clarity on the Belgian regulatory time lines in terms of the consultations, but also the final determinations.

And then finally, it seems that you've had strong operational delivery in Belgium and Germany, '24, '25, '26, you've raised the guidance above consensus expectations. And I'm just wondering whether you might consider revisiting your '24 to '28 guidance in terms of returns and when maybe you might consider that?

Maybe net debt, I will take. So on net debt for '26, we expect to land with the CapEx that we have announced at a net debt of around EUR 19.5 billion. So that's what we are targeting for in '26.

On Belgium regulation, there's a relatively straightforward path being published. So there will be a public consultation on 14th of April, if I'm not -- 17th or mid of April.

[indiscernible]

Mid of April. So happy to invite you to comment on that one once it is being out there and a final determination in the course of quarter 2. So end of half year, there is likely a robust visibility how the scheme will look like.

And in terms of guidance?

Guidance, I think we still stick to the guidance which we have given as the growth is still intact with the double-digit percentage growth on the EPS and on the net results to the shareholders and around, as you have seen in the past, the 20% growth on the RAB. So that's quite consistent to each other, even though the guidance for '26 seems to be a little bit higher than the expectation, if you make it linear, but that comes from some of the aspects, which are not that fully linearized as we try to optimize the results, of course, as we can.

And in connection with commissioning, for instance, we might have one or the other year an outliner and '26 seems to be one of them as a couple of significant investments come to commissioning, which gives us a favor in particular, in Germany.

The next question will come from Piotr from Citibank.

I have a couple of questions. So the first one I wanted to ask you about this financial result in 50Hertz. So in your disclosures, you also point out apart from increased capitalized interest, you point out to accrued interest from the developer of an offshore platform of EUR 28 million, plus EUR 10 million from discounting effects on long-term provisions. So just wanted to understand, can you please explain on this first item what it really means? And is there any change on these numbers between '25 and '26? So I'm trying to get a bridge between '25 and '26 financial item. Is it just capitalized interest going up and these things disappear? Or how shall we think about these items?

And second question, I wanted to ask you about your actual performance. So in your Slide 20, sorry, Slide 19, you said that the net income of ETB increased by EUR 1 million because of incentives. I was under impression that the incentives should grow in line with RAB with the size of the business, but it doesn't seem so. So can you please tell us how do you assume the incentives increment between the '25, '26?

And likewise, you don't disclose incentives for the 50Hertz. I think there are some outperformance. So can you also say like operationally, do you improve -- or do you keep like a size of outperformance in line with the business growing with RAB growing or that basically the incentives and outperformance becomes bigger -- smaller relative to the size of RAB and so on. So these were 2 questions.

Okay. Maybe taking the first one on the wind farm contract, which we closed. So there's a nearshore wind farm at the German coast, which is being connected by 50Hertz in an AC technology. And for efficiency reasons, we agreed on to share the platform with the wind farm developer so that not both needs to have a platform being erected, what saves costs for both sides. And it's more or less a 50-50 split there.

As the wind farm developer pushed back for some of the costs to some degree, and we had a relatively long-lasting negotiations on that one. We finally agreed on that the funding costs, the financing costs of this chunk, which is related to the final agreement, and which will be borne by the wind farm operator are being out of the regulatory sphere. So that's something the 50Hertz and Elia Group can keep finally.

And the number you referred to is the accumulated interest income over the periods once we started that construction. So the effect itself will remain, but the order of magnitude will potentially go down as this is a kind of loan agreement, which is related on one hand to the size and the second to the scheme where there's some flexibility on the wind farm operator side once they are paying us, then, of course, the interest connected to the outstanding exposure will be lower in one of the years.

And as this wind farm will likely be -- the connection of the wind farm will likely be finished in '26 and the wind farm operator will potentially commission its assets then beginning of '27, despite the fact that there's a 15 years period on that contract, there might be some changes over time in the payment scheme as the flexibility is on the wind farm operator.

So that's a little bit long explanation. It's relatively complex matter, but likely that there will be an interest income over a certain period of time with different kind of order of magnitude.

Okay. And maybe, Piotr, on your question on the incentives in Belgium, it's indeed correct that they increased by EUR 1 million compared to last year. And it's indeed correct that they are, to a certain extent, correlated with the RAB, but as well, they are -- they have in the regulation a maximum amount that you can have on certain incentives. So that's one element.

And some of the incentives are a bit, I would say, binary between 0 to 1. If you remember last year, we had a cable issue linked to the availability of the MOG in '24. So we had no incentive at that year. This year, we have a full incentive, a full maximum amount. So that gives a little bit why you don't see exactly that linear evolution on the incentives. Nevertheless, I think we had a solid operational results where incentives remain quite important to the overall result in Belgium.

Let's now turn to Deutsche Bank, Olly.

Two questions from my side, please, like everyone else.

So the first one just is on CapEx. Now I appreciate that you need to wait for the grid development plans to give a precise view on future CapEx for '29 onwards, and that's more likely to impact presumably CapEx in the 2030s. Are you able to give kind of a high-level view in Germany of kind of the broad level of increase you think might be likely given that most of the changes to the grid development plan are probably going to impact in the 2030s. Any insight you can give there would be helpful.

And then secondly, just on funding the plan from '29 and onwards. I know obviously, you don't want to be precise about this. But could you say, is there a credible scenario where you think you might be able to fund CapEx in '29 and 2030 without the need for equity using the rest of your equity toolkit with the hybrids and opening up the capital structure of some of the TSOs potentially? Any views on that would be great.

Taking the first one, it's still, as we said, a little bit too premature to lay out a number. So if you take the total volume, which is currently as a price tag being seen on a total grid development plan in Germany, you can compare the EUR 320 billion, which was the number in the last grid development plan, which the EUR 340 billion, which is currently the number connected to the most likely scenario. It's not chosen yet, but that gives a little bit the view that likely the outcome will be rather the same with an eye on EUR 345 billion in terms of euros.

However, there will be a kind of different allocation on that one. And that what makes it that's hard for the time being really to say the CapEx is further growing or going down at a certain point of time. As, of course, only part of the EUR 340 billion are connected then to 50Hertz to the Elia Group. So as a rule of thumb, it was 20% all the time.

But the spread over 20 years is a difference than the spread over 10 years. So that's -- I mean, that's the simple math. And as the former government was quite in a rush to complete or to set very ambitious targets, which partially have been out of reality, the current government is more pragmatic in that view, and that's a little bit what still the debate is on.

And on the funding?

On the funding, I mean, we have full flexibility now. So that's currently what we are going to execute. That's all our options are valid. We are working on further optionalities as well. But please, as we don't have the CapEx numbers currently in place, we do not want to give guess how we are continuing to fund the growth in the future at this moment.

Nor do we have the regulatory framework set in place?

Yes, it's a bit early...

So I think it would be a bit too early. But thank you for the questions. I see the next questions will come from ODDO, Thijs.

A couple of questions. Do you still require probably an additional EUR 2 billion of equity? And can you confirm that you still aim to raise this via in principle, EUR 4 billion of hybrids?

Second question is on your Energy Island and the DC connectivity there as well as for the U.K. connector. The HVDC cost price was too high. Any reason in your view why HVDC pricing now should be lower?

And third is on the North Sea offshore wind projects targeting 15 gigawatts installations by 2031. What can we expect as impact for your CapEx from that plant compared to what we currently are installing on the North Sea?

Yes. Maybe starting with the first one. Our toolkits provide us flexibility, and we stated that it can be both hybrid -- the hybrid capacity potentially being sufficient at this point of time, while another option is to open the capital on one of the subsidiaries and/or finding structural solutions to help us funding the growth. And that's still something we are closely monitoring.

And there's a couple of key elements to be considered and criteria's in the decision-making, once is timing. Another one is, of course, cost of capital. Third one is execution to name a few of them.

And as we have a strong liquidity position and of course, the credit rating is comfortable as well. So we are carefully looking for the best solutions there. And once this is being decided, it can be both extremes. So both elements of the toolkit would gives us the credit in total, so it has the potential. However, it could be a combination as well depending on the point of time where we make the decision.

On the Princess Elisabeth Island, I would say that, first, it was the right decision to postpone the project because, as you know, at the time, we were really in a very heated market on the HVDC component.

However, the teams have been working on updated design. We have also some very good discussion between U.K. and Belgium on how to best share the cost and the benefits of the project. And I hope that in the coming weeks, months, we can come with a solution that fits with the original objectives, while being more reasonable from a cost point of view. We see that the HVDC technology remains an expensive technology, but we also see that the heat that we had a few months ago is a little bit lower.

On your North Sea approach, which actually the Princess Elisabeth Island is a subpart of. As I explained in my conclusion, I think we are really, as Elia Group extremely well positioned being the only transmission group having a portfolio of assets already in our base today. But of different nature because we have the Belgian port on the North Sea. We have the projects on the Baltic Sea with Windanker's. But we have also with our subsidiary, WindGrid, a project called HansaLink. And the advantage, of course, of this setup is that it's a setup where you can also use financial players who can help the financing of the project.

So I'm not going to preempt on the decision of Europe. I think, by the way, we see with what's happening now in the Middle East that it's high time that we reduce our dependency on gas and that offshore wind in the North and the Baltic Sea is a critical element in there. We will see how Europe will evolve in -- and the grid package already goes that direction, but how they translate that into a series of projects.

But I think what's interesting is that Elia by its strategic geographic positioning, by its current portfolio of projects, but also by its setup where we can leverage financing capital at different levels is very well placed to play a role in there. And already in our current portfolio of projects and in our current asset base, we have projects on both seas in the North and in the Baltic Sea.

Are there -- yes. I see the next question coming.

And also from my side, compliments for the good results and outlook, of course.

Yes, on the -- I'm still going to try on the North Sea, and thank you for the answers so far. But looking at the ambitions and with the involvement of TSOs as well in these kind of framework ambitions that were published, a step-up to 15 gigawatts already in 2031 and for a number of years, even a decade. And now looking at your CapEx approaching EUR 7 billion.

So let's say, connecting all these gigawatts already upfront or preparing for that upfront and for a number of years to come. Is it fair to say that, yes, maybe previous assumptions on EUR 7 billion being the higher end of forward CapEx. Is that something that we need to reassess to a larger number, higher number? That's my first question.

And the second one is on CapEx, and it's a great achievement that, of course, you met the expectation after the -- I think the questions that were raised at the midyear presentation. What should we expect for 2026? Will it be a more balanced picture of the EUR 6.8 billion or also 1/3, 2/3, maybe some guidance there.

I will take the first one and let the team go for the second one.

I think the guidance remains the same. So we are on EUR 7 billion CapEx because we are talking on a series of projects that we know. Then we will have to see how the developments happen, and we will be looking at it as you do. And according to the developments, of course, Elia Group wants to position itself on these developments. But I think then there will be also another way at looking at it.

And I think from the European standpoint, from the political standpoint, we will have also to think of the tools to make sure that we can reach those developments without having always a direct impact on the balance sheet of the TSOs. And that's where I say with some of our tools like WindGrid and so, we are very well placed to test those type of model. We will also have to see what Europe does in terms of SAF funding and other conditions.

So just to say, within the current framework, we are in the current guidance, and there is no reason to change. Of course, we remain attentive and opportunist of what it would develop. But I think then there would be other ways of looking at the thing and not directly in the CapEx of a TSO, which will be one of the topic to manage if we want to reach this great ambition, but also needed ambition when you see the situation of Europe.

And maybe to complement, we published recently a paper then which could be a way forward in the future to fund in particular the far offshore wind farm developments and the connection to that one mainly via hybrid interconnectors, where we are facing several constraints to go ahead there, and that could be an element with the so-called WSPV concept, which helps both on one hand to unlock a little bit resistance in one or the other countries.

And secondly, combine the forces with giving some securities by public authorities like European investment banks, for instance, and combining with private capital to fund that in the future, as Bernard rightly said, it's questionable whether all TSO can absorb simply these big request of capital in the future.

In regards to our CapEx program, it's likely that you will do see a heavy loaded second half year again as this is, on one hand, a little bit in nature as during the summer, most of the construction is being made. And then, of course, we usually account for the progress once a certain milestone has been reached, and that's likely more in autumn than in spring.

And the second one is that at least in Germany, gives us a favor to have that backloaded profile. As usually, you get remunerated for the average of the year while -- for the capital cost as well. While, of course, the later you will have it, the bigger the gain could be. And that's something which we have seen in the results as well as, in particular, the difference between the real funding costs and the funding costs, which are being embedded in the grid fees gives us a favor to some degree and contributes to results, too.

And let's go to Wim from KBC.

Yes. I hope you can hear me.

Very well.

Yes.

All right. Also congrats from me. Lots of questions have been asked. I just want to throw in some add-ons.

If I want to come back to the financing, the equity raise potential, and I understand regulatory framework has to be put in place. Can you give an idea, suppose that if you want to do something like an ABB like in '24, EUR 0.5 billion, if that's possible, what you need to do, whether you would need to have some kind of Board's agreement first, if that's a possibility simply because the share price has rallied quite a lot. It's more than doubled since the last capital raise. So how you feel about that?

Then smaller questions on the dividend. I think in the past, you said that, that would go in line with inflation. I think it stays more flat now. Is that also the outlook for the future? I completely would agree that would make sense as well.

And then lastly, more like a general question and something that we've seen in the U.S. where the government has asked big tech to -- yes, basically pay via some kind of taxes to upgrade the grid because obviously, we know that, that demands a lot of investments to accommodate all the hyperscale investments.

So just your view, is that something that could be possible in Europe? Obviously, things move a little bit slower. But if there's anything that you can say just in order to kind of divert the pressure that we have seen and the pushback from industry and consumers on -- yes, obviously, offloading a lot of the investments via the energy prices. So those are my 3 questions.

Maybe I can tackle the dividends, if you like. We indeed gave a dividend or proposing a dividend of EUR 2.05. But what you need to take is as a basis is actually the EUR 2 because when we did the capital increase, we actually restated the dividend. And if we were to increase the dividend on a restated basis, it would be close to EUR 2, but we did not want to pay less than last year dividend. So we have increased it slightly. That has been our rationale for the EUR 2.05.

And we do see that as a strong signal that the investment in the Elia Group is a value-accretive one and the dividend payment is one of the elements there. So that gives some certainty that our growth path is intact.

Regarding the ABB, what do we need to have in place for that? First of all, yes, we will have to have an authorized capital in order to do such a transaction. But we -- as Marco already highlighted today, we are not looking to use any nondilutive -- we are looking to use nondilutive options. And I think there, we have enough flexibility. The way forward would be towards the future to bring back unauthorized capital, put that in place, and that are the first steps that we need to take.

And on the U.S., well, first of all, it reminds us of the potential in the U.S. We have a little bit of a setback at the moment, but we are convinced that over the long run, we know the situation of the grid in the U.S. It's certainly not at level with the AI ambition that the U.S. has and the battle of AI will pass via a strong grid. So I think it's good that we are positioned in there. It will take a little bit more longer than expected, but I'm convinced that the potential is the same because the grid becomes a critical asset in every region of the world that want to electrify.

The debate, of course, is who needs to pay, and we see the investments that the hyperscalers are doing and all things relative, the investment in the grids are indeed a fraction of the investments they are generally doing. So the idea to make them contribute is a political decision where it will be difficult for me to take a position, but it's clear that we've seen in our countries that the development of AI and data centers is representing a certain burden on the net, burden on the consumption.

And I think at some point, there are 2 positions that need to be taken. The first one is what do we want in terms of industrial development and where do we give the priorities in terms of segments, AI, data centers versus general industry. And then how do we make sure that the general consumer is not hampered by a consumption that is not responsible for. So I think I don't know what is the exact recipe, but the direction is certainly a direction to investigate.

And maybe to complement on that one, on one hand, there are multiple congestions on all these connection requests. So funding is one. So in Germany, for instance, the consumers are not paying for the direct connection. It's indeed then the applicant. On the other side, we do see that the grid is heavily loaded and simply that makes a congestion in connecting a new device to the grid. So as this is something we need to be careful of as well to protect our people in doing the works there.

And last but not least, it's not all the time that visible how mature the project is. And our lead time, it's fair to say, are still longer than the ones from this developer. And as they want to go in a staged process usually with extending the devices which are consuming them at the stage, but we are designing the -- yes, the connection only once. So that's all the time a little bit mismatch in the planning horizon. That's something which we need to work on commonly to make sure that we do see how mature the project is that we can give some access being granted and we can rely on that one as well as, of course, we want to prevent that we invest in an area where nothing is going to happen.

As we honestly have seen in Germany with the ship industry as Intel canceled the big factory in an area of Magdeburg, and then the TSO was forced to bring down the commitments in that area. However, the land has been already being acquired. So that's a mismatch, which we need to be careful on as, of course, we need to protect then the final consumer, as Bernard rightly says, that we are not socializing cost of the industry, yes. That's a little bit what we are in.

But it's clear that AI needs the grid, but the grid also needs AI. And we will also -- and we are really developing an AI strategy and developing -- we are already using a lot of AI, but we want to accelerate there because AI is also a way to solve some of the bottleneck issues that we have today. So it's really a very close relationship, both ends.

Let's now move to Juan from Kepler.

I have 2, which are more of a follow-up, if I may. The first one is on guidance. Can you please confirm that you have no additional hybrids included on your 2026 guidance? And on guidance as well, what is the targeted return on equity that you have on Belgium and Germany within the guidance that you've given, especially on Germany as is substantially above expectations?

And the second one is on the U.S. impairments. What are your expectations now in terms of the timing and size of the expected earnings contribution that you expect in the region going forward? If you can give us more clarity on that, that will be helpful.

You take the hybrid?

I think in the guidance that we have given is a guidance that takes into consideration multiple options that we have in the funding toolkit. So we do not exclude -- to be clear, we do not exclude a hybrid issuance, but the guidance that we have published this morning takes into consideration multiple options.

Now in terms of return on equity, as you know, we are not guiding specifically on the return on equity for a specific year. We have guided on the return on equity over the period, over the regulatory period, both in Germany and Belgium. So that's still something that we are targeting for, knowing that you could have certain variability year-over-year due to important one-off effects like we had this year. That's also why we have been very clear on what that one-off effect was in Germany.

So to remind you, the average guidance which we have given was between 7% and 8% in Belgium, while in Germany, it was 8% to 10%.

Yes. And on the impairment?

Did we miss one?

Yes. I think on the U.S. impairment on the timing, when we could expect a positive contribution, but that one is a little early to say today because there's still a lot of uncertainty on when those projects and how and when they will materialize, but that's more towards the end of the decade, I would say.

Yes. And it's clear that, as you know, we have 3 projects, the project on Clean Path, New York, which is a line in New York, didn't pass some regulatory approval, what we call a priority transmission project, but it doesn't take away that New York needs an extra transmission line. And so we will use the assets to participate to further project development. So there, we believe we are rather facing a delay.

You know the uncertainty that exists today in the U.S. about the offshore and things can turn very quickly one way or the other. So our strategy there is to secure the assets that we have in place. We have already the leasing rights on this project, that's Leading Light Wind. And on SOO Green there for the moment, that's a project that, as Stephanie explained in the presentation, continues on its path of the different regulatory hurdles. And so there, for the moment, there is no reason to review the project.

So as you say, we are rather delaying in time. But as I said to your colleague just earlier, I'm convinced that the fundamentals stay and at some point, somebody will see that these projects are heavily needed.

So in the '26 guidance, there's no positive contribution being expected to make that clear.

Thank you, Juan. Let's now turn to Alberto from Exane.

Congratulations for the results. A couple of follow-ups from my side. The first one is regarding the German regulation. Maybe if you could -- based on the like already published consultation papers, if you could quantify what are your expectations in terms of ROE and WACC based on the current consultation papers and what else is needed? So maybe if you could give us some guidance of what will be your expected level of returns in order to get the competitive returns that you need for being competitive in the equity markets?

And the second one will be regarding the potential update to the market, the potential Capital Market Day. You have said that maybe by the end of the year or beginning of 2027. When do you know that we will have more visibility if this is happening or if we can consider as confirmed or it's still pending?

I think maybe I'll start on the Capital Markets Day. That's still very much pending. As Marco clearly said, there are still a lot of moving factors. We don't yet have clarity in Germany. And also in Germany, the final elements will only be defined somewhere in 2027. So that's why we cannot fix to a date somewhere in the future.

So next to that, we also have grid development planning that is ongoing in Belgium, in Germany. Those time lines aren't super fixed neither. So this will be something, I think, towards the end of the year, we will have more clarity on. So I do not expect us to really do a CMD still this year.

So to come to the German regulation, if you really look into the paper, even though it's heavy reading, I would say, it's for the time being, for our perception, more a description of a structural approach while the ingredients are not being flagged yet. And even though a WACC model could be something comparable, but the big debate on the cost of debt coverage is not finished yet. So that's still ongoing, but a rating adjustment is being made, which kind of reference rate is being used.

These elements are still pending. That's why it's a little bit too early really to say what the outcome could look like, and we previously discussed equity or return adder for the TSOs, what is still in the discussion, which is not in yet. So I would say we are not there yet with that what we assume BSR could deploy.

However, our clear target is not being worse than today. And if you take the return on equity, which we disclosed and take off all the accounting items, there's still a return rate above 8.4%, which is, if you want to name it, a kind of cash return.

And as BSR already said, the total package matters, that's something we are requesting, and that's something which we are targeting to get out of it. Which elements shall we put in place. There, we have some openness. So if there's an incentive being put in place, which gives us an order of magnitude lending there, we are fine with it as well. We are happy to get challenged in terms of our operations. But so far, it's not really clear. So therefore, we are hesitating to give a guidance what it could give for the time being.

Thank you, Alberto. Let's now -- I see Olly, you have some further follow-up questions? Can you hear us, Olly?

Yes. Just one follow-up question, please. Going back to the discussion on the capitalized interest within the guidance for '26 at 50Hertz. Is that -- which is noncash. Is there anything else within that '26 guide 50Hertz that is noncash in addition to the capitalized interest that we should know about? Or is that the only item?

I wouldn't say it material. There is -- now we come a little bit in great territory as we assume commissioning, which gives us a full depreciation in the revenues, there's a cash connected to that one, while the depreciation is lower, the real depreciation, which we are recording in that year. So for us, it's a cash item, which contributes to the results as well.

While the capitalized borrowing cost is a noncash item as this is reverted later stage. So -- and therefore, I would keep it on that one, knowing that, of course, the example which I raised could give us a favor in the results of next year as well. And as I said, if you only linearize that, the result would look a little bit outstanding compared to that linearization in line with the CapEx, which you otherwise would compute.

And maybe if I can complement it, Marco, for those that have been following us for a couple of years, you see that we also have sometimes discounting of interconnecting provisions or interconnected income. As you know, you -- sometimes have spike in the forward rates that has an impact on those long-term provisions. That's not something that we estimate or take into account in the guidance as such, but that's always something that can happen. We were confronted with that a little bit at the end of Q4 of this year, where the interest rates started to move up. But that's not something that we can -- that we have a control on. That's not something that we can steer. So there, we have a neutral approach. But in the actuals, of course, that can have an impact.

And what was the impact of that in the '25 results from that movement at the end of Q4?

I think at the end of Q4, we had a net impact of EUR 22 million that was coming from this discounting of provisions.

Thank you, Olly. If there are no further questions, let's wrap up today's presentation. First of all, a big thank you to all the teams who have contributed. Thank you, Bernard, Marco, Yannick.

Thank you, Stephanie.

And thank you for joining us today. Have a nice day, and see you soon.