Engie SA Stock

Thank you for holding, and welcome to the ENGIE's 9 months conference call. For your information, this call is being recorded. [Operator Instructions] I will now hand you over to Ms. Delphine Deshayes, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, madam.

Thank you, and good morning, everyone. It's my pleasure to welcome you to ENGIE's 9 months conference call. Shortly, Catherine and Pierre-Francois will present our 9 months performance, following which we will open the lines to Q&A, with my polite request of limiting your questions to 1 or 2 only, please.

And with that, over to Catherine.

All right. Thank you, Delphine, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to our 9 Months 2026 Results Call. I am very happy, very pleased to report that ENGIE has maintained its dynamic performance in Q3, and we now expect us to achieve the upper end of our full year guidance. All of the regular hallmarks that you've come to expect were on display in Q3. Strong focus on the execution of our growth strategy with expansion on a global basis in renewables, in batteries, in networks plus significant progress on performance, notably through operational excellence and initiatives that are focused on culture and competitiveness efficiencies.

The key takeaway for me is that we have built a fantastic engine that is thriving in what is a new paradigm, a world with constant political, geopolitical macro changes. We have optionality, both in the technologies that we deploy and in the geographies where we invest in the business models, and importantly, we have the agility to allocate capital where we see the most value. A few words on Belgian nuclear. Given the current circumstances, the complexity of the negotiations and the determination to leave no stone unturned in our efforts, we and the Belgian government have agreed to a further extension of negotiations up until the 12th of December. While we have made progress on some aspects of the negotiations, there are significant divergences related to the valuation of the transaction notably of the liabilities that we want to try to solve.

Before I move on to my review of Q3, a few words on why macro risk including the French ones should not be confused with ENGIE risk. First, our financial structure. 78% of our net debt is at fixed rates, 79% of our euro debt and 90% of our sterling debt, that gives us strong protection against rising rates on our existing debt and the market recognizes it as spread over the bund has stayed constant and in line with the sector, as you can see against the Iboxx Euro Electricity Index.

Second, our earnings. Remember that our asset base provides a substantial natural hedge against the effect of inflation and higher rates. With UK Power Networks now on board, we are well on track for 2028 guidance of 2/3 of EBIT from regulated or contracted activity with almost EUR 50 billion of RAB or RAB equivalent with indexed and/or inflation-protected revenues. And when I look at France on its own, the majority of our EBIT comes from gas networks and pass-through contracted local infrastructure. So one message, as a summary, remember we are long inflation at ENGIE.

And third, our growth story. Because if you look at our growth markets, the overwhelming majority are outside France, and they are underpinned by strong fundamentals. Whether you look at actual power demand with year-on-year rises of 2% in Europe after years of declines of stagnation, 3% in the U.S. in the first 9 months of this year, whether you look at supportive policies with the EU, for example, targeting a doubling in electricity share in energy consumption to 46% by 2040. This translates into growth.

With clear evidence, network investment is accelerating, renewable generation is growing and the need for flexibility is increasing, and we see these trends holding across all of our key markets. Of course, when it comes to new investment decision, for example, in renewables and in batteries, we do take into account the new interest rate and inflation environment, but we are in a very good position to navigate this backdrop. Thanks to our supply chain and our execution capabilities, thanks to the size of our portfolio, that geographical optionality that we have built as well as our energy management and commercial franchise.

Turning to the next slide, some headline numbers at the 9-month stage. EBIT, excluding Nuclear reached EUR 7 billion, up 9.7% year-on-year, underpinned, of course, by the inclusion from May of UK Power Networks and growing by 3.3% organically. In fact, when you just zoom on the third quarter, EBIT, excluding Nuc increased by 10.9% organically. Economic net debt amounted to EUR 62.5 billion, and we achieved another substantial contribution from performance improvements at EUR 406 million at 9 months, over EUR 100 million in the third quarter alone.

This was half from operational excellence with initiatives such as asset efficiency, contract portfolio cleaning, cost optimization, quarter from culture and competitiveness actions such as improving span and layers of control and the remaining quarters from loss-making entities with disposals and turnaround measures.

Let's now turn to our first growth pillar, Renewables and Flex Power, where we achieved a significant milestone in this quarter as we passed 60, 6-0, gigawatt of operating capacity in BESS, solar and wind, we commissioned 3 gigawatts of new capacity over the first 9 months with 6.6 gigawatts under construction at the end of September. As usual, we have been active worldwide on markets that we know well and in the second half of 2026 so far, we have announced our largest BESS at 500-megawatt in Saudi, and we brought on stream 450 megawatts of solar in India and 250 megawatts in Australia.

Commercially, we maintained a high level of PPA signing with 3.2 gigawatt at the 9-month stage of 2026, a similar level to 2025. Most recently, we signed a renewable energy supply agreement to provide up to 568 megawatts of wind power for Oracle's expanding AI and cloud data centers in Texas, and there is plenty more in the pipeline for further substantial data center expansion.

Our B2B supply business is building up strong momentum in bespoke 24/7 supply contracts to customers such as Legrand in France and Aker BioMarine in the U.S. and we are far ahead of schedule to meet our 2030 objectives on volumes supplied to the tech and data center sector. In the third quarter, we achieved a milestone in storage capacity, reaching more than 10 gigawatt in operation or under construction. Out of this, 7 gigawatt is in BESS, an activity that didn't even exist at ENGIE 5 years ago, quite an achievement and demonstrating indeed the huge need for flexibility in power production.

We made big strides in Europe over the third quarter entering the Polish market through the acquisition of a 758-megawatt portfolio, acquiring projects in Romania and Spain, starting construction of facilities in Belgium and Portugal, and commencing operations at Maxima in the Netherlands and our first 2 batteries in the U.K.

On our second growth pillar, Networks, where the acquisition of UKPN has added a major new dimension. We are delighted at a smooth and rapid process of integration. We have been particularly impressed by UK Power Networks strong data-driven culture, its operational focused and the close connection between management and field operations. Over the first 3 years of the ED2 price control period, in other words, between April '23 and March '26, UK Power Networks achieved a return on regulatory equity of 11.2%, maintaining its outstanding operational track record.

UK Power Networks is now finalizing its ED3 business plan for Ofgem. And while the political and regulatory debate has become more focused on affordability, we do not see any credible pathway to deliver U.K. electrification, economic growth and security of supply objectives without materially higher distribution network investment. We are confident that a significant step-up in ED3 investments will be needed.

Very relevant for our gas network is the development of biomethane in Europe and particularly in France. In October, we signed a framework agreement with CMA CGM to develop a biomethane production unit in the industrial port area of Le Havre that will supply 100 gigawatts hours of biomethane annually for their fleet from 2029 onwards, subject to FID.

With that, I will pass over to Pierre-Francois.

Thank you very much, Catherine. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us in a busy day with another 2 releases. EBIT, excluding Nuc, reached EUR 7 billion up 10%, including 5 months of contribution from UK Power Networks. We are delivering a second quarter in a row with double-digit organic growth despite absorbing EUR 54 million of support to vulnerable households in France in Q3. Our 2026 earnings offer a very solid base from which we are growing as promised. .

Cash generation remained robust with CFFO at EUR 7.5 billion despite the material but temporary working cap headwind from higher energy prices and margin growth. You know that our working cap tend to increase when energy prices go up. I will come back to it. CapEx reached EUR 26 billion, including the acquisition of UK Power Networks. This transaction together with the working cap variation explains the increase in net debt and leverage. Based on year-to-date delivery and current visibility, we now expect '26 to land at the upper end of our guidance range.

Let's turn now to the evolution of EBIT excluding Nuc. ForEx was broadly neutral and scope, excluding UK Power Networks, had a limited negative impact. UK Power Networks contributed EUR 452 million over 5 months. On an organic basis, EBIT excluding Nuc increased by EUR 205 million. Price and volatility effects were negative overall, mainly due to the rolloff of high-priced hedges put in place after the Ukraine crisis in European gas generation. We also saw continued price normalization in B2B.

Supportive prices and unhedged generation volumes partly offset this headwind. Volumes were down due to warmer weather, lower hydro generation in France and lower gas consumption in regulated networks. Against this, commissioning and investment contributed strongly through new renewables and battery capacity and the continued expansion of Power Networks and regulated assets. Performance added EUR 406 million confirming that operational excellence translates into earnings. [indiscernible] negative [indiscernible] reflect variation of one-off from one period to the other. Nuclear EBIT declined to EUR 113 million, reflecting the Belgian nuclear phaseout that is now completed.

Looking now at the 3 reporting segments. Renewable and Flex Power EBIT reached EUR 2.6 billion. Renewable and BESS grew organically by 5.5% supported by new capacity and operational performance and partly offset by lower hydro volumes and lower capture prices in Europe. Gas generation normalized as expected reflecting lower capture spreads in Europe, partly offset by good prices in Latin America and commissioning of Flémalle in Belgium. The conjunction of geopolitics-driven volatility and record extreme weather require constant adaptation of the optimization of the assets to mitigate risk and extract value from the fleet.

Infrastructures delivered strong growth, with EBIT reaching EUR 3 billion, including EUR 452 million from UK Power Networks. Gas Networks benefited from performance and tariff increases despite warmer weather and lower volumes in France. Power Networks grew organically in Latin America, while LEI, Local Energy Infrastructures, delivered close to 20% organic growth, driven by performance and development in district networks and EV charging.

Supply and Energy Management EBIT reached EUR 1.8 billion, B2C increased strongly, supported by active portfolio management and the non-repeat of negative timing effects, partly offset by milder weather and EUR 54 million of support to vulnerable households in France. B2B declined as expected with high-margin legacy contracts phased out compounded by positive one-offs in 2025. Commercial performance is on track. Energy Management performed strongly in gas supported by market conditions and contract negotiation within H1, while Power remained more challenging.

Turning now to cash generation. CFFO amounted to EUR 7.5 billion in the first 9 months compared with EUR 11.4 billion last year. The year-on-year decrease is explained by a EUR 3.6 billion adverse movement in working cap requirements. Three items matter. Gas inventories had a EUR 1.1 billion negative impact from higher prices and injections. Operational working cap reduced CFFO by another EUR 1.1 billion year-on-year due to higher customer receivables. And finally, margin calls had a EUR 1.5 billion adverse effect reflecting reduced use of letters of credit and higher collateral requirements in volatile energy markets.

These are temporary working cap effects, not a deterioration in underlying performance. The group continued to generate solid operating cash flow. Maybe, by the way, you have noticed that the operating cash flow is stable despite the phaseout of Nuclear. But it is a fact that more cash has been tied up in the energy cycle. This is something we have seen, you remember, in '22 and '23 with a reversal in '24 and '25. We hence expect at year-end, subject to market condition, of course, some moderate increase in the working cap requirement.

Let us now move to net debt and credit metrics. Economic net debt rose from EUR 45 billion to EUR 62 billion, mainly reflecting the EUR 13 billion net impact of the UK Power Networks acquisition, net of capital increase on hybrid and the EUR 3.6 billion working cap increase, I just mentioned. Adjusting for the temporary working cap headwind, it's good to note that CFFO cover both the dividend paid to shareholders and CapEx excluding, of course, the strategic acquisition of UK Power Networks. Economic net debt to EBITDA stood at 4.2x, including the full UK Power Networks debt impact, but with only 5 months of EBITDA. We expect the ratio to improve at year-end despite increased pressure on working cap due to high energy prices, targeting around 4.

Now a word on Belgian nuclear provisions. Catherine walked you through where we stand with the Belgian government and mentioned a significant gap in respective views on valuation, particularly regarding nuclear obligations. So before I wrap up with the guidance, we thought it could be useful to share with you what we plan to do at year-end with regard to nuclear provisions notwithstanding any transaction.

Until the end of '25, the views of the CPN and ENGIE were compatible, and our provisions were, therefore, based on the CPN estimate. As these views have since diverged, group provisions will be based on our own best estimate in full compliance with IFRS. The chart on the right shows what this would mean for the provision. Starting from EUR 8.6 billion at the end of 2025, we currently expect it to remain broadly stable by year-end 2026. And there are 3 main effects at play.

One, we are taking a conservative view on cost using the ONDRAF assumptions for overnight costs. Two, we adjust '22 contingencies given changes in scope and factor in the impact of higher costs, which mechanically increase the contingency. And three, we are increasing the discount rate to reflect partly the rise in long-term interest rates observed in all capital markets over the last 4 years. The discount rates used in '22, respectively, 2.5% for back-end fuel and 3% for dismantling are clearly out of market range.

Overall, while the underlying assumptions are moving, we currently expect the provision to remain broadly stable with no significant impact on economic net debt. Of course, Synatom, our wholly owned subsidiary managing provisions and related financial investments, will keep using CPN assumptions and funding in the years to come will be fully compliant with Belgian Law.

Let me conclude now with our outlook for 2026. Based on the performance achieved at the end of September and our current visibility, we now expect to land in the upper end of the guidance range. This confidence reflects investment contributions, continued performance plan delivery and Q3 momentum. We remain focused on delivering in a fast-changing environment, monitoring FX, financing costs, weather events, commodity prices and, of course, the broader economy.

In summary, ENGIE is delivering on its strategic priorities, investing in attractive regulated and contracted assets, executing operationally, generating solid cash and maintaining financial discipline.

I now hand over to Catherine for the final words.

Yes, indeed. So thank you. So a very strong 9 months for ENGIE. The second point is about the strength and the breadth of our industrial model that is showing its relevance in this world of constant geopolitical market and weather uncertainty. And third, we continue to have a strong focus on execution, continued effort on performance, commitment to maximizing the value from our existing asset base and of course, strict financial discipline in our new investment. All of these aimed at supporting our customers by supplying the affordable and reliable, sustainable energy whenever they need it. And this is why I am very confident about what lies ahead.

Our strong performance over the first 9 months shows that we have all the building blocks in place to perform to capture the opportunities ahead and to deliver on our ambition to become the best energy transition utility.

Thank you very much. Delphine?

Thank you, Catherine. Operator, can you please open the lines to Q&A. [Operator Instructions]

[Operator Instructions] The first question comes from Harry Wyburd of BNP Paribas.

Two for me, please. So firstly, inevitably on the Belgium deal. Can you give us any kind of flavor on the range of negotiation on the liability or you guided this on where your assumption is going to land by the end of the year? Where is the Belgium assumption going to land by the end of the year? Have you got any color on that, which can just give us an idea of the range of negotiation that we are thinking of?

And then just a subpoint on that, you've given us kind of the liability guidance end of the year, there's an associated sort of dedicated asset fund, as I understand it. Would that also be broadly flat or would you expect the value of that to have gone up or moved a little bit? So that's question one.

Second one, totally different. On the thematic of rates in France, I understand it when your networks review for gas comes around in a year or 2, you should be getting an increase in allowed returns because the returns were partially IBoxx driven partially OAT yield driven. So are you able to give us any kind of flavor as to what kind of movement you'd expect there? There's also a consultation suggesting they might move to full nominal, which presumably would also give you a revenue uplift? And would you expect any delta on volumes as well? I know there's a lot in that, but basically, as we're all trying to understand whether we should be upgrading our French gas networks estimates a couple of years out because of what's going on in France?

All right. So maybe, Harry, what I'll say, I'll start with the Nuc story because I think it's important to comment a little bit. So as we had said at the end of July, we have entered into these discussions that are dense, they are rich. They cover all of the aspects of the transaction. As you know, it's really a complex transaction, especially when it comes to valuation, valuation of the liabilities, but also, of course, the asset side. And indeed, we have progressed through the discussions, very constructive engagement. We have also uncovered significant divergences of positions related to the valuations.

And I would comment specifically when it comes to the liabilities, divergence about estimating the whole risk profile of dismantling activities. These activities are dismantling, and we had many opportunities to discuss that. As an industrial player, we have experience in -- this is industrial type of -- this has an industrial nature. It's very different, obviously, from the long-term waste management. It's really an industrial project. By the way, we conduct dismantling activities in many parts of the world. We are doing that when we dismantle coal, we even have, as you guys know, mining dismantling or decommissioning project in Australia. So we know how to do dismantling. It's manageable in time.

Well, I think it's fair to say that a government that would take on these activities might not be looking at this risk the same way as us. That's, I think, fair to say. And given the current circumstances in Belgium as well, of course, as the strategic nature of the deal for the government, this is why we have decided to give it a bit more time to see whether these divergences can be reconciled with the principles, of course, of financial neutrality, which remains core to the whole transaction. So let's see how that goes and what we see after the -- on December 12.

Maybe you want to say a few comments on the provision. And maybe, sorry, before passing on to Pierre-Francois, of course, the situation is that if we are able to land a deal, eventually, there will be no more provisions. I think it's also important to give you clarity, and this was the purpose of the slide that we put there and the comments on the provisions, we also want to give and share with you the view of what it would look like for us, should a deal not be reached.

Yes. I'm not going to dwell too much more on the provision. I think that since in our own books, we use the on-draft assumption for overnight cost, that's the plan. I think the key criteria will be around the contingencies that you put on top of the estimate of cost and that the second point is about discount rate. And I make a link with your second question, which I think is somewhat linked to it, which is the performance of the dedicated assets in Synatom. I'm not going to give you any number for year-end, but what I can tell you is that at the end of September, the performance was 5.4%, which reflect, of course, the trend in the market. So I think it's a very good point.

And then maybe on the gas revision, we don't like to comment too early on these kind of things, which are super sensitive. You know that we will file our first tariff proposal, I think, at the end of Q1 next year, so still a bit of time. Yes, I mean, the interest rates have gone up. And you could expect that there would be an impact that would come everything being equal. But of course, in the region, there will be many things that we need to discuss, including potentially some significant decrease of risk. We need to take into account volume trends, we need to thank the risk of stranded assets. So this could trigger a broader discussion with the regulator. And of course, we get the benefit of the increase in rates.

Now you also referred to volumes. Historically, what we have seen is that the volumes which are used for the assumption on tariffs are usually rather ambitious and you know and that's something we discuss sometimes, we don't use the same assumption for our own forecast, so to be discussed. I guess that behind this question, in the volumes, you had also the question about the CRCP, which is the volumes, which are actually recovered from the previous period. I'm sure everybody remember that in the current region, we are recovering volumes which were short in the previous period.

It's likely that in the next period, given what we see today, we will have also to recover on various operators, some of the volumes. So that you should not expect a big effect on that one. We discussed that a year ago and 18 months ago, and this is more or less confirmed, of course, depending on winter volumes, which are the main driver of this potential clawback.

Super clear. And just one rapid clarification. On the -- going back to the provisions, if the liability lag of EUR 8.6 billion is roughly flat, and you're saying you've had good progress on the dedicated assets, presumably the net liability, which I think is around EUR 3 billion is on track to shrink a little bit, if I got that right?

Yes. But I mean, the vision of the liabilities may differ from one party to the other. I think we feel very strong about the value of the liability as an industrial operator for plants that we've been managing for tens of years and with dismantling that we are familiar with, I mean, we dismantled in many places in the world, in Australia, in the U.S. and in Chile. So we are used to it. Now, of course, for government that would take over, they may come with a different opinion. So you can imagine the nice discussion that we can have around that.

The next question is from Ajay Patel of Goldman Sachs.

A couple of questions. So firstly, I think previously last set of results, you indicated a guide of EUR 1.7 billion on B2B and EM. I just wondered if you could give us an update on what that looks like, the 9 months? And then I was wondering, just on the nuclear provisions again, what would be the difference if you would just continue with the existing practices that you're doing in '25 into '26 relative to what you're pointing to now. I just want to understand what -- a change you would have made?

Maybe to start with the provisions. I mean, we are compliant with IAS 37. So it means that we need to use our best estimate when we close the books. And so we did in '22, so we did in '25. And what we did in '22, when we booked the provision, we use the same set of assumptions at CPN. And we have kept that assumption and that was the practice as a good proxy of our best estimate. What happened today is that we have different views. And when we have different views, of course, it means that we have to use our own best estimate, and that's the number that we are reflecting here. The other route was to take the CPN valuation and probably at some point, CPN will issue its own notification and that's what they have to do.

But of course, it's suspended due to the transaction discussion, but that should come, and then there will be a number pushed by CPN. And that number, we expect to see a different number based again, mainly on the contingencies and the discount rate. So I cannot talk on behalf of CPN. What I can tell you is that we have to use our best estimate, and this is what it is.

And sorry, and the other question was about B2B EM, and we are indeed on track and we keep to the target.

The next question is from Arthur Sitbon of Morgan Stanley.

The first one is on your 2026 recurring net income guidance. So I think the midpoint of the new indication is roughly EUR 450 million above the midpoint of your initial guidance at the start of the year. I was wondering if you could help us understand out of this incremental profits of EUR 450 million. What is the share of that, that you would consider as recurring sustainable and what is more one-off in a sense? That's the first question.

The second one is, I noticed that the TTF Henry Hub spread is up very significantly compared to earlier in the year even for the medium term, even when you look at forward prices for 2028-2029, I was wondering if that makes a difference to your kind of normalized former GEMS EBIT guidance of EUR 1.5 billion, if we think medium term, does that make it more of -- in the current condition, does that make it more of a ceiling than the actual level we should expect towards the end of the guidance time horizon?

Sorry. So on the first one, I think the upgrade of the guidance, we commented that in H1 and now being at the upper part, it's always a bit the same story. Of course, when we upgraded in H1, you remember that there was also taking into account the early close of UK Power Networks, but this is not, of course, not going to go away. So it's the pace of it. It's clearly we have good level of performance, which is another point that we mentioned, which is there. At the end of the day, the growth of the net income is driven by a good level of performance, good contribution over CODs.

In one word, it means that it is recurring and you should not see that as a one-off or especially boosted, I think that we are pleased with the quality of earnings that we will deliver in 2026. Now you are mentioning, yes, but we have also, of course, some spread in TTF Henry Hub. I mean you know that we don't -- we are very careful and we don't speculate on Henry Hub. So when we are sourcing in the U.S., we have a hedging policy to make sure that we protect ourselves of that kind of spread in quite a few years, not for the full duration of the contract, but for quite a few years. So we are, of course, not sensitive to that in the direct years to come. So we are not directional. We never do that. We are not going to play games, whereby we would be buying Henry Hub and selling TTF, that kind of thing. We don't do that.

We are always hedging at inception. So that's super important. So you should not see driving there and us looking that kind of profit, which would be super volatile and, of course, super risky.

Next question comes from James Brand of Deutsche Bank.

The first is a little bit political, obviously, and a sensitive topic, but just there has been press reports related to the Belgium discussions that the Belgian government might be threatening to nationalize the assets. And I was just wondering whether you had any comment on that. It seems like that may be inconsistent with EU energy rules and therefore, might not be able to be achieved? But I was interested in any comments on that.

And then secondly, just a follow-up on the earlier comment around the French regulatory review, and I appreciate you said that, that is also sensitive and obviously very early stages. But I think the approach that was used last regulatory review was a mix of weighting on kind of current forward-looking bond yield expectations and trailing expectations? And with quite a highway on the trailing that might not fully take into account quite how much the cost of capital has gone up in recent years. So I was just wondering whether you thought there might be an opportunity just kind of revise the framework and maybe get a full reflection of the rise that we've seen in rates?

Yes. I mean on the methodology, to be honest, it's really too early to comment. There is -- as you know, there is a lot of things that come in play on this whole regulatory parameters. And so it's really very -- I mean it's too early to comment on exactly how we will engage on calculating the WACC and the formula. So I think it's -- we will, for sure, take into account what's happening in the rate environment today, but to get into the formula detail, it's a bit too early, James.

On the noise, you remember, we always said and we told you, please be careful about the media noise because there is always media and press noise to very nicely accompany some of the discussions that can happen. And on the nationalization noise that you are referring to is really press rumors. We are very confident that the Belgium government is very seriously negotiating with us in good faith and nationalization is definitely not on the agenda. And by the way, nationalization of nuclear operations would be really something, but that's a side comment. So yes, no, just noise, rumors and not on the agenda.

The next question is from Bartlomiej Kubicki of Bernstein.

Two things from me as well, please. Firstly, I would like to ask you about the U.S. and the latest political change. And how do you see this, whether there will be more opportunities to grow or less opportunities to grow for the time being?

And second of all, if we look at your batteries exposure, growing batteries exposure, you're also expanding the coverage in terms of the markets, you're moving into different markets. If you can just maybe give us a little bit of color how the attractiveness of particular markets you're exposed to look like in comparison to others? So what are the most attractive countries or the least attractive countries you are exposed to? I'm hearing from some of the industrial players, you can even get 20%, 30% IRRs in some countries, whether you think this is the actual number.

And then lastly, of course, how long do you think the El Dorado in terms of batteries will last? Because I suspect there's a lot of batteries coming on the market, so consequently, the potential arbitrage opportunities you may be utilizing right now will be shrinking in the future.

Okay. Maybe -- so U.S., it's obviously a bit early. But what I think is fair to say is that there was quite a lot of pausing in momentum preelections. And I can think of, in certain states, there were pauses made and, for example, permitting data centers, so there was a little bit of a slowdown in momentum preelection. So elections are always a bit of a catalyst where things can resume. I think what's happening on the data center side and potentially push back and slow down, we'll have to see what the new elected want to do about that.

But I would think, hopefully, we will see eventually in the U.S., more all of the above energy policy. In other words, some technologies not being isolated or as we have seen in some circumstances. So hopefully, we can see permitting resuming, but again, we'll have to see. It's a bit early to say. That's what I would say on the U.S.

On the batteries, we see batteries, frankly, thriving in many markets where renewables are being developed, which is many markets actually. India, for example, doesn't do solar anymore. They do solar and batteries. Obviously, you cannot -- I mean, any time you have only renewables gigawatts as an objective, you will fall into trouble at some point because you're going to have too many negative hours. So we see many markets now catching on flexibility. And within that flexibility realm, you see batteries. We're going to see that even in Brazil, which was not so much a battery market before, we're starting to see that.

We've seen that in Chile. Anywhere you have also grid -- obviously grid congestion, a lot of renewables penetration, you see batteries thriving. So that's some of the commentary I can say about batteries. 2030 -- 20% to 30% return, we see double-digit return for sure. I'm not sure that we can say 2030, but we see indeed because part of the BESS are exposed to merchant exposure. So obviously, you will expect to have double-digit returns. And again, as long as renewable penetration continues in Europe, we still have a long way to go, we expect batteries to be able to capture value.

And remember, the payback of batteries is typically quite short. So while in some cases, when batteries get developed very quickly, you can see a little bit of the collapse of the intraday spreads. But because you add more renewables, then batteries become important again. So speed to market is really important, by the way, which is why we like our positioning. We have been quite fast in moving in batteries, and that's important because cannibalization can happen, but only if you come a bit too late.

Maybe the last point I said on batteries is what we have seen in the United States is that battery costs have increased quite a bit and that will probably put pressure on battery development. If battery development gets a bit slow down in the U.S., you'll see it again in the spread, and that should be actually positive for existing assets for sure and potentially help and facilitate new developments.

The next question is from Juan Rodriguez of Kepler Cheuvreux.

I have 2 on my side, if I may. The first one is again on Belgium discussions and provisions. First is, okay, what is the red light for you? I said you signaled that you expect neutrality on the deal, but what could be the level that you can say into this like low -- very low single-digit billion level for additional provisions? And what would be your plan B on your side if no risk is -- or if a no deal is reached by the 12th and why the 12th? Can we expect a further update if no deal is reached on that date or there's a specific time line that needs to be reached by that date? That's the first one.

And the second one is on the asset management and the expectations of power improving. We see that power has been relatively calm until Q3, and then we see that future prices have started to tick up. Can we expect the positive gas effects as well to be extended until 2027-'28 on new contracts or is it mainly going to be a 2026 effect on the gas side?

Look, on nuclear, again, what we said is that indeed, we want to do a deal that allows us or gives us financial neutrality that needs to be looked at as a package, asset and liability. And of course, given the sensitivity of the discussion, I'm not going to go into more details. What I think is important, what we try to do today is to give you the realm of possibility. Either we have a deal and it will be a good deal for ENGIE in the sense that it will, one, allow us to meet the strategic goal for the government; two, have a financially neutral deal; and third, it will, in a way, derisk us from future nuclear exposure and by exposure, I mean, some of these discussions that we're having, are we prolonging or not, et cetera.

So that's what is today at the table. If we don't have a deal, it's okay as well. We had, as you know, a framework, which is called Phoenix, very famous, Phoenix deal, and we will go back to some sort of Phoenix deal with the -- by the way, we didn't comment, but our plant have restarted after the LTO on time, one mid-October, one November 1st, so the Phoenix deal is working. And very importantly, the focus of that slide was to say we also have a view, very clear view of the provisions that we will have on the balance sheet of the group.

So that's the two, if you like, possible situations that we will land in. And when you look at them, both actually are really, really good for ENGIE. So now it's how do we lift the -- or give more clarity on whether we'll be on the left or on the right. Indeed, let's see on 12th of December. That's the date that we have given ourselves with government to get to that clarity because we have, indeed, this divergence in valuation that we need to bridge. And if not, we will fall into that the other side. So let's see on 12th of December.

On prices, maybe, yes, on power, of course, there will be an impact because even if we have decreased our merchant exposure in power, we still have some. We have some residual merchant position in wind and solar. We have more importantly, some hydro, as you know. And we have the French rolling rights in Nuc. So these are our power position. And we have a rolling 3-year hedging policy. So that means that, indeed, some of the benefit of the higher prices to the extent that they are reflected into the forward curves would reflect in '27 and to a lesser extent in '28 based on the curve. So that should come through.

When it comes to gas, it's a bit of a different story because we -- as you know, we are not a gas producer. We are hedging at inception. So there is not such an exposure. However, when gas prices are higher, indeed, there are deals that you can enter into. Some of these deals can go a bit further indeed that the quarter, and that could bring a bit of value. But that's not to the same extent. What we could expect if gas prices start to decrease is that we would have a better environment for clean spark spreads, which today have been squeezed as -- of course, the power prices are going up, but they are pushed by the gas prices. So we can expect that if gas prices come down, there might be a bit more room for locking in better spreads for CCGTs. So that's what I can say when I look forward.

The next question is from Piotr Dzieciolowski of Citi.

I have 2 questions, please. So I think we understand the liabilities part of Belgium discussions, but can you tell us what is your view on the asset value? Is there any meaningful value remaining in the connection points of the 5 reactors that were closed and how you think about it? Is there a divergent view on this side as well or how should we think about this as I understand it's both sides are discussed?

And the second question, I wanted to ask you about the impact of the increase in rates on your future projected financial results. How does this impact '28 guidance or by the end of the decade, how much of the extra financing costs you will have?

I'm not going to comment on the details of the transaction again. But you're right, there is a liability side and there is an asset side. And of course, it's here, in that case, a kind of an M&A transaction. So you need to agree on both. And as you can imagine, we don't necessarily agree at the first discussion. So yes, there is also a topic that we need to dig in, in the valuation of assets.

When it comes to the long-term rates, I think, Catherine shared a few elements about the structure of our debt. And you can see that we are fixed to a large extent. We do have also a cash position, which is offering a natural hedge on the short-term part of the curve. And that we have seen at work, you remember when the rate -- long-term rates started to go up a couple of years ago and you've seen that we have been pretty resilient. Now that being said, we do have bonds which are maturing every year, ballpark EUR 3 billion, EUR 4 billion of bonds which are maturing every year.

And these bonds are carrying a historical rate, which is lower because they were secure -- many of them, they were secured at the time, rates were more lenient to borrowers. So you should see -- on this EUR 3 million, EUR 4 billion a year, which are lapsing, you should see a gradual increase in the rates based on the market expectation that you can build by yourselves.

So that's, I think, a good way to look at the potential exposure going forward. The key point here is that it will take time because we are fixed, because we have long-term maturity and the average maturity of the debt is north of 9 years. We are -- of course, we have a lot of inertia in the way the rates will be reflected in our books.

The next question is from Louis Boujard of ODDO BHF.

I appreciate that most likely there is not much to add on the nuclear deal, so I will go to other topics at this point in time. Maybe the first one would be regarding the net debt level. Of course, with raising power market price environment and volatility into the systems, could you, in the end, maybe provide us with some visibility regarding how you see the economic net debt landing by the end of the year considering also the uncertainty that we should still take into consideration on the working cap level that might be partly at least reversed in 2027 and maybe 2028 as well?

And the second question, maybe a bit more on to the business line and specific aspects on the B2B. I think that we've seen that the EBIT declined 30% organically at the 9 months, but the third quarter is a kind of improvement. And I would like to know if when you sign your 24/7 renewable supply contract into these divisions with large customers, is it only to retain these customers? Or is it also something that could potentially enable you to improve the margins going forward into these B2B division?

No, think of the 24/7 contract as quite a differentiated product that we provide to our customers. Behind the 24/7 concept, there is a different flavor. You have the ones that are super demanding that had 90-plus percent early matching, and you have the ones that are a bit more, let's say, democratic, more affordable, more reachable, which can be at 60%, 70% early matching. But those ones, obviously, the big ones, the 90%-plus are premium, but the 24/7 now is becoming a bit of a medium-tier product.

So we are able to do more of those. It's less selective, it's for more medium-sized customers or customers that want to greenify, want to decarbonize, want to have better productivity on their power price, but can't afford the 90%-plus hourly matching. And the beauty of this product is that it is both higher margin and we can do much more of that because the customer base is larger. And so that's really what we like. It's a bit of a sweet spot between customer base and as well as, indeed, better margins than your normal supply contracts. And it really meets customers' demand, and we see good traction this year for the first time, actually, with this product.

Thank you. And good question. Thank you for the working cap. So there are 3 components you've seen on the variation. Gas storage, well, you should expect this actually to slow down in Q4 because at the end of September, we had the peak period in terms of gas storage, where at the end of December, we have been starting to use it. So you should see less of an impact at year-end. When it comes to receivables net of payables, that depends, of course, on the level of prices that we have at the very end. But of course, a lot of this is already hedged. So we know that, that is the real trend in the business. And clearly, that's where we expect to see a bit more of working cap in the business.

Margin cost. We have tools, we have the toolbox. And of course, at year-end, we'll use the toolbox to minimize the impact of margin cost. This is something that we have been developing in '22-'23. So pretty used to that, we can do that. So you should expect a lower impact on that side. And then indeed, the reversal will come when prices stabilize or even start to decrease. And you know that could mean that if the prices were to stay high, clearly, that would mean locking in this money for longer.

But if the prices are high, it's not necessarily bad for the operating cash flow. You remember that there is a direct link. And again, we would, of course, cover that in '27 with a strong operating cash flow. So all in all, we, again, based on the expense of '22-'23, we are pretty relaxed that there might be a bit more working cap due to high prices. For the rest, we can -- we are in control of the mechanics.

So this is the end of the Q&A session. Thank you for joining the call today. And of course, if you have any follow-up questions, do not hesitate to call the IR team. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. ENGIE thanks you for your participation. You may now disconnect your devices.

Good morning, everyone. It's my pleasure to welcome you to ENGIE's H1 conference call. Shortly, Catherine and Pierre-Francois will present our half year results, following which we will open the lines to Q&A with my polite request of limiting your questions to 1 or 2 only, please. And with that, over to Catherine.

All right. Good morning, everyone. ENGIE has achieved an excellent first half of 2026, marked by expansion in upstream and midstream, dynamic downstream results and strong headway on performance. Earnings are broadly stable despite the tailwinds of last year fading away. I am pleased to announce an upgrade in guidance for full year net recurring income group share to a range of EUR 4.9 billion to EUR 5.5 billion from the previous range of EUR 4.6 billion to EUR 5.2 billion.

A few highlights. We are at virtually 60 gigawatts in renewables and batteries. That's up by almost 1/3 since the start of 2024. We have transformed our scale in electricity grids with the U.K. Power Networks acquisition plus the award of transmission projects in Latin America. Our commercial businesses are performing well and with improving predictability. We are developing rapidly in delivering power to data centers and our performance measures are gaining momentum across the group.

In the Middle East and despite the turbulence there, our operational performance has been good with little financial impact on the group, testifying to the resilience of our business structure there as well as the operational excellence and strong sense of responsibility of our teams in the region. Our discussions to transfer our nuclear activities to the Belgian government are moving forward constructively. Since the signature of the letter of intent in April, project teams have been established. The process is now going full speed. The 2 parties are working in good faith towards the next step of heads of terms on October 1. All in all, despite the complexity of the project, I am reasonably optimistic that the deal can be concluded.

Before I move on, a few words on the rapidly evolving energy environment and why it continues to play to ENGIE's strengths and make us the go-to utility. It is clear that the ramifications of the Middle East conflict following on from the war in Ukraine represent a tipping point in forcing countries to prioritize energy security and sovereignty. In many of our countries, this is translating into a renewed push for electrification. The EU just issued a plan targeting a doubling in electricity share in energy consumption to 46% by 2040, with flexibility to implement incentives to encourage investment, improve affordability and widespread boosting of BESS deployment.

In France, a country-wide electrification plan bearing early fruit with a 63% jump in electric vehicle sales in H1 2026. And we saw, again, in France, a sharp increase in CRM prices, supporting flexible assets. Germany issued its CRM framework, paving the way for the construction of new H2 ready gas-fired power plants. Spain and the Netherlands are also moving forward with long-awaited CRM schemes.

But there is a further reason why 2026 to me is a tipping point and that is climate, which is becoming less predictable, more extreme as seen with a number of heat waves and tragic fires recently observed in several countries. So geopolitics, electrification, more unpredictable weather patterns, changing customers' behaviors, these are all new challenges to the energy system that we have to respond to. And at ENGIE, we are very well positioned to do so as we have, over the last years, built an industrial model that is integrated with a quality asset portfolio, embedding the right flexibility with best-in-class energy management capabilities resilient to varying market conditions.

In our Q1 results presentation, I said that I strongly believe that having attractively located high-quality physical assets matters, and we are showing just that as we are creating many opportunities to enhance and extend the value of these assets over the lifetime. We have a number of examples of how we go about this. In Brazil, the Jira Hydro plant raising its reservoir water level to 90 meter above sea level during the dry season, thereby generating up to 236 megawatts of extra electricity. In the U.K., investing GBP 1 billion on our pumped storage plants at First Hydro, thereby ensuring 25 further years of operation. In Europe, repowering suitable units within our 440 strong onshore wind portfolio through anticipation, community support and existing grid access with 0.2 gigawatt repowered at the end of 2025 and over 1 gigawatt targeted by 2030.

And also in Europe, investing on the agility of our gas-fired fleet now nimble enough to achieve up to 1,000 start-ups every quarter. And in the Middle East, extending the long-term PPAs of our gas plants, most recently 1.5 gigawatt in Oman with very good NPVs. Boosting the potential of our assets by applying our industrial, commercial and financial expertise is and will remain a fundamental factor at ENGIE.

Turning to this next slide, some headline numbers. EBIT, excluding nuclear was up 3% at EUR 5.3 billion compared to the first half of 2025. Performance improvements amounted to EUR 304 million through multiple initiatives such as digital automatization of curtailment at renewables and BESS, AI-based optimization on forecasting supply volumes and proactively exiting CFDs in favor of PPAs where it makes sense, in fact, embedding a culture of performance throughout the group so that it does become the day-to-day norm. In that respect, U.K. Power Networks' veritable obsession with performance and customer service excellence can provide a valuable new benchmark.

Net recurring income group share was little changed at EUR 3 billion. Economic net debt rose due to the inclusion of U.K. Power Networks, up by 1/3 since end of 2025 to EUR 60 billion. And that is this strong first half performance that enables us to look forward with confidence, and we're raising the full year guidance range for net recurring income group share to EUR 4.9 billion to EUR 5.5 billion.

In our Renewables and Flex Power GBU, we commissioned 2.4 gigawatts of new capacity in BESS solar and wind over the first 6 months, and we are now close to 60 gigawatts of installed capacity. At the end of June, we had 84 ongoing projects with more than 6 gigawatts under construction. On the U.S. specifically, power market fundamentals remain strong. Demand growth is real. In fact, Texas ERCOT market set an all-time peak above 91 gigawatt on July 22, driven by heat and data center load. We do continue to grapple with timing, especially as federal wind permitting largely tied to FAA reviews remains slow moving industry-wide and part of our near-term pipeline has shifted with it.

To protect our U.S. ambition, we have safe harbored 8 to 10 gigawatt of our 26-gigawatt U.S. development pipeline. We will still bring 1.2 gigawatts into commercial operation this year with further 1.4 gigawatts already with FID advancing for construction. And while we expect total renewables and BESS full year 2026 capacity additions to be somewhat below the 5.5-gigawatt organic growth of 2025, we remain confident in reaching our 2030 target with a ramp-up in growth over the final years of the decade based primarily on the strength and the optionality of our global pipeline as well as potential for small- to medium-sized expansion through acquisition.

Among the highlights of the first half of this year were a doubling in PPAs signed compared with 2025, the completion of commissioning of the Ile d’Yeu / Noirmoutier offshore wind farm and the award of 325 megawatts of onshore wind projects in France, of which 209 megawatts repowering. Whilst in BESS, we commissioned the Tocopilla unit in Chile and started construction of the Drogenbos unit in Belgium.

I would like to pay a tribute to Paulo Almirante, who stepped down from being EVP of Renewables and Flex Power, but will remain as a senior adviser to ENGIE. Paulo has been absolutely instrumental in transforming the business over the last 5.5 years into what it is today, a real industrial machine combining ambitious growth with rigid discipline. Thank you, Paulo, and welcome to Pedro Vasconcelos. Pedro, your wealth of experience and international perspective are ideally suited to continue delivering on our ambitious road map. I am delighted that you have joined us at ENGIE. And what is for sure is that you have certainly hit the ground running.

Moving on to our data center activities, which are a strong focus of our growth. We are making good progress towards the 3 targets that I had highlighted in my February presentation. We have already achieved 47% of our 2030 target of supplying 50 terawatt hours of electricity to the technology and data center segment. We now have a total of 7 gigawatts of PPAs ongoing with tech and data centers. And our pipeline of co-siting projects has grown by 1 gigawatt to 7 gigawatts of data center capacity since the start of 2026, and that includes 4 gigawatts of advanced-stage projects, up from 0.8 gigawatts. The opportunity set is exciting as we draw on various value creation levers from enhanced margins on supply deals and risk management revenues, PPAs unlocking new generation capacities and sometimes even the sale of power land in the case of co-siting projects.

Now on to Power Networks. A major strategic landmark in Q2 was the full consolidation of U.K. Power Networks from May onwards. The integration process is going well. During these first 2 months, we have been able to learn even more about the culture of U.K. Power Networks that embraces every dimension of performance, safety, reliability of the network, customer satisfaction, cost efficiency. U.K. Power Networks is now actively involved in the ED3 process and is submitting today its business plan draft to Ofgem.

Outside the U.K. and Latin America, we were awarded a 400-kilometer power transmission line project in Peru, following almost 300 kilometers of growth via auction and acquisition in Brazil and Peru in Q1. That keeps us on track towards our ambition of 10,000 kilometers of operational power transmission lines by 2030.

With that, I will pass it over to Pierre-Francois.

Thank you, Catherine. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us for this ENGIE's H1 2026 results presentation. With the first half of the year, as expected, we are back to organic EBIT growth, excluding nuke. And on top of that, we, of course, benefit from the first contribution of the acquisition of U.K. Power Networks. EBIT, excluding nuke, stood at EUR 5.3 billion, also up year-on-year despite the first 6 months of '25 were still supported by the prices locked in the aftermath of the 2022 crisis.

Net recurring income group share reached EUR 3 billion, broadly stable compared to last year and despite again, the phaseout of our nuclear activities. Cash generation remained healthy with CFFO at EUR 6.9 billion. The year-on-year decrease mainly reflects the nuclear phaseout and some working capital movements, but the level remains strong and supportive of our investment plan.

CapEx reached EUR 22.9 billion, primarily due to the acquisition of U.K. Power Networks for EUR 19 billion. And as expected, both net debt and economic net debt increased following the transaction. Consistent with the strong H1 performance, we are upgrading our 2026 guidance with a new midpoint at the top end of the former one. And I will, of course, come back on it.

Let's now turn to the EBIT evolution, excluding nuke. Starting from EUR 5.1 billion in H1 '25, it does reach EUR 5.3 billion in H1 2026. On an organic basis, the increase is plus EUR 66 million. Scope and foreign exchange had a negative effect, excluding U.K. Power Networks, mainly from the U.S. dollar and the portfolio rationalization in gas generation. The acquisition of U.K. Power Networks then added around EUR 180 million from its consolidation since May. Price and volatility were negative as expected. This mainly reflects trends which were observed in Q1, such as lower capture spreads in Flex Power as the high levels hedged during the crisis are now all gone, but also continued normalization in B2B and soft power market conditions for energy management activities.

Volumes were also negative, mainly due to milder temperatures in Q1 and lower hydro volumes. Against this, commissioning contributed EUR 262 million, driven by new renewable and flex capacity for about EUR 200 million, additional regulated assets in France and power projects in Brazil for about EUR 50 million and performance contributed EUR 304 million, showing that the plan continues to be a meaningful lever across the organization. Other items are not significant and include settlements and timing effects. It is the incontestable confirmation that our reported performance is flowing straight into the bottom line. Nuclear EBIT decreased by EUR 382 million, essentially reflecting the Belgian nuclear phaseout and also lower achieved prices in France. So overall, the message is pretty clear. Our growth platforms and performance engine are outpacing the fade of market tailwinds and nuclear phaseout.

Moving now to Renewable and Flex Power. EBIT stands at EUR 1.8 billion, down 5% organically. But behind this headline number, the drivers are quite different between renewables and batteries on one side and gas generation on the other. Renewables and BESS delivered a positive contribution. In H1, installed renewable and storage capacity continued to increase with new wind, solar and battery assets coming on stream. This confirms the quality of our development model and the value of disciplined investment execution. It was supported further by another strong contribution of performance. At the same time, the business faced headwinds from lower capture prices in Europe, although this impact was partially offset by the reduction in the French hydro tax.

Cash generation decreased mainly due to lower capture spreads in Europe as strong hedges in Q1 '25 are not there anymore and also due to disposals to the non-repeat of positive one-off recorded last year and also the pipeline failure in Peru in Q1 '26. This was partly offset by positive pricing effect in Chile and the contribution of Flémalle in Belgium. In June, exceptionally hot weather supported generation in Europe, but not enough to offset the Q1 normalization. Overall, Renewable and Flex Power continues to deliver value in an environment lacking the tailwinds of the first half of last year.

Let's move now to Infra, which delivered a strong contribution in the first half. EBIT increased by 13%. The key addition of the half year is, of course, U.K. Power Networks, which contributed EUR 180 million in the period. Closing took place in May, 2 months ahead of our initial expectations. And as Catherine said, integration is progressing well. Organic growth stands at plus 4%. Gas Networks delivered a solid operational performance with tariff increases in France and Romania as well as continued efficiency actions. These positives were partly offset by a negative temperature effect in France as the first half was warmer than both last year and average conditions. In France, this reduced distributed volumes weighed on the contribution of GRDF.

Power Networks continued to grow strongly, plus 19% organic increase. This was supported by inflation-linked indexation in Brazil and a positive one-off in Chile. The transmission network in Latin America continues to expand with new projects and concessions supporting grid reliability and renewable integration. Local energy infrastructure, LEI, also delivered growth. District heating and cooling networks benefited from development and tariff indexation, while EV charging benefited from the European development of EVs and charging stations. Weather was again a negative factor, but operational performance and new projects more than offset it. In short, H1 illustrates why infrastructure is becoming even more central to ENGIE's profile, regulated, predictable, growing and directly linked to the energy transition.

Turning now to SEM. EBIT was broadly stable organically. B2C and energy management were positive, while B2B declined as expected from an unusually high base last year. B2C showed a strong increase. This reflects effective portfolio management, solid operational execution, but also the nonrepeat of a negative timing effect recorded in the second quarter last year. Belgium and the Netherlands performed well, notably in power portfolio management. These positives were partly offset by milder weather and lower gas volumes in France. This quarterly flow of our profit in 2026 is a reasonable proxy of the proper seasonality going forward. B2B was down as anticipated.

One reason is the progressive normalization of margins on legacy contracts signed during the period of high volatility a few years ago. We also had lower positive seasonality and the nonrepeat of 2025 one-offs. Commercial momentum remains sound and current margin levels, which are underpinning our results of tomorrow are in line with expectations. Energy Management delivered a strong performance in gas and LNG. This includes positive settlements on gas contracts and also favorable market conditions. In power, our PPA activities in the U.S. performed well, but market conditions were more challenging with lower volatility.

All in all, we are in good shape to deliver [indiscernible] full year, not far off the EBIT contribution of last year. With the former GEMS, I know you still have this reference in mind, maybe the last time that we discussed GEMS, but still a former GEMS around EUR 1.7 billion, well above the EUR 1.5 billion we were planning to achieve exiting the crisis.

Let me now spend a moment on performance, which remains the key contributor to earnings growth. In the first half, performance contributed EUR 304 million to EBIT, demonstrating that our improvement initiatives continue to deliver tangible value. You can see the contribution of each of the 3 pillars of our performance plan on this slide, and let me bring the plan to life with some concrete examples. And first, in B2C France, the use of AI has allowed to reduce significantly the client contacts in our call centers, demonstrating the value of digitalization and automation to generate about EUR 5 million full year impact.

Second, in local energy infrastructure, continued simplification efforts led to the reduction of about 75 positions, not only lowering our cost base, but also improving efficiency for a total contribution of about EUR 13 million full year impact. And third, in Renewable and Flex Power, operational excellence initiatives increased the availability of our solar and wind assets in Brazil, translating into higher production and stronger profitability for about EUR 9 million full year impact. These 3 examples show that performance is not just a corporate slogan. It is very concrete, measurable, embedded in our day-to-day operations from digital transformation and organizational simplification to simple industrial excellence.

Let's now have a look at the main items between EBIT and net income. Recurring financial result was EUR 1.1 billion negative down EUR 0.2 billion year-on-year, notably reflecting the financing of U.K. Power Networks and also the impact of ForEx in foreign currency-denominated debt, notably Brazilian reals. Recurring income tax amounted to EUR 0.8 billion. The effective tax rate around 22% is in line with expectations. This includes the market standard treatment of U.K. Power Networks deferred tax balances. After minority interest, net recurring income group share reached EUR 3 billion, broadly stable versus last year.

Moving from recurring to reported net income. Commodities mark-to-market had a positive effect of EUR 0.6 billion, mainly reflecting the fair value evolution of our hedging portfolio. Other items were negative by EUR 0.2 billion, including costs linked to the U.K. Power Networks transaction and some portfolio cleanup actions. This leads to net income group share of EUR 3.3 billion.

Turning now to cash generation. CFFO was EUR 6.9 billion. The year-on-year decrease is primarily explained by lower operating cash flow with the nuclear phaseout. It's about minus EUR 0.4 billion impact on CFFO, also by the change in working cap. Part of this came from inventory, mainly linked to the price effect on gas. Operating working cap also increased, reflecting higher business activity and prices. Margin costs were close to neutral, which reflects the right risk management tools and processes we put in place during the energy crisis to reduce cash volatility of our operations. Still, CFFO remains high in absolute terms and continues to provide substantial funding capacity for investments, dividends and credit discipline.

Looking at net debt and credit ratio. The increase of economic net debt is, of course, driven by the acquisition of U.K. Power Networks with CapEx of around EUR 19 billion only linked to this transaction. These effects were partly offset by the capital increase and the hybrid debt issued to finance the acquisition. Disposals contribution in H1 is immaterial. Be mindful that the Jirau sell-down was completed in July. Economic net debt to EBITDA stands at 4.2x, temporarily above the 4x threshold because the debt impact of U.K. Power Networks is fully included while we just had 2 months of EBITDA contribution. We expect this ratio to move back near 4x by the end of the year. In summary, the leverage increase is clearly transaction related and temporary, while our commitment to a strong investment-grade profile remains untouched.

Let me conclude now with our updated guidance for '26. Following the strong performance delivered in the first half, we are upgrading our full year guidance with a new midpoint at the top end of the former one. This guidance upgrade reflects confidence, not optimism. Beyond the early closing of U.K. Power Networks, it is grounded in solid fundamentals and several supportive factors. First, of course, the quality of our H1 operating performance, supported by the contribution of our growth investment, including U.K. Power Networks closing 2 months ahead of schedule.

But also second, the continued execution of our performance plan, which remains a meaningful driver of earnings growth. Third, we benefit from better-than-expected ForEx environment, especially U.S. dollar and Brazilian reals and power prices, albeit 2026 was significantly hedged at the beginning of the year, as you should expect. In addition, we now expect a lower recurring effective tax rate in the range of 18% to 22%. This range takes into account some uncertainty related to the ongoing discussions in Belgium.

Looking ahead, we see limited risk exposure for the remainder of the year. The vast majority of our merchant positions are now already hedged, providing strong visibility on earnings and cash generation for the next few months. Overall, the combination of strong operational execution, disciplined investment deployment and high earnings visibility leaves us well positioned for the remainder of the year.

With that, let me hand over to Catherine to conclude today's presentation.

Thank you, Pierre-Francois. So in conclusion, a successful first half for ENGIE with upgraded full year expectations. The strength of our industrial model is showing results in the context of geopolitical market and weather unpredictability. It is compounded by our commitment to enhance the value from our existing asset base to invest in our growth priorities with strict discipline and to remain laser-focused on execution and performance, all dedicated to supporting our customers with affordable and reliable, sustainable energy whenever they need it. I can't end without paying tribute to our incredible ENGIE teams who are, without a doubt, among the best professionals in the industry and the real reasons behind our continued success.

Thank you. Back to you, Delphine.

Thank you, Catherine. Operator, can you please open the line to Q&A? [Operator Instructions]

The first question comes from Harry Wyburd of BNP Paribas.

I'll take my full 2 questions. So firstly, it's a fairly predictable one but on Energy Management or the former GEMS perimeter. So in Q2, you did pretty well in Energy Management. Is that just pure good performance in gas and LNG trading? Or was there something new on gas contract renegotiations in there? I think you mentioned them both in the 1H and the 1Q updates. And I think you said you did EUR 100 million of gas contract renegotiations in 1Q. I wondered whether that -- there have been any more in 2Q. And then maybe you could just clarify what your expectations are for the full year now. I think you mentioned EUR 1.7 billion of EBIT, if I picked that up correctly, for GEMS -- for the former GEMS perimeter, but would that include the gas contract renegotiations? Or is that an ex gas contract renegotiations figure. So that's the first one.

And then the second one, just a topic we haven't covered that much recently. regulatory reviews in French gas networks, I guess, for GRDF, if I remembered correctly, the regulatory reviews or the end of the period is less than 2 years away now. And I think in this regulatory period, the current regulatory periods, you benefited from timing effects quite significantly. So I just wondered if you could remind us where things stand on the next regulatory period and how confident you are that you'll be able to maintain a smooth earnings profile if there's a different volume catch-up figure in the next regulatory review?

Maybe just a quick word on the second question. Just on the -- just to remind everybody on the timing, right? So 2027 is going to be the year of engagement with the CRE to prepare the next regulatory period. So right now, what is maybe meaningful on the topic of gas networks is the fact that there has been a report issued by the CRE that laid out the different scenarios that they're looking at and reinforcing, obviously, the importance of gas in the system to 2050 and looking at even beyond 2050. So there are different scenarios, pretty much mostly in line with our own view of the decrease of gas, but also the importance of gas in the system. So that's one point. There are also some important features in that report that reaffirm the need to look at things like potentially starting to dismantle some part of the network, but that would need to be covered by the tariff. So that's very important to us, obviously, as a shareholder.

So there's some really good and important positive points in that report that laid out the foundations of the work that we will do with the CRE next year to prepare the next regulation period. And that, of course, will include all the clawback mechanism that are very typical of the French regulations and that often is the result of the volumes that decreased particularly as a result of the climate, which we have seen this year, climate being, again, a factor behind volumes decrease, and that will necessarily lead to a clawback mechanism kicking in for which we don't expect any deterioration in terms of scheme for the next regulatory period. Pierre-Francois?

Yes. And thank you, Harry, for indeed, not a completely unexpected question. So you're right to point out that Q2 in EM was strong and probably stronger than what you had in mind. It's actually on the back of 2 things. One, indeed, very decent trading condition on gas, but also indeed some supplement complement into our gas settlement. Now the EUR 1.7 billion that I mentioned as the landing point for the former GEMS and again, with some of the usual caveat, it's basically for B2B, again, a strong business, which is getting closer to the EUR 1 billion delivery. And so that's definitely a strong asset.

And on top of that, of course, by difference, EM, which is around EUR 0.7 billion, that's where we would see that. And in that amount, there would be indeed the positive contribution of this gas settlement, but we are actually baking in H2 with some cautious derisking given the current environment and which is also, as you know, part of our strategy, and you've seen that pattern over the years that H2, we tend to be a bit conservative in terms of risk management, and that's also in our numbers. So I think the EUR 1.7 billion that you see is quite a robust EUR 1.7 billion, which is not overly inflated by one-off, and I think that's what you were after.

Got it. And the supplement to the gas contract renegotiation in Q2, would you be able to quantify that? How much extra you got?

Yes. I mean now we are done with the settlement. So the big chunk was in Q1 and the smaller one in Q2.

The next question is from Wanda Serwinowska of UBS.

Wanda Serwinowska, UBS. Two questions from me, if I may. The first one is on the performance plan. I think you mentioned in Bloomberg that you are like EUR 100 million ahead of the plan. Should we expect an upside to your current plan? Or did you deliver H1 quicker than you expect? I'm thinking how should we -- what should we model beyond 2026 on your performance plan?

And the second question is on the German new CCGT auction scheme, I think you mentioned it, and I think you have one project. So what is your appetite for the German CCGT auctions? And would you be ready to have a project for the first auction or for the second one?

Yes. So we are obviously in the process of studying all the features and the details of the framework. We do have indeed potential projects that we are considering for an auction. And I don't know if it's the first or second one that you're referring to. So it's one of them, and it should come fairly quickly. But obviously, we will only participate if we feel that the conditions are adequate for us. But yes, we are interested in participating very, I would say, selectively in reinforcing the flexibility need in Europe. We have done that with Flémalle. So the Germany framework might be interesting. We're looking at it. Again, if satisfactory, we will...

Okay. And then maybe on performance, clearly, very pleased with our H1 numbers. We are EUR 300 million, including contribution of loss-making of about EUR 90 million. So it means that the rest of the plan is delivering north of EUR 200 million for 6 months, it's a pretty good number. Clearly, trading above the EUR 300 million, which is more or less EUR 300 million full year contribution that we give. So it's going to be another good year of performance for 2026. So very pleased with that. Now please do not extrapolate too early, but it's clear that the momentum that we had last year is still around in '26 in terms of delivering strong performance numbers, but we should be careful about -- before extrapolating to future years. But very pleased with the pace that we have today.

Yes. And I'm told it's the second auction in December that we're talking about.

I got some IT issues. So Catherine, I missed 90% of your answer. I will read the transcript. Can I just quickly check, I don't know really what you said. Do you have -- have you secured turbines and do you have all the permitting in place? I'm trying to understand how ready you are for the auctions in December [indiscernible] for the follow-up.

Yes. I mean, obviously, we have a project that is under development, and I'm not going to go through too many specifics, but we are looking to participate in that second auction. Obviously, we have land secured. And for us to participate in December auction does tell you that we are well engaged with the supplier on securing the equipment. Otherwise, it would be foolish of us to position ourselves for December. As you know, turbines supply is a scarcity these days. So yes, we are looking to -- we have secured land and we are in good shape in terms of equipment. Again, should we go ahead as we are finalizing, looking at all the terms of the CRM auction.

The next question is from Arthur Sitbon of Morgan Stanley.

The first one is on the lower tax rate assumption that you've made for 2026. I was wondering if we should consider that as a -- well, if you could give a bit of color on what's driving it, if we should consider that as a one-off effect or if it will impact future years as well, so post 2026. And I was wondering also if it's linked in any way to the U.K. capital allowance scheme now that you have U.K. Power Networks.

The second question is on AI. You made an interesting point on the fact that it's allowing you to save EUR 5 million in France in B2C, thanks to new initiatives. I was wondering if you could develop a little bit more on the potential of AI for your cost saving plan. I assume that's still a very small share of your current EUR 300 million per year, but it would be interesting to know a little bit more about the initiatives you're working on there.

All right. Maybe I'll start with the AI question because, yes, you're right to say that, obviously, the AI contribution on our performance plan are fairly low in proportion. On the other hand, the potential is truly exciting. So maybe just to frame the way we go about it is that we really have -- in terms of digital and AI transformation, we have 3 main types of actions. The first one is really about digital core convergence, and that is the whole SAP story that you know about, but we also have some core operating systems, for example, in B2B and B2C that we are in the process of replatforming, and that's going to be very important to give us the right foundation for AI to give its full benefit.

The second pillar is all about data. So it's really about proprietary data protection, development, standardization. This is really the thing we consider at ENGIE as a real estate and it spans across generation, energy management, all kind of data. So we are really working very hard with the team here to reinforce the quality, the integrity of our data.

And of course, the third one is AI. And so AI, again, we have 3 type of things. We have AI for all. So here, it's all about training, adoption, the copilot. We also have an AI studio, the basis of that being multi-model. We want to make sure that we're not obviously depending on any one model. We also have AI for builders, which helps us with developers and people who are actually coding. And here, frankly, the productivity improvements are significant. They tell me 30%. I think it's higher than that, but that gives you an example.

And finally, and that's what's most exciting, which is going to be the AI for business where we apply AI to actually where we have true differentiation. And here, we have a number of examples. Again, in terms of the EUR 300 million, it's only a small portion, but in terms of potential, that is really super exciting. A few examples are, for example, how we are able to better forecast our own asset protection, and that helps us reduce imbalance cost. Another example that I really like is that we're doing B2B public tender analysis. And to actually analyze the public tender, it takes 6 hours because these are huge documents, like 6 hours per tender, which means our team can only tackle 50% of the volumes that we could. And so with AI, we have actually reduced this time analysis from 6 hours to 7 minutes. And more importantly, now they cover 100% of the tenders that are being issued. So here, you have efficiency and you have also better business.

So I mean, I could go on for ages, but we have indeed a very structured approach to AI. In short, short -- small contribution to the EUR 300 million, but this is to Pierre-Francois's point, when we talk about our EUR 0.8 billion to EUR 1 billion plan for the next 3 years, we do have the conviction that as we have all these initiatives in place beyond the 3-year mark, we will continue to be able to contribute to our earnings growth from performance, also thanks to the AI program that we are initiating in a very structured manner. Tax rate?

Tax rate, it's a good one. So first, on the long run, we already have guided you that we see a lower tax rate going forward. That was in our latest set of numbers and 3-year guidance on the back of this tax inefficiency that we could get rid of on the back of the transaction that was completed in '25 with regard to nuke in Belgium and the free-up of our international assets. Now in the short term, you do have some adjustments that happen. Like any 1 year, it depends on the mix of our earnings. So depending on which geography and which tax jurisdictions, the earnings are actually moving around the year -- along the year, then it does change the mix and that does change the average tax rate. So we have that, among which you have indeed the U.K. Power Networks contribution, which is coming with a lower tax rate due to the tax incentives, but it's not new. It's just that the mix again can change depending on the contribution that we have during the year.

Now there are 2 other items that we are factoring in, in our short-term guidance. And you may have noticed that the range is actually quite wide. It's because we have, first, some uncertainties around the timing of us triggering the end of these tax inefficiencies. That's something we discussed briefly already a couple of times. So there is a timing point here, which is depending on the discussion that we have also in Belgium still. So here, there are some timing points. And the second one is that we are baking in this range, some contingencies for whatever changes in taxes that we could see coming by the end of the year in these troubled times. So it's a prudent view, but it's also a wide range. So nothing really changing in terms of long-term structure, comfortable with the long-term guidance, but it comes up this year with a bit of lower tax rate.

The next question is from Ajay Patel of Goldman Sachs.

I wondered if you could just come back to the data center slide that you put out and just maybe go through the levers of value creation that occur here. So like is it that as these assets become more advanced, you benefit from maybe a land sale? Or is it that you would hope to sign a PPA contract at a premium and therefore, the value creation comes outside. I just wanted to make sure what is it here that we're looking for? And then in terms of just maturity, when you say advance, is that like the next 12 months? Or is it a little bit more further out than that?

All right. So the -- you almost have to think of it a bit as a pyramid. There are 3 levels of value creation. The first level, it's fairly straightforward. It's supply contracts that we do with data centers. And these supply contracts, they tend to be, on average, higher margin than other type of customers. They are also more sophisticated. The type of risk management that we do with supply contracts for data center tend to be higher tier, if you like. So that's value right there. And this is reflected by our objective of 50 terawatt hours that we have mentioned.

The second one -- second type of level is typical PPAs and often PPAs that are enabling new renewable development. So here, you have a bit of a double whammy. You have a PPA typically indeed with good level of -- in absolute terms, and it also is enabling renewable capacity development, which is -- obviously has value in itself because then it comes and reach our portfolio and that's what we are here to do.

And the third level, this is the co-siting development. So these are fewer in terms of number of projects. They are more complex. They take a bit longer to develop, which is why you start to see this pipeline concept for these projects. And these ones are going to have several levels of value creation. Not standard, they are going to be a combination of depending if you are going to have existing assets or new assets, often it's a combination. You're going to have hybrid, you're going to have supply contracts. And by the way, you will also have risk management contracts drawing on to the whole energy management expertise.

So you're going to have all these. And in some cases, you will have indeed a sale of a land. When we have secured power land ahead of time, we are able to indeed secure the sale. And so that's why in the -- when you get to the top of this pyramid, you have more than one lever of value creation. You have more value created, but you have less of those projects and they take a bit more time. So this is the pipeline that I've mentioned. And indeed, we have 4 gigawatts that are now in the advanced-stage category, which means that some of them should bear fruit, and I'm not putting any pressure on my team here, but I'd say, for sure, in the next 12 months, some of them.

And I guess from -- the land sale would be pretty clear. Will we have the visibility on what kind of premiums you may get on the PPA contracts? I'm just trying to say, will we be in a position to be able to gauge all those levers of value creation because it does seem quite substantial?

Yes. I mean, typically, there'll be -- obviously, we'll combine them with the projection and the earnings growth that we give you because it is why we isolate the theme because we think it's a very important theme. It is -- at the end of the day, it's our business. It does support the value that we're creating because we do see PPA level with data centers that are supportive. We do see the margins on supply deal also better in general in the tech and data center sector. But it's a bit difficult to isolate completely and give you projection lever by lever. It's just that it is indeed a sector that drives premium. Also the time to market is such an issue. As you know, one of the big things with data centers is that they really want to have their COD in 2, 3 years. So it's really about how we are able to synchronize the time to development. And so that's -- but a bit difficult to isolate lever by lever.

Congratulations on results.

The next question is from Bartek Kubicki of Bernstein.

Congratulations on the guidance upgrade. Two issues I would like to discuss. Firstly, on UKPN. And just looking at the cost of debt of UKPN, which is roughly -- if we look at 10-year corporate -- outstanding corporate bond yields is around 2 percentage points higher than ENGIE. I wonder if you see a potential for optimizing the cost of debt from the perspective of centralizing UKPN cost of debt at the ENGIE level rather than UKPN level and consequently, potentially decreasing your cost of debt and maybe even decreasing your taxes. So that would be point number one. And point number two, on Brazil, if you can remind us because I know it has been ongoing for years, but remind us the benefits and actually the rationale for the Jirau transaction and what will be the immediate benefit for you?

And also on Brazil, if we look at the transmission projects, I think it's becoming more and more consensual that the transmission investments in Brazil have relatively low IRR, and I have seen companies moving away from those. So I just wonder how do you defend your transmission investments in Brazil, given the pushback from the market that the IRRs are relatively unattractive versus, let's say, the bond yields in Brazil?

Maybe just a word on transmission. We have -- we don't -- I mean, we participate in auctions in transmission in Brazil now for a few years. And sometimes we lose. So whenever we feel the returns are not there, we just don't win. And the projects that we win so far has been good projects for us. We actually like the framework, the fact that we can actually have earnings, including during the construction phase, which is quite a specific feature of the Brazilian scheme. And the fact that we now have a size in Brazil where we actually are -- from an industrial and operational standpoint, we are good. We're managing -- this construction risk is there, but we are managing it really well. The teams are doing a very, very nice job, and we are starting to see the benefit of having the size.

We are also very selective in the geographical -- in the geography of the lots that we win. Obviously, Brazil is a huge country. So you have to be very careful where you position your new projects. Do they bring you synergies geographically? Do you have teams there? The whole O&M story is also quite important. It does make the difference in the way you create value afterwards as you operate those lines. So we look at every one of these aspects. And so far, yes, we continue to be really excited about this opportunity set. There will be an auction -- a big auction in October, and we plan to participate. Again, very disciplined. If we lose, it's okay. But if we win with the right return expectation and including the right operational industrial plan, then that will be a very, very good addition to our assets in Brazil and in the portfolio.

Maybe just to comment on maybe the benefits from Jirau, and I will leave to Catherine if she wants to develop further the operational benefit. Clearly, it was a long-awaited move to move Jirau into EBE. So super pleased with that. Tremendous job has been done to bring it to the level of today, the level of operation, the level of contribution that was a prerequisite to execute on this transaction. So very pleased that it could come through. It's definitely a benefit also from a financial standpoint because it does help the balance sheet of EBE because there was, as you could see, a contribution also from the minority shareholders in cash, which is, of course, improving the ratios, the credit ratios of EBE, which is great.

By the way, it was also needed because you may have noticed that we went for the early repayment of royalties in concession that was actually completed at the end of June with a down payment that was value accretive. Definitely, you can find in the financial notes, there was a nonrecurring positive income generated by this operation. So you need to look at it as a global transaction. We're very pleased with the transfer of Jirau, an enabler in terms of financial health of EBE and also coming very nicely for reinvesting in the future with good cash flows going forward. So super pleased with this operation.

Only thing to add then to this is just that it also helps us moving towards simplification of our structure in Brazil, which is something that we've been working on. We had quite a complex multiple entity organization. So everything when we can trying to simplify the structure is also a direction that we want to take.

And good question on the cost of debt of U.K. Power Networks. Yes, indeed, it's higher. Of course, we do plan to keep raising debt at the U.K. Power Networks level. We have no plan to centralize the overall management of debt. However, what has to be discussed, of course, and will be discussed over the years is the right gearing that we need to put into UKPN to maximize value, which means that how much capital do we allocate into U.K. Power Networks. And therefore, of course, it would retrofit on the level of debt that we would have at group level. So it is definitely one area where we can play some optimization, not by centralization, but by the right level of gearing that we put into U.K. Power Networks and looking forward to work with our new colleagues to find the best way to generate value, including outperforming, of course, the financial cost.

Operator, can we please take one last question?

Yes, madam. The last question is from Louis Boujard of ODDO.

Maybe 2, of course, on my side. Regarding the PPA, I think that you mentioned that you doubled the PPA signing in the 1H. We know as well that the market environment is evolving quite fast. So I was wondering if you are seeing pricing conditions that might be becoming maybe more attractive, notably from technology customers, but also more broadly on this new PPA signing and if you think that eventually this improving trend could continue going forward?

And another one regarding the gas generation business, notably regarding the European spark spread, which remain, of course, a little bit under pressure, but we see that the market volatility and the heat wave are a little bit moving the needle in terms of where you could extract some value from the power -- from the gas generation fleet. So do you consider that the trend in terms of movement, new seasonality and different patterns could eventually change your view regarding the medium-term earnings that could be extracted from the gas fleet?

Yes. So quickly on the PPA market. We did have a very good H1. It was also driven by a bit more larger deals, which it's not many, many small deals, but it's a few large deals that have also helped supported the 2.4 gigawatts. Another characteristic of these numbers is that it actually comes from several different countries. It's not a huge concentration as sometimes it is. So obviously, U.S. is quite significant, but then it's Europe, and we also have in India, we have in a few other countries, some PPA. Peru is one of them, for example.

In terms of pricing, I'd summarize it by saying U.S. continues to be quite supportive. Europe, flattish, frankly, not a great price increase in Europe, I'd say flattish at best. And in terms of the gas generation, definitely from a spread standpoint, obviously, there's been a significant decrease of earnings from the gas generation, but that has been somehow, somewhat compensated by the volatility value extraction that you are mentioning.

And you're very right that when you look at what has happened, we had an example in June where we had a heat wave. And in just a space of a few days, there was EUR 11 million value created from our gas fleet in Europe. So it just shows you that the heat wave, and that was a little bit my commentary to say that the weather patterns are changing on us all the time. But in a way that really does support our thesis about the value from flexible assets and our gas fleet is super well positioned to capture some of that. So Obviously, we'll have to see how we are able to weather that and predict that better. Right now, obviously, the spreads are fairly easy to do, but then the volatility is a bit more difficult. But in terms of, let's say, equity story and thesis for these assets, we are indeed quite positively looking at them, which, by the way, explains why we are also looking at this CRM potential in Germany.

So this is the end of the Q&A. Thank you for joining the call today. And of course, if you have any follow-up questions, do not hesitate to call the IR team. Thank you.

Thank you for holding, and welcome to AMG's First Quarter 2026 Financial Information Presentation. For your information, this call is being recorded. [Operator Instructions]. I will now hand you over to Mr. Delphine Deshayes, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, ma'am.

Thank you, and good morning, everyone. It's my pleasure to welcome you to Engie's Q1 conference call. Shortly, Catherine and Pierre-Francois will present our first quarter performance, following which we will open the lines to Q&A. And with my polite request of limiting your questions to one or two only, please. And with that, over to Catherine.

Thank you, Delphine, and good morning, everyone. Engie has started 2026 as it ended 2025 in fast forward mode. Especially as we have just closed an hour ago the acquisition of U.K. power networks, which is allowing us to transform are scale in the critical and growing power grid sector. We have also entered into negotiations towards a full transfer of our nuclear assets and liabilities to the Belgian government. If this process is successful, the Belgian government will be taking responsibility for its countries, long-term nuclear future, and Engie will have no remaining nuclear operations there.

In terms of results, I can report a solid Q1 EBIT, indeed, slightly below the 2025 level that was benefiting from various tailwinds. The group continues to perform well with strong momentum in renewables and [ BEST ] and relentless rollout of our performance plan. Of course, the conflict in the Middle East has taken up much of our focus. Over all, I am pleased and relieved that steps that are staff in the region are safe. And, of course, very grateful for the professionalism of our teams who have done a fantastic job in managing to keep critical energy and water assets operational under difficult circumstances with limited business impact.

We are, of course, very closely monitoring what is a highly fluid situation. As things stand when it comes to the energy markets, we are observing disruption mainly to oil, oil products and LNG supply. LNG represents about 6% of gas transport volumes around 1/5 of those volumes are transported through the strength of our moves. This has so far allowed the gas market beyond Asia to demonstrate some degree of resiliency, helped somewhat by new LNG capacity. In terms of power prices, we can see that those countries that have most heavily invested in renewables and nuclear are experiencing the least sensitivity to the current disruption such as France and Spain.

This, in our mind, fully justified the case for electrification through the combination of renewables flexibility via storage and molecules and grid strengthening. This is not the same type of energy crisis as 2022, and Engie is a completely different company with a different and more robust business model. We have built a diverse gas sourcing portfolio and we've shorted exposure to open market power prices. Indeed, our only significant European exposure is in France where gas prices have less influence on the power price. So although we're certainly not going to benefit from the high volatility levels of 2022, our earnings are far more resilient based on more solid foundations.

And as a result, filed sensitive to geopolitics. I mentioned in our February presentation that energy is at the top of country's agenda. By now, it should, if anything, the even more paramount. Security of energy for national government and affordability for end users of energy at customers. We have recently seen more demand for fixed offers in B2C, while in B2B small- and medium-sized customers, the trend towards longer-term contracts have been established for some time. Ample land resources and connection have become indispensable for supplying the required additional power to renew demand. It's highly a coincidence that tics is such a center of data center development.

I strongly believe that having quality physical assets, attractively located matters more than ever in today's energy word. And with our renewable and flexible generation portfolio of around 100 gigawatt of capacity, our EUR 47 billion of rabequivalent in networks, 28% of which is power related, we have a fantastic presence in the physical asset world. This is crucially complemented by our 500 gigawatt hours of energy sales and our unrivaled energy market expertise to partner with our customers in meeting the challenges ahead.

Moving on to this next slide, an excellent illustration of energy security being top of government agenda comes with the opening of discussions to transfer our Belgian nuclear assets to the Belgian government. We have signed a letter of intent covering the full scope of our nuclear activities in Belgium, i.e., the 7 reactors as well as all associated assets and liabilities, including decommissioning and dismantling obligations. The latest stipulates that the transaction should not unduly affect our overall financial position, neither adversely nor positively. This margin works are being suspended obviously, from those critical elements that require constant attention. The aim is to conclude head of terms by the start of October this year. This is the start of what will be a complex project and negotiation.

In the meantime, our teams remain focused on continuing safe and efficient operations. and on advancing the planned SEO work programs. Turning to this next slide, some headline numbers. EBIT, excluding Nuclear was down 7% organically at EUR 3.4 billion compared to the high Q1 2025. Performance improvement amounted to EUR 120 million, up strongly from last year and well on track with our '26 to '28 targets of EUR 0.81 billion Economic net debt fell mainly to the capital increase of late February, which will fund the part of the U.K. Power Networks acquisitions, ending the quarter at EUR 41 billion equivalent to 2.9x EBITDA, well below our tailing of 4x.

With a strong start and despite the turbulent geopolitical context, I can confidently confirm our guidance for the full year with net recurring income group share between EUR 4.6 billion and EUR 5.2 billion. Very pleased to report indeed the completion of our acquisition of UK Power Networks, just an hour ago, having raised through an advanced building at the end of February and a further EUR 2.1 billion to hybrids in mid FO. We have now completed the acquisition 2 months ahead of schedule and less than 10 weeks since we first announced it. U.K. powered networks will be fully consolidated as of May, and we expect it to contribute a range of EUR 600 million to EUR 800 million to 2026 EBIT.

I am delighted that [indiscernible] is 6,500 colleagues are now part of our group and we are thoroughly looking forward to a long and fruitful collaboration in the years to come. We've also achieved further expansion in our Latin America power network business organically via the award of 143-kilometer transmission line project in Brazil and by acquisition of 122 kilometers of lines in Peru. Truly, we can say that we have achieved our aim of being a key player in the critical infrastructure activity of power networks, which now accounts for over a culture of our network regulated asset base and 1/3 of our network EBIT over the full year.

With all the focus on networks and nuclear, I want to emphasize that momentum remains strong in renewal and best backed by a robust and balanced pipeline of projects, unchanged targets to 2030 and labor light focus on execution. Over the first quarter, we added renewables and best capacity in India, in Chile, in Italy and in France, taking a total to 5.7 gigawatts. We signed a PPA for a 900-megawatt onshore wind farm in Egypt, our largest yet. And in Brazil, our largest solar farm as we saw, which full commercial operation. At the end of Q1, we had 6.6 gigawatts under construction with 93 ongoing projects and continuing a track record of very efficient execution.

Turning now on beds. The U.S. and Chile have tended to dominate attention with over 90% of our 4.7 gigawatt capacity at the end of last year, but in early 2026, we are making strides in Europe. In particular, we started construction of our first best unit in France at 110 megawatts, and we are acquiring two stand-alone projects in Southern Spain, to selling 278 megawatts of capacity. With this new project and 700 megawatts already in operation or under construction, we have achieved a milestone of 1 gigawatt of best capacity in Europe. So Engie on fast forward in a rapidly changing energy work. And now I will pass it over to Pierre-Francois.

Thank you very much, Catherine, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us today. I'm very pleased to present our financial results for the first quarter excluding reached EUR 3.4 billion, down 7% year-on-year organically. Cash generation remained solid with CFF at EUR 3 billion. And economic net debt decreased by EUR 4 billion, including, of course, the impact of the EUR 3 billion capital increase that was completed early March. Our leverage is bottoming, with economic net debt to EBITDA down to 2.9 in compared to 3.1% in December 25. With that, the balance sheet is fully prepared to cope with the acquisition of U.K. Power Networks. Overall, this good start of the year allows us to confirm confidently of 2026 guidance despite all the uncertainties in the current market.

Let me now walk you through the evolution of EBIT first and EBIT extent amounts to EUR 3.4 billion. down versus a high comparison base that benefited from high in spark spreads in France and also positive timing effect on B2B activities in Q1 '25 for about EUR 200 million. The key takeaway is the strength of our business execution, which cushioned the impact of external headwinds. In more detail, ForEx and scope had a minus EUR 75 million effect with negative impact from the U.S. dollar and the disposals of several cash generation assets in AMEA. Further external headwinds affected our organic performance, price and volatility. First, accounted for minus EUR 393 million with expected market normalization. Two activities are mostly impacted FlexPower and energy management.

I will provide more color on that in the next slide. Volumes had a negative impact of about EUR 200 million, driven mainly by miter climate conditions weighing on our midstream and downstream activities. These effects were partly offset by the effective execution of our operational levels. First, commissioning, contributing EUR 102 million. This reflects disciplined investment execution with new renewable capacity coming on stream, additional regulated assets entering the network regulated asset base and for projects in Brazil. Second, our performance plan delivered EUR 120 million with solid execution across all businesses. Lastly, other items contributed EUR 135 million was a positive one-off on a settlement related to gas contracts in Q1 '26 for a net impact a bit more of EUR 100 million.

Nuclear is down EUR 295 million as expected with a further phaseout of units in Belgium and lower power prices in France. All in all, quite a resilient Q1. Let's move on to EBIT evolution by reporting segments and starting with Renewable and FlexPower. EBIT declined year-on-year, reflecting disposals of cash generation assets in A and the negative ForEx impact on U.S. dollar. Cash generation EBIT was impacted in Europe by the expected pricing normalization with lower capture spreads, notably in France and in Peru, with the unplanned outage of a third-party gas pipeline beginning of March.

Payables and Best delivered a resilient performance posting a slightly positive organic growth despite the lower capture prices in Europe. These ones have been more than offset first, by the decrease of the hydro tax in France, but more importantly, by the contribution of newly commissioned assets by a solid operational execution and by favorable pricing effects in Latin America. Turning to infrastructure. EBIT increased slightly year-on-year. Networks benefited from tariff increases in Europe implemented after Q1 '25 and from our performance plan largely offset by warmer temperatures in France.

Local energy infrastructures delivered strong growth, driven by the continued development of dissecting and cooling networks, and also operational performance despite an unfavorable weather effect. Finally, in Supply & Energy Management, EBIT declined as expected compared to last year's high base. B2C activities have performed well, supported by effective portfolio management and strong operational execution, partly offset by mid weather and slightly lower commercial margins. This performance should be read in the context of the strong seasonality of our B2C activities with close to 70% of full year EBIT typically generated in Q1 a limited contribution in Q2 and Q3 and the remaining balance being delivered in Q4.

B2B activities were impacted by less pronounced timing effect than and the gradual normalization of margins on contracts, which were locked during the tenant crisis. Commercial momentum remained solid. Finally, after energy management, electricity market conditions have remained challenging, both in Europe and in the U.S. with limited opportunities to capture value from but the business was supported by strong performance in gas activities on top of the settlement I previously mentioned and gas contracts. Overall, the segmental evolution illustrates solid operational execution across the group alongside the market normalization in Q1.

We are now in a good shape to deliver growth over the coming quarters. Turning to cash generation. CFFO reached 3 billion, a EUR 1 billion decrease versus Q1 '25, reflecting lower EBITDA. Within working cap, inventories raised on cash flow due to lower withdraws on gas storage as a result of miler weather, offset by lower operating working capital requirements linked to lower power prices and also the warm weather. One point which is worth to mention, margin costs had only a limited impact on CFFO this quarter despite significant market movements in March.

Indeed, since 2022, we have significantly centered our framework with tighter controls, anticipation mechanism and active management, allowing us to contain volatility-driven effects on our cash flow. Overall, changes in working cap were broadly stable and cash flow generation is in line with expectations. Economic net debt decreased from fourth 4.2 billion at end December '25 to EUR 41.2 billion at the end of March '26. Looking at the bridge, you can easily see the EUR 3 billion impact from CFFO and the same from the capital increase well above the EUR 1.3 billion CapEx. Other movements include ForEx effects on net debt, notably the impact of the Brazilian real. As a result, leverage ratios improved, with net financial debt to EBITDA at 2.5 and economic net debt to EBITDA at 2.9%.

This reflects a temporary reduction of thesis will, of course, increase upon the completion of the U.K. Power Networks acquisition. So as of today. Overall, Engie continues to benefit from a solid and well-managed balance sheet, preserving a strong investment grade credit profile, which remains a key pillar of our financial strategy. A few words now on new [indiscernible] networks. We just closed the acquisition this morning, and the financing has also progressed well over the last couple of months with the derisking of a significant part of the funding plan.

The EUR 3 billion capital increase was successfully completed on February '27, with 107 million new shares issued at EUR 28 per share. We also completed the hybrid issuance on for EUR 2.1 billion equivalent across 3 tranches, further reinforcing our credit metrics and financial flexibility. You have the details of each tranche indicated on the slide. It is fair to say that the bulk of the execution risk on the capital markets part of the deal is now behind us. As a reminder, the rest of the equity check is covered by committed bridge loans. These loans will be repaid in the next couple of years through debt refinancing and disposal of assets.

With regard to the latter, we are initiating all key processes on top of ongoing projects related to normal portfolio management. We prioritize valuation as we have no pressure on timing, not to mention the material flexibility provided by the uncommitted part of our global CapEx plan. We expect U.K. power network to start to contribute from May with EUR 0.9 billion to EUR 1.1 billion of EBITDA and EUR 0.6 billion to EUR 0.8 billion of which are, of course, included in our full year 2016 guidance. These ranges reflect remaining uncertainties, notably around elements such as purchase price allocation and the fact that we are just closing today, which means that some detailed information was not fully available so far.

Finally, looking at the broader funding equation for '26, disposals are expected to remain modest in the range of our usual disposal contribution and should be assessed alongside a lower CapEx profile this year than the EUR 12 billion annual average guidance of EUR 22 million excluding, of course, the acquisition itself. This mainly reflects the fact that U.K. peer networks will contribute for only 8 months as well as a slow start in investments in renewable and bath. In the context of time marked by geopolitical, regulatory and market uncertainties, we are confidently confirming our full year 2016 guidance with EBITDA excluding UC in the range of EUR 1.8 billion to EUR 14.8 billion, EBIT excluding NUC between EUR 8.7 million, EUR 9.7 billion, and net recurring income between EUR 4.6 billion and EUR 5.2 billion.

And this exposure to the current Middle East situation remains limited, reflecting the group's derisking strategy with market sensitivity now materially lower, albeit we have been able to capture incremental upside with our power outright hedging policies, no material upside nor any downside should be expected from the current situation. Despite the uncertainties of the impact of the crisis on the economy and on our customers and on the fiscal environment the good start of the year across our operation and the early closing of U.K. Power Networks acquisition give us a clear line of sight to another year of strong delivery.

We continue to be fully committed to maintaining the strong investment-grade credit rating with the firm a long-term objective of keeping our comic net debt-to-EBITDA at or below 4x. The ratio will temporarily go above 4% in '26 because of U.K. power networks that will only contribute to 8 months of EBITDA. It will immediately reduce below 4 in '27. The dividend policy remains unchanged.

With that, I will now hand over to Catherine for the conclusion.

Thank you, Pierre-Francois. So indeed, we delivered a robust first quarter, both financially and operationally. We completed -- we announced and now completed the transformative acquisition of UK Power Networks, boosting our infrastructure DBU into a second pillar of growth to accompany the established momentum in renewable and best. We've entered into negotiation with the begin government towards a complete exit from nuclear in the country. And we are moving forward rapidly towards the ideal business mix and operational dynamism to adapt to this highly unpredictable environment and provide our customers and shareholders with reliable, robust and efficient energy and returns over the remainder of 2016 and beyond.

Now back to Delphine for the Q&A.

Thank you, Catherine. Operator, can you please open the Q&A session and remind our participants how the process for asking questions, please.

[Operator Instructions]. First question comes from Ajay Patel of Goldman Sachs.

My question is around the nuclear discussions. Is there any more granularity you can give in terms of just what's under discussion. So it's the -- you have the back end the financing and nuclear facilities I kind of understand that. But just something on the asset side, are there any particular assets that are in scope over and beyond the nuclear assets that you have? Just trying to get a sense of what the earnings implication of such a transfer or I know it's very early stages, but even just getting a sense of what's in the discussion would help just with some calculations.

Okay. And maybe, Ajay, I think it may be worth also giving a little bit of the context to this negotiation. Because really, the whole world is putting energy security in the forefront of the agenda. And we've always thought that Engie that nuclear is much more of a sovereign matter than a private company. And I think with this circumstances, the government of Belgium and Engie are pretty much aligned on this, let's say, assessment. And while we've been at Engie very constructively focused on the implementation of the agreement that was signed last year, the so-called [ Fenics ] agreement.

As you know, we've been focused on the work, the LTO, the restart last year, now you're back to work, by the way, our 2 clients have been delivering 100% in availability, which is quite amazing. Now they are going and they are undergoing further work. So we've been very focused on that. The new government has been actually very constructive as well, allowing the closing of the agreement that they had not been negotiating because there was a change in government in the middle. But a very focused supportive by asking us though is there a chance that we could extend the 2 plants further beyond 10 years.

Also asking us questions about could there be further expansion beyond the 2 plants that you guys are working on these discussions were in the background, where frankly, the new -- the current government is establishing itself as wanting to put the nuclear future on Belgium into the future. And I would say for us, looking at existing plants, expansion was often not making economic rationality, which is why we were a little bit in a difficult spot when it came to expanding the older nuclear plants which is giving you a little bit of the context of the transfer. And that request came from the Belgium government.

And I have to say it was a little bit of a surprise because we didn't think that the government would engage in such a complex project. But the discussions, frankly, have been moving at pace. We have been able to sign this LOI. The scope clearly is the 7 nuclear reactors. So as you know, 5 of them have started dismantling some of them have just been stopped. And [indiscernible], of course, 2 are being worked on in the context of the LTO. This is the scope. By the way, very important to note as well that the CPN has obviously acknowledged that the industrial situation or the industrial scenarios that are different from what they were before since they were looking at a dismantling provision with this Phoenix agreement in mind.

And so they are now suspending their work and looking at the new industrial scenario. So the revision of provision that we were waiting is going to be delayed until the scenarios that are restabilized. That's the context very -- that's the context I wanted to share with you on the situation in U.K. The scope is indeed the 7 reactors. And as you say, it's early on the LOI has established a few key principles. That I've reminded in my script, which obviously will be more detailed in the coming weeks, coming months with established a project team and the aim is to sign a heads of agreement by October 1. So moving on swiftly on what is going to be a rich negotiation with the Belgium government.

Maybe a couple of words on the earnings impact since you asked the question, I think that you got the message that the idea of [indiscernible] it should have a neutral finance impact. What does that mean in our view is that the transfer should be done close to the net book value of the assets as of end of '25, that's what we would see as neutral, which would entail an earnings for the one-off earnings would be insignificant. So you should not expect a significant capital gain or significant capital loss.

Going forward, there would be -- would be losing the contribution of the LTO and everything which is related to that. But that contribution was actually minimum in the guidance that we shared because you may remember that it is a flexible LTO, which means that the work is done over 3 or 4 years. with significant downtime 6 months downtime per year, which means that the contribution in the first 3 years was actually very low. So it's immaterial in the guidance and will not change anything in our numbers going forward.

And maybe worth also to complement that Belgium would remain a very important country for we have around 6 gig of generation in the country. [indiscernible]. We have home storage assets with [indiscernible]. We have some renewables. We obviously have [indiscernible]. We just put in line. And last year, we have similar assets. So obviously, these are not in the scope of the discussion. We are really, really talking about nuclear activities.

The next question is from Arthur Sitbon of Morgan Stanley.

The first one is actually a follow-up on the Belgian nuclear letter of intent. I imagine if you reach a final agreement, I imagine this will lead to the removal of restrictions on the nonnuclear European assets of [indiscernible]. Well, I was wondering, first, if you could confirm that. And if that's correct, if that could ultimately lead to a lower tax rate for Engie Group, the same way that it did when the restrictions were removed on the non-European assets of of [indiscernible] or maybe all the work on tax efficiency has already been done.

So any color on that would be helpful. And the second question is about your guidance assumption, it seems a few assumptions of guidance at EBIT level, have changed a little bit and have a little bit improved since the full year results. But you haven't changed your guidance at EBIT level. So I was wondering if you didn't change it, but are you maybe a little bit more comfortable than before with it? And I see it didn't change at net income level because of net financial result being slightly worse than expected. I was wondering if you could explain the moving parts here.

Yes. At -- so it is clear that when we set all assets and liabilities, it does mean that it would be the end of the security package. So no more guarantees from Engie, and that's both the conditions for us to enter in such a year and a condition that is understood by the other party. And maybe you want to comment on tax rate.

Yes, we don't expect a further change in assumption on tax rate that would not trigger any further efficiency. And on the guidance, yes, we are confident with our guidance. We mentioned that. I think that still you have uncertainties around -- and our guidance is coping for these uncertainties, especially any change in regulation, tax or fiscal environment in various countries that we are working on. We need to be careful, and that's why we stick to our guidance.

The next question is from Harry Wyburd of BNP Pariba.

[indiscernible] here. So could you just clarify what the value of the provisions and backing assets that would be in scope because I know there's a very good disclosure in your annual report, but I just wanted to be fully clear in billions, how much liabilities and assets would be transferred as part of this deal? And then presumably, it would be the same as the last I mean that those liabilities would just turn into sort of a debt liability. If you could just help us a bit with the numbers on that. And then more widely on nuclear, you still got the French drawing rights.

So you sort of pretty much out of our meta from the French doing like, does the join rights have any role in your portfolio, I guess, contribute a bit of power price out of power price exposure. So is there a sort of -- is that -- is it rational to hold on for those? Will you completely at [indiscernible], I guess have cited nuclear and renewables as a kind of sort of magic mix. I guess, the produced flat power prices in Spain and France. Would you rule out ever looking at [indiscernible], I mean I get what you say the sovereign point. But if you look at bench they've done uniquely under wrap model, which at least from my perspective is a pretty attractive way of doing it. So would you ever look at net at all? Or is this sort of energy saying that we're going to focus on renewables and that.

Look, in terms of maybe -- starting with your last question, we do think that the risk associated with nuclear and of course, we have a first-hand experience of that is indeed more suited to a national actor than a private company. That goes true for us as far as we are concerned for a while. Maybe in the future when nuclear technology will allow to have a much more manageable rate or projects which people have better control and execution it could change. But in the short to midterm, I don't see us doing nuclear again, certainly not in an investment point of view. And that we really have a fantastic opportunity sets with renewable with battery and also now with our second leg of powered network.

So we think we have enough great opportunities to go after and that nuclear is not for Engie at least in a short to midterm. And I don't see that changing anytime soon. I think we also have to think about economic rationality. Again, what we're trying to do as MD utility to develop projects that makes sense from an economic standpoint. And we do think that renewables, especially with the development in batteries, the cost of batteries and that technology curve is still moving. And so we think we can do a lot with the right mix of assets both renewables, batteries and some of our, obviously, gas thermal plants that we have a good enough portfolio to provide both baseload or as consume profile, which is what our customers need while remaining low carbon.

Yes. And Harry, maybe to give you some data points. So if you take the numbers at the end of '25, when it comes to Belgium only, the provisions are about EUR 8.6 billion at the liability side. And on the face of that, we have assets in [indiscernible] which is our subsidiary in charge of managing the asset of EUR 5.6 billion. And then there is a few hundred million of cash also, which is available. So that would be -- that gives you an idea of, say, about EUR 3 billion of funding of provision.

Of course, in the rationale of the transaction, Engie is liable to fund the provision that goes without saying and we would transfer the assets with the liabilities that are recorded. And of course, we are not getting away from that. Now you know that today in the law, you have a provision that allows to fund that up to 2030, we'll have to discuss that will be part of the discussion. When is it that we fund this that we will be, of course, accountable to fund it. On the drawing on the factoring right, I think that you need also to give a bit of time to the discussion.

As Catherine mentioned, the government is willing to take over the nuclear activities and their ask is to come with a stand-alone business that can work -- so there are some scope discussions that we need to finalize with them. And I think that it is true for several assets that we need to look at. I would not comment further on that. But anything which is transferred will come, of course, with the value.

That's what I understand that is the drawing rate could possibly be part of the package in which case you'll residual European power exposure would just basically be right?

That's your judgment.

Next question is from Wanda Serwinowska of UBS.

Two questions for me. The first one is on the U.K. Power Networks deal, which was closed today and congratulations for closing 2 months ahead of the target. Can you -- can you disclose the net debt that you're acquiring? Because I think the deal was under the lockbox transaction. So can you just disclose the total debt or net debt figure that is going into your balance sheet? And the second question is about the trading environment. In the press release, you talked about more challenging conditions in the electricity market. You also said that the impact from Miosis remitted on activities. Can you just explain what makes this volatility different from '22, '23, why Engie is not printing hundreds of millions of euros on trading that will be appreciated.

On the U.K. Power Networks net debt, you should account for about EUR 119 billion that is the equity check plus the debt in the target. I think that's a fair item. On trading, the situation, as you know, is very different from the one in '22. In '22, we had a gas crisis in Europe with about 40% of gas coming to Europe, at least. And at the same time, we had a major downtime in MDF production in nuclear. So we had both gas stimulation and a power shortage that explain why we've seen a massive volatility and also spikes in prices, which were very high for the gas-only level well above 100.

And even they came, you remember maybe 2 above 300 in pets. We have today a crisis, which is a neocrisis worldwide, and the gas impact is much lower. I mean, we have shared already that at the end of the day, it's only 3% of the gas in the world, which is at stake due to the limited share of LNG today. So you don't have at all the same market conditions. That's very important to understand. That's the first point. The second point is that our profile today is very different I mean we have been derisking. We have been decreasing our merchant exposure. This is the part of our story. And of course, it means also that we lose some upside because our merchant position on outright power, for example, is much lower than it was a few years ago, if you take on the bar side with the nuclear phaseout.

But if you look at trading only, the price is different, not the same volatility at all, pretty stable in power, it's only gas and on gas or much lower. And it's also fair to say and we mentioned that in the past, that in 2022, we have massive optionalities embedded in our long-term contracts. We have less of that, in particular -- we do not have the Gazprom contract active anymore. So we have also less upside to get from these optionalities. And you have also noted finally, and the market is not fragmented and the geographical spread are not at all the same that what we had seen. So that's why we say no material upside expected, certainly the downside, given the current profile of the company and also the current profile of the crisis.

Would you be also able to disclose the RAP of U.K. power networks as of the closing date?

As of the closing debt, I don't know. I mean we have only estimate, I would say, anywhere between 9 million and 10 million of goods.

The next question is from James Brand of Deutsche Bank.

A couple of questions from me. The first one is also on the Belgium [indiscernible], and you've obviously covered a lot of ground and been asked a lot of questions on that already. But I was just interested, there was obviously this report earlier this year that your provisions could be increased by, I think it was GBP 3 billion. And I was just wondering kind of what the status was on that. I know that was only a kind of initial estimate or [indiscernible] consultation of some kind. But is that review due to conclude soon? Or has that also been put on hold as part of this new negotiation process? That's the first question.

And then secondly, I don't know whether I missed I missed your commenting on it, but I thought it was interesting. You haven't commented at all in data centers in the presentation, which is obviously kind of high focus for the market at the moment. What are you -- what are you seeing there? Are you still seeing that there's very high levels of interest? Or are things kind of slowing down a bit?

All right. So in terms of the provisions and indeed, there has been a report at the end of last year, stating that overnight cost for this margin should increase by GBP 3 billion from the [indiscernible] point of view. This is not provision. This is overnight cost. So if that has been translated into provisions, it would be less, but still it was a significant increase.

And indeed, what is happening now with this new deal on the table under negotiation is that the CPA has suspended its work reflecting the fact that there was a new industrial scenario on the table and they would resume their estimation or their report or their study. Once the new industrial scenario is stabilized. So that's obviously, part of the conditions for us to be able to enter in this negotiation is to recognize the fact that there is going to be potentially a new industrial reality, especially as we are spending the demanding operations in an orderly manner, and we don't just drop everything in mind, but we are managing the fact that the government is asking us to pause the dismanting operation to give the time for the process of transfer to progress and potentially to be completed in the weeks, months to come.

So that's the situation, James, on the provision. On data centers, data centers, we continue to see, frankly, a very buoyant environment. I mean, you've heard the hyperscaler last week publishing their numbers of CapEx. It's just actually record high again announcements. That is translating into a significant power demand and power land specifically. We see that in our projects. As you know, we've established very structural approach to that with an objective of 3 to 4 gigawatt of cost-siding specifically where we would be providing power land, supply agreement, energy management, services and PTA and combination of all these. So we see that moving ahead. Obviously, there are a little bit of noise. There is a little bit of noise around acceptability of data center Also, connection is a big topic and load permits, et cetera. So that's obviously some of the constraints that these guys are facing.

But we are moving ahead with the pipeline as I have discussed with you back in February. We have a number of opportunities. Some of them, they take time because of what I've just mentioned, there is some hurdles around connections, acceptability, permitting, et cetera. But the appetite is very, very strong. And we see both appetites in the U.S. but also in Europe, and we're using our physical assets that I mentioned and highlighted in both places, indeed to try and accelerate some of these developments. So U.S. and Europe are being concerned. We also have some opportunities potentially in Latin America. Different scale, we have a small, medium scale 300 megawatts up to 1 gigawatt type of campus size opportunities.

And obviously, in the U.S., it's much more focused for us on renewables assets, while in Europe, we are benefiting also from a legacy asset base using the thermal specifically on turmoil footprint?

Can I just ask a quick follow-up on the provision point then that's a super-interesting answer. If the plan of the government -- Belgian government is to try and bring some of the units back. Is that an opportunity then potentially to get the level of provisions reduced? And is that potentially the big price from this deal? Or maybe a special to comment on that.

No. But I think that, of course, there will be the assumption of the Belgian government that they will change the profile. And if they do that, it probably because they believe they can do something different. For sure, we are not going to benefit or we should not be penalized on that. Today, we have a plan and the idea that we would transfer the provision, I think, in line with the existing plant. So -- and that's the same idea. So I think we should not speculate on the potential changes of the plan and then therefore, potential changes of provision because that would be with a different ownership.

I think maybe just on the Belgium topic. I think what is very important is what is -- what's the need for Engie. And what if we manage to get this process through the finish line, what that would mean is that we would be fully derisked from the Belgium nuclear operation. And that's important. Why is it important? Because you see that governments can change their mind on a matter that has a lot of impact on a private operator. whether it comes to dis managing scenario, whether it comes to what reactor, you want to expand, you can extend, et cetera.

So obviously, even though we personally were very, very pleased with Phenix and really having divested the net operations significantly with the JV, with the CFD with a waste management liability that has been transferred last year we still have some remaining exposure to political change of mind in terms of energy policy. And so from that standpoint, we see this deal if we manage to put it to the finish line. We see this deal as friendly very positive for.

And the point here is that we are not trying to be smart or get a good bargain. We are keeping a big business in Belgium that we want to protect, Super important. We keep a good relationship. We just want to be fair. And I think the transfer will be fair, and we like the approach. I said no advantage, no disadvantage. I think this is the right thing to do. Clearly, not again the bargain for NG or being smart, but just being fair in the transfer.

With a very constructive counterpart in a counterparty that acknowledge the fact that for us, changes of trajectory is indeed a big disruption. And therefore, constructive and alignment, I think, on the respective interest to bring this project to finish line.

Next question is from Alex Roncier of Bank of America.

Thanks for the question. The first one, please, would be on gas network. I think on your CapEx plan across the strategic plan, you had a budget of around 3 billion for CapEx in gas network in 2028 compared to around 2 billion. So I was wondering a couple of things. One, if that setup was from 2026 onwards or if there was a gradual phasing Two, why or where are you spending more in gas network; and three, what kind of remuneration or returns should we expect on that extra EUR 1 billion of CapEx in gas network.

The second question, please, on just I'm coming back and a little bit of a follow-up on Energy Management and trading and the form of Gen. I think you have a soft guidance for 26 of around EUR 1.5 billion with in B2B. So wanted first to confirm those numbers, that implies EUR 600 million for energy management, which means the business should be broadly flat year-over-year. And on my follow-up is on your comments about the conditions today being very different than in 2022.

But if I come back to 2025, I think you highlighted poor conditions for the business given geopolitical volatility. And I would argue that this has been actually higher this year than it has been in early 2025. So for this in mind, is that EUR 600 million actually not being slightly at risk perhaps from higher provision. And last, just a very quick 1 and a clarification on numbers. Could you perhaps quantify the impact from the one-offs in Peru? And it would seem [indiscernible] nuclear would have been flat or even growing on an organic basis if we exclude that one-off and perhaps the timing in B2B as well.

That's a lot of questions. You're doing extremely well to taking a lot of questions on -- so I will try to be short on the various topics. So first, on gas network, well spotted indeed, and we have a bit more CapEx expected on the trajectory, '26, '28. And this is linked to our gas transportation operation, mainly in France. So that means that would go into indeed, the regulatory asset base and binding the remuneration that you are used to see in that kind of business. It's not 100% share yet, but it is indeed a direction of travel, and part of it will come through that's for sure.

So we are working on it. So you may expect indeed a bit more than expected earlier. The EUR 1.5 billion on GM, I think at some point, we have to stop talking about GM, but I don't want to move away from that. Yes. I guess I guess it's fair to say that the energy management plus B2B in 2026. Should be a bit higher than that, indeed, given the strong performance of B2B, which is up for a good year. I mean, we are probably talking of a year which is probably above last year and need to be. And same should happen within Energy Management, be mindful that there are some pros like indeed a bit more volatility on gas that we can capture but there are also some negatives. I mentioned that the electricity market was not variant in the first quarter. Let's see how it unfolds in the following quarter. But yes, we are indeed, I think the 0.6% would be a low that's for share for EM. And then flex power. Now the Peru one-off is a negative it's about EUR 30 million that we had in Q1, it's not changing the overall direction.

The next question is from Luis Boujard of ODDO BHS.

Thank you for the presentation. Just maybe two questions on my side regarding firstly, the deal that you reached on the unwind and with the U.S. Department of exterior can may consider that indeed at this point in time, there is a number of risk embedded into these assets and into the offshore wind in the U.S. And on top of I would appreciate if you can comment eventually on the risk that you witnessed on the onshore in the U.S. and the onshore wind, if you think that still rising at the moment and how it could be tackled eventually in the future in our portfolio.

And maybe a second question regarding the network division. You've won some interesting concession, do you think that you are still in the front of you some opportunities to keep growing into the region and regarding the potential option into the network in Latin America and Italy [indiscernible].

Yes. So in terms of maybe renewable development in the U.S., we have obviously readjusted a view of the pace at which we would be putting some of these projects in service or developing them and putting them in service. particularly between technologies and we know wins and renew on that wind was going to be more complicated, including obviously, offshore wind, it was very clear. Onshore wind was a little bit more -- we were a bit more hopeful and there has been a little bit of discussions and publicities around the risk in wind permitting.

But so far, we have seen some projects and countering difficulties and others have actually received some positive notes. So it's not all stop. We're continuing our development we had integrated and included quite a bit of the preference of the administration or the -- just the more easy path for the solar and battery projects and our pipeline and our plans have been pretty much adjusted to reflect that. So that's on the onshore. So no further change of view basically based on those statements that were made I think last year. In terms of offshore, remember, we had 3 projects and the deal that we struck with the DOI concerns 2 of these 3 projects. We have not yet with a cost wind, which is the one in Massachusetts where we don't have a partner. That project has not been in scope of this agreement. So this is a project that we have actually out of this that was the more advanced where we have both lease and some development expenses that have been spent against that project and new partners.

So that's the situation on Ocean Wind. In terms of -- and you will give the remaining exposure Pierre-Francois on Ocean Wind in the U.S. And in terms of networks, I mean, continuous optimistic on the views of our ability to develop organically in Latin America and network principally in Latin America, Brazil, Chile, Peru and the main focus when it comes to network opportunities, transmission and many organic.

Thank you. And indeed, Catherine. So the residual exposure, which is linked to [indiscernible], the deal will be completed, should be for Engie share around 150 million. So it will be indeed quite limited, but again, to be followed up. And I just want to come back on my previous question on James and [ Sam ] just in the sake of clarity. Because on the -- if you add up Engie Management and on B2B, which is today the way we look at James we would expect the full year to be more or less in line with last year. Remember that there was a big one-off in B2B last year in Q1. And of course, if you take that one-off out, then we are in a better place than we were last year. So I think that I just wanted to mention that.

Operator, we have time for very one last and only short question, please.

The final question is from Arnaud Palliez of CICC.

It's about the disposal program, the EUR 4 billion disposal program. I would like to have an update on the progress that are being made on these disposals. And out there also take into account into -- in your guidance for 2026..

Thank you very much. So on the disposal program, we are in 2026, we should be delivering a wind in my mic, sorry about that. but we should be delivering a year, which is more in line with the usual run rate that we have because the more significant part of disposal has been on this figure -- at the time, we had a security and the execution of the acquisition. So for 2026, you should be in the usual range using to 1,500.

Last year it was 1,400. There are areas which have been lower. It depends also on the cutter date and some closings. So we want to be a bit careful. You remember, we said on the disposal plan that there were 3 buckets: The first bucket is the continued pruning of our portfolio and the geographic refocus strategic alignment. And that's the one that you are going to see at work in 2026, again, in the usual range. And then there are two other buckets assets where we have minority stakes into businesses with limited influence and no path to control, but we probably are going to tap in there; And the second -- the third bucket is assets, which are highly capital intense, but for which we would welcome service sharing with a cheap cost of fund and trying to capture some minority partners.

And these two last buckets, whether it is our own minority stakes for us farming in minority partners, it is likely that they will peak in H2 '27 and H1 '28 as expected. Super important. We are value driven in our decision and execution. We don't need that over months. we have time and we want to maximize the value. So we'll be a bit picky and choosing. We have different IDs, and we will choose the ideas which are coming with a nice value. It's good to say that for the vast majority of the value of the asset, we have no impact of the crisis on the valuation. So it's very important that you realize that we are not at risk with the crisis.

And the second point, which is important to keep in mind is that we -- these assets for sale, there will be also -- there to support our financial trajectory. It is depending also on our ability to deploy capital. And we have flexibility, of course, again, in our CapEx. So really a value-driven approach, both in timing and selection of assets to execute limited impact. And the impact of the disposals are fully baked in the guidance either for '26 or even for 2028.

So this is the end of the Q&A session. Thank you for joining the call today. And of course, if you have any follow-up questions, do not hesitate to call the IR Team. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in the Engie call today. The conference is now over, and you may disconnect your telephones.

So good morning, everyone. I'm delighted to welcome you to ENGIE's 2025 Full Year Results and the medium-term outlook presentation. And of course, we'll have the pleasure to present in detail the acquisition of UKPN. We have two speakers today: our CEO, Catherine MacGregor; and our CFO, Pierre-Francois Riolacci.

A quick view of the agenda for this morning. In the first part, Catherine and Pierre-Francois will review our results and the main events of 2025. In the second part, Catherine will lead us through UKPN's acquisition and Pierre-Francois through the valuation and the financing of the transaction. Then Catherine will present our medium-term outlook, and Pierre-Francois, our capital allocation strategy before some concluding remarks from Catherine. Finally, there will be a Q&A session. We'll take questions from the floor and online.

With that, over to you, Catherine, for the review of 2025.

Thank you very much, Delphine. And good morning, everyone. I am super pleased to address you here from London in what are truly exciting times for ENGIE. We have a packed agenda for you this morning. So I'm going to get started, kicking off with a very brief summary of our 2025 results.

2025 proved another highly active year. We have continued to establish ourselves as a utility, we like this word, at ENGIE, which means that we are both derisked and growing, balanced both operationally and geographically, agile in seizing opportunities to have flexible and green power portfolio, a trusted partner and supporting our customers to achieve their decarbonization targets and on track to meeting this goal that we have to become the best energy transition utility.

Performance in 2025 were, in an unpredictable geopolitical, political environment and with normalizing energy prices, ENGIE was able to extend its track record of robust financial performance with 2025 net income at the top end of the guidance range. We moved a big step forward in renewables with record new capacity and big ticket projects around the world. We ranked once again as the global leader in corporate PPAs. And in Belgium, we entered both merchant nuclear production and our exposure to nuclear waste liabilities.

At our upcoming AGM on 29th of April, we will be proposing a dividend of EUR 1.35 per share, corresponding to a payout of 67% based on the current number of shares outstanding today.

Summary of our highlights number. EBIT excluding Nuclear was virtually flat at EUR 8.8 billion. Infrastructure was up significantly, driven by the positive impact of new tariffs in France and Europe as well as performance. Renewables and flexible generation was almost stable with the contribution from newly commissioned plants offsetting headwinds such as lower hydro volumes. Supply and Energy Management performed excellently on a commercial level but was negatively impacted as market conditions normalize.

And across our businesses, we have delivered on our performance goals, which we are very pleased with. Net recurring income group share amounted to EUR 4.9 billion versus EUR 5.5 billion in 2024. Cash flow from operations was up year-on-year to EUR 13.6 billion with substantial free cash flow from our networks and downstream activities. I'm really pleased with the resilience of our results, which show that our integrated model is able to deliver pretty much whatever the underlying conditions.

Moving on to the next slide. 2025 was also a record year for new renewables and BESS with over 6 gigawatts of additional capacity opened around the world. We commissioned 2.4 gigawatts in the U.S., and that was led by batteries as we successfully rolled out the pipeline that was taken on when we acquired BRP back in 2023, but we also added 1.6 gigawatts both in Europe and LATAM and 600 megawatts in AMEA.

A truly global and balanced footprint in terms of operational capacity, plants under construction and pipeline is a unique attribute and provides us with the optionality and the agility to react to or even to anticipate headwinds or tailwinds in particular countries. We raised our Renewable & BESS portfolio to 57 gigawatts by the end of 2025, at which time almost 8 gigawatts was under construction, continuing to execute on budget and very close to schedule. We maintained a leading position in PPAs, signing 4.8 gigawatt in 2025, of which 3.6 gigawatt of corporate clean PPAs.

2025 was a pivotal year for ENGIE in Belgium. When you look at 2025, we started the year with almost 4 gigawatts of consolidated nuclear capacity, selling output at open market prices, almost 3 gigawatts of gas-fired capacity at around 90% merchant and EUR 11 billion of waste management liabilities on our balance sheet. And we ended the year with quasi-regulated nuclear production at 2 extended reactors now co-owned with the Belgian government, no nuclear merchant output, no nuclear waste management liabilities, plus a new gas-fired plant at Flemalle and major new base units at Vilvoorde, both benefiting from capacity payment.

The 2 reactors were reconnected to the grid on or ahead of schedule and Vilvoorde was opened 2 months ahead. We have delivered and we stand ready to remain a strong contributor to the energy system in Belgium for years to come.

With that, I'm going to hand it over to Pierre-Francois, who will summarize our 2025 financial performance.

Thank you very much, Catherine, and thank you for those joining us here physically, also in the webcast in a quite eventful release, of course. And 2025 was indeed a pivotal year for Belgium in ENGIE. But it is also pivotal for EBIT, EBIT excluding Nuc that starts growing again after more than 2 years of energy market normalization and with very strong cash generation. So EBIT excluding Nuc reached EUR 8.8 billion, which is a 2% organic growth, supported by a strong second half performance as expected, while net recurring income group share was EUR 4.9 billion, reaching the top end of our guidance.

Turning to cash. We delivered cash flow from operations of EUR 13.6 billion, which is up EUR 0.6 billion compared to last year. That is a total of EUR 40 billion of CFFO generated over the last 3 years, which highlights the quality of earnings. CapEx decreased compared to last year due to some slowdown in the U.S. and as we have been also raising ourselves for the announcement of today.

Net financial debt is up, driven by the nuclear agreement in Belgium and, at the same time, economic net debt decreased by EUR 2.7 billion, benefiting from our strong cash generation and some lower investment level. Importantly, our leverage remains firmly low with economic net debt to EBITDA at 3.1, well below our 4 threshold, which offers meaningful headroom and which is supporting also a strong investment-grade credit profile.

Finally, as part of our commitment to attractive and sustainable shareholder returns, we will propose a dividend of EUR 1.35 per share to be paid in 2026. This proposal is aligned with our dividend framework and corresponds to a payout ratio of 67% based on the current number of shares outstanding to date. Payout is up from last year to soften the dividend decrease versus EPS. It is a clear and strong signal that the group is willing to step away from the minimum range when conditions are met. We believe this level is compatible with a sustainable dividend trajectory based on expected earnings growth.

Let's now turn to the EBIT evolution. EBIT excluding Nuc is broadly stable with some negatives and positive. On the negative side, ForEx and scope effects weighed, driven by the impact of the Brazilian real and the U.S. dollar as well as some portfolio rationalization. We also recorded a sizable negative impact from prices and volatility, notably within supply and energy management, with the normalization of energy markets. But those impacts were partly compensated by the tariff increases in networks. Volumes were down, impacting mostly Renewable & BESS with lower hydro and wind conditions in Europe.

These headwinds were, however, offset by the continued execution of our strategy. Commissioning contributed to EUR 507 million, reflecting the ramp-up of new assets across renewables, Networks and LEI, and this illustrates the strength of ENGIE's growth engines. Our performance program delivered an exceptional EUR 823 million driven by operational excellence and competitiveness initiatives across all GBUs. In that amount, we have fixed some legacy issues with underperforming assets for EUR 368 million.

In summary, despite the headwinds of market normalization and weaker volumes, ENGIE's investment-led growth, combined with strong performance delivery, has allowed us to maintain EBIT at a robust level.

Let's now turn to Renewable & Flex Power with a 3% organic growth. Scope and FX is a headwind with negative impact again from U.S. dollar and Brazilian real, combined with the coal exit and portfolio reshaping. Renewable & BESS delivered a 7% organic EBIT growth with momentum building in Q4. The uplift was driven first by our investments, contributing for EUR 395 million, a clear proof point of execution, quality and financial discipline.

We are hitting our development objectives with a large organic component, keeping execution tight and CapEx overruns below 1%. Performance added a bit more than EUR 100 million. These positives were partly offset by the normalization of volumes in Europe with hydrology returning to more typical levels after an exceptionally favorable situation last year. Cash generation EBIT decreased due to continued and expected drop in capture spreads in Europe, but this headwind was partly balanced by favorable international price effects in LATAM and in Australia, alongside ongoing performance levers and some positive one-offs in '25 of about EUR 140 million.

Moving on to Infrastructure, which delivered a strong organic growth of 2%, clearly underpinned by Networks. Scope and FX had a negative impact driven by the Brazilian real. Organic growth in Networks reflect the outcome of [indiscernible], solid execution of our performance plan and organic development. Our power transmission network has grown by 450 kilometers, and biomethane production capacity connected to French networks increased by 12%, supporting decarbonization and the long-term relevance of our gas infrastructure.

EBIT was broadly stable with a strong Q4 contribution. Performance actions and development helped offset expected lower spreads for cogeneration, especially in France. For '26, we anticipate strong double-digit growth driven by performance and continued development. Overall, Infrastructure is again a strong and predictable contributor to the group, supported by robust regulatory frameworks, selective investments and continuous performance improvement.

Turning to Supply and Energy Management. The picture is consistent with market normalization but resilient commercial dynamics. B2C EBIT stands in line with expectations. The organic decrease is due to last year's tailwind and one-off not repeating in '25. That said, commercial performance in Europe is good and the market still allows a full valuation of risks. So we are leaving '25 with a good momentum.

In B2B, full year '25 EBIT includes about EUR 200 million of positive one-offs and about EUR 100 million coming from high commercial margins that were locked during the crisis, which will normalize this year in '26. So we expect an EBIT in '26 around EUR 900 million as a starting point for future growth.

Energy Management EBIT reflected market normalization and lower market reserve releases than last year. Results were also weighed by minus EUR 95 million transport tariff one-off in H1, whereas last year benefited from a positive one-off linked to gas contract negotiation.

Big picture, SEM delivered on target. As we look ahead, '26 EBIT for SEM should land a bit north of EUR 2 billion. Energy Management is expected to revert towards normal year in '26 with lower provision release than '25. The combined Energy Management plus B2B EBIT should be slightly above EUR 1.5 billion in '26, a number we mentioned a couple of years ago. In summary, all as expected.

Let's turn now to our performance program -- sorry, I'm going a bit fast. I'm missing Nuclear. It would be a pity. Moving on to nuclear activities. Little surprise. The decrease in EBIT is mostly due to lower volumes with the phaseout of certain units and the long-term operation outages, which started, of course, in '25.

Now quickly on dismantling provisions. The group submitted its fine to the Nuclear Provision Commission, CPN, recommending a decrease in provisions of about EUR 1 billion linked to lower uncertainties and higher interest rates. In December, ONDRAF, the national agency for radioactive waste, issued an nonbinding report suggesting a significant increase of the estimated overnight costs.

ENGIE considers this opinion overly conservative and, in some respect, inconsistent. Discussions are progressing and the CPN's final opinion is expected no earlier than early April, which is, of course, a bit later than the usual calendar you are used to. The Belgian government is quite adamant to develop further nuclear energy and the regulation that provides a stable and trustworthy environment is a prerequisite. We are, therefore, confident reasonable outcome will be found in the end.

Let's turn to our performance program. In 2025, performance initiatives delivered an outstanding EUR 823 million of EBIT. Operational excellence contributed through concrete and recurring actions across all GBUs. Some examples, PPA renegotiation and asset optimization in renewables, contract portfolio cleaning and pricing improvements in LEI, lifetime extensions in Flex Power and, of course, procurement gains across the organization.

Under our culture and competitiveness plan, we are simplifying the organization with [ ADI ], removing management in France while frugality actions, cap spend on travel, consulting, events and digital and support function efficiency is ramping up with some somewhat significant plans.

Contribution from loss-making activities is driven by stopping losses of EVBox but also improvement in some supply activities. Now in that field, most of the heavy lifting is behind us, has been executed, which means incremental effects on loss-making activities will be more limited in '26-'28 as you could expect. Key takeaway, 2025 marked a standout performance year. We expect additional gains going forward but at a more normalized pace.

Let's take a look at the main items driving net income. Recurring financial cost at EUR 2 billion are in line with expectations. Lower average cost of gross debt was offset by lower cash remuneration resulting from the decrease in short-term rates. Recurring income tax amount to EUR 1.6 billion with an effective tax rate of 25.5%, which notably includes the special tax in France.

Nonrecurring items include restructuring costs for about EUR 0.3 billion and impairment costs for EUR 0.8 billion, a collection of midsized items driven by commodity prices decrease in France, disposals of some nonstrategic assets and U.S. regulatory reforms, leading to reported net income group share at EUR 3.8 billion.

Moving to cash flows. Cash generation is once again very strong this year with CFFO of EUR 13.6 billion. It is worth highlighting the positive cash impact from the gradual phase down of our nuclear activities, which reduced working capital requirement by EUR 600 million. Across the last 3 years, ENGIE generated about EUR 40 billion in CFFO, providing the financial capacity to invest for growth and continue to reward shareholders with healthy dividends while retaining strong balance sheet headroom and our investment-grade credit.

Let's finish with net debt. Our leverage ratios remain well within our target with net financial debt to EBITDA at 2.6 and economic net debt to EBITDA at 3.1. Net financial debt increased reflecting the cash out related to the Belgian nuclear transaction, but CFFO more than covered maintenance and growth CapEx while also funding dividends. Other items include EUR 1.4 billion of proceeds from disposals. You know our track record in that matter.

CapEx came in low this year, reflecting a temporary one-off effect in the U.S., whereas the sell-down structure allowed us to monetize a large volume of assets developed in previous years. Those sell-downs came as a reduction of our gross CapEx. In addition, investment levels in the U.S. were reduced due to regulatory and tariff uncertainties in H1 and then with the government shutdown in H2 that delayed some permitting. Also, we have been preparing ourselves for our move on UK Power Networks that we have been working now for a while.

Balance sheet continues to strengthen with a decrease in economic net debt supported by working capital improvement and strong cash generation.

This is it for 2025. And now back to Catherine to present the reason why we are here today, the move toward power network that has been weighted for why with the acquisition of UK Power Networks.

Indeed, super excited now to cover the acquisition of UK Power Networks, which is truly the best-in-class power distribution network operator here in the U.K. This acquisition represents indeed a perfect strategic fit for us at ENGIE. In a nutshell, it fundamentally rebalances our group to be much more of an electrician. And what that means is that we will be from now on in a position to maximize our exposure to all the growth opportunities offered by the energy transition.

Perhaps to start with a bit of context. In today's climate of political and geopolitical turbulence, energy is more than ever top of mind. It's about decarbonization still, but it's also about affordability, it's about security, it's about sovereignty. And in many places, it's actually a combination of the above. Our ambition at ENGIE, with our balanced geographical and operational mix, with our integrated structure, is to be the best energy transition utility.

And frankly, in the context I've just mentioned, I'm convinced that this goal is more relevant than ever. With the base load coal, nuclear closures, aging infrastructures, economic growth, technology explosion, the energy transition is actually accelerating. And it requires fast electrification. It requires the need for flexibility but also support for development of green gas because, remember, molecules are here to stay. Gas will be important in this energy transition.

But it will also require massive grid reinforcement and deployment, a domain in which, frankly, it's fair to say, ENGIE has not been so far very influential participant, which is what we are here to address.

With the acquisition of UK Power Networks, we are seizing this unique opportunity to participate in the tremendous growth journey in the field of power networks. And we are going to do so by raising the predictability of our earnings and cash flow, by bolstering our presence here in the U.K., which now becomes our second largest country, a country where we do have a long-standing presence across the whole value chain with renewables, offshore and offshore production, green biomethane gas, pump storage with our first hydro asset, notably, and also gas storage as well as supply and energy management for business customers.

And with this transaction, we will deliver a transaction that we expect to be earnings accretive from the first year while keeping our commitment with an unchanged 65% to 75% payout dividend policy and maintain credit rating. UK Power Networks is truly the best-in-class regulated power distribution in the U.K. I have to say my team and I, we have been so impressed by the quality of the people we have met. And I would like to salute UKPN's 6,500 employees who are represented with us this morning by Basil Scarsella, the CEO, who I'm delighted to have joining ENGIE. Thank you, Basil, and welcome. We share with your employees the high standards that you hold for safety, for performance, for decarbonation and for providing top-ranked service to your customers with a leading rank also for innovation. As the regulator recognizes, you guys are the best in the business.

We are really delighted to have you onboard and are thoroughly looking forward to working with you. You can count on us to approach the integration with a great deal of humility and respect as well as to bring a long-term industrial view of operating critical energy infrastructures.

So for those who don't know UKPN, it operates 3 adjacent networks in London, in the Southeast and the East of England, being 1 of 5 power distribution operators, or DNOs. UKPN's regulated asset value amounted to GBP 9.2 billion in March 2025. Its network length is 192,000 kilometers, about 3/4 of which are underground. And in terms of connection, it ranks #1 at 8.5 million. UKPN RAV is expected to grow by an average of 4% per year in the final 3 years of the current ED2 price control to GBP 10.5 billion in March 2028 with growth rates accelerating in the upcoming ED3 price control period and beyond, on the back of sharply higher Totex, to the need to prepare what is generally what is generally aging grid to the challenges of high demand, but also accelerating renewable connection given the U.K. net zero commitment for 2050.

And you can see from these charts, I think it speaks for itself, that UK Power Networks is a top-performing company, and that's been consistent over a number of years, the result of 15 years of very hard work under Basil's leadership. Among its peers, it realizes the highest return on regulated equity over the ED1 price control, which ended in March 2023, and continued after that as a best-in-class over the 2 initial years of the 5-year ED2 period ending in March 2028. Also, UKPN is the only DNO expecting Totex outperformance during ED2 as a whole, a testament to the engineering, quality and professionalism of its people.

Now why are we making such a move in the U.K.? Well, we can see strong momentum for the energy transition in the U.K., where the 2050 net zero objective is actually bound in law and more generally for electrification. The numbers in the slide, they speak for themselves. I'm sure many of you know them already. I'll just call a few. U.K. power demand is expected to double by 2050. The U.K. government targets 95% clean generation by 2030, which implies a 2/3 reduction of carbon intensity as compared with 2024. This requires stronger, longer transmission grid to connect offshore to demand centers, and it also requires distribution to connect solar, in particular, with the end user.

The National Infrastructure Commission stated last year that allowances for load-related U.K. distribution networks CapEx, which means new miles, could reach GBP 45 billion to GBP 60 billion by 2050, and that is on top of business as usual investment. Recent renewable auctions show that these aims are actually being met with actions, with actually a doubling in approval to a record 45 gigawatt of projects in 2025 with almost 15 gigawatts so far in 2026, in particular, the largest ever award of solar capacity. All impressive numbers to be sure. But above all, dedicated teams to serving the customer, which are the DNA of the DNO, Basil.

The U.K. is a place with an energy regulation that we consider one of the best. We believe it is a mature, sophisticated regulation that aims at balancing the needs of the investors who need visibility, risk protection, adequate return on their investment and the customers who need reliability, good customer service and overall system affordability. It achieves this to a range of mechanisms, including inflation and volume protection, an incentive mechanism to encourage Totex outperformance, connections delivery, reliability and customer metrics with some rewards being shared with customers.

Ofgem's current regulatory price control period, which is ED2, is a little bit more than halfway through. And we've now in the preliminary stages of determining the regulatory parameters for ED3, which will start in April 2028. There are a few themes that are emerging. Energy transition, electrification, rising power demand provide once in a generation opportunity, which is triggering a significant OpEx acceleration expected into ED3 versus ED2. And then ED3 Totex is viewed today by Ofgem as strategic versus ED2, which is viewed more as just in time, which means there is a sense that anticipation will be needed, anticipating rather than leaving it to the last moment using a longer-term outlook, avoiding bottlenecks. And then meter connections such as solar, EV, heat pumps connected to distribution networks will also be a new and significant part of ED3.

So in short, we are super excited today. We're looking forward with our new colleagues at UK Power Networks to fully supporting the U.K. in its energy transition journey. And with that, I'm going to hand it over to Pierre-Francois to talk about funding and valuation.

Yes. Let me take you briefly at the heart of this transaction and, first, starting with the valuation. Can get to the slide. Thank you. We are acquiring UKPN for an enterprise value of GBP 15.8 billion which, for the sole regulated business, represents a multiple of 1.5x the estimated regulatory asset value at March '26. Many of you know these assets. And this level of premium, of course, reflects both its exceptional quality and its strong long-term fundamentals, as Catherine just alluded to.

It is also fully in line with the most recent transactions observed in the regulated power distribution sector, confirming the robustness of our valuation approach. I'm sure you all remember, we have been bidding on a similar asset, albeit smaller, a bit more than a year ago. And we are not in any shape or form more complacent this time. At this price, the implied 2027 EBITDA, '27 will be the first full year of consolidation, this implied '27 EBITDA multiple is 10, including the contribution of unregulated activities, which is about GBP 100 million.

As part of the transaction, ENGIE will acquire 100% of UKPN and, therefore, will fully consolidate it. We expect closing around mid-'26, subject to the customary regulatory approvals and shareholders' approval of the seller. Based on legal analysis and based on precedents, we consider the nonexecution risk as remote.

For those who are not familiar with UKPN, a few data points. UKPN is a serial outperformer in all dimensions of the U.K. regulation. And it is reflected in consistently solid results, even if the yearly contribution in EBITDA, EBIT or net income can be impacted by the 2 years adjustment cycle of the regulation. Cash generation is another [ figure ]. UKPN maintains a high level of CFFO at GBP 1.4 billion in year ending March '25 that funds all the investments.

Total CapEx rose to GBP 1.3 billion in the year ending March '25, supporting network modernization and growth. Importantly, this continued investment underpinning the TotEx growth translates directly into the expansion of the regulatory asset value.

Looking forward, the trajectory is equally solid. Over '26-'28, the company will deploy about GBP 2.2 billion of CapEx. And as a result, the RAV is set to reach GBP 10.5 billion by 2028. UK Power Networks is therefore expected to deliver GBP 0.8 billion EBIT in year ending March '26 with significant growth over '26-'28 despite the depreciation gap triggered from 2015 by the longer halid depreciation profile. Overall, UK Power Networks combines a proven financial performance, robust cash generation and clear medium-term growth with a bottom line profit expected to increase at the mid-single-digit pace in the long run.

Let me briefly walk you through how we plan to finance the acquisition. Given the existing debt in UK Power Networks for EUR 6 billion, which is intended to stay, we need to finance an equity check of around EUR 1.2 billion, which is fully covered by committed bridge loans. In the end, we will rely on a balanced mix of instruments, starting with around EUR 5 million of debt and hybrid new issuance. In parallel, we intend to execute an additional EUR 4 billion disposal program by 2028, fully consistent with our disciplined portfolio rotation strategy. You know ENGIE's track record in executing disposals.

To complement this, the group plans to raise up to EUR 3 billion of equity through an accelerated book building. This is a targeted action designed to reinforce our capital structure and support our long-term commitment to a strong investment-grade rating. We plan to execute swiftly subject to market conditions with a very clear focus on protecting shareholder value. The plan is defined, one, to optimize shareholders' value creation measured by EPS accretion, supported by UK Power Networks contribution net of disposals and net of financing costs; and two, to achieve credit metrics in line with our strong investment grade in the long run.

Importantly, post acquisition, we will retain significant financial flexibility both in capital spending and in the management of our asset portfolio. This means we can continue to roll out our organic growth plans, notably in renewables and networks, and deliver solid returns to shareholders without requiring further equity in the years to come. This point is, of course, critical.

From a value creation perspective, the acquisition of UK Power Networks gives us further long-term growth opportunities in deploying capital in a diversified and friendly risk environment, improves our credit risk profile and decrease significantly weighted average cost of capital.

Now back to Catherine for the presentation of our medium-term outlook.

Okay. So now that we have discussed the strategic rational valuation and funding of the UKPN, what does that mean for our medium-term outlook? So for the next slides and next numbers, we have assumed the integration of UKPN from July 1.

So let me start with a quick strategic overview. Last year, we introduced you to the new ENGIE looking like this. It was the result of a fast-paced transformation that we've conducted over the past 5 years resulting in setting and establishing a leading energy transition player with a market strength in renewable generation, a strong downstream customer business and infrastructures, which historically have relied on gas with an emerging position in power transmission. In parallel, we have, as you know, a deep cultural transformation underway around performance, efficiency, focus, financial disciplines and results at good proof points of our progress on this front. We have now a strong delivery machine. And with this transition, we have no intention of slowing down.

Adding a major power networks business through UK Power Networks means that we no longer have a single growth pillar via renewable generation and battery. We actually now have two. As can be seen on this chart, showing our total CapEx increasing in the next 2 years to EUR 34 billion to EUR 38 billion versus around EUR 31 billion in the previous plan with around 90% of that, that will be allocated on one side into Renewable & BESS and, on the other side, to Infrastructures in pretty much equal proportion. So this means that while Renewable & BESS will continue to grow pretty much at the same pace as before, power networks expansion will now show growth in Infrastructure.

Zooming on Networks, we will have a combination of gas and power, gas and power infrastructure. That gives us actually the best of the two worlds. We're going to have growth and we're going to have cash flow. To unpack this, '25-'28 will see an increase of more than 1/3 in network RAV. And within this RAV, the weight of power should jump from single digit to around 1/3. That, of course, will support Networks EBIT, which should rise by more than half over the period and the share of power within Networks EBIT quadrupling to around 35%.

Finally, and this is quite unique amongst our main peers, the cash flow generated by our Networks businesses will cover the total CapEx in '26-'28. This is a great advantage, and it will allow us indeed to maintain the pace of our expansion in renewables and battery as you will see from this slide, which shows that, first, we have a renewable pipeline that is both robust and balanced; second, that the proportion of our pipeline that is secured in execution or in advanced development has risen by 21 gigawatts in absolute terms, which boosts the achievability of our 95 gigawatt target for 2030, and all the while maintaining a strict financial discipline in our renewable projects. Remember, we do not chase gigawatt for growth sake at ENGIE if the quality is not there.

In addition, Renewable & BESS cash flow from operation will rise steadily as new capacity opens, which means that they will require actually less contribution from free cash flow of other businesses. Finally, and this is really important, our integrated model continuously enhances and maximizes the value creation of our Renewable & BESS to a very attractive degree. We can put an extensive list of levers to squeeze the very most out of our Renewable & BESS assets over the long term as now we tend to keep them for the long run.

Now on to the hot topic of data centers and to add some color to what I had mentioned back in November, In a nutshell, we do have quite a bit of what data centers want. We have an asset base and local presence to speed access to energy. We have the power to quickly deliver additional capacity through our renewables and battery pipeline, and we have an unmatched expertise in supply and energy management to optimize the tech and the data centers' energy competitiveness. We are building on these big advantages.

And today, we have set a dedicated multidisciplinary data center team a few goals to 2030. We've told them, you have to achieve 3 to 4 gigawatt of IT data centers, which are today supported by a truly global 6 gigawatt pipeline, as you can see on the bottom left of the chart. We asked them to enable directly 5 gigawatts of renewables and battery projects and, in direct supply business, 50 terawatt hours of power delivered to the tech and data center sector.

Co-siting represents a significant value-creating opportunity for through a certain number of levers. They include land. They include margin uplift for ENGIE's co-sited assets, for instance, through reducing urban load risk exposure or providing redundancy from thermal assets in Europe, also, of course, PPA power supply volumes as well as energy management services. We have built a partnership with tech companies over up to a decade in the supply of reliable, green and effective power, which now results in long-term partnerships, for example, such as the one we have with Google in Germany.

So this all sounds great. We're maintaining an impressive growth in Renewable & BESS. We are adding the new layer of growth in power and networks. We have turbocharging our position as a major supplier of energy to data centers. We are leveraging the value derived from our integrated model and our industrial structure. What does it all add up to? It adds up to stronger foundations and consistent earnings improvement.

We are targeting a CAGR of 7% in EBIT excluding Nuc over '25 to '28. And our guidance range for '28 implies no less than about EUR 3 billion of additional EBIT versus 2025 for new investments, of course, including UK Power Networks, but also from performance. You will always hear us talking about investment and performance. Here, we expect a substantial EUR 800 million to EUR 1 billion of EBIT impact from performance improvement in '26 to '28 from a variety of sources. We will continue to focus on operational excellence from our assets, driving this culture of performance, tackling structural cost inefficiencies that we continue to have to chase.

Balance is a critical component of the new profile of ENGIE. Geographical presence is very much part of this, especially given the geopolitical context. We're present in 30 countries, but actually 10 account for over 90% of our gross CapEx, with our top 5 countries being France, the U.K., Belgium, Brazil and the U.S. The U.K., as I mentioned, will become a second country at around 17% of '28 EBIT from 4% in 2025 with a presence across the value chain and now genuine critical mass. It really fits very nicely with our stated intent to make sure that we reach a sufficient size in our key countries. We want in our key countries to deploy an integrated model, to have a sufficient size and to have a seat at the table.

In the transformation towards our utility profile, we've always emphasized the need to improve our risk profile with greater predictability. And our plan is going to deliver just that. As you can see from this chart, with the EBIT share of regulated networks and long-term contracted business will rise from 42% in 2024 to 2/3 in 2028. The majority of the improvement will come from our own actions, notably the UKPN acquisition, the [indiscernible] nuclear in Belgium and new essentially contracted renewable capacity.

And as we move to fast forward mode, what will ENGIE look like by 2030? With the added directions and accelerated investment that I've just mentioned, our new plan allows us not only to reiterate our key operational targets in Renewables & Flex Power and in Supply and Energy Management, but also to completely transform high-exposure and our ambition in infrastructure with a substantial EUR 60 billion of RAV and capital employed in Networks. I'm really excited that the new potential that this brings not just in terms of the additional growth, but also in terms of the nature of this growth.

This gives you a perspective of the growth potential that we are going to carry over beyond our guidance overview, which today is 2028. This guidance look like that. We have a solid plan to grow earnings and cash flow, which is a prerequisite to our capital allocation framework, which remains unchanged. It will be covered by Pierre-Francois. We expect a range of EUR 4.6 billion to EUR 5.2 billion for 2026, the midpoint of which corresponds to the level we achieved in 2025 with steady upper mid-single-digit increase in '27 and '28.

Our dividend policy remains at 65% to 75% of net recurring income group share. And we maintain our policy of maintaining a strong investment-grade credit rating with an economic net debt-to-EBITDA ceiling at 4x.

Thank you for your attention. And now back to Pierre-Francois for the continuing ballet.

And you still have some energy left because the [ upload ] is not completely over. We met a year ago in the same room actually for the market update. I'm very pleased to tell you that our revised 3-year projections are very consistent actually with what we discussed a year ago, boosted, of course, by the acquisition of UK Power Networks.

First, let me highlight the key metric driving this outlook. I think Catherine just mentioned it, we are targeting a 7% CAGR in EBIT excluding Nuc over '25-'28, and this trajectory reflects both the solidity of the existing portfolio and the contribution from UKPN. EBIT will rise from EUR 8.8 billion in '25 to EUR 11.3 billion, as you can see on the waterfall, FX and energy price volatility of negative, but at the end of the day, limited impact in the period.

For the record, these headwinds are stronger than a year ago due to the U.S. dollar depreciation and also some lower power prices in France. But we can offset all of them in '26 and half of it in '27 at EBIT level, showing the resilience of our portfolio and hedging strategy. These headwinds are fully offset at the bottom line.

Disposals include the program to finance the acquisition of UKPN, Performance initiatives will contribute positively, reflecting continuous progress in operational excellence and cost discipline. A significant uplift will come from investments, adding between EUR 2.7 billion and EUR 3.1 billion of EBIT, excluding UK Power Networks, and CapEx cuts related to the acquisition. Contribution from investments would amount to EUR 1.6 billion to EUR 2 billion, which is back in line with last year's market update.

Investments are concentrated in our key growth platforms, power networks, renewable generation and batteries. Catherine has already flagged our continued efforts in performance that will bring close to EUR 1 billion yearly EBIT contribution in 3 years. Overall, this trajectory demonstrates our strong capacity to combine growth, resilience and disciplined execution, also to leverage our integrated model.

Moving on now to the cash equation, you are familiar with this format, and we have split this time in three blocks: 2025, which is a strong year of excess cash generation, plus EUR 2.8 billion, which is not accidental; UK Power Networks financing that I have detailed earlier; and then the usual 3 years' projections, including the new cash flows and the new investments of UK Power Networks. You can add that up as you wish. I tend to look as a whole.

To a limited extent, we have decided to reprofile our assets portfolio and CapEx plans to allow, as it was the case before, for a moderate increase of the debt on top of the acquisition in such a way that our credit ratios stay within our targets. Sustainability of our financial profile is part of our utility status, both for credit requirements and shareholder returns. Looking to '26-'28, sources of funding include EUR 37 billion to EUR 41 billion of CFFO and an additional EUR 2 billion from disposals. So there will be EUR 6 billion in total disposals, EUR 4 billion, which are linked to the acquisition, EUR 2 billion which are in the 3 years plan.

This will finance our growth and maintenance investments for EUR 34 billion to EUR 38 billion and dividends and other commitments for EUR 12 million to EUR 14 billion. As a result, net debt will increase slightly. This is not substantially different from the cash trajectory that was presented during last year's market update. In other terms, the acquisition supports our strategic trajectory without altering the strength of our cash profile.

Let me now walk you through how we are rebalancing the group further towards regulated infrastructure and, more specifically, power networks. Over the coming years, we expect a substantial step-up in Networks capital employed, moving from EUR 25 billion today to around EUR 45 billion by 2028. In that same year, power networks will represent half of the group's networks capital employed. This reinforces our strategic focus on electricity infrastructures.

On the right-hand side of the slide, you have details on the group's capital employed. We expect it to grow from EUR 69 billion end of '25 to around EUR 100 billion by 2028 with the largest contribution coming from Networks. This rebalancing increases the share of regulated and long-term contracted activities, further derisking the group's earnings profile. Overall, this strategic shift enhances visibility, supports our investment-grade positioning and creates the conditions for sustained profitable growth.

This is not something to be missed when you are assessing the WACC of ENGIE in your investment case, which is a good segue to turn to ENGIE's risk profile, credit metrics and net debt position. As Catherine alluded to, risk profile is improving structurally, thus, reducing our cost of financing and also making credit metrics requirements less demanding. Target structure of our financial debt post acquisition, as it is displayed on the screen, includes ENGIE's financial debt as of December '25 plus the senior debt linked to UK Power Networks acquisition for approximately EUR 2 billion and then UK Power Networks financial debt as reported in its 2025 financial statements. On that basis, bonds represent 2/3 of borrowings with a smooth maturity profile and no concentration peaks. With 91% of net financial debt fixed rate, we are largely immune against interest rate fluctuations. Net debt is predominantly euro-denominated, complemented by GBP, U.S. dollar and Brazilian reals, exposures that naturally hedge the group's operating cash flows in these currencies.

Finally, on the right, you can see our economic net debt-to-EBITDA ratio. The ratio goes above 4 in '26 because UK Power Networks only contributes to 6 months of EBITDA, but it immediately reduces below our 4 ceiling in '27. Despite the enhanced risk profile of the group, we keep this 4 ratio referenced unchanged. We have significant financial flexibility to manage this ratio going forward, if needed. First, we have flexibility on our EUR 34 billion to EUR 48 billion CapEx program with around 60% which is uncommitted as we speak. And secondly, we can go a bit further when it comes to portfolio rationalization. Overall, our improving business mix, disciplined funding strategy and strong balance sheet provide ENGIE with a solid and resilient financial foundation for the years to come.

Turning now to EBIT drivers by activity. This slide shows a balanced and diversified foundation of our growth over '26-'28. Starting from EBIT excluding Nuc of EUR 8.8 billion in '25, we expect to reach EUR 10.3 billion to EUR 11.3 billion by '28, more than twice our EBIT in 2021.

Beginning with Renewable & Flex Power. EBIT is expected to reach between EUR 2.8 billion and EUR 3.2 billion by '28 for renewables and batteries. Growth here is primarily driven by investments in renewable assets and battery storage, complemented by performance actions. Conversely, gas generation should decrease from EUR 1.1 billion in '25 to roughly EUR 0.6 billion in 2028, driven by prices and disposals linked to the streamlining of our international gas generation portfolio.

In Infrastructure, we see a solid EBIT uplift for all activities. Power Networks is expected to reach EUR 1.6 billion to EUR 1.8 billion in '28 with the acquisition of UKPN, but also organic development that goes along with it as well as our development in LATAM. Gas networks should benefit from investments, performance actions, inflated RAV and tariff indexations to land between EUR 3 billion and EUR 3.2 billion in '28. And finally, Local Energy Infrastructure should grow and reach now EUR 0.6 billion of EBIT coming from performance and investment in long-term constructed district heating and cooling networks.

Last but not least, in Supply and Energy Management, EBIT should benefit from continued growth and performance initiatives. On the other hand, we'll face some headwinds in '26 in B2B with a progressive phaseout of legacy contracts locking in at high margins, I mentioned that for the '25 results, and positive one-offs in '25, same. This results in expected EBIT ranges of EUR 0.5 billion to EUR 0.7 billion for B2C, EUR 1 billion to EUR 1.2 billion for B2B and EUR 0.5 billion to EUR 0.9 billion for Energy Management in '28.

Let me now remind you how our capital allocation choices underpin both our growth ambition and our financial commitments. Our framework is built to deliver predictability and long-term value creation for our shareholders. Everything starts with strong cash generation, everything. Over the last 3 years, we generated EUR 40 billion of CFFO and we plan to repeat that performance of close to in the next 3 years. Two activities stand out. Supply and Energy Management with the CFFO net of CapEx, all CapEx, of about EUR 2 billion per year and growing. Gas in France with, again, strong cash generation and limited growth CapEx delivering on average about EUR 2 billion of cash flows after all CapEx.

This consistent and predictable excess cash generation of about EUR 4 billion a year is a distinctive strength of ENGIE and clearly set us apart from the competition. One point worth of attention is that Renewables and Flexible cash generation is growing consistently, funding an increasing share of its investment plan. The acquisition of UK Power Networks reinforces our ability to deploy capital based on risk-adjusted returns, where we can capture the most value and it is enhancing also our portfolio of investment opportunities.

In parallel, we continue, of course, to optimize our existing asset base and drive operational performance across the group. Our performance plan ensures that value comes not only from new investment, but also from better management of existing assets. So this translates into an improved risk profile, more flexibility in credit requirements and a reduced cost of capital. Combined with a broader set of investment opportunities and strong cash generation profile, it supports balanced long-term growth, and therefore, sustainable, predictable and increasing shareholder returns.

Let's finish with our '26-'28 financial outlook, which provides, I think, a clear line of sight on the group's earnings trajectory. Starting with '26. We expect EBIT excluding Nuc between EUR 8.7 billion and EUR 9.7 billion. This reflects continued operational momentum, early contribution from our investment program and the ramp-up of performance actions. EBIT also includes 6 months of UK Power Networks contribution. Those tailwinds are partly offset by FX and the phaseout of high-margin B2B legacy contracts.

By 2028, the rise in EBIT will mostly come from organic developments stemming from investments and also, of course, performance, while disposals impact will peak at year-end. EBIT excluding Nuc should be in the range of EUR 10.3 billion to EUR 11.3 billion. Over the period, net recurring income will rise from EUR 4.9 million in '25 to EUR 5.8 billion in '28. Recurring net financial costs are expected to increase from EUR 2.2 billion, EUR 2.4 billion in '26 to EUR 2.6 billion, EUR 2.9 billion in '28, reflecting the acquisition of UK Power Networks.

Recurring effective tax rate should land between 20% and 23%, a decrease versus 25% as the Belgian nuclear transaction allow us to retire long-standing taxations and also as our profits are growing in geographies with no material tax impact on P&L. This segment is consistent with our ambition to deliver a sustainable growth of EPS year after year. Excluding the UK Power Networks perimeter, the outlook is broadly unchanged compared with the guidance we presented last year. This is important. The underlying performance of our existing business is fully in line with expectations, and the acquisition simply adds incremental value on top of it.

At the bottom of the slide, we reaffirm our dividend policy alongside a strong investment-grade rating.

With that, back to Catherine for wrap-up.

I just wanted to go back to the capital allocation framework that Pierre-Francois just presented. As we have been strictly adhering to that over the last 5 years, it's very important at ENGIE. It's actually the cornerstone of our management practices. It's well embedded throughout our organization. We are maximizing our cash generation. We are prioritizing our commitment to our shareholders. We're maintaining the strength of our balance sheet. And that allows us to seize a net investment, including growth CapEx and disposal program.

And with the funding plan that we've laid out to you today with this acquisition, we are going to be able to maintain our investment in the rest of our businesses. which, by the way, will not be much impacted nor disrupted by the integration efforts that we expect, somehow limited especially when you consider the size of this transaction. So you can think of the acquisition of UK Power Networks as even more opportunity within the framework: more opportunity for capital deployment, more earnings, all this with a better risk profile and a lower WACC.

Last words. You may have seen an announcement regarding our governance yesterday. I just wanted to bring it up because it is a sign of both continuity and well-planned transition. I think it's important because it highlights the quality of the governance at ENGIE, which is an asset in itself and does contribute to the performance of the group. For this but also for their general support to ENGIE and to me personally, I would like to thank the Board of Directors and its Chairman, jean-Pierre Clamadieu. .

Whatever the challenges ahead, with incredible talented teams that we have at ENGIE and, soon to be joined by the 6,500 UK Power Networks employees, let me tell you that at ENGIE, today, we look to the future with great excitement and confidence.

Thank you very much. And now I will pass it on to Delphine for the Q&A. Thank you.

Thank you, Catherine. We'll now have the Q&A session. We'll start by taking questions from the room and then we'll take questions from online. Operator, could you please remind our online participants the process for asking questions?

[Operator Instructions]

Thank you. So we'll start by the room. Wanda?

Wanda from UBS. Congratulations on the deal. Amazing deal, I must say. Two questions from me. The first one is on the ABB. Do you need the agreement from the French government? Will the French government participate? Is it a must? Can they block the deal? Any comment on that one would be appreciated.

And the second question is about the disposals. I mean what are you going to sell? Do you have any preferences, any businesses, any regions that you want to sell? And I do appreciate you show EBIT, but what EBITDA do you expect basically drop?

So all the financing plan that we have laid out to you obviously has been approved by our Board of Directors. As for the participation of the state to the operation, I think you will have to ask them. I can't really comment on their behalf.

In terms of the disposals, maybe just, first of all, we do have a long history at ENGIE of disposals. First of all, in terms of execution, we have, I think, shown a good track record. Last year alone was EUR 1.5 billion worth of disposals. So in terms of track record, we feel confident with the plan that we've laid out, even though it's a little bit more in terms of run rate at EUR 6 billion.

In terms of details, obviously, you will understand that we're not going to give much color because we don't want to jeopardize the sale conditions under which we'll conduct these disposals. But we do have still at ENGIE quite a bit of flexibility. We have, for example, a number of -- so frankly, three themes that we have in mind. One theme, which is a number of assets where we are participating but we don't have necessarily the full operating control. These assets, when you look at our strategy to be much more of an industrial operator, are a little bit more on the edge of our core strategy. So that could be something that we consider.

Another option, another theme is we do sometimes have assets where we could be opening up to a minority. And so that will be also another theme under this disposal list. And then thirdly, which is the work that we've been doing now for years at ENGIE, which is a little bit of a housekeeping of our portfolio when we have entities or activities that are not core to our strategy and then typically will fall under that. And we've done actually a number of that last year. So that's really the three themes that we are considering in our disposal plan over the years to come.

And to your question about the EBITDA impact, I mean, we don't disclose that. But I think if you use a proxy of the usual EBITDA to EBIT conversion of the group, you will be on the high side of EBITDA.

And just to confirm on the French government, you discussed this acquisition with French government. There's no way they can block it.

The French government is represented on the Board of Directors.

Okay. Arthur, second row.

The first one are on the financial targets to 2028. Given you are now quite used to overdeliver, I was wondering, I would like to understand if there is any area of conservatism in your targets. So there are three questions that I have on the bridge between '26 and '28 on EBIT. One is on the disposal dilution. I think you assumed EUR 0.7 billion which, for the proceeds that you intend to have, it seems to imply quite a low multiple. The performance contribution seems also quite lower to what you've been doing so far in the plan. And then there is the last block of EUR 300 million negative which is called other, which is not really clear what it is. If you could give some information on that.

And the second question is just on the indications you gave in the press release on the contribution of UK Power Networks to the net income. As far as I understand, that contribution is before the impact of the cost of hybrid and potentially before the potential PPA as well of the deal. So I was wondering if you could just give some information on that as well.

That's a very precise question, Arthur. I can see that you're already working on your model, which is, of course, the right thing to do. Yes, there is -- so first, with the '28 target and the bridge from '25. Of course, there is a whole set of assumptions behind the EUR 700 million negative impact on disposals. Catherine mentioned there were different buckets. Indeed, in these buckets, there are a few which are minority stakes that we own in some assets. And therefore, you can get a very high multiple on the valuation because what we are recording in EBIT is only the net income that we can consolidate, and therefore, that will drive a significant multiple when it comes to valuation.

So part of it is there. And that's also, we are -- we don't want to be too granular on this multiple. But we want to retain flexibility on the asset we put in there. And we will, of course, along the way, give you more colors and the impact as we make our decision. We will be value driven for this disposal. We know that we have done already a lot of cleaning in our portfolio. So we have already a set that we are pleased with. And it's really a valuation arbitrage that will come. So please give us a bit of flex. But clearly, this multiple is reflecting these high multiples for some of the disposal.

Performance is low, I'm not sure this is the opinion of everyone in the organization. But EUR 0.8 billion to EUR 1 billion is still a big number coming in the year. Of course, it's low compared to what we have achieved in '25. But remember, the loss-making activities, once you have fixed them, you cannot fix them again. And so it's much more difficult to address it. Now can we do more than EUR 0.8 billion to EUR 1 billion? Let's first try to get at the top end of the number, and then let's see if we can do better. I mean, clearly, the push for performance is not stopped. And you've seen, I mentioned that briefly on '25, when you look at the guidance, I mean, we have been able to close some of the headwinds that we have in FX and energy prices. We did it through performance. So I think that's important.

And then in other, there is minus EUR 0.3 billion. There are various topics and it's a small number, EUR 0.3 billion now for ENGIE. And again, you need to leave us a bit of intimacy in our numbers. And if we want to put something to make sure that we deliver, it's also, I think, a decent right of ENGIE to put some numbers in there. Now it's funny, what you say about overperforming. This is a discussion that we have with UK Power Networks. And I think they say that it's underpromise, overdeliver, I like that a lot. So I think that the a culture fit is there. And we will do everything we can, of course, to achieve. But if we can, of course, overdeliver.

Contribution, no, indeed, hybrids are not in there. So hybrid, I mean, you can work it out by yourself. I mean, you know if we issue hybrids, You know the cost of hybrids. You know the market today is pretty lenient and it's very, very competitive. Our last issuance on hybrid was extremely strong with no new issue premium. So clearly, it's today a buoyant market, so decrease of cost. And then there is, let's say, a tentative PPA embedded in this number. So we've done our work, of course, to try to assess what would be the impact of the PPA, and that is factored in the numbers. Please give us also a bit of flex because the PPA is a big thing and we will have to go much further into details, but we've tried to give you an indication.

James Brand from Deutsche Bank. Congratulations from me on the deal. I have three questions. Firstly, your ambition to have more power networks, is that now satisfied with this deal? Or if another deal came up that was very attractive, would you attempt do even more, particularly the market reaction seems to be since like this kind of move from you?

Secondly, on the performance plan impact. It did actually seem like quite a good number to me. I was wondering whether you could give some more details because the companies often throw around kind of big numbers for cost cutting and things like that or performance improvement. So within that, if you could give us some kind of indication how much is kind of cost cutting, how much is loss-making businesses, if there are any left. How much of it is kind of running your equipment better because of best-in-class performance and things like that, that would be super interesting just to get an idea of what's driving that.

And then thirdly and finally, if we do see all this demand growth that everyone's talking about coming through in Europe and globally because of data centers and electrification, we're going to need new gas-fired generation. And you don't seem to have any -- or certainly not much capital going towards the new gas build, if any, in the plan. So just kind of wondering, is that because you don't want to invest in that area because you think renewables is the future? Or would you need more regulatory visibility? What could push you into investing more in new gas?

Okay. I'll start with one and three, and you can comment a bit more on performance plan. Maybe on the power networks, we have a few years now to digest what we're doing with the UK Power Networks, I think, frankly, 1 of the really exciting things about the operation today is that it's of a large size, which means that in another scenario, we would have had to do quite a few of small deals, which means a lot of things and disruptions, and you have to do it in several places and this.

And by doing it at once, it's sizable, but it really will allow us to have our work done for a few years at least in the distribution world in power networks with the superb asset that we're acquiring today or that we will acquire at closing with quite a lot of challenges to accompany the growth. The ED3 plans are very ambitious. So UK Power has a lot of work to do, a lot of investment. And so we feel that it's going to be, from a power distribution point of view, nice. And I don't expect that we have to do something anytime soon in power distribution.

On the transmission side, the plan that we have, which is to continue to do organic development in Latin America, that will probably continue as long as we can continue to win auctions. The auction is sometimes quite competitive. So we remain very disciplined in the way we participate in these auctions. And that should continue as expected. But I want to highlight the fact that this transaction is really of a good size. It's actually for me a great benefit because it allows us to do a one-off, and now we can get on and do the growth with UKPN and the growth in the rest of the business with that two levels, which I think is a great position to be in, frankly.

On demand growth and what we do with the gas-fired generation. I know it's not very fashionable, but we continue to be set to be net zero to 2045. And so we're going to be very careful with our CO2 budget. And we will do -- so we're really very focused in [ modelizing ] the CO2 to EBIT ratio at ENGIE. So we are pragmatic about energy transition and about CO2, but we are committed to decrease our trajectory. And we believe that today when you look at the requirement on power, there is a lot that we can do with smart renewables, with the right technology, with the right battery, with the right integration, with the right energy management expertise, which is very -- we didn't talk too much about energy management today, but we have a differentiation at ENGIE with top notch energy management capabilities. And these people are able to integrate the renewable and really green assets in order to provide customers what they want to do to the most part.

Now it doesn't mean that -- every so often, if there is an opportunistic investment opportunity, we would be looking probably at the right CRM. We would like to have a capacity remuneration mechanism because today everybody loves gas. I don't know that in 5 years everybody will love gas again. So we would need to have a fairly low risk investment proposition as well, of course, has the right return. And then we might look at it from one project to a project, but it's not going to be a big chunk of our CapEx going to those assets.

But the Flemalle is a good example of that, right? In Belgium, we're just opening up 850, 870 megawatts. So it's a very large asset that we built from scratch. So we've been able to do that. We're happy. It's a CRM-based remuneration. So we might do a few of that, but it's not going to be a big indeed investment proposition. We think we can do much more with renewables, batteries and also speed to market, as you know, for this in terms of delivery and just execution with renewables and batteries are just unbeatable today, especially with the supply chain situation on gas plan that you know very well. So performance plan, Pierre-Francois?

Yes. performance plan. First, you may notice that our performance number, you can track them into the waterfall of EBIT. And that is critical for us because we are not buying huge performance actions which are not translated into your variation of EBIT. So we need to be -- and that's a discussion that we have internally as well. It is demanding, but it is also key if we want to be credible when we put these numbers in front of you. So there are real contribution to EBIT, whether they are cost-cutting efficiency, whatever. They need to convert into P&L, and we need to be able to track it and you are able to track it.

Now if you look at the big number. You have about still 10% which are related to loss-making activities. This is going to come in '26, maybe early '27. So that would come quite early. And of course, we have action plans, which are already launched and the execution risk is very limited. And then you have about 40% which are the usual operational efficiencies that you have seen many times now in ENGIE for years, and they are coming through. And there is still a lot of room because, of course, we got a lot of traction when the GBUs, the global business units, were created because there was standardization, professionalism, some common tools we have been able to leverage to deliver efficiencies.

But it is by far not done. And we are also investing a lot. And when you invest a lot, you create new opportunities to, of course, improve your efficiency because you get more scale effect. You enter new operations which are not at the same level. You have maturing projects which are getting not at the top and they need more time to get at the top. So for example, when you see the commissioning contribution, you have the commissioning of year 1. Then year 2, you don't see it. But in year 1, you're not at the top of your efficiency. So you get more coming from the improved performance and growth. So growth helps actually to fuel further performance.

And then we have half of the amount, which is what we call our C-squared, competitiveness and culture, where we are addressing some other pockets. So we mentioned agility, we mentioned some frugality. But the big topic is about efficiency and efficiency especially in the G&A, in the support function, where there is still a lot to be done in ENGIE. Catherine would say, we just started to scratch the surface, maybe...

I say that.

We've been a bit. But we are not at the end, even not at the beginning of the end. We are maybe at the end of the beginning and that's already generous. So there is more to come in there. I mean, some basics. I mean, we started, I mentioned that already, our big SAP project to have basically one ERP in the company except for regulated assets. And that was started in '22. And today, we are holding out at pace, by the way, project on budget, on time, so which is not always the case of that kind of project. So very, very pleased with the outcome. But we are in the middle of rolling it.

So there is more to come. And of course, it's paving the way to a new G&A approach. And we have now launched a big global business support project with significant moves. I mean, it is happening in ENGIE, that we are actually revisiting our existing GBS operations in some countries like in France and Belgium and moving some of the activities towards Romania. So this is happening as we speak. And of course, there will be delivery coming throughout the year. That's why it's a plan that needs to be carefully managed. It has to be done in a proper way progressively. And maybe some of you would love to see more coming at once. But for us, it's very important that we commit to this delivery year after year. And we prefer to take our time, but launch something which is solid and which is going to deliver for years.

And to that note, this is not ended in '28. I mean, we had that conversation last year in '27, there will be more in 28. Of course, year 3 is always lower than you year 1 and 2 because people tend to be a bit conservative. And then you need to fuel more projects and then you find new ideas. And then, of course, it's an ongoing revisiting. So very optimistic about performance. This is an engine which is going to be there for a long time.

And we bring along our social partners. That's the particularity of our footprint, is that we have very rich union representation. And so the key for us is to add this transformation and the performance actions is to bring along our social partners, which the team is really working very well to do so.

So we'll now take some questions online and then we'll come back to the room. So operator, could you please start with the first question?

First question is from Ajay Patel, Goldman Sachs. Mr. Patel's line got disconnected. So the next question is from Louis Boujard, ODDO.

Congratulations on the operation. Maybe two on my side to focus a little bit on UK Power Networks and what we can expect going forward. Looking at the historic earnings contribution, it has been quite volatile, most likely because of the current situation in the energy market which has been relatively tough and also because of some catch-up effect that could be expected. How shall we forecast going forward the EBITDA and EBIT contribution of this business?

Is it going to be a bit more steady growth pace going forward? Or do you have also a lot of catch-up to be expected in the EBIT line for this contribution going forward by 2028? And could you maybe give us a bit more granularity on the geographic scope of your power network contribution in EBIT by 2028 with regards to the Latin America contribution as well?

And maybe if you could also elaborate regarding the potential synergies that could be expected with this operation. Do you think that eventually there is room for more business to be developed, notably with energy transition-related activities and other business that could be used from this operation going forward?

Maybe I'll start with your last question, and then Pierre-Francois can comment a little bit about the first part of the question. So in terms of synergy, given the regulated nature of the business, obviously, in our business plan and assumptions, we have a very, very small number. That makes sense. Now, obviously, we expect to drive a few synergies around IT, insurance and procurement, of course, in these areas, which are as expected. By the way, the fact that we have not priced that much synergies is also a nice illustration of what we expect in terms of complication of integration. And we don't expect any difficulty and that's, I think, reflected in that number.

And then there is -- apart from the regulated activity, Louis, there is indeed a nonregulated activity with a very long-term contract which can span over 50, 90 years. And these contracts are interesting. Right now, we have not -- we valued them at 10x EBITDA. So we'll have to see as we work with the team of UKPN if there is indeed a potential for more growth. But right now we have taken, let's say, a moderate view of the potential of this business. It will have to be looked at.

And then in terms of other synergies, not in the numbers, but really for us, it's about making ENGIE much more of an electrician. And what that means is that we expect over time to be able to learn from UKPN and to develop a culture and understanding of the distribution activity, expertise competency that eventually maybe we will be able to be use in other places. Again, I'm putting my arms there because I stayed true to what I said earlier. Short term, we're very happy and we'll be content with this acquisition. But to develop a distribution expertise is obviously something that we look forward through with this acquisition as an outcome. You want to talk about UKPN?

Yes. Thank you. Good question, Louis. Yes, you're right. I mean, there is volatility in EBITDA, EBIT and net income in UKPN. We are familiar with that because you know that we have also regulated gas assets and feel the same way. Of course, regulation is different. There is some kind of catch-up in France which is yearly, but then you may actually go for a catch-up which is in the following revision period. So it's even more than that. This is something that we have discussed.

Yes, they are regulated business. They are very stable. But there is some predictability indeed in the fine-tuning of the results in any one year. It can happen. So we're going to have to put you head around this. We are prepared for that. We need to also create a bit of space to manage these uncertainties. Hopefully, in a few years' time, there will be this new standard, which is long awaited, which is a regulated business. And that will allow to smooth this catch-up effect. And that will be welcome. And clearly, again, we have a lot at stake at our existing gas operation today.

But to your point, there is not a big clawback sitting that is going to reverse in the next couple of years. It's just a normal course of business that we expect.

And then on your point about LATAM contribution, I mean, today, you know that the contribution of power today is in LATAM. So you have a good proxy where we stand today. This will be growing. And it's fair to say in '28, there will be growth compared to where we stand today, and I would expect this to be north of EUR 300 million contribution in '28 for the LATAM assets.

And it will be mainly Brazil and to, a lesser extent, Chile and Peru.

Brazil, by far, being the first one.

The next question is from Bartek Kubicki of Bernstein.

Congratulations on the acquisition. Just on that one, maybe the first question. First of all, what has changed in terms of your risk appetite? Because I remember in the past, you used to say much smaller transactions would be a perfect fit for ENGIE. Now you are aiming at something way bigger than previously indicated. And also on that one, if we think about some kind of return, IRR-to-WACC spread, what kind of threshold or minimum threshold is it meeting given the valuation of the transaction?

And now maybe just a little bit of clarification on the FY '28 and FY '27 guidance. And I would point here to three very small items, if you can explain. First of all, last year, you were saying that in FY '27, 63% of EBIT will be regulated or long-term contracted. Now you are mentioning -- sorry, you said 63% last year. You were mentioning 67% for '28. So I just wondered why is the increase so small given the fact that you are doing a pivotal acquisition?

And also on that, if we think about the renewables guidance for '27 and '28, it hasn't increased much. Actually, the bottom end is at the same level. Does it mean you're expecting some, I don't know, asset rotation in the renewable space as well? Or it simply means there's a negative FX and power prices effect?

Maybe I'll start by the first one. In terms of this is a bit bigger than maybe what we had envisaged, when we discussed our willingness to develop our presence in distribution. And we talked about a long list of criteria when you remember, we said we wanted high-quality, we wanted performance, we wanted a single country with a distribution, we wanted a place where there is a good quality regulation and something that we would be able to integrate easily and, indeed, I think we did say a size that we can digest, and probably that did imply a bit of a smaller size than what UKPN represents.

But with UKPN today, we check a vast majority of this list. So we feel very, very confident. And again, today, ENGIE is a bit of a different places. First of all, we've been very lucky to be able to engage in the process because, as you know, it's a long process. So UKPN was not for sale. So it was really for us an opportunity that we decided that we could seize because despite the size, we didn't feel that it actually represented additional risk for us from an execution point of view and from an integration point of view. So all the criteria that we had set were met. A bit bigger than what was envisaged originally, but the process or the non process, the opportunity, the quality of the assets really made us very, very excited about the opportunity.

And then, of course, the financing plan that we've presented, which makes us very confident that we can continue to deliver ENGIE's road map and, at the same time, made the structural move a one-off. That's it. It's done. We've done that. We've pivoted at least for a few years. For us, it's really a bit of the best of the two worlds. So we are actually very, very excited by the size as well of UKPN and the size of this transaction. Maybe, Pierre-Francois?

Yes. On IR and WACC, first, we are very committed to deliver on our total investment a premium of about 200 bps above WACC. That's very important. But we take it as a whole, of course. And we invest based on risk-adjusted return, which means that some projects are coming with a spread above WACC, which is different from others. And when it comes to assets which have a WACC which is significantly lower than average, it's nearly impossible to deliver 200 bps on top of it. And in that kind of business, it is very difficult to achieve that kind of return.

So to be very candid, we are below the 200 that you would expect in general for ENGIE and we fully recognize that. Still, this investment is fitting criterias which are adapted to its specific profile, and we are delivering, of course, IRR significantly above WACC with, of course, all kind of assumptions surrounding this calculation.

When it comes to '27 versus '28 and the speed of regulated assets, I think it's a good peak. And the reason why it's growing but not growing that much is that the rest of the business is growing. And it's not only that we have UK Power Networks, but we do have other businesses. You mentioned Renewable & BESS, rightfully so. But you could also mention SEM, Supply and Energy Management, which is growing as well over the period significantly. And therefore, we have a bit of a dilution of our regulated assets if, even of course, they are growing. Now it's really the story of ENGIE. And we have different growth engines and they are all going up, which is not again a coincidence, something that which is architected. And therefore, it's not that easy.

And the last point is that ENGIE starts to be a big thing. So to move the needle. I mean, for you, it's nothing to move from 63% to 67%. But it's actually a lot to move because it's a big business which is growing in all its components. And I think we are pretty pleased with that.

Coming back to the room. Peter?

Peter Crampton here from Barclays. And congratulations on the great deal. Three questions, if I may. The first one relates to your longer-term net recurring income group share trajectory, which has obviously been a big question of investors in the past.

Looking at your guidance, getting a 6% CAGR and kind of '27 '26 and '28 and '27, is a 6% CAGR, a realistic number that to use longer term as well for net recurring income group share? And does this UK Power Networks deal help with that delivery as you added a very visible kind of part where you can grow the business?

The second question was you're referencing a decline in kind of group WACC on back of this acquisition. Any numbers around how much you see kind of group WACC reduced?

And then thirdly, it's great to get that 6 gigawatt number on your data center kind of pipeline. How many projects does this relate to? And obviously, UK Power Networks is a great part of the U.K. Do you feel that maybe that number grows further after that deal completes?

Okay. We have a number of projects. It's several tens of projects that are feeding this pipeline on co-siting on data center, just starting with that latest part of questions. And indeed, we have not really started to discuss in great level of details with UKPN how potentially there could be opportunities that could be pursued together. But that's potentially indeed an exciting avenue. So that's the third question.

I think in terms of the profile of growth, you want to not mention numbers beyond '28.

No. Thank you, of course, it is an important question. I think that you see that we are building a platform which is definitely fit for growth, more balanced. We are achieving this 6% in the next 3 years. Is it something that you can extrapolate. I think you definitely see growth engines. I'm not going to elaborate again. The platform is designed for that. We need also to recognize that there might be volatility from one year to the other, We mentioned, rightfully so, the point about clawback when it comes to regulated assets, which are significant. So there might be years which are above and years which are lower.

We still have some energy exposure. I mean, clearly, we have been, I think, pretty convincing in showing that we can resist to lower energy prices, but we still keep some upside especially on the volatility side. So definitely, there will be good years, there will be less good years. But still, I believe that this strong middle-digit profile is coming nicely with this platform. And that's what we are trying to build definitely. Now not committing to 2030 or whatever, but clearly, we are building on power, which is significant and which is higher, of course, than what we had in the past.

UKPN, I mentioned it briefly. In the long run, this is a business which can deliver a mid-single-digit growth, and that, we believe. But again, there will be periods we need to manage a depreciation gap period. We need to manage clawbacks. There will be, of course, trajectory, but we believe definitely that we can get there.

And then on the decline of WACC, it depends how you look at it. If you look forward, if you look at the portfolio of CapEx and investment which is coming through, the impact is significant. It's more than 50 bps in terms of WACC in the to come investment. If you look at the existing ENGIE, the whole thing, there is of course a lot of inertia. But still, it's a few tens of bps of decrease in the WACC of ENGIE as a whole, and you can work your calculation by yourself. But we see that as, of course, a very important component of the value creation.

Is there a question at the back?

Deepa from Bernstein. I had a couple of questions on UKPN. So if you look at the RAV growth of the companies in E2, for some reason, UKPN is at the bottom. I think overall RAV is 5%. For the next few years, you mentioned 4%. So I was wondering, is there anything structural in ED2 which will be rectified into ED3 on catching up on the growth?

And second question, again, on valuation. I mean this is a higher premium than what Iberdrola paid for Electricity Northwest. So how would you justify. Has anything changed? Is it U.K. regulation? Or is it the outperformance of UKPN? If you could just reconcile your statements at that point versus...

On the valuation, you know that we have been very close to the E&W transaction because we were the second bidder and we were indeed outbid by our competitor with, we believe, a fair valuation. So we know pretty well the multiples. Maybe something you can look at is the reference date of the RAV which is used at the time of the transaction. You may notice that we are using the reference date which is 3 months before an anticipated closing.

Maybe in the other transaction, it was something like 4 months after the closing. With the RAV which is growing, it can make a difference very quickly in a few digits. And I would also highlight that we have a ticking fee in line with market practice, 4%. So I think if you work on the numbers, you will find out that our multiple is actually very much in line, which is what you would expect for an asset of this quality, which is definitely at least as good as the previous asset that we had been looking at.

Okay. On the first question, comparatively, ED2 UKPN growth, I don't want to comment and stretch myself, but what is for sure is that we are expecting a significant increase in Totex spend -- sorry, in ED3 in line with the very ambitious Ofgem plan that we have for these licenses. So that's the main thing. And that increases of the order of 40%, 45% from ED2 and ED3. Now what the other ones will do, I have to say we'll have to check. But there is definitely growth expected in ED3.

And each license has a slightly different profile. Obviously, London is a little bit less about new energy transition staff. The other two license have a little bit more of that growth, in particular with the solar development in the South of England, which is significant. Although I know it does rain a lot here.

Harry, the second row.

7

It's Harry Wyburd from BNP Exane. So we covered a lot of ground, so these are kind of questions on the questions. But I'll try and still keep them interesting. So Catherine, if I've interpreted all this right, this is a big acquisition that's covered a lot of ground. So you're very likely to do more in the next couple of years. But you're not ruling out further distribution expansion, and you sort of alluded to this as a kind of platform deal.

So when you get to 2028 and you're 67% contracted, what is the kind of group objective after that? Should we assume that this you maybe want to continue to build in distribution? Or do you want to look at other parts of the business? One thing that sticks out for me is your outright power exposure, say, in France or the nuclear drawing rights or the hydro. What is the philosophy after you get 67% on how you want to change the business mix? So that's the first question.

And then on the second one to Pierre-Francois, it's a little bit of a challenge. So you sort of alluded that you could continue with the performance plan for a long time but at EUR 300 million or so a year is sort of 5% earnings growth, which is obviously fantastic. But probably, there's a point at which it gets quite hard to deliver that amount of incremental cost savings every single year. So how long would you be able to go at EUR 300 million a year of performance savings? And if there is a law of diminishing returns, how do you sort of pivot towards other sources of growth? Is it a continuation of M&A that we just discussed? Or is it something else?

Yes. Maybe, Harry, we think in general at ENGIE, we create more value organically than inorganically. We, today, are doing something which is structural for us. Developing a presence in distribution is a very important move for us. It gives us the profile of growth that we've commented in length during the presentation. And I'm not expecting to do any big M&A in distribution anytime soon. I think it's very important for ENGIE to digest what we've done and to indeed establish and learn from UKPN from an electricity distribution culture. It doesn't mean that in '28, we're going to do another one, not at all. That's not what I meant.

I think we're very excited about the growth opportunity that UKPN is bringing in itself. And that's really the whole beauty of the transaction, is that we're not just doing that thing and then we have a presence in distribution. We have now a presence in distribution. And we are able to grow in distribution through UKPN, and that is really going to be in the short term and midterm, our priority. So in terms of profile, I expect continuing investment in generation, continuing investment in infrastructures with the power networks organic development in Latin America. Organic, now, it's so nice to be able to say that. From July 1, we're going to say that we are growing organically also in distribution, which is fantastic.

And then the third thing, which is going to accompany our customers through our B2B franchise, which we didn't talk too much today about, but we are also very excited about. And there will be also growth there. And this is really going to be the three key growth avenues that we propose to explore. And I don't see any reason why this will stop in '27 or '28. Frankly, we think that is going to carry us along for quite a while.

And on your point about performance, I'm very optimistic that we can maintain that rate for a long time. First, the starting point gives opportunities for sure. And for those who know a bit ENGIE, I mean, you know that there is still room for improvement in many ways and that's very common.

Second, what we are doing, I mentioned the ERP project, but I could mention a few other IT projects. I mean, we are really breaking new grounds in terms of data management. The legacy of ENGIE was these 24 business units which were spread all over with no common language, no common tools. This has moved. And now we are moving at pace, building some data access, which is really impressive. This is going to create a new layer for further savings which are significant. It's not necessarily cost savings, but efficiencies. Definitely, we see a lot for better maintenance.

We see a lot in procurement, not because we would be adding new procurement savings as such, but because our ability to challenge the consumption to manage the demand and procurement is going to be boosted by what we are rolling out as we speak. And I'm not here in these numbers incorporating any significant contribution from AI. But this is coming on top of it. And this is coming through. And if you look at '28, you may argue, okay, but this amount are not going to be significant. But if you look deeper in time and if you look to 2030, 2035, I have no doubt there will be a very significant contribution in efficiencies and also cost cutting coming from AI, so on this part, and more about the competitiveness and the structural cost, I think there is still a lot of potential.

On the business part, I mean, we are talking about EUR 100 million to EUR 200 million a year, that's what we are talking. I mean, given the size of this business, to me, it looks like infinite. I mean, you can't always find EUR 100 million or EUR 200 million because of new technology, because of fixing issues. And that's our daily job. So I'm very, very convinced that we can have this EUR 300 million contribution for a very long time.

And the CEO confirms as well.

CEO thinks it's shy. That's another story.

So we'll now take some questions online. Operator, could you please take another question, please?

Yes. The next question is from Ajay Patel, Goldman Sachs.

Congratulations. My question was to sort of expand on one of the points that was made during the presentation. As you look at this, you're improving your risk profile. You're becoming more regulated contract in nature. You're effectively showing solid growth beyond even the '28 period from what we can tell. And I'm just thinking that we have that 4x net debt-to-EBITDA debt metric.

And as time and as you execute on your plan, is there an opportunity for that number to go up, and therefore, you have more balance sheet capacity to add to growth as you go further down the line?

And then on the data center strategy that you highlighted this morning, could you maybe spend a few minutes just to go through how you crystallize the value from that as in? Is it ultimately to co-develop and then to sell out? Is it just to provide an avenue for renewable and for the provision of energy? I'm just thinking of how are you thinking about the value you extract from that type of activity.

Okay. So should I start with data center? So there are really three buckets, just quickly. So we have the company-siting. And then we have the enablement of our renewables, so this is more traditional PPAs that come and enables us to decide the investment on new renewables generation. So this is quite typical in that. And then there is a third bucket, which is supply deals, which tend to be a bit more sophisticated, a bit more higher value for ENGIE because the tech centers and the data center tend to be very demanding when it comes to green electron to the type of product. And this is why you see this acronym, the CFE, carbon-free energy, is something that they value and that we can provide. So that's the last two.

The first one, which is the co-siting is indeed a bit of a new word for us. We are not taking participation in data center. I just want to be very clear. We remain who we are. We are an energy provider. And where it's a little bit difficult to talk generically about these things is that every project is different. So the question was asked earlier, how many projects we have.

We have about 30, 40 in a very probablized pipeline today when we have either already a project under development or we have even existing assets and then we work with a data center developer to see how we can help them access the land, so sometimes it can be just sales of the land to them, and then use existing renewables to provide them directly -- existing sorry, generations, so it can be renewable, it can be battery or a mix of, it can be grid access to help them with their power requirements.

So either we have existing projects and then you need to think of margin uplift on existing projects. I talked about derisking. As you know, in the United States, some of our projects get curtailed. Some of these projects, they get exposed to hub or node risk. And so the ability to co-site a data center where we have this project helps us through the risk management brick, and removing some of this risk actually creates value for ENGIE. And then there is all of the things in between, energy management services, when you have colocation, managing grid, renewable production battery is also a service that we're able to value with our counterpart.

So that's really what we're talking about. It's value creation as an energy management provider, as a renewable and green electron provider. But obviously, we are not looking at investing in data center or co-develop at all. So it's really about partnership and making sure that we bring to our partners our strength. So we have a number of projects, and that's what makes the 6 gigawatt. And you noticed on the 6 gigawatt, it's quite U.S., but not just U.S. We obviously have a strong asset base in Europe, and they will also contribute to some of these developments.

Thank you, Ajay, for a great question on the leverage. Maybe it's a busy morning. So maybe you have not seen. But the three rating agencies have released their confirmation of rating with a stable outlook. And the three of them, they have actually revised a bit their guidance in terms of ratios that we need to comply to be a bit relaxed. And I think it is exactly to your point, that the credit profile is improving and create a bit of space in the balance sheet. So we are very committed to our strong investment grade because we believe that is part of the story.

So definitely, we want to stay in there. But we will also use the flexibility, which is given not necessarily right away, but this is part of clearly the new flex that we have. Very pleased with that. That was also part of the purpose. You remember when we had the discussion, we wanted more regulated because regulated is also the ticket to ride to get an efficient balance sheet. So I think that it does make sense. So it's coming naturally. And clearly, we will use a bit of flex.

Now this is not today enough to they visit the 4. We are still pretty far away from 4. Of course, we'll be above 4 in '26, but we will be back. You remember, we said that we were -- yes, it's 4. But we are guiding, and we believe we should be steering the group slightly above 3.5. Clearly, we have a bit more flex, and that definitely helps the balance sheet to make sure we capture growth opportunities. Nothing crazy, very much in line with what we discussed, but very pleased to have a bit of flex.

Juan Rodriguez, Kepler Cheuvreux.

Two questions from my side, if I may. The first one is on Belgian nuclear, around the discussions on possible nuclear extensions. And looking at the guidance, you do not include any provisions or additional provisions on Belgium nuclear. Any quantification of possible revisions in your discussions could be helpful.

And the second is on the dividend and the credit rating metrics that you were addressing because we know that the EUR 1.1 floor is kind of indicative. Can we see EUR 1.35 as a floor for the dividend looking forward as some of the dilutive effects as well could be offset with a better payout ratio given the structure of the group and the credit rating keeping your 65% to 75% payout?

Okay. Maybe I'll give a bit more color on what the discussions we're having with the Belgium government. So here, we're really talking about the dismantling provisions. So these are the provisions that we are obviously much more in control of in the sense that they are being used as we speak, as we have started to dismantle those nuclear reactors. So it's not something that will happen to us in 50 years' time. And indeed, we have had an intermediate report from the process that indicated an increase of provisions, which is very odd and at odds with at least our provisions and our understanding of the work that we need to carry out to this matter.

So the discussion is ongoing. And I think Pierre-Francois, you mentioned ago the ONDRAF and then CPN, and we expect now a settlement at the end of April. The key thing is that the government, with whom we are engaged on a very regular basis, understands the need for an investor like ENGIE and an operator for ENGIE to have stability in the framework, including the way the provisions are set. So we're having from that standpoint very constructive discussions, especially indeed that the government has questions on security of supply beyond 2035, and therefore, is very interested in the operator ENGIE to look at extending the current 2 units that we have left operating beyond 10 years.

And of course, this extension is something that we have said all along that we were not super excited about considering, but that we could potentially indeed enter in a study to understand the economic operational safety, feasibility of such an extension. But of course, we can only do that if we have a stable, clear, predictable dismantling provision framework. So that gives you a little bit of some of the nuggets without going into all the details of the discussion. But these are some of the things that are on the table. Again, very constructive Belgium government, I have to say. So I am cautiously positive that there will be a good settlement, good landing on the discussion both on the provision topic, but also looking at potentially extending the 2 units that are currently in operations.

I'll stop here. Maybe you want to talk about the EUR 1.35.

The EUR 1.35 was not chosen by chance. So there is a clear signal with the EUR 1.35, which is it's a payout with the current number of shares of 67%. So it's stepping out from the low end of the range, so clearly signals that we are, of course, flexible within our payout range The second point is that there is a case the capital increase could be happening before the general meeting, and therefore, that the new shares would get the dividend. If the new shares were getting the dividend, the payout would be mid-range, so something like 70%, depends, of course, on the price, but 70%, 71%, which I give you an idea of what we are ready to do to smoothen the impact of the earnings decline.

The second point, which is very important, the new profile of our earnings is different from what it was and especially the low point in earnings that was expected to be in '26. Today, actually, earnings in '26 are expected to be broadly in line with '25. So we are not committing to anything and certainly not creating a new floor at EUR 1.35 because we are already have a floor and only one EUR 1.10. But clearly, the EUR 1.35 is commensurate with our expectations on earnings, and we are acutely aware of the expectation of shareholders not to see the dividend to decrease. And that's why the EUR 1.35 is, we believe, a right amount to set the tone for what is coming in terms of trajectory.

Okay. So maybe the very last question from the room, Alexander?

Alexandre Roncier, Bank of America. Just one, the last one as well. It's just regarding GEM and SEM in general. And you did mention that we didn't touch too much on Energy Management. So here we go. I think the results for 2025 came at EUR 1.85 billion for the former GEMS, which is a little bit below the initial EUR 2 billion guidance that you had given like a year ago. So maybe a bit of color on the reasons for that. Is that higher provision, lower operational performance? And if you have an early view on 2026?

And I also thought that the 2026-2028 guidance was perhaps a tad more prudent than what we've heard last year regarding B2B in particular, which I think is a little bit perhaps at odds with some of the messages we're getting on partnerships with data center, ongoing growth in that business. So just wondering how all of this fits in.

Thank you. 2025 was not a great year in terms of Energy Management. When it comes to Energy Management, there is a lot about hedging positions and making money out of this hedging position, EM is managing significant portfolio which are related also to sourcing from other businesses. EM isn't really in the middle of everything we do, the heart of the integrated model. So when you have all this position that you can manage, you can make -- you're long volatility and you can make a lot of money in some circumstances.

'25 was not a good year, and I'm sure that it can echo what you've heard in the market, the main reason being that there was volatility but it was politically driven. And when you want to make money out of energy management, you need patterns. You need a pattern that you can build some proxies around, and therefore, hedge your position. Here, the volatility was not in control. And clearly, the volumes have come down because when you are in that business, you need to be careful not to enter into a transaction that you may regret.

So for us, it was very important to be prudent. And definitely, the level of activities, the volumes were lower in Energy Management than expected. Not a great year in '25. So we've seen some normalization at the end of the year. We see some normalization now. So we are very confident that we will stay in the bandwidth of Energy Management, as we said, during the market update and as we confirm this year. So not a great year in '25, but we expect that we will improve a bit further in '26.

Now on B2B, no, we are not stepping down in any shape or form on our ambition on B2B. Clearly, '26 will be lower. And I mentioned very explicitly this EUR 300 million coming from the former contracts and the one-off that we have in '25. But this EUR 900 million is a solid base on which there will be growth from B2B, fueled in particular as a shift from gas to power, from power to green power and from green power to 24/7. So we are really moving the needle towards added-value product. And of course, behind that, data centers are critical because they are the ones who are also pulling this added-value move. So very confident that we'll deliver

Okay. This was our last question. Thank you for joining the event today. And of course, if you have any follow-up questions, do not hesitate to call the IR team. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. It's my pleasure to welcome you to ENGIE's 9 months conference call. Shortly, Catherine and Pierre-Francois will present our 9 months performance, following which we will open the lines to Q&A. [Operator Instructions]

And with that, over to Catherine.

Thank you very much, Delphine. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the presentation for our 9 months 2025 results when we can report a resilient set of numbers in what we could perhaps say is the new norm of a choppy economic, political and geopolitical environment. We have continued to grow in renewables and flexible power, and we've done it as always, by executing with efficiency. We are dynamizing our performance, and we are further simplifying our asset portfolio. With our ideal combination of green and flexible energy plus expertise in energy management, we are putting ourselves in pole position to meet the challenges and opportunities of booming data center demand and in general electrification.

In Nuclear, we embark on a new chapter with the restart of both reactors in our new joint venture with the Belgian government, triggering the transfer of the remaining waste liability off our balance sheet, a big step for ENGIE delivered at last. Finally, on the basis of our 9 months results and final quarter outlook, we are on track to achieve the upper end of our net recurring income group share guidance range of EUR 4.4 billion to EUR 5 billion.

Before moving on, I want to take a moment to remind ourselves what we are at ENGIE. We are, first and foremost, a utility, which means that we are here to bring people something useful, something that they really need. And as a utility, we are focused on the energy transition, which means affordable, greener energy in a new environment of rising demand fueled by electrification and data center. Green Power is often quickest to market, the more so given procurement bottlenecks for new gas plants. Component costs have fallen drastically. But that alone doesn't automatically imply that greener output is cheaper than what we have today as there are negative prices, there is curtailment, which are undoubtedly a challenge, which shows that the system needs further optimization. And how are we doing this? We are moving faster to combining green output with batteries, pump storage and flexible gas. And also being pragmatic about what can be electrified, gas will remain an indispensable part of the energy system and gas in turn will need to be decarbonized.

As a utility focused on the energy transition, we have an ideal combination of assets and market know-how that is making greener energy more affordable and more attractive, which is why I am more excited than ever about the ambition we have at ENGIE to become the best energy transition utility.

Moving on to this next slide, some headline numbers. EBIT excluding nuclear was down 7.3% on an organic basis at EUR 6.3 billion, with a rising contribution from networks and recording a high basis of comparison in terms of energy pricing in SEM and hydro volumes in our Renewables and Flex Power GBU. Our performance actions achieved a tripling of boost to the EBIT over the first 9 months of 2025 versus last year to an unprecedented amount of EUR 477 million. You remember that we are targeting EUR 1 billion minimum of performance improvement over the '25 to '27 period, which represents an increase versus the previous years. In particular, a Culture & Competitiveness plan, also known as a C2 plan, is taking on a real momentum. The initial top-down approach is now complemented by a bottom-up approach, meaning that every manager is responsible for developing and implementing the most relevant action plan covering the key areas we have identified, bringing efficiencies in procurement, improving span and layer, reducing general and administrative expenses to name a few. I am really pleased to see the level of ownership from our management team on this topic and the promising results.

Moving on. Cash flow from operations stand at a strong level of EUR 11.4 billion. The structure of our balance sheet remains solid with economic net debt equating to 3.2x of EBITDA at the end of September, well below the ceiling of 4x. In conclusion, we approach the final part of 2025 with confidence, and I can confirm our guidance for the full year with net recurring income group share at the upper end of the range.

Turning to this next slide. We added over 2 gigawatts of renewables and BESS in Q3 alone, making 4 gigawatts for the first 9 months. Two major projects to mention, the Dieppe Le Tréport offshore wind farm, which in September installed its first turbine foundation. Also the signing of the 1.5 gigawatt solar project in Abu Dhabi a few weeks ago, our largest renewables project that demonstrates our global reach and ability to compete successfully for the biggest ticket project within our investment criteria.

In terms of green PPAs, we saw a big acceleration in Q3 with 3.1 gigawatts signed to date. In the U.S., we are moving forward with 1.7 gigawatts under construction, supported by demand for PPAs where buyers are anticipating scarcity and are looking to secure their supply. An example of that is our recently announced PPA with Meta covering the entire output of our 600-megawatt Swenson project in Texas, which is due on stream in 2027. Some uncertainty in that market remains still with, for example, the risk of delays in permitting from the impact of the U.S. government shutdown.

As with renewables, I want to stress a similar breadth of geographical presence and optionality in ENGIE's flexible power assets. This slide shows that we are expanding our portfolio in several European countries where we enjoy an integrated business presence. We've been actively contributing to Belgium security and flexibility of supply. Our 875-megawatt Flémalle CCGT is now operational. It achieved full power at the end of October and is currently undergoing final test to fine-tune processes. And at the start of October, we connected the first phase of our 200-megawatt BESS at Vilvoorde ahead of schedule. And early next year, we'll be starting construction of an 80-megawatt BESS at Drogenbos.

In Italy, we acquired 2 BESS projects of 200 megawatts combined in the Puglia region in July, enhancing our 4.2 gigawatts of generation portfolio and our supply business in that country. In Romania, where we have 240 megawatts of wind and solar as well as a regulated gas distribution business, we are launching the Sibiu BESS project with 80-megawatt capacity due on stream late 2026.

Moving on to this next slide, I want to share with you quickly how we are leveraging our key strengths in order to capture the opportunities presented by the data center boom, a boom that leads me to state with conviction that in the U.S., particularly, even those who don't believe in the energy transition believe in energy additions. What are these key strengths and how do they fit the needs of data center developers? First, we have a massive portfolio of over 1,000 generation and flexibility sites while data centers need land as well as grid access. So we can help. We aim to co-locate a substantial data center capacity with our production plan. Second, we will leverage our pipeline of over 100 gigawatts of renewables and BESS as well as our recognized capability to provide anything from basic as-produced PPA to sophisticated 24/7 as-consumed products. How? By stepping up the pace of new tech and data center PPAs and providing the quick-to-market additional energy that tech so badly needs. Worth mentioning here that ENGIE has so far signed a cumulative volume of over 505 gigawatts -- sorry, 5 gigawatts of renewable PPAs with tech and hyperscalers.

And third, we have best-in-class B2B supply and energy management while data center developers want to maximize their energy competitiveness. So here, we can help as well. Finally, it's a pivotal year for our business in Belgium, one of our 2 home markets. I already mentioned the opening of our flexible Flémalle gas-fired power plant plus 2 further BESS projects to add to the Kallo project, which is already underway, bringing us to 380 megawatts of storage capacity. Since then, we won significant volumes in the recent Belgian CRM auctions with around 2 gigawatts in each of these 3 auctions, thereby giving long-term visibility to the operations of our existing fleet while contributing to Belgium security of supply.

Last but not least, in nuclear, we are delighted at the success of the first stage extension work of the Tihange 3 and Doel 4 reactors and their timely reconnection to the grid with full availability for the winter season. This is the final milestone for our Belgian agreement, which is now fully in force, meaning that the transfer of nuclear waste liabilities has now been completed. Our liabilities are now limited to dismantling and low category nuclear waste. And for nuclear operation in Belgium, our exposure to merchant will end from the start of December. It is really a new chapter that kicks off for ENGIE in Belgium, nuclear, which encompassed relatively modest, but more importantly, derisked earnings and a derisked balance sheet.

With that, I will pass it over to Pierre-Francois.

Thank you, Catherine, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here with back-to-back calls. So apologies for this busy day. I'm pleased to present, of course, ENGIE's 9 months financial results for '25, a period which is marked by resilient earnings and also robust cash flow. EBITDA, excluding nuclear, reached EUR 9.8 billion; and EBIT, excluding nuclear, came in at EUR 6.3 billion. Both metrics reflect the normalization in our markets, lower hydro volumes and also some FX headwinds. Organic variance stand at minus 4% and minus 7%, respectively, after several years of exceptional performance. Against these headwinds, growth and performance, our growing momentum and our quality of earnings is evident in our cash flow from operations, which stands at EUR 11.4 billion. Net financial debt increased by EUR 2.7 billion only due to the Belgian nuclear agreement, while economic net debt decreased by EUR 1.4 billion, highlighting our disciplined approach to managing our balance sheet with credit ratios that leave us with significant headroom.

Importantly, our 2025 guidance is confirmed. And based on Q3 performance, we actually expect to reach the upper half of the range for EBIT excluding nuclear and the upper end for net recurring income. ENGIE continues to demonstrate resilience and agility, positioning us well for the remainder of the year. Consequently, we foresee sustained growth in our fourth quarter, outperforming last year's Q4 and taking H2 '25 above H2 '24 as expected. This reflects our confidence in ENGIE's ability to deliver consistent and predictable growth over the coming years with a low point expected in 2026 net recurring income following the phase down of our nuclear activity.

Let's now turn to the evolution of ENGIE's EBIT over the first 9 months. As you can see, EBIT excluding nuclear stands at 6.3%. The headline story is very simple. It's one of investments and performance initiatives offsetting the impact of market normalization and lower volumes. On the negative side, indeed, we faced significant headwinds from FX and scope as well as from price and volatility, particularly within our supply and energy management activities, where market normalization led to lower reserve reversals and also reduced results on gas and LNG. One-off items such as positive impact of renegotiated gas contracts in 2024 and increase in 2025 for gas transport tariff also weighed on the results. Those impacts were partly compensated by the tariff increase in our French gas networks. Volumes were another challenge, especially in renewables, where lower resources in Europe, most notably hydro in France, but not only drove a substantial decline.

Networks also saw reduced consumption, particularly in Germany and France, contributing to the overall volume effect. However, these pressures were partly offset by strong commissioning activities, plus EUR 327 million with new assets in renewables, networks and local energy infrastructure coming online and contributing positively to EBIT. Performance improvements across all segments, a striking plus EUR 477 million, as Catherine was alluding to, added further support, demonstrating the effectiveness of our operational excellence and competitiveness programs as well as the successful upturn of some loss-making activities.

Other effects include notably the cost of our employee shareholding plan for a bit more than EUR 50 million. Nuclear EBIT is down EUR 577 million with negative volume effect linked to the permanent shutdown of Doel 1 in February '25 as well as conformity outages of Tihange 3 and Doel 4. This decrease is also explained by some lower prices captured in Europe.

In summary, while market normalization and lower volumes presented clear challenges, ENGIE's disciplined investment and performance initiatives are enabling us to land our EBIT trajectory at a much higher level than precrisis. If we review now ENGIE's EBIT evolution by reporting segments for the first 9 months, you should note that Renewable and Flex Power EBIT is negatively impacted by FX, minus EUR 75 million and by scope, minus EUR 97 million with exposure to Brazilian real and U.S. dollar for FX and also with disposal of cash generation assets in Singapore and Pakistan as well as the deconsolidation in Morocco.

Renewables and BESS activities decreased organically by EUR 136 million. This was due to the normalization of volumes in Europe as hydrology in France returned to more typical levels after exceptionally favorable conditions last year. Overall volume impact in Europe, net of the hydro tax amounts to EUR 419 million. This was partially offset by the very strong contribution of new commission assets, plus EUR 255 million and improved operational performance, plus EUR 55 million. Q4 should benefit from a softer base effect, also supporting a more positive outlook, significantly more positive outlook. We are also pleased to report that we have resolved all pending disputes with Nordex U.S.A. and ENGIE Renewables and the parties anticipate continuing their strong commercial relationship.

Turning to gas generation. EBIT declined by EUR 126 million organically. The main driver here was a continued drop in capture spreads in Europe, minus EUR 260 million, mostly in H1 and the high comparison base, however, this was partly balanced by favorable price effects internationally, especially in Chile and in Australia and the end, of course, of the inframarginal tax in France.

In Infra, the picture is positive. EBIT from networks increased by an impressive EUR 705 million, driven by tariff increases implemented last year and related to the new regulatory period. Strong performance in French activities and the annual revision of distribution tariff in France further supported results in Q3.

In Latin America, EBIT grew, thanks to new power line construction in Brazil and tariff indexation in both Brazil and Mexico. While the bulk of the profit increase was secured in H1 with the full impact of tariff increase in Europe, Q3 was a good quarter. Local Energy Infrastructure saw an organic EBIT decrease at EUR 36 million, which is actually an improvement versus the first half. The anticipated normalization of market prices impacted spread captured by cogeneration facilities, but this was mitigated by improved performance and selective development of new urban heating and cooling networks.

Moving to supply and Energy Management now. EBIT in B2C activities declined by EUR 131 million organically, mainly due to a strong and atypical year in 2024. Still, good margins in Europe and a market environment that allows for full valuation of risk helped cushion the impact and are supporting a full year ambition close to EUR 0.5 billion. B2B EBIT decreased organically by EUR 129 million, reflecting a drop in timing effect that had positively impacted the 9 months '24. But again, commercial performance remains solid with margins in line with expectations, and we are all set for a strong year.

Finally, Energy Management EBIT decreased by EUR 75 million organically, reflecting continued market normalization, softer activity due to geopolitical and economic uncertainties and lower market reserve releases compared to last year. A negative one-off related to gas transport tariff updates in Austria and the Netherlands also weighed on results in H1, whereas last year's third quarter benefited from a positive one-off linked to gas contract renegotiations.

Overall, SEM performance is on track, and we expect B2B plus Energy Management to land the year slightly below EUR 2 billion as we tailor our offerings to evolving client needs and adjust our contract time lines accordingly. So as we look across our segment, it's clear that '25 has kept us on our toes, whether it's the weather, the geopolitical uncertainty or energy market evolution. But beyond the granular explanation of each business and taking some steps back, despite persistent soft trading in EM, you can see in Q3 the first tangible signs of some parts of the business going back to growth. For R&D, volumes and prices headwinds are stalling. For generation in Europe and for ADI, the decrease of clean spark spreads, including hedging is now largely behind us. And throughout the organization, our performance efforts are gaining momentum. With our team's agility and the portfolio built for all seasons, we are ready to keep moving forward.

Let's now focus on ENGIE's cash flow from operations for the first 9 months. Again, our ability to generate cash remains exceptionally strong, supported by disciplined working capital management and a solid operational performance. One thing to mention is the positive cash impact from the phase down of our nuclear activities, which has contributed to a reduction in working cap for about EUR 700 million. This effect, combined with stable operating cash flow and the positive impact of lower gas prices on storage has enabled us to sustain cash generation at a very high level. For the period, cash flow from operations stands at EUR 11.4 billion, confirming ENGIE's robust fundamentals and our capacity to navigate changing market conditions. The strong cash generation and that we expect to continue is a key enabler of our strategy. It does fund our performance efforts in digital and restructuring, our investment program in generation, flexibility and infra and last but not least, healthy dividend to our shareholders.

Let's now turn to ENGIE's credit ratios and debt profile as of September '25. Our leverage ratios remained stable and well within our targets with net financial debt to EBITDA at 2.5x and economic net debt to EBITDA at 3.2x. Over the period, net financial debt increased to EUR 36 billion, driven by the cash out impact of the nuclear deal in Belgium. Our cash flow from operation has more than financed maintenance and growth investments in addition to supporting dividend payments. It is worth noting that other impacts amounting to a decrease of EUR 0.3 billion debt includes the effect of disposals for EUR 0.7 billion. Economic net debt stands at EUR 46.4 billion, down from EUR 47.9 billion at the end of 2024. The group balance sheet continues to improve, driven by disciplined working cap management and the powerful cash machines at our gas networks and downstream operations. In short, ENGIE's financial structure is rock solid, providing us with the flexibility to invest, reward our shareholders and meet our long-term commitment even as we navigate the complexities of the energy transition.

Now let's wrap up with ENGIE's full year '25 guidance. Guidance remains unchanged. However, we expect now to reach the upper half of the range for EBIT excluding nuclear, and the upper end for net recurring income group share. This reflects the group's strong operational performance and well-controlled financial expenses due to strong cash generation. Our dividend policy remains attractive with a payout ratio of 65%, 75% based on net recurring income and a floor set at EUR 1.10 per share. Our strong investment-grade rating is maintained, and we continue to target an economic net debt-to-EBITDA ratio below 4 over the long term. Key assumptions for the year include updated market commodity prices and foreign exchange rates, average weather condition and recurring net financial costs between EUR 1.9 billion and EUR 2.1 billion. The recurring effective tax rate is expected to be in the 24%, 26% range, including the special tax in France.

Looking ahead, we expect Renewables and Flex to deliver healthy EBIT growth in Q4, and we anticipate a very solid Q4 in B2B, continuing the momentum established in Q3 for the quarters that are not fully representative of the longer-term trend as the tail of market normalization for B2B will still impact 2026. We expect Energy Management to deliver growth in the fourth quarter versus Q4 '24 with results stabilizing in the middle of our midterm guidance in the years ahead, of course, subject to the usual ups and downs and market volatility. Q1 2025 benefited from unusually high market volatility, which set a strong benchmark. While Q1 '26 may not reach the same level, we expect solid fundamentals to continue supporting performance throughout the year.

In summary, ENGIE is well positioned to deliver on its commitments with robust earnings, disciplined financial management, strong balance sheet and a clear strategy for shareholder returns.

With that, I pass it back to Catherine.

All right. Thank you, Pierre-Francois. So to conclude, the first 9 months have seen excellent execution of our growth and performance strategy. And looking forward, we will continue to build on our track record of strong delivery. We will continue to push through our cultural transformation, make fullest use of our portfolio, which is built for all seasons, and we will continue to develop and engage our top-class teams for the benefit of all our stakeholders.

Now back to Delphine for the Q&A.

Thank you, Catherine. Operator, can you please open the lines to Q&A.

[Operator Instructions] The first question comes from Alex Roncier of Bank of America.

I have three, if I may. The first one is on operational performance. And I think we've seen good and/or improving results in flexible generation and commodity trading at some of your peers and within the wider energy sector actually. So I'm surprised a bit by the guidance upgrade today that is not necessarily supported by that. But equally, I wanted to check with you that perhaps given the more volatile than expected power markets this year, you had to book more market provisions this year perhaps than expected. You did talk, I think, about lower release, which is somehow equivalent, which could explain some of the upper end conservatism in the guidance there for those specific drivers, but would support earnings into next year, I would assume.

Second question, if I'm not mistaken, your guidance to 2027 does include some not -- insignificant M&A, in particular in networks. And given that opportunities are not easily seen today, at least on my side, and given the increased focus on storage at the European level, the pipeline you had acquired in U.S. and your overall strategy of 24/7 green energy, why would you not take the route of active power networks investment instead of passive ones and really boost your CapEx allocation to batteries?

Last question. If I'm not mistaken, you said the 22% to 25% recurring effective tax rate for the '25, '27 guidance was excluding potentially new French taxes. So wondering if you could give some more number around that. I think you guided previously to around EUR 150 million perhaps of extra taxes in France for 2025. Any view on the current budget and potential impact, being mindful, of course, that everything could collapse in the coming weeks.

Okay. I will start maybe with one and three. And Catherine, you will pick the number two. So yes, there is indeed some volatility in power markets. But when you double down on the numbers, you see, for example, that the intraday volatility has been reducing. You see also that the bid-ask is not what it was. And that does explain why indeed, we have a lower -- also reversal of reserves. It's also because we had a lot in '24. So you always need to look when we explain year-on-year to what was the reference. And in 2024, we had to release significant reserves. So I would not say that we have been booking more. Actually, again, the volatility -- some KPIs on the volatilities are rather going down, and we had actually less to book even if compared to '24, of course, we released less. And we are not that pleased with the current market in EM and Q3 is still soft as it was in Q2. That's not a surprise, and you may have seen that in the market everywhere. And that we have seen as well, not that much on power, but more on gas.

On the tax rate, yes, the rate is -- our guidance is 24%, 26%. It does include the French [indiscernible] tax or extra tax, whatever for about 1.3%. I think it does account in these numbers. One thing which is important is that -- we -- you know that we have -- indeed, with the Belgian transaction, we are in a situation where holdings now are potentially more efficient in terms of tax, and that is supporting a lower tax rate in the long run. But we have not taken any consequence of that in 2025, and we do not plan to. That's the reason why you see that kind of guidance. It doesn't mean that we will not do it in the years to come. And our long-term view on tax is more lenient than what you see in 2025. That doesn't mean, of course, that there won't be an extra tax in '26 in France and maybe some other countries because you may have noticed that many countries are running for money. So we are on our toes and defending, of course, our position. But so far, we have not identified anything that would jeopardize our global view and also our ability to manage our tax rate in the long run.

And maybe just to add to the noise that we are hearing from Parliament as a lot of quite exotic measures are being voted by the current parliamentary sessions, the probability or the likelihood that all this noise gets materialized into the real budget at the end is actually quite low at this stage. So obviously, we're monitoring the situation. But as you guys know, there is a difference between all the noise and what will actually happen eventually.

And then maybe a point on our investment strategy. Just to remind that we have obviously 2 levers we want to action to deploy the growth and the strategy of ENGIE to further the utility and the energy transition. It's generation, green power, green electrons and indeed, in the network arena, it's about power networks. And we believe that we have a very clear capital allocation policy along these 2 levers. What is for sure is that -- on the generation, we are probably more excited than before on the opportunity set on batteries and in general storage, but battery for sure. We were very U.S. focused. And when you look at our numbers, most of our operating batteries today are in the U.S. But lately, you will see, and I showed that in my prepared remarks that there is an acceleration finally in Europe. There is also opportunities, obviously, that we are seizing in the markets where we are present in Latin America. Chile is a good example of that. But Europe is really behind. Europe has been very ahead on renewables.

Also distributed solar is proving its limitation in some markets with a lot of negative hours. And here, batteries are very, very urgent. So in our key markets in Europe, we are accelerating on batteries, and that was obviously, the purpose of the examples I gave you. So remember, when we said to 2030 and 95 gigawatt, that used to be 80 gigawatt on renewables. So now it allows for quite a big envelope on battery and energy storage for sure.

And on Power Networks, as you guys know, we're very focused on what we can do organically in Latin America. Inorganic, we are looking at it. We said that we would take some time. We'll be patient because, obviously, we want to do the right thing. But we do believe that is the right path to go on, and we will deliver on that strategy. Timing, obviously, will depend on a lot of things.

The next question is from Harry Wyburd of BNP Paribas Exane.

So two for me. So first, it's probably one for Catherine. On gas, just thinking about the overall group strategy here. I think the strategy over the last few years has mainly been on, as you said, the green electrons. And for a while now, you've had a target or a long-term target to reduce gas capacity. But I'm wondering in Europe, given all of the newfound excitement again over data centers, I mean, I'd say my observation would be that in Europe, your biggest issue around that topic or indeed any other -- of the many other drivers of demand is around the peaks and particularly around the sort of [indiscernible] times when you don't have any winds. And given you have one of the biggest gas fleets in Europe, is there scope perhaps for a rethink on that? I mean the way I see it, you're going to be building tons of batteries and you alluded to that seeing an uptick in Europe, that's going to dilute the daily evening spark spreads. And really, the end game here, if you look at the sort of resource adequacy reports from ENTSO-E is that probably you're going to have to move to a capacity market system everywhere in Europe and capacity payments are going to go up to make sure these gas plants all stay open.

So is there anything you can say to us to maybe make us a bit more interested or even excited about how much you could earn from your gas fleet in Europe, which I think we all value at a pretty low multiple. So that's the first point. And the second one is the next time you speak to us early next year, you're probably going to come out with maybe some new longer-term targets and thoughts. Has there been any advance on your thinking about how you might grow the dividend from next year? And indeed, the earnings because, of course, as you mentioned, earnings are going to trough next year. Any views on what we could think about as a sustainable long-term EPS CAGR from ENGIE once earnings trough next year?

All right. I think -- Harry, I think you did the question, but also the answer because I mean, you're totally right. We are obviously super excited about the value that is carried by our CCGT fleet in Europe. And you're very right that batteries are really, really important, but they tend to be a fantastic complement to solar. When you don't have wind in Europe, it generally typically lasts for a few more than -- a little bit more than just a few hours. And here, the gas plants play a critical, critical role, plus the gas can be stored. So you really have a very important power insurance in these gas fleets. And you can see that the CRMs indeed, which we saw first deployed in Belgium actually pioneering a little bit the scheme, but now is being deployed at a varied degree of speed in many, many other countries in Europe, and that's obviously a positive for Gas fleet.

So we are excited. In fact, if you look at the load factor in Europe recently, you have seen that -- we have seen that the load factors have increased. If you remember, last year, we were at about 15%, and now we are above 20%. So they are actually being called more, which is exactly reflecting the reality that you are describing. So Yes, overall, we are really -- I mean, we like our gas fleet. We have just put Flémalle online under the CRM scheme in Belgium. And Flémalle is for sure going to contribute to the security of supply and play that role. So that's for sure. And of course, eventually, we'll have to make sure that we can decarbonize the gas. But frankly, we see that the CCGT play a role for years to come and a nice complement to a battery. And so that's great asset for us.

In terms of the dividend, we're very, very attached to the consistency of our dividend policy. And as you know, it has this 65% to 75% of net recurring income formula that has not changed, and we like that. Obviously, the way we have shaped ENGIE and our aim is really to make sure that we deliver this predictable gentle earnings trajectory, which will turn and should turn into a gently growing dividend for our shareholders. That's our intention. Obviously, a bit early to talk about next year's dividends, and we'll come back to you in February. We're hearing from the market this eagerness to see this trajectory materialize. But let's talk about it again in February.

Just an add on EPS CAGR. Going forward, I think that -- I mean, clearly, we are pleased with the development of operation in Q3. And of course, we see some headwinds. I mean, clearly, the regulations are unstable in some countries. FX is not pointing into the right direction. I mentioned that the volatility for EM was lower in Q2, Q3, but this is a short-term point. On the other side, again, we see that Renewables are still going at pace in some significant geographies for us like India, like in Middle East. Power demand, clearly, we see that it's going in the right direction. Expectations are rising actually in the U.S. and in Europe. And also the interest rates, I mean, clearly, we had a peak and now it looks like we are going back to a normal level, and we are very pleased with the way we have been handling that in the future. So there are pros and cons. I think that today, what we see in the business -- at the end of the day, our growth is delivering EBIT. Our performance plan is getting momentum at pace. So yes, we see the good drivers of a sound EPS CAGR from 2026. And the story that we shared in the market update is absolutely the good one, and we stick to it.

The next question is from Ajay Patel of Goldman Sachs.

I guess mine is around Slide 7, where you highlight the booming data center demand slide and your capabilities to take advantage of it. I'm thinking, well, look, at the moment, your current CapEx program didn't really have that much demand growth put into it. And it feels by this presentation like your confidence on leveraging ENGIE's portfolio to take advantage of this demand is effectively pointing to more CapEx, more opportunity, more growth. So I'm trying to think, well, as your targets roll, are we going to see ENGIE demonstrate that leveraging in the form of CapEx, i.e., you'll start to see the benefits of it in CapEx programs?

And then the other thing is just on also capital allocation. As you see it, as this has developed, has this maybe changed the emphasis in the geographies? Any insight, any sort of high-level things here would be really helpful.

And then more of a just specific numbers question. Just wanted to check if there are any one-offs that I need to take into account for Q4 when modeling the full year results, just make sure that I've got everything in the bridge.

Yes. So Ajay, just to -- the price and the opportunity that we see in data centers for ENGIE today is threefold. It's speed to power, and this is really about leveraging our existing footprint to co-site, co-locate data center near existing energy assets and taking advantage of the fact that we have connection, we have land, we have acceptability levers. We are in an ecosystem that we know very much, and we can partner with specific data centers to allow them to develop their data centers faster, including helping them on the energy side. Then we have decarbonization on energy addition depending on what your driver is, and this is about PPAs. This is about 24/7. And this is really about supporting our renewable developments.

So the reason why we don't see today any need to have dedicated additional CapEx allocated to that is that this is in our underlying CapEx plan to get to the 95 gigawatts. But think of it as very supportive about -- of the quality of those gigawatts. Because obviously, when you provide energy to data center, you are providing something. And as you guys know, the cost sharing of operating a data center, the energy part is actually quite significant. And so we are an important supplier to them. There is scarcity. And so this is supportive to obviously the quality of the gigawatts that we have in our portfolio developing our renewables assets.

One point here, which is really important is as you -- I'm sure you know, data centers, the acceptability topic is gaining importance. And why is that? Because if data center is only a load and doesn't contribute to energy addition, then will turn into increase cost inflation for the people, for the consumers and the acceptability is going to be a problem. We see signs of that already in a few places, particularly in the United States. So this whole notion that data centers need to contribute to the energy transition, the energy addition is obviously supportive for us in terms of having renewable projects an impact on PPA. But again, not necessarily additional CapEx for us, at least not that we see today.

And then the last point, which is, in general, it's more plain vanilla B2B. So here, it's supportive to our B2B business. This is more traditional energy contracts. Again, here, there's not much CapEx associated with that, which is why you don't see these numbers. Then the question about the capital allocation. Obviously, U.S. -- I mean, as you guys know, we have a good plan on capital allocation in the U.S.. Data center is a big driver for quick energy addition in the United States. Caveating this, the fact that there is this uncertainty on permitting, for example, tariffs and that we are working around, we're managing quite well. But we have decreased a little bit our capital allocation in the U.S., not because we don't like the data center, not because we don't have customers that want what we can provide, but really because there is a bit too much uncertainty to our liking to deploy as much as we thought we would. Maybe that will change. That's a nice thing about the U.S., things change quickly. But right now, we are a little bit less -- shy in the U.S. We are excited about other places.

Europe, obviously, even though the scale in Europe is not significant, but we are seeing data, digital sovereignty big topics in Europe where people want to have data center in their country. So that's one opportunity. And then the other opportunity somehow related to data center is in the Middle East and India. In these regions, it's very interesting what's happening because here, again, it's not so much about ideology, but obviously, the need to have power, fast power and a lot of power, competitive power. And here, obviously, depending on the resources, renewables are very attractive, which is why we are able to do big projects. The one that we signed in Abu Dhabi is obviously fitting well on this criteria.

May I just add [indiscernible] just on the [indiscernible] securing land [indiscernible] what degree does that [indiscernible] this proposition of basically maybe signing a contract with a data center, developing a site. Can you give us any order of magnitude what kind of value it creates because it's quite a number of sites.

Sorry, I'm just silent because I'm trying to understand the question. I mean it creates -- it's the value that you can derive from having something someone wants. It creates the value that you can derive from having a partnership with a data center. And obviously, it's supportive. Now to be honest, these projects, they take a long time to develop because obviously, they are quite complicated. So today, we have numbers. It's a single-digit number of projects of that kind that we are working through. and it takes some time to develop because they are quite complex. But eventually, obviously, these will be good deals because we have something quite unique that these guys need and want. And so these are good partnerships. But in terms of numbers and time, it takes a bit of time to develop.

Maybe just to cover your third question, which is not allowed, but still -- any one-off in Q4. By design, one-offs are not supposed to be known in advance. That being said, what we know is that Q4, there was, last year, quite a chunky number of negative one-offs. Part of it also being -- we are very keen to make sure that when we close our books, we prepare for the future, and we also discuss with our customers so we can actually help them to manage the energy transition. And you can expect that in Q4, to a certain extent, there will be also the same kind of deals that we can structure. You remember in H1, we said that we are a bit under pressure, [indiscernible], I mean maybe you should indicate that you are going to land above mid point and say, no, we want to make sure that we can deliver a good 2025, but also taking in account the request of our customers. So we are in that situation. So I think that we will deliver a strong Q4 that we are pretty confident in and that will still allow some room to accommodate the request of our customers and our views on the market.

The next question is from Louis Boujard from ODDO.

I will stick to two questions then. And maybe the first one would be related to the performance of the plan. Your performance plan has contributed to more or less EUR 500 million in the first 9 months, which is, I think, quite strong. Can you elaborate on the key levers that enable this performance in terms of cost base, procurement, generation efficiency or other elements that could have sustained it? And to which extent it could be sustainable going forward according to you and if it could enlarge in the future?

And the second topic would be -- maybe more related to current uncertain environment, I would say. I appreciate that you already provided some indication regarding the Supply & Trading future business performance. But considering the evolution of the lower volatility in the energy markets and potentially lower gas prices that could come in the future, do you continue to see that it's going to remain in the same level that you initially anticipated for '26 to '27? Or do you foresee eventually some headwinds to adjust this target on the Supply & Trading business?

Maybe I'll start to talk a little bit about the performance plan because, yes, indeed, we are really happy with the progress. And we have 3 key big buckets. We have the operational excellence. We have what we call a C2, the Competitiveness & Culture. And then there is the loss-making entities. The loss-making entities has been quite strongly contributing because unfortunately, we did have a few loss-making entities. So the reversal and the correction of these entities is contributing to the plan. So this contribution of the loss-making entities is a bit front-loaded. That is expecting to come down, while the other pieces of the plan obviously will take on momentum, which is why we are following very closely the C2 and its impact on the performance result. And that's why I pointed out to the fact that it is indeed gaining momentum, and we're expecting it to gain more momentum towards the end of the plan, towards the end of the period in relation. So we have said about between EUR 1 billion and EUR 1.3 billion over the period of contribution to performance plan. And given these good results in 2025, obviously, we're comfortable that we will deliver on this with a bit of a different mix.

And in terms of example, I gave a few, the span and layer. And these are really important because they contribute to the numbers, but they also help us be more efficient, change the culture, increase transparency. It has agility, the speed, the digital systems deployment are faster. So it has a lot of other benefits than obviously just contributing to the EBIT. So that's really very exciting. And of course, procurement continues to be a big lever as well that was fairly untapped at the group scale a few years ago. And now we are really working through making sure that every business benefits from these procurement gains also helped by the deployment of our ERP system, which is in early phase, but also allows us to further our procurement gains.

And then customer environment. So for sure, the margins that we have embarked in our deals in general have a little bit correlated with the absolute value of the energy price. On the other hand, as we are driving our business to be more power and within power, to be more green power, we see that we are able to support good margins by shifting our business in that sense. And the other thing that we are seeing with our customers today is that they tend to want to strike longer-term deals. So the longevity of our contract or the tenure of our contract is increasing, and this is really good because it gives us obviously more visibility on the earnings of the supply business specifically. I'm not talking about energy management, but supply the B2B, where we are seeing more predictability. We have more visibility on this business than ever because of this trend to have longer tenure in terms of contracts.

And we -- I think that we did indeed socialize some numbers on the contribution of the former GEMS, you remember, I'm sure, before and saying that after normalization, the contribution should come north of EUR 1.5 billion. And to your question, we are still comfortable with this view, even if you're right. I mean, today, we have rather at the low end of the volatility in the market. But -- so therefore, lower EM contribution, which -- that we had in 2025. But again, the point that Catherine made about B2B and the commercial margins, the longer duration of contract is a clear support to that, and that gives us confidence that we can indeed confirm what we said about the contribution of these businesses.

And with regard to B2C also, we are for, again, a more normal year. And I had the opportunity to mention in H1 that today, our hedging, our sourcing process in B2C has been drastically improved during the crisis. It gives us more comfort and more visibility and our capabilities to stick to this good contribution and grow it actually in the future throughout the years.

The next question is from James Brand of Deutsche Bank.

Just a couple of questions on data centers, surprise, surprise. First question, could you give us any details around how we should be thinking about pricing when you're signing a PPA? You obviously highlighted you signed a lot of PPAs in the last quarter and in general. Are you broadly pricing in line with the forward curve? Or is there a premium? And if there is a premium, is there anything you can say about how material it is? I obviously accept that this is quite commercially sensitive. But anything you can say on that would be super interesting.

And then you mentioned the scale in Europe is -- I think you said not significant. I don't know if you meant not as significant as the U.S. But I guess my question is, obviously, European markets are not particularly tight at the moment, and you're seeing the margins coming down rather than up for the gas fleet. And obviously, in the last few years, we've seen overall demand come down quite materially in the major European countries. So the question is kind of if we do start to see demand picking up meaningfully over the next few years, like how long do you think it will take before we start to actually see some tightness before the volatility picks up again for the gas fleet? Obviously, it depends a bit on the market, but are there any kind of general comments that you can make that kind of help us conceptualize when demand growth will start to drive market tightness in Europe?

Okay. So PPA dynamics. So we signed 3.1 to date. So we are pretty much in line with what we did last year with a bit of a contrasted market between the United States and Europe. Europe is a little bit more -- it's a bit softer PPA market, and that obviously translates into less premium over market price. In the U.S., there is indeed a premium for PPAs over market price, and it is sizable without going too specific, but it is -- indeed PPA prices are higher than what you can see in the forward. So this dynamic explains why we are pleased with what we've done, but we are not seeing 2025 much higher. We don't expect 2025 to be higher than 2024 just on the basis of the first 3 months on the basis of Europe being a little bit more -- less busy, let's say, as the United States. In terms of the demand dynamic in Europe, and again, you have to be careful when we talk about volatility because we do see intraday volatility in Europe today, even though that the demand has not been super strong. And this is, frankly, the reflection of the asset mix, which is why we are so excited about batteries and the CCGTs in terms of load factor and the start-stop and et cetera, which play fully their role today.

The demand in 2025 on power in Europe today is increasing a little bit year-on-year. I think it's about 1%. So we're starting to see a little bit of demand pick up. And expectation is that it will continue, obviously, on the basis of the electrification. You've seen that European commitment to climate targets is still strong. Even though there are questions about, for example, electrification of vehicles, 2035 might allow for hybrid vehicles. Still, we do think -- and there is still the heat pump demand that is being pushed by quite a few member states. So we do think that demand for power will pick up. I don't know for how long it will take to get to the same level as the U.S., but we do expect power demand to increase in the coming years. Remember also that there is the demand, but there is also supply. And on the supply side, there is quite a few assets that are being retired in Europe. So we don't need a much demand increase to see tightness on the supply side. If we don't continue to develop the right renewables, the right storage and all that stuff, that needs to continue in order to just replace what is being retired in various countries, not to mention, obviously, the one in Belgium, the 5 reactors that we are stopping, but Germany is also stopping quite a few assets.

The next question is from Arthur Sitbon of Morgan Stanley.

I have two. The first one is a follow-up question on the performance plan. So you did very well in the first 9 months of the year and you seem quite ahead of your target for the plan. I was wondering if we should understand from that, that this is one of the key pillars you will develop on at full year results when I imagine you would provide 2028 targets? And how important is it going to be as a vehicle -- driver for your earnings growth post trough in 2026. And I was wondering as well if you could just tell us in the EUR 477 million, if all of that is a cash improvement on EBIT or if part of that is noncash?

And the second question is, as you were flagging lots of different amendments and taxes were proposed in France as part of the budget discussion. I think several of them could apply to you. There is one on power margin cap, one on a change on the corporate tax calculation methodology. I was wondering if you could just flag to us maybe the ones that even if we're not sure that they will, at the end of the day, be adopted, the ones that could be the most material to you and if you have a rough sense of how material they would be if ever they were to get implemented?

Thank you very much, Arthur. So we are not going to comment the full year results ahead of the full year results on the performance plan. Very pleased indeed with the strong start. Of course, performance plan will be a solid and sustainable pillar of our growth in earnings for many years, and that goes beyond '27. You're right, there will be some coming in '28, of course. Now it's important to mention and you know, I'm the CFO, so I'm the guy who is always looking at the half empty glass. It's important that we deliver on performance. This year, it was important for us because we had headwind in FX and the performance plan start was coming nicely to match what we were missing in translating some of the earnings abroad. So I think it's also -- be careful that we do manage globally our results. So yes, performance plan, a strong pillar that will stay. And I'm pleased to report that most of it indeed is cash. It doesn't mean necessarily in EBIT because there might be some costs which have been last year booked elsewhere. But really, it's cash which is moving in big time.

And then on French taxes, I mean, we -- again, we see a lot of fireworks going everywhere. So far, we have not seen -- first, as Catherine said, I mean we need to stay calm and look at what is going to come through at the very end of it, and we don't know yet. There are sometimes even some provisions which contradict each other. So when our experts try to figure out what does that mean, just cannot make it. So I think that so far -- but we have not identified a catastrophe that I can tell you. But now we need to go through the full process, and we will see what comes out of it. But so far, we are reasonably confident that should land in something which is manageable for us.

Operator, can we take one last question, please?

And the final question is from Bartek Kubicki of Bernstein.

Two questions. First of all, I would like to discuss your PPA book in the U.S. If you could maybe tell us a little bit what is the duration of this PPA book and what is the size? And consequently, where I'm going to is, when those PPAs expire, do you see a potential for margins improvement in the U.S. or to the contrary? That's in the light of the increasing power demand. So consequently, can your existing renewables portfolio in the U.S. increase in profitability in the future or rather decrease given the power demand?

Second of all, if we can go for your B2B book. I just wonder if we translate whatever you are saying into an absolute margin per megawatt hour of power sold, do you currently see those margins on new contracts increasing or decreasing versus the prior contracts? And this lower volatility or normalization of volatility, what specifically it impacts in your B2B portfolio? Because I guess, on one hand, you have increasing power demand. But on the other hand, you also have, for instance, decreasing gas prices and decreasing volatility. So I just wonder how to understand it better what exactly moves up and down in your B2B portfolio.

Maybe just in the U.S., our PPAs, obviously, they tend to be quite long term. And our renewable portfolio in the U.S. is actually quite young. So right now, the PPAs are ongoing. And so we don't have a lot of expiration, at least not in the short term. In theory, you're right to point out that existing assets in the current environment and hopefully, that environment is here to stay, they have the value of the PPA today, but they will have the value of future green power, existing green power at the right place for future customers. So we see that value. But today, the PPAs are still quite young in the U.S. So we'll have to be a little bit patient to value that. Do you want to say a few comments on...

Yes, sure. It's a very good one, Bartek. So if we take B2B, so you remember, and we have been pretty open about that. We have about 75%, 3/4 of the business, which is pure B2B market where we are selling and you're right to point to the commercial margin. What we have seen in our portfolio is that the commercial margin over the last 2, 3 years, has been actually pretty stable, maybe slightly down. And of course, part of it is coming from the prices, which are coming down. You cannot book the same absolute numbers margin depending on the absolute price of energy. But the mix has been actually going in the right direction because, again, more power rather than on gas, more green power rather than gray power. Also lengthening the duration, lengthening the duration helped to keep margins at a decent level because, of course, there is a risk management. So all in all, I mean, we have been pretty good actually in defending the absolute margin level of the portfolio, again, with a limited decrease. And to be very candid, that's one of the reasons why we have been able to keep our former gen business at a very strong level for more than expected because clearly, the market is today pricing the quality in these margin.

And then there is a second part of the business, which is more limited, where we do book quantities and volumes with some customers, but then we have risk management. And the margins on this category of customers, which are significant customers, they are slightly small, but then we have risk management, and we can make money out of the portfolio out of managing the risk for these same customers, and that is more exposed to volatility. So I would not say there is none in B2B, but much less -- and because we have, again, this big bulk of contribution coming from now a duration of contract, which is above 3 years. So it's a big change also compared to where we were a few years ago. So that's why we are very happy with this business with much stronger visibility.

So this is the end of the Q&A session. Thank you for joining the call today. And of course, if you have any follow-up questions, do not hesitate to reach out the IR team. Wishing you a very good day. Thank you.