Fortum Stock

Good afternoon, everyone. A warm welcome to Fortum's webcast for the investor community and today's announcement of the historical and very significant strategic partnership and long-term PPA that Fortum and Google have signed.

My name is Ingela Ulfves, and I'm heading Investor Relations at Fortum. As always, this event is being recorded, and you will find a replay on our website later today.

With me here in the studio, as you can see, is our President and CEO, Markus Rauramo. Markus will briefly present the key strategic highlights and what this partnership and PPA means for Fortum. And following the presentation, we will then take your questions. We have reserved approximately 30 minutes for this event.

So without further ado, I now hand over to Markus to start.

Thank you very much, Ingela. A warm welcome to this call also from my side. Today, Fortum and Google have announced a historical long-term strategic partnership that represents much more than a commercial agreement. It's a unique partnership that supports growth, competitiveness and long-term prosperity, not only for Fortum, but also for Finland.

This extensive strategic partnership with Google is deeply founded in our 2 main strategic priorities: to deliver reliable energy to our customers and to drive decarbonization in industries.

At Fortum, growing together with our customers is at the core of our strategy. We provide reliable energy at scale, and we work with our customers to support their growth and decarbonization ambitions. Long-term partnerships like this one are a concrete example of our strategy in action.

In today's world, partnerships are essential for creating the conditions needed for investments in new power generation, while providing customers with a reliable and low-carbon energy. I'm particularly proud that Fortum can play a role as the energy partner in enabling Google's ambitions, as they expand their operations, create new jobs, invest in innovation and strengthen Finland's position as a leading destination for digital and AI-driven growth.

I will very briefly go through the reasons why we invest in the Nordics and what the current power demand projections in the Nordics are. After that, I will present the main points of our agreement with Google.

As we have been highlighting already for quite some time, the Nordics is a very attractive market for various industrial companies, including data centers to establish their businesses in. There are a few clear reasons. One is the power price level. There are large variations between power prices in Europe, while the Nordics have the most affordable prices.

Central Europe has roughly doubled the power price today. Lower prices in the Nordics are enabled by the energy mix, hydro, nuclear and renewables with basically no fossil fuels. The energy mix also means very low carbon emissions. Further, our power grid is robust, and we have good infrastructure, for example, roads, railroads, harbors.

There is an abundance of land and water areas and possibilities for waste heat recovery and use. We have also skilled workforce, just to mention a few credentials. Large-scale land areas also enable us to build more supply when power demand increases.

The interconnection capacity between Nordics and Central Europe is expected to grow to more than 13 gigawatts by the end of this year. This means that more than 100 terawatt hours export and import possibilities between these energy markets.

Cables are owned by the Nordic transmission system operators, the TSOs and are working automatically. This means that in case of potential market tightness, power flows in both directions.

Then over to the very interesting topic, power demand projections and how power consumption could evolve over time. Power consumption is anticipated to increase significantly across various industrial sectors in the Nordic region.

According to the latest TSO forecast, power demand is expected to grow from the current 400 terawatt hours to 550 terawatt hours by year 2030. By 2050, demand is estimated to increase even up to 975 terawatt hours per year, which means that annual demand will more than double from the current level. Naturally, the very long term is uncertain, but this gives an indication of the direction.

The main take is, however, that certain sectors, especially data centers, are increasing demand already today, while other industrial sectors seem to grow further out in time. At Fortum, based on our discussions with customers, we continue to see robust underlying demand from various industrial sectors, and we believe that it well reflects power demand growth longer term. There is a lot of customer activity ongoing with a large amount of various planned industrial projects across the Nordics.

Today's agreement with Google is one concrete proof point of this activity. Data centers are the most active sector right now, and they are also likely to have the fastest time to market, which is why we see power demand from data centers to increase before larger industrial projects. We are prepared to respond to this increasing demand.

With this as a backdrop, let's have a look at what the strategic partnership with Google means. The strategic partnership agreement consists of 2 main elements: a long-term PPA, power purchase agreement and an MOU, memorandum of understanding. The agreement is related to the lifetime extension of the Loviisa nuclear power plant and has a duration of 22 years.

The PPA starts in 2028 with a smaller capacity before it reaches 50% of the Loviisa plant's capacity during the years 2030, 2049. This PPA provides an important foundation for the future. It gives Fortum the long-term visibility and the economic certainty needed to invest the better part of EUR 1 billion in extending the plant's lifetime and improving its performance.

This is the first large-scale nuclear PPA in the Nordics and also one of the first ones outside the United States. This is also Google's first PPA related to nuclear lifetime extension globally. Furthermore, this is one of the biggest, if not the biggest sales agreement ever signed by a Finnish company and definitely the biggest sales agreement that Fortum has ever made.

Consequently, this is a very meaningful business agreement in many respects. We are very proud and very pleased to have been chosen as Google's reliable and trusted strategic partner.

We have 2 reactors in Loviisa. So the PPA basically accounts for half of Loviisa's total capacity, i.e., 1 unit. As we have earlier said, the plant is expected to generate up to 177 terawatt hours of electricity during the extended lifetime.

We are also very pleased that Google, like us, values the nuclear lifetime extension as a viable solution for fossil-free power. At Fortum, we believe that there is ample potential to increase renewable energy production as well as opportunities for lifetime extensions and capacity increases in nuclear reactors in the Nordics.

For competitive reasons, we have not disclosed the price of this PPA. However, what we say is that the PPA supports Fortum's profitability targets, and it is expected to increase the group's comparable return on net assets RONA by approximately 1.4 percentage points over time when 50% of the plant's capacity is contracted, which is starting from 2030. During the years 2028, 2029, the PPA is based on smaller capacity.

In addition to the PPA, we have also agreed on several other cooperation areas under a memorandum of understanding. This includes asset development, energy portfolio management, new build nuclear and site development.

To enable sustainable future growth, Fortum will develop future energy solutions for Google related to new renewables, BESS and flexibility solutions. These include, for example, batteries and pumped hydro. We will together explore various models to manage and optimize Google's energy portfolio in Finland.

As a first step, Fortum has signed an agreement with Google to optimize a new 94-megawatt battery storage system, which Google has contracted for to be located adjacent to Google's new data center in Kajaani.

We're also looking into possibilities for nuclear new build in Loviisa longer term together with Google. It also means exploring the conditions required for future nuclear investments. Together, we will examine business models that could enable new nuclear power to be developed in Loviisa, where Fortum has already made preparations and acquired additional land for potential future projects.

Already for a while, Fortum has developed various industrial sites to help our customers with their market entry. As part of the agreement with Google, we will, in cooperation with Google, look more concretely into their future needs for sites in the Nordics. We are very pleased that our strategic ambition to develop sites for our customers will start to materialize and that we are getting traction from our customers for powered land.

This agreement is a good example of how we can holistically serve our customer in a strategic energy partnership. This partnership is not only good for Fortum and Google, it is also good for Finland.

As Google today announced, their investments are expected to amount to as much as EUR 13 billion during the years 2027 and 2028, supporting more than 37,000 jobs nationwide and giving an annual boost of EUR 3.6 billion to Finland's GDP.

For many years, we have spoken about the opportunities created by electrification and digitalization. We believe that Finland could become one of the leading beneficiaries of these powerful global trends.

By combining low carbon and fossil-free energy, technological innovation and long-term industrial investment, we can strengthen Finland's competitiveness, create growth and jobs and build a more prosperous future.

I'm sure that you will have several questions, so I will stop here, and we can start the Q&A session, and I will hand over to Ingela. Please, Ingela.

[Operator Instructions]

So thank you, Markus. And we are, as said, now ready for your questions. [Operator Instructions].

The next question comes from Harry Wyburd from BNP Paribas.

I'll reluctantly keep myself to the one question, although there are clearly loads more. I know you can't disclose the price, and I know you've agreed not to. What I'm going to do is run through some logic. And if I could ask if you could tell me if there's anything that's not logical that I'm saying here, and this is really going to help us understand the economics of this. So looking at the volumes involved, half of Loviisa is about 4 terawatt hours per annum. Your current net assets are about EUR 9 billion and 1.4% of EUR 9 billion, i.e., the uplift is around about -- would be around about EUR 130 million. So if I back the 4 terawatt hours into the EUR 130 million, that would kind of suggest a EUR 30 gigawatt hour uplift here?

And then if we consider what the base could be [indiscernible] long-term prices plus the finished area premiums, I guess if we ignore the last couple of weeks when prices have moved a lot in July and August were probably around 50. So if we took a 50-ish base plus a 30 premium, you'd be looking at something around 80. I know you can't comment on the price, but maybe you could just comment a bit on the logic. Is there something that we've missed or miscalculated there?

And then maybe last clause to it, you said over time, what does that actually mean? Is that the terminal uplift as in like at the end of the 22 years? Is it the middle? Could you give color on how it ramps or it's relatively flat?

Yes. Thank you for the good question. And I think this -- being a former CFO, this would be an approach that I would also take. But indeed, we have agreed with Google that we do not agree or do not disclose the commercial terms of the PPA. So the contract price, we do not disclose.

What we have disclosed is that indeed, we expect the PPA to increase our comparable RONA by the mentioned 1.4 percentage points over time once 50% of the plant's generation capacity is contracted. And this obviously supports our long-term comparable RONA target, which is 14%. And we were -- at the end of Q2, we were at 11%. So really nicely supports that.

I think a point there, what you were also kind of coming to is that this certainly differs from Fortum's customary financial hedging as this is really reflecting the long-term customer value rather than the short-term market pricing. The EUR 9 billion is indeed a recent number that we have published.

But then when we get to the long-term perspective, then we cannot make forecast on the -- what the net assets would be going forward or the other parameters. But indeed, many of the parameters that you mentioned are the ones that we have communicated.

A ramp profile, anything you can say because what I'm, again, just conceptually aiming at here is it is a long ramp. What would effectively mean is you get to 1.4% RONA uplift at the very end of the PPA, but it might be less at the beginning? Or is it a relatively flat profile, and we should assume that you get the 1.4% RONA uplift from 2030, which is, as I understand it, is the first full year of the PPA?

So what we have -- what we have said is that, that we expect the agreement to increase the RONA by the -- approximately 1.4 percentage points over time once 50% of the plant's generation capacity is contracted. So basically, that's the formulation we have been using.

The next question comes from Pavan Mahbubani from JPMorgan.

Just following up on what Harry was asking about as well. So your LTM RONA, I think, has been around 11%. You guide to 14%, and this deal gets you about half of the way there. Can you talk about what we need to -- what we need to assume to get to the 14%? Have you embedded in similar deals like this or more data center PPAs? Or does it assume higher Nordic prices? Would be great to get some color around what we need to assume because I think the market or certainly I was below the 14% in the medium term.

Yes. Thank you. So the 14% is a long-term target. So we haven't defined exactly what time period that is. But we think that this is something that our business can achieve with our existing portfolio, including potential future investments, potential M&A transactions.

And what we have announced already are our profit improvement targets that we have communicated earlier. But then the market pricing, we are not forecasting. But this is a long-term target, which we believe is achievable over the long run.

The next question comes from Alexandre Braunshausen from Bank of America.

Maybe just one clarification to start on Harry's comment. I think one of the questions he had that I don't think you've clearly answered is if the 50% capacity was reached over time. And to that, I think you've had conflicting comments if the 50% capacity reach was in 2030? Or would that be still more likely between 2030 to 2040. I think we've got conflicting comments in between your and the press release.

And my question would be just on other data center deal actually disclosed this year an agreement with [ DayOne ] and with Nscale, which I think are both supposed to be 500 megawatts data center as well. So any update on progress with your discussion there would be super helpful.

Okay. Thank you. So sorry for being -- if I was unclear, the contract goes to 50% of Loviisa's capacity from 2030 onwards. So then it's 50% of Loviisa's capacity until the end of the contract in 2049.

Then otherwise, on other customer discussions. So the way I would put it is that, like I said in my presentation also, so we see good interest from customers from various sectors, metals, steel, aluminum, mining, data centers, battery factories, hydrogen, e-mobility, electrified heating.

And if we look at the TSOs forecast, actually, the bigger demand will come from other sectors according to their forecast than data centers. If we have material transactions, then we would announce them separately as we did today. Otherwise, we communicate our hedge prices and hedge ratios quarterly.

And now we are getting towards the end of the year. So then we will also communicate the next year, so 2028 hedge ratios for the first time once we get to Q3 of this year. This, of course, also supports very nicely our target to have a rolling 10-year hedge ratio of 25% over our total portfolio. So in many respects, fulfilling many of our strategic KPIs and ambitions.

The next question comes from Wanda Serwinowska from UBS.

Congratulations on the deal that we have been waiting for 2 years. One question from me would be on the potential backlash in Finland because basically, the deal with Google takes about 5% of the baseload, and we know how precious the baseload is. The Finnish market is more or less balanced. So we also saw some initiatives by the Finnish government, which were not that favorable to data centers. So how do you think about potential impact on the end user customers? And if it's basically -- or is it can go for data centers, we will see many, many more deals like yours being signed up?

Yes. Thanks for the good question. So globally, there's a lot of discussion about the energy-intensive industries and what is the impact on the market. The big benefit in Finland and the Nordics is that there is great potential to increase also supply if and when the demand and, of course, profitable demand is there.

And this is why we also today communicated in various events also with Finnish politics involved that we are very focused on making supply available when it's commercially feasible. That's why we have the 8 gigawatts of renewables in permitting and more in earlier stages of development.

We have the target to develop 2.5 gigawatts of flexibility, either customer flexibility or our own flexibility and then further beyond that, also the pumped hydro. So that would be batteries and consumer flexibility, industrial flexibility, electrified heating and then the nuclear.

So we have the new nuclear development program, feasibility study. We have acquired land in Loviisa. We put in an application for the Swedish nuclear -- government nuclear scheme. There is a very high demand prospect in the TSOs forecast underlying, and there is a good -- very good amount of potential supply also that can answer to that.

Further on, what we see happening, for example, in the data center segment is that the investments are incremental. So they are not happening like there's not one huge investment coming in one go. But typically, the expansion is modular.

And when building new wind takes about 2.5 years, new solar, about 1.5 years, batteries can be deployed faster. So with the pipelines of new supply, there definitely is an answer to increased demand.

But in a very healthy way, as we have seen now recently, if there isn't profitable customer demand, then there isn't new supply coming to the market either. So I have quite good confidence in that the potential for energy-intensive investment is there, and they will be answered with new profitable supply.

Can I just follow -- clarify how many gigawatts do you have of renewables in permitting and how [indiscernible] by 2030?

Yes. So in permitting, we have now 8 gigawatts of wind and solar. And then our target is by end of '28 is to have 1.2 gigawatts of ready to build. So having something in permitting does not automatically equate to that is ready to build. So this then has to go through all the permitting processes and potential compliance, et cetera, and courts and of course, environmental assessments. So supply potential is there, and that's why we have so much optionality that we can bring to customers what they need.

The next question comes from Piotr Dzieciolowski from Citi.

Also congratulations from my side. So my question would be, can you help us understand how you think about the profitability of the company and the realized prices in the medium and long term in the sense that you have a forecast, let's say [indiscernible] and now you sign 10% of your volume significantly above this level. So I just wanted to understand how much appetite you see for this type of deals and how much share of your total portfolio could this take and where the overall realized prices could land. And how the market structure look like we're going to see this dual pricing effect, where you can go to the market buy a short-term power at lower prices or [ you actually ] try to really bring as much volume and what to the long-term high-priced PPAs and what's the appetite for these?

Yes. So I think many questions embedded in that, but maybe I'll take a very, very kind of simple approach.

So with regards to profitability, we have communicated the group level target of 14% RONA. And we think that this is a feasible target given today's portfolio, the outlook, customer appetite, new investments, potential new M&A. And then every investment, including and contract, including this one that we did now, it has to meet our case-specific profitability targets. Of course, it can be better than that as well. But for new investments that I was talking to the previous question.

So we have our project and country technology specific cost of capital and the required margins on top of that, that we will apply meticulously to every project. So this is maybe the kind of fundamental answer to your question, how should one think about our profitability. So cost of capital plus the required margin for every investment and then holistically leading to the 14% RONA.

I'm not sure I -- like if you are at 11% RONA at the moment, this moves you to 12.5%. I mean it's just a 10% of your volume. And does this mean you want to lower the kind of market appetite for you signing more deals like you see only another 1 or 2 deals of this size in your portfolio, and that's about it? Or there is a potential to reprice more of your portfolio?

So I go back to that we see long-term feasibility for the 14% target and then this transaction and investment is priced at the WACC plus the margin. So we believe we're -- it is feasible to be at the 14%.

On the long-term contracts, so we do have appetite to do long-term contracts that also reflect the long-term value of the power we have or the power we develop.

The next question comes from Louis Boujard from ODDO BHF.

Just going into the contractual situation. Does the agreement provide some fixed nominal price or inflation linked mechanism? And also, if you could share with us your view regarding what happened in case of volumes such as outage planned or unplanned outage. If you are missing volumes, how is it treated into the contract? Do you have liability? Or do you have a possibility to potentially offset this risk and pass it through to your clients?

And regarding still on the contract, the duration, do you have any price adjustment mechanism that could be implemented in case of a dramatic change into the Nordic power market? Or are you completely locked into what you have [indiscernible]?

Yes. Thanks for the question. So I'll go back to what is the fundamentals of the agreement. So the factor we have given is that we expect that the contract will increase our comparable RONA by 1.4 percentage points over time, once 50% of the plant's generation capacity is contracted, and that starts from 2030 onwards. So for the first 2 years of the contract, it is a smaller volume.

Then deeper into the terms and conditions of the contract, so this we have not published. So this is basically the information we give on the contract. And then you will see the impact in hedge prices and hedge percentages in the normal course of reporting. So that's where all of the contracts we make published or not published, they will all be embedded into that eventually.

The next question comes from James Brand from Deutsche Bank.

Congratulations on a pretty amazing deal for you. This topic has been kind of touched upon a little bit. You've obviously already said that you have more willingness to sign long-term deals, assuming they reflect the value of the power that you have or can build, as you said a couple of questions ago. You've also got this target for a 10-year rolling hedge of 25%. And I would imagine that you're pretty close to that or maybe you've hit that already with this deal, certainly kind of in that kind of ballpark. I don't know if there's anything you could tell us in terms of your kind of willingness. I guess you've always said you're willing to go above that. Is there a level which would be kind of ideal [indiscernible] which you wouldn't want to go above by way of 35% or 40%? Or is there any context you can give us in terms of where in an ideal world, you'd like to get to as a mix between long-term contracted and [ agreement ]?

Thank you. So good question. First of all, indeed, so we do have a continuous appetite to do also longer-term deals if they really reflect the value of the long-term power to our customers. The 25% level has been 25% or more. So that's our target. It's okay to be more than that. We have not disclosed something beyond it. But 25% presented a level that we would be okay to go to or over that.

What the long-term hedging and long-term agreements give us is that -- is then predictability, forecastability, now ascertaining the lifetime extension for Loviisa. And we have been very open to our customers that we are very happy to sell from our existing portfolio. And then we will also be available to do investments in additional capacity if and when the pricing is appropriate and reflects the cost of building new capacity. So we have multiple ways to answer the customers' appetite.

And here, maybe I would go back to the big picture of the Nordic demand and Nordic attractiveness. So also, if I put my electric hat on, I, of course, try to give good advice to Europe and where Europe should be going with regards to electrification and decarbonization.

But going back to what I just presented about the Nordic attractiveness, there is land, there is infrastructure, there is grid, railroads, ports, fantastic [ OSM ] competencies, construction competencies. And that is leading to that the TSO see the potential for growing demand, and we see it in our own customer portfolio as well. And we are ready to answer that demand from our portfolio today and potential new investments. And now the transaction and agreements with Google reflect all of these points.

We are already a bit over time, but I will allow one more question. And unfortunately, we then need to end the call after this, but here comes the last question.

The next question comes from Richard Alderman from BTIG.

Congratulations on the deal. Just one quick question. I understand you've got a long-term energy management contract to manage assets. I think Google have already secured 700 megawatts of wind. You're helping them build this new battery over time. I guess you'll help them build other assets. Can you just tell me, will you earn an energy management contract fee on top of the PPA? Or is the cost of that built into the PPA if it's on top, is it meaningful? And do you have any concept at this stage as to how they might treat other renewable asset build as they take that modular design? Would you get first opportunity to bid for that contract and build it? Or will it be a full tender process as you've seen before with other data center providers?

Thanks for the question. So there are 3 separate parts to the agreements that we have announced today. So one is the PPA, and that's separate from the rest. So the nuclear PPA. Then we have a definite agreement on the -- on us optimizing for Google the 94-megawatt third-party batteries in Kajaani. And then the memorandum of understanding and then the fee for doing that, that's a separate one, but that's 94 megawatts. So you can see the scale there.

The third leg of the contract is the MOU, which then comprises of cooperation for new renewables, for new flexibility and investigating new nuclear together. And this is then a separate thing, and that's on a memorandum of understanding basis. But I think it well reflects Google's ambitions to match their energy consumption with catalyzing also the same amount of supply.

So I think we have a good meeting of minds here, and we're delighted to help Google secure power and then make sure that there's a pathway also for them to be able to meet their growing energy needs going forward. And this is something we would love to do with other customers as well.

Very good. Thank you so much. Thank you, everyone, for participating here today, and thanks for your activity. We would have loved to take more questions, but unfortunately, time is up. So we can continue discussions within IR with you and wishing everyone a very nice rest of the day. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for the good questions.

Good morning, everyone. A warm welcome to Fortum's webcast and news conference for the investor community and media on our half year 2026 results. My name is Ingela Ulfves, and I'm heading Investor Relations at Fortum. As always, this event is being recorded, so a replay will be available for you later today on our website. With me here in the studio are both our CEO, Markus Rauramo, and our CFO, Tiina Tuomela. Markus and Tiina will present the group's financial and operational performance for the Q2 and half year.

Now let's go to our presentation, after which, we can then take your questions in the Q&A session.

I now hand over, Markus to you, to start.

Thank you very much, Ingela. A warm welcome to this call also from my side. I will start by going through the highlights of Q2 and our financial performance and then talk about the market development. After that, Tiina will provide more details on the financials and how the operational performance turned into our results.

Let me now start with the highlights. As you all know, Q2 and Q3 are relatively small quarters result-wise, and we typically generate most of the results during Q1 and Q4. Before we dive deeper into the results, let's look at the highlights of Q2. Our achieved power price in the second quarter amounted to EUR 44.9 per megawatt hour compared to EUR 48.1 per megawatt hour last year. The realized market price, which is the blended price for Fortum's price areas, was EUR 53.1 per megawatt hour compared with EUR 26.4 1 year ago. One reason for the lower achieved power price was lower physical value creation, mainly due to lower income from ancillary services. Due to lower-than-normal generation volumes, the realized hedge ratio was high. There were more planned nuclear outage days compared to Q2 last year and low spring floods further limited our ability to benefit from the higher spot price. It is also good to note that in the first quarter, we allocated more volumes to hydro generation, which limited our hydro volumes now in Q2.

We keep our full year guidance for the optimization premium intact. It is still expected to be between EUR 8 to EUR 10 per megawatt hour.

Our outright generation volume was 9.1 terawatt hours, which is 0.6 terawatt hours more than in the second quarter last year. Nuclear generation was almost at last year's level. Despite uncertainty in the operating environment, we continue to see robust underlying customer demand from various industrial sectors, which we believe reflects the long-term power demand growth.

At the end of June, Fortum took a significant strategic step for growth in our Consumer Solutions business as we announced a conditional voluntary cash tender offer to acquire all issued and outstanding shares in the Norwegian company, Elmera AS. I will come back to more details of this transaction on my next slide. Also at the end of June, we announced our decision to end coal-fired power generation in Finland by closing and dismantling our Meri-Pori coal power plant. This closure is part of our coal exit to end all coal-based energy production by the end of 2027 and reach net zero by 2040. The plant will be permanently closed as of 1st of March 2027. Fortum and the city of Pori are pursuing strong new growth in the Meri-Pori Tahkoluoto area together with other industrial operators. And the area will be developed into a nationally significant clean transition industrial zone.

We continue to have a strong balance sheet and good liquidity. So our overall financial position continues to be very robust. The cash dividend of EUR 0.74 per share was paid in the second quarter.

Then a few words about the Elmera public tender offer. We are very excited about this transaction as the combination of Elmera and our Consumer Solutions business will create a stronger Nordic business with greater capabilities to serve customers and create long-term value. We are also very pleased that Elmera's Board of Directors and the whole management are supporting the deal and recommending the transaction to all of its shareholders. Both the management and the Board are also willing to tender all their shares in the transaction. The cash consideration is NOK 47 to be offered for each Elmera share. This means a total value of the offer of NOK 5.1 billion or approximately EUR 475 million. The completion of the offer is subject to certain customary closing conditions and regulatory approvals as well as valid shareholders' acceptance of more than 90% of the company's shares.

Let me go through the strategic rationale for the offer and how it supports our strategy and long-term value creation for our stakeholders. The rationale is built around 4 key elements: the ongoing structural change in the Nordic retail electricity market. Consumer Solutions and Elmera are 2 complementary businesses. This transaction creates value for our shareholders and other stakeholders, and it makes us fit for the future.

Let me now briefly elaborate on each of these 4 points. First, there is an ongoing structural change in the Nordic retail electricity market. While the Nordic retail electricity market remains fragmented, customer expectations and digital requirements continue to increase in this sector, which is characterized by structurally low margins. As a result, scale, operational efficiency, technological capabilities and investment capacity are important to deliver competitive pricing and reliable service to our customers.

So consolidation is creating stronger and more capable businesses that can deliver greater value to Nordic customers while remaining competitive in a demanding market environment. Greater scale and resources strengthen the ability to invest in digital solutions, regulatory compliance and operational excellence.

Secondly, we have 2 complementary businesses. Consumer Solutions is well positioned to capitalize on these market trends. With deep energy market expertise and a strong position in the Nordic retail market, Consumer Solutions has established a scalable platform for future growth. Expanding the Consumer Solutions business is a strategic priority for us, supported by both organic initiatives and selective acquisitions.

Elmera is an established retail electricity provider with a large and diversified customer base across the Nordics. The company has a recognized position in Norway, combined with challenger positions in Sweden and Finland. It has developed a robust retail platform, which is complementary to Fortum's existing business. Elmera has slightly below 1 million customers, mainly in Norway, but also in Finland and Sweden. This can be compared to Consumer Solutions customer base of approximately 2.3 million.

In 2025, Elmera sold 16 terawatt hours of power to its customers, generating an EBITDA of approximately EUR 66 million. The combination of the 2 brings together complementary businesses with a shared focus to deliver value to customers. By combining customer volumes, operational infrastructure and expertise across the value chain, the combined business is expected to achieve meaningful cost efficiencies and operational synergies to the benefit of Nordic customers. These efficiencies will strengthen the competitiveness of the combined business and support our ability to deliver competitive pricing and reliable service over time. The transaction will also enhance the combined business' capacity to invest in products, digital solutions and capabilities that support customers across the Nordics.

The third rationale is value for shareholders and other stakeholders. The transaction creates a compelling value proposition for shareholders and other stakeholders of both companies. The combination also benefits employees by creating a larger and more resilient organization with greater resources, broader capabilities and increased opportunities for long-term development.

And finally, being fit for the future. Our strategy is focused on supporting electrification across the Nordics. The planned transaction is a natural extension of this strategy, strengthening our customer platform and expanding our presence across the region. Looking ahead, the combined business will be better positioned to offer customers competitive pricing and to respond to evolving customer needs and changing market conditions. Increased scale and efficiency are expected to strengthen our ability to invest in systems, technology, competence and operational excellence, which will support competitive pricing and reliable service for our customers long term.

Together, we and Elmera will create a stronger Nordic platform with the scale, capabilities and financial strength required to remain competitive. We believe this offer provides Elmera shareholders with an attractive opportunity to realize value with certainty today. And for those who wish to remain exposed to the Nordic power market, Fortum continues to offer that opportunity as a listed company with a clear strategic focus on the region.

Then I will move over to our main figures and financial performance. Let's look at our comparable headline KPIs for the group's second quarter and first half year of 2026. In the second quarter, comparable operating profit and EPS developed negatively. In Q2, our comparable operating profit totaled EUR 106 million, a decrease of EUR 9 million. Comparable earnings per share decreased from EUR 0.09 to EUR 0.08 per share. On the other hand, operative cash flow increased clearly to EUR 324 million due to decrease in working capital. The decreased working capital reflects decreased sales prices. For the first half year, all KPIs developed positively. All of this resulted in a leverage of 1.4x as measured by the net debt to comparable EBITDA ratio.

Next, a few words about the market environment. Let's start by looking at the spot price and hydro reservoir situation for the Nordic market. It is good to note that this is not Fortum's reservoirs, but the whole Nordic market. At the beginning of Q2, the reservoir balance had a small surplus of around 2 terawatt hours, which declined during the quarter. During May, it moved into a rather large deficit of 9 terawatt hours. This represented an intra-quarter swing of nearly 10 terawatt hours, after which it partly recovered during June and Q2 ended with a moderate deficit of around 5 terawatt hours. In Q2, Nordic day-ahead prices increased significantly year-on-year, driven by lower reservoir levels, stronger continental prices and low spring floods. Nordic power demand in Q2 developed sideways year-on-year, while wind availability was below seasonal average, both in the Nordics and especially in Central Western Europe. Nordic consumption was at 89 terawatt hours. It is good to note that power demand in the Nordics is somewhat above 400 terawatt hours for the last 12 months.

This concludes my part, and I would now like to hand over to Tiina to talk more about our business performance.

Thank you, Markus. Good morning, everyone, also on my behalf. I will now go through our financials in more detail. Let's start with the key figures.

I will start with some of the comparable KPIs. The comparable operating profit for the second quarter amounted to EUR 106 million, which is a slight decrease from previous year. In the quarter, also comparable net profit and comparable EPS decreased. Our comparable net profit for the quarter declined to EUR 74 million. Consequently, our comparable EPS for the second quarter declined to EUR 0.08 compared to EUR 0.09 last year. Our cash flow during the quarter was EUR 121 million higher than in the comparable quarter last year and totaled EUR 324 million. Slightly lower EBITDA was offset by the positive change in working capital. The main reason for the lower working capital comes from the lower receivables in Consumer Solutions due to the lower power prices.

Then over to the segment result for comparable operating profit. Let's have a look at the second quarter. The group's comparable operating profit declined by EUR 9 million to EUR 106 million, mainly due to the lower achieved power price and higher fixed costs, partly offset by higher hydro generation volumes. Achieved power price was affected by lower income from ancillary services and high hedge ratio. The profits of Consumer Solutions also declined slightly, while the Other Operations segment's result improved.

In the Generation segment, comparable operating profit declined by EUR 11 million to EUR 110 million, mainly to the lower achieved power price, lower physical value creation and higher fixed costs. The lower physical value creation was mainly a result of lower income from ancillary services. I also want to highlight our generation volumes as a result contributor. As you remember, we allocated as much as possible of our hydro generation to the spot market in the first quarter when prices were high. However, as hydro generation was exceptionally low in Q2 last year, Q2 volumes this year were still below the historical average. Nuclear volumes were slightly lower, mainly due to the planned outages days compared to Q2 2025.

Consumer Solutions comparable operating profit declined by EUR 5 million to EUR 42 million, mainly due to the higher fixed cost. The reporting period includes a marginally positive effect of the acquisition of Orange Energy completed in June 2025. Orange integration and carve-outs have now been completed.

In the Other Operations segment, comparable operating profit improved by EUR 8 million, mainly due to the lower fixed cost. The Circular Solutions result was slightly higher compared to Q2 last year.

The group comparable operating profit increased by EUR 50 million to EUR 627 million. The Generation segment result increased mainly as a result of higher spot prices and hydro volumes, partly offset by the high hedge ratio. The result of the Consumer Solutions segment decreased slightly, while the result of the Other Operations segment was almost flat. In the Generation segment, the result increased by EUR 57 million to EUR 613 million, impacted mainly by higher spot prices and hydro volumes, partly offset by the high hedge ratio. Our hydro generation for the first half 2026 was slightly below the long-term historical average with part of volumes allocated already during the first quarter. Comparable operating profit in Consumer Solutions decreased by EUR 7 million to EUR 66 million, mainly to the higher fixed costs. In the Other Operations segment, comparable operating loss was almost unchanged at EUR 53 million. The result of Circular Solutions businesses was slightly higher compared to the first half of 2025.

Then over to loan maturities, leverage and liquidity. Our financial position continues to be strong, primarily supporting our objective to maintain a credit rating of at least BBB. It naturally also provides a good financial foundation in this very uncertain and turbulent market environment, but it also caters for growth and shareholder returns. In these uncertain times with various geopolitical conflicts, this is a very good position to be in.

At the beginning of the second quarter, according to the new definition, our net debt was EUR 1.5 billion. In the second quarter, the operating cash flow was EUR 324 million and investment amounted to EUR 109 million. The change in interest-bearing receivables and net margin amounted to EUR 24 million, while FX and other effects were EUR 14 million. The change in collateral debt was EUR 119 million. Consequently, at the end of the quarter, our net debt was EUR 1.8 billion and the leverage ratio for net debt to comparable EBITDA was at 1.4x. The dividend of EUR 664 million was paid in April, so during the second quarter.

Looking at our debt portfolio and the loan maturity profile, I want to highlight a few things. At the end of the quarter, our gross debt, excluding leases totaled EUR 3.8 billion. Our maturity profile is very balanced, and there are no large maturities in any single year. The February, we repaid a maturing EUR 750 million bond. In 2028, a EUR 500 million bond will mature. Bonds are and continue to be our primary source of funding. We continue to have ample liquidity reserves, EUR 6.5 billion with EUR 2.1 billion of liquid funds and EUR 4.4 billion of undrawn committed credit facilities and overdrafts at the end of June 2026. The cost for our EUR 3.8 billion loan portfolio is 3.1%, while the interest income that we get for our EUR 2.1 billion liquid funds is 2.1%. The overall objective is to have sufficient liquidity while optimizing the balance between debt and cash to minimize funding cost.

Then over to the final section, the outlook. The outlook section includes guidance regarding our outright portfolio, capital expenditure and taxation. Let's start with the hedges. For the rest of the year, the hedge price is EUR 40 and the hedge ratio is 80%. The hedge price for 2027 increased by EUR 1 to EUR 41, while the hedge ratio increased by 5 percentage points to 65%. For the year 2026, optimization premium is estimated to be between EUR 8 to EUR 10 per megawatt hour. Predictability comes more uncertain, the further out in time you go. Consequently, our longer-term view continues to be EUR 6 to EUR 8 per megawatt hour for the year 2027 and onwards.

Considering announced outages, nuclear output for 2026 is estimated to be below the normal level of 26 terawatt hours. Based on current market information, we estimate that our nuclear volume will be between 23 and 23.5 terawatt hours in 2026. The guided range has been reduced by 0.5 terawatt hours.

Our capital expenditure guidance is unchanged. We have EUR 550 million committed for the year 2026. This includes maintenance, but excludes potential acquisitions. For the period 2026 to 2030, the committed CapEx is EUR 2 billion, of which EUR 750 million is growth. Annual maintenance is expected to be EUR 250 million. The guidance for our corporate tax rate also remains unchanged for 2026. We expect the comparable effective income tax rate to be in the range of 18% to 20%.

This was all for my presentation, and we are now happy to answer your questions. So with this, Ingela, over to you.

Thank you, Tiina, and thank you, Markus, for the presentation. So we are now ready to take your questions, and we can begin the Q&A session. Moderator, please go ahead.

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

Two, please. So firstly, I just wanted to focus on Nordic power prices and particularly this winter. So I think Nord Pool has got up to about EUR 85 a megawatt hour for Q4. So I wanted to ask how should we think about your ability to capture that?

Obviously, you've -- as usual, you've given us your hedge for the rest of the year. So you're 80% hedged, but maybe you could tell us a little bit about how hedged you are for Q4 and Q1 of 2027 because given the big moves in power, actually, unusually, it's now actually quite relevant, what percentage hedged you are for those specific quarters as opposed to the half year, if that makes sense. So basically, I'm just trying to understand how much you can capture this big increase in Nord Pool prices over the winter. So that's question one.

Second one is whether you've got any updated comments on Uniper assets. So have there been any discussions? Is your appetite unchanged from the last conference call? And then a couple of tidbits on top. So firstly, would you consider acquiring the assets if your right of first refusal lapsed because I think it lapses at the end of this year. So if the assets were still for sale in 2027, would you still look at them? And also, would you ever consider raising equity to fund a transaction like that? Because I guess, particularly given the Elmera acquisition, if we look at, sort of, regular multiples for the Uniper assets, it probably would be bigger than you could digest given your balance sheet at the moment. So interested to know what kind of funding options you would look at?

Okay. Thank you very much for the questions. So I'll start with the Uniper and comment shortly on the Nordic power market as well and let Tiina comment in more detail.

But with regards to Uniper, so we all have seen the German government announcement inviting indications of interest for the whole company. Now without going into specifics of who has indicated and what. We continue to be interested in Uniper's Nordic assets, and that would go for other nuclear and hydro in Nordics overall. So if there is nuclear and hydropower available, we would look at it. So the interest continues to be there. If the -- when the ROFO ends, then our interest continues. So our interest in clean dispatchable power is not limited to the ROFO.

With regards to the financials and our appetite and capacity, we continue to follow our stated financial targets. So strong investment-grade rating underpinned by the leverage level of 2.5x that we should not go across. So we would approach transactions from this framework. And we have no plans for any kind of equity raise.

Then for the Nordic power market, so we communicate our hedges for this year and next year. So we do not communicate, as you know, we do not communicate quarterly hedging levels. The 80% already gives an indication that there is room to optimize this year and 65% for next year gives more space. What I would say overall is that the purpose of our hedging strategy is to provide visibility into cash flows in the short term and then eventually also stabilize our income and capture good prices in the long term with our customers. And I think this is really well highlighted. If you look at the achieved power price for the first half year, it was exactly at the same level, EUR 55 first half this year, first half last year when the market prices were at very, very different levels.

But with this, Tiina, anything you want to add?

Well, maybe only building on that, of course, the hedge ratio, so not every quarter is the similar one. And I think that one contributor, of course, is that how much volume we -- it is during the quarter. And typically, of course, we look at the high quarter, so the first quarter and the last quarter. So the volume produced in those quarters also impact to the hedge ratio.

Got it. And Markus, so just a follow-up. So got it, you're not planning any imminent equity raise and also got it that you've got a leverage ceiling of 2.5x. But I guess if we just assume for the sake of now that the assets will be too expensive for you to be able to acquire them and stay within your 2.5x net debt-to-EBITDA ceiling. Are there any other financing tools that you would consider using just to help us a little bit if we were to scenario analyze this, I don't know, hybrids or minority sales in assets? And is there some other financing tool that you would consider if you were to acquire those assets and you weren't able to do it on balance sheet and stay within 2.5x net debt-to-EBITDA?

So the guidance I would give is that we look at potential acquisitions like now with Elmera, also on district heating, renewables as well as hydropower and nuclear power within the financial limits we have. So this is the framework we can give. And I wouldn't go into speculating on how to finance any potential transactions at this point in time.

The next question comes from Wanda Serwinowska from UBS.

Two questions from me. The first one is a very short one on the Elmera acquisition. Markus, you mentioned meaningful synergies, but would you be able to somehow quantify it? Are we talking about double-digit million euro per year? And if so, is it low, mid or high? Any help would be appreciated.

And the second question is on your higher fixed cost, which I was surprised by because I remember you are running the cost-cutting program. You expect more benefits from the cost-cutting program by 2030, if I'm not mistaken. So can you talk a bit more about the reasons behind the fixed cost increase? How much was it in Q2? And what do you expect going forward?

Thank you. So I'll start with Elmera, and I'll let Tiina comment on the fixed cost. So indeed, we have 2 very complementary businesses, Fortum Consumer Solutions and Elmera. And the couple of the drivers are that market is fragmented. There are big scale advantages in utilizing same platforms as we have done with the acquisition of Hafslund with Orange, Telia and so on. So we can integrate big amounts of customers with very low marginal cost.

Now with regards to the transaction, we will be filing our offer document with the Norwegian financial regulator, and we will have the competition authority reviews as well, and then we need shareholder approval. So once we get through those, then we'll give more details on what the targets are. But at the moment, we can say that they are meaningful, and we can look back at previous transactions, what we have achieved there.

And for fixed cost, Tiina?

Yes. So definitely, fixed costs are still pretty much on our focus, and we continue the continuous improvement. Last year, we finalized our efficiency program of this EUR 100 million successfully. And we say that we'll -- we target the overall cost level of EUR 870 million per year. And if we look at the cumulatively, what is our fixed cost level at the end of Q2, it was EUR 428 million. So we could say that we are on the right run rate overall if we look at the fixed cost level. Of course, there are variation between the quarters. And as we see also that between some of our segments, they were lower, some higher. But overall, we are well on track.

If I may, a couple of follow-ups. So Tiina, would you be able to quantify the total increase in Q2? And what would you expect for the full year before the next cost cutting kicks off?

And Markus, you mentioned synergies from the previous transactions. Do you mind reminding us how much you achieved on the previous transactions?

Tiina, do you want to take the Q2 increase?

Q2, so the cost increase overall, it was EUR 11 million. So EUR 11 million increase in Q2. Of course, as said that quarters, they are not alike. We are not giving any other guidance rather than that roughly EUR 870 million overall level. Of course, if there are scope changes, if there are new activities, some new efforts, so those would naturally impact the cost level, but also, of course, bring more EBIT and profitability for us.

And for the previous transactions, so in the large ones, synergies have been double-digit. And then we have smaller ones where we necessarily haven't announced all the synergies in every case. But meaningful synergies with regards to each transaction. Now we are not quantifying yet for the proposed Elmera transaction.

The next question comes from James Brand from Deutsche Bank.

I had 2 questions. Firstly, you said in Q2 that your optimization was impacted by low water levels and lower volumes overall. Do you see that continuing in Q3? Or is Q3 seeing more normal conditions? That's the first question.

And then secondly, on the demand side, I was just wondering whether you could give an update given it's obviously massively in focus for the market. So what did you actually see in the Nordics for demand growth in Q2 year-on-year? And then have you -- do you see the outlook changing at all in terms of, kind of, data centers and industrial demand growth from what you said at the last quarterly results?

Thank you. So I can start with the demand and if you Tiina comment the Q2 versus Q3. So demand outlook or demand right now is roughly on a rolling 12-month basis in the Nordics around 400 terawatt hours. And in the last quarter, it was 89 terawatt hours. So we are at very similar levels. No material changes either way. So the bigger impacts will come once the currently under construction data centers will hit the market and eventually when also new demand will pick up.

With regards to our customer pipeline, we are using the same wording. So we continue to see robust interest in the Nordics. And I think this is highlighted -- the reasons are highlighted now by EU's electrification Action plan. So EU is highlighting that we need clean, affordable, reliable homegrown energy versus imported very expensive fossil energy. And the Electrification Action Plan actions look very much like what we have in the Nordics already. And this is attracting globally customers to the Nordics.

We continue to see interest in metals. We continue to see interest in data centers as well as longer term in hydrogen. And at the moment, it's data centers, which are the most active ones, and they will be more incremental. I'll just take an example of the Microsoft cluster in the capital region. It's been a long project. Now Microsoft is building modularly their three-site cluster. We have already commissioned our heat pumps and heat storage and electric boilers that are associated with that. So eventually, we'll see, for example, that 3x 200-megawatt demand hitting the market.

And Tiina?

Yes. Then to the optimization premium. So what we said that our achieved power price in the second quarter was impacted with the lower optimization premium and then the high hedge ratio. And the optimization premium consists of the 3 main elements. One is coming from the hydro optimization, which was at a good level. Volatility remained roughly on the same level as the previous quarters. The second one relates to ancillary services, and this is the part where we saw that the prices were lower, mainly impacting that many batteries, electric boilers, customer demand are also entering this market and therefore, impacting the premium. And then the third one is the environmental value, which was pretty much the same as earlier.

Then the second quarter -- third quarter, so I think that what is important to highlight is that the full year optimization premium, what we have remains the same, the guidance, so EUR 8 to EUR 10 per megawatt hour. So of course, there are temporary fluctuation based on of the volatility and also the players who are in the market.

Can I just ask on the ancillary services part of the optimization? I don't think I've heard you talk about that too much in the past. Could you quantify at all how much of the overall optimization premium normally comes from ancillary services? And I'm not necessarily looking for you to be too precise, but just kind of roughly, is it, a kind of, significant part of it?

So we haven't split in the number wise in that detail. However, what we have said that the majority comes from the hydro optimization, the part which performed very well also in this second quarter.

The next question comes from Louis Boujard from ODDO BHF.

Maybe coming back a little bit on the Elmera acquisition. How should investors think about the next phase on Fortum growth strategy after this operation? Does this transaction reduce the likelihood of other sizable M&A in the future?

And do you think that the acquisition changed your thinking regarding the capital allocation between M&A and organic investments and shareholder distributions going forward, considering the size of the operation? How should we consider it in your strategic thinking as well?

Maybe a second question regarding the Nordic forward curve and your hedge position. How would you characterize your earnings visibility for 2027 at this point in time relative to previous year? And is the volatility likely to remain higher than investors have historically been seen in the past? And do you think that it could eventually enable you to be a bit more positive on your optimization premium going forward?

Okay. Again, I would ask Tiina to answer the second question on the Nordic outlook. And how we think about our hedging.

On the first one, so this transaction, the proposed transaction with Elmera, it is indeed in the early stages. So first, we have to get this through the Norwegian FSA and the competition authorities and then get the shareholder approval. This is a large transaction. So this will be taking a lot of our management attention in Consumer Solutions if this goes through. It's a combination of 2.3 million and nearly 1 million customers. Having said that, this is a thing. Integrating, getting the synergies is something we have done many times over. So I'm very confident that we can then deliver what we are targeting to do in regards to shareholder value and value to our customers. So there will be -- then if this goes through, there's a transaction to digest first in Consumer Solutions.

With regards to capital allocation, we continue to be interested in growing with our customers through PPAs. So we are ready to take counterparty risk, do also longer transactions. So we are very open to do business. We are very open also to investing for our customers in new capacity. So we have developed the renewable pipeline as well as flexibility. So at the right prices, we are happy to also then provide capacity for the customers if that is needed.

And then we have said with regards to the capital allocation that our dividend policy is 60% to 90% of the net profit or EPS. And we will use that range flexibly depending on our balance sheet capacity and with regards to if we have investment opportunities. So now when we have not had larger investments, we have been paying 90%. And then when we assess the situation around the end of the year and beginning of the year and when the Board is making its proposal for the AGM, it will take into account our balance sheet and liquidity and the whole CapEx outlook. So I will not go preempting that, but just stating that there is a range that we have said that we will use depending on the circumstances.

And then for the second question, Nordic curve.

Nordic curve. Yes. So when we look at the Nordic power prices, so they have been an uplift, mostly driven by the low hydro reservoirs. So as we saw also in the second quarter, so hydro reservoirs at the beginning were marginally surplus and then they went to a deficit of minus 5 terawatt hours. And they have continued if we look at this stage. So now it's even minus 10 terawatt hours compared to the historical average. Of course, this can change as we know, so very quickly if the rainy seasons comes from.

The other thing is the volatility. So volatility seem to -- in overall level has remained on the higher level. And there, the main reason is that more renewables is already in the system. And when it's windy, it is volatile, it's not windy. So even the current amount of renewables keeps the system moving quite a bit.

Then maybe one point to also note that the prices, if we compare the Nordic and the southern part of the Nordic have been very different. So in the Nordic, where we have the wind and where we have the -- also the hydro, so the prices have been lower, whereas in the Southern Nordic, close to also Continental Europe, the prices have been fairly high.

The next question comes from Rob Pulleyn from Morgan Stanley.

Just one question for me given what's been covered so far. And that's regarding nuclear volumes as we think ahead to 2027 and discussion of hedge ratios. How confident are you in a return to, shall we say, normal nuclear volumes given obviously some of the outages this year and in the past?

Yes. So we have had unavailability in Oskarshamn. Now the plant is being ramped up and the problems have been cleared. So we are targeting then better availability. There are also no limitations in Olkiluoto 3. So this is the area where we have most potential actually when it comes to availability. Our hydro availability has been on a good level. Nuclear, not so good. I have confidence that we can get Oskarshamn 3 as well as Olkiluoto 3 then to the right availability levels. But they have -- admittedly, there have been problems.

The next question comes from Iiris Theman from DNB Carnegie.

I have just one question. Regarding your optimization premium, so why do you expect lower optimization premium for next year, even though price volatility is likely to increase? And basically, is it due to lower income from ancillary services?

Tiina, do you want to take that one?

Yes. Happy to take that. Yes, I think what we have also said that because it is very difficult to predict the overall volatility in different times. So therefore, we have given the longer-term optimization premium guidance to be 6% to 8%, and we will further define closer we get that period. Of course, inside optimization premium, so one interesting part is to look at how the ancillary service develops. And this is one part why we are a bit more cautious to when giving the longer-term guidance.

Thank you, everyone. Iiris' question actually was the last one. So thank you for all your questions here today, and thank you, moderator.

On behalf of Fortum and the whole team here, we wish you all a very nice rest of the day. And also, let's enjoy the next summer days, and then we'll be back in the autumn. Thank you.

Have a good July. Bye-bye.

Bye-bye.

Good morning, everyone. A warm welcome to Fortum's joint webcast and news conference on our first quarter 2026 results. My name is Ingela Ulfves, and I'm heading the Investor Relations at Fortum. As always, there will be -- this event is being recorded, and there will be a replay on the website later today.

With me here in the studio are our CEO, Markus Rauramo; and our CFO, Tiina Tuomela. They will present the group's financial and operational performance for the first quarter. Now let's go to our presentations, after which we will take your questions in the Q&A session.

So with this, I hand over to you, Markus, to start.

Thank you very much, Ingela. A warm welcome to this call also from my side. I will start by going through the key elements of our highlights and our financial performance, then say a couple of words about the market development. After that, Tiina will provide more details on the financials and how the operational performance turned into our results.

Let me now start with the highlights. Starting with achieved power price. In the first quarter, it was slightly above last year's level, EUR 62.5 per megawatt hour compared to EUR 60.1 in the first quarter last year. The realized market price, i.e., the blended price for Fortum's price areas was EUR 85.7 per megawatt hour compared to EUR 46 per megawatt hour in the first quarter 2025.

One of the key highlights during the quarter was the optimization premium. It was again double digit, as it was also 1 year ago. We keep our full year guidance for the premium intact, and it is expected to be between EUR 8 to EUR 10 per megawatt hour.

The first quarter was characterized by relatively high spot prices and several price spikes, especially in January and February. Because of these high prices, we maximized our hydro generation and the outcome was 5.9 terawatt hours of output from hydro in the quarter. Nuclear generation was almost at last year's level despite the unplanned outage in Oskarshamn 3. Overall, our outright generation volume was 12.2 terawatt hours, which is 0.6 terawatt hours more than in the first quarter last year. Despite uncertainty in the operating environment, we continue to see robust underlying customer demand from various industrial sectors, which we believe reflects the long-term power demand growth. We see the data center sector remaining very active, particularly in Finland. As we have announced this year, we are supporting DayOne in its plans to build a data center in Nurmij rvi and Nscale with its plans to establish a data center in Harjavalta.

We are progressing with our site development to meet future customer needs. Due to this high activity level from data centers and considering the projected demand growth, there has been discussions, especially in Finland, about future power availability. Current supply-demand balance in the Nordics shows a surplus with existing capacity. Lifetime extensions of nuclear power plants and preparedness to invest in renewables and other capacity can allow power generators to meet the foreseen increase in consumption.

We have a strong balance sheet and good liquidity, so our overall financial position continues to be strong. The cash dividend of EUR 0.74 per share was paid in the second quarter. After the reporting period, we signed a new EUR 2.7 billion revolving credit facility, which replaces the previous one.

Then over to our main figures and financial performance. Here are our familiar comparable headline KPIs for the group's first quarter 2026. Positive development in all KPIs, except cash flow, and the reason for cash flow decrease is higher working capital. In Q1, our comparable operating profit totaled EUR 521 million, an increase of EUR 59 million. Comparable earnings per share increased from EUR 0.42 to EUR 0.45 per share.

Operating cash flow decreased clearly to EUR 355 million due to increased working capital. The increased working capital reflects higher sales prices. All of this lead to a leverage of 1.1x measured by net debt to comparable EBITDA ratio. Tiina will tell you more about our new net debt definition and transition of the Nordic power futures from NASDAQ to Euronext.

Next, a few words about the market environment. Let's start by looking at the spot price and hydro reservoir situation for the Nordic market. It is good to note that this is not only Fortum's reservoirs, but the whole market. In the first quarter, Nordic spot prices increased significantly year-on-year. The reason was a combination of elevated consumption due to cold weather, reservoir levels being below average levels and low wind power supply. Nordic power demand increased by approximately 8 terawatt hours year-on-year, while wind availability was significantly below the seasonal average in the Nordics. In January and February, these weather conditions resulted in higher Nordic hydropower generation.

At the beginning of the year, there was some moderate Nordic reservoir surplus, which then deteriorated during the quarter. In March, Nordic weather-driven fundamentals softened, resulting in a clear decline in spot prices and some recovery in the Nordic reservoir balance. Meanwhile, Continental European electricity prices also strengthened in March as gas prices surged following the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. Precipitation levels were well below normal, particularly in January and February. Temperatures were colder than normal, while March was milder than the historical average.

As a result, hydro inflows were close to normal, but Nordic hydro generation was above average, driven by higher power demand. The reservoir balance at the beginning of the year with the moderate surplus declined sharply during the quarter. This concludes my part, and I would now like to hand over to Tiina to talk more about the business performance.

Thank you, Markus. Good morning, everyone, also on my behalf. I will now go through our financials in more detail. Let's start with the key figures. I will start with some of the comparable KPIs. The comparable operating profit for the first quarter amounted to EUR 521 million, which is a clear increase from previous year.

In the quarter, also comparable net profit and comparable EPS increased. Our comparable net profit for the quarter improved to EUR 404 million. Consequently, our comparable EPS for the first quarter rose to EUR 0.45 compared to EUR 0.42 last year. Our cash flow during the quarter was EUR 98 million lower than previous year and totaled EUR 355 million. The positive effect of the higher EBITDA was offset by the negative change in working capital compared to the previous year. The main reason for the higher working capital comes from higher receivables in Consumer Solutions caused by higher power prices.

Then over to the segment result for the comparable operating profit. Let's have a look at the first quarter. The group's comparable operating profit improved due to the higher result in Generation segment. The profits of Consumer Solutions was good and basically at the same level as last year, while the other operation segments results declined. In the Generation segment, comparable operating profit increased by EUR 67 million to EUR 503 million, mainly due to the higher hydro volumes and power prices, partly offset by the high hedge ratio.

The optimization premium was good and similar to last year, it was double digit. Consumer Solutions comparable operating profit was almost at last year's level, which means that the result was the second best quarterly result. The reporting period includes a marginally positive effect of the acquisitions of Orange Energy completed in June 2025.

In the Other Operations segment, comparable operating profit decreased by EUR 8 million, showing a negative result of EUR 28 million. The main reason was higher fixed costs and lower internal charges for services of enabling functions.

Then over to the loan maturities, leverage and liquidity. Our financial position continues to be strong, primarily supporting our objective to maintain a credit rating of at least BBB. It naturally also provides a good financial foundation in this very uncertain and turbulent market environment, but it also caters for growth and shareholder returns. In these uncertain times with various geopolitical conflicts, this is a very good position to be in. Before going through the reconciliation of our net debt, I want to highlight a few changes that we have made.

These relate to our derivative trading and our definition of net debt. In March this year, NASDAQ Nordic Power Futures business and trading with Nordic Futures transitioned to Euronext and Fortum's position at NASDAQ was migrated to Euronext accordingly. Following the transition of our Power Futures business to Euronext, Fortum has simplified the measure for indebtedness and reports net debt instead of financial net debt from the first quarter of 2026 onwards. In the previously used financial net debt, the margin receivables and liabilities and the collateral arrangement receivables were netted. However, with the new definition, net debt, the net margin receivables, and the collateral arrangement receivables are not netted anymore.

From the first quarter onwards, the net debt is consequently defined only as interest-bearing loans, lease liabilities and liquid funds. Going forward, our leverage ratio is consequently net debt to comparable EBITDA compared to the earlier financial net debt to comparable EBITDA. The maximum leverage for the net debt to comparable EBITDA remains unchanged at 2.5x. We have presented the effect of this change in our interim report.

Following the change, our net debt increased by EUR 364 million. Please see further information in Notes 5 and 12 in our interim report. At the beginning of the first quarter, according to the new definition, our net debt was EUR 1.8 billion. In the first quarter, the operating cash flow was EUR 355 million and investments amounted to EUR 113 million. The change in interest-bearing receivables amounted to EUR 40 million, while FX and other effects were EUR 32 million.

The change in collateral debt was EUR 141 million. Consequently, at the end of the quarter, our net debt was EUR 1.5 billion, and the leverage ratio for the net debt to comparable EBITDA was at 1.1x. The dividend of EUR 664 million was paid in April, i.e., in the second quarter. If considering this amount in the net debt, leverage would have been 1.6x.

Looking at our debt portfolio and the loan maturity profile, I want to highlight a few things. At the end of the quarter, our gross debt, excluding leases, totaled EUR 3.8 billion. Our maturity profile is very balanced, and there are no large maturities in any single year. In February, we repaid a maturing EUR 750 million bond. In 2028, a EUR 500 million bond will mature. Bonds are and continue to be our primary source of funding. We continue to have ample liquidity reserves, EUR 6.4 billion with EUR 2.5 billion of liquid funds and EUR 3.9 billion of undrawn committed credit facilities and overdrafts at the end of March 2026.

In April 2026, we successfully renewed our revolving credit facility with EUR 2.7 billion facility. The syndication was well oversubscribed and a total 15 banks participated in the facility. This new larger RCF further strengthens our liquidity position. The cost of our EUR 3.8 billion loan portfolio is 3.4%, while the interest income that we get for our EUR 2.5 billion liquid funds is 2%. The overall objective is to have sufficient liquidity while optimizing the balance between debt and cash to minimize funding costs.

Then over to the final sections, the outlook. The outlook section includes guidance regarding our outright portfolio, capital expenditure and taxation. Let's start with the hedges. At the end of the first quarter, the hedge price for the rest of the year was EUR 38 -- EUR 39 and the hedge ratio was 75%. The hedge price for 2027 is EUR 40, same as last time disclosed, while the hedge ratio increased by 5 percentage points to 60%. Our optimization premium for 2026 is estimated to be between EUR 8 to EUR 10 per megawatt hour and the following years between EUR 6 to EUR 8 per megawatt hour.

Based on announced outages, nuclear output for 2026 is estimated to be below the normal level of 26 terawatt hours. Based on current market information, we estimate that our nuclear volume will be between 23.5 and 24 terawatt hours in 2026. Previously disclosed volume was between 24 to 24.5 terawatt hours.

Our capital expenditure guidance is unchanged. We have EUR 550 million committed for the year 2026. This includes maintenance, but excludes potential acquisitions. For the period 2026 to 2030, the committed CapEx is EUR 2 billion, of which EUR 750 million is growth. Annual maintenance is expected to be EUR 250 million. The guidance for our corporate tax rate also remains unchanged for 2026. We expect the comparable effective income tax rate to be in the range of 18% to 20%. The Finnish government plans to decrease the corporate tax from 20% to 18% from the beginning of 2027. There is, however, no official law in place yet.

Our preliminary estimate is that this would lower the comparable effective income tax by 1 percentage point from 2027 onwards. This was all for my presentation, and now we are happy to answer your questions.

So with this, Ingela, over to you.

Thank you, Tiina, and thank you, Markus. So with this rather straightforward quarter, we are already now then ready to take your questions. Let's begin the Q&A session. Moderator, please go ahead.

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

I'm sorry to torture you, but this is going to be a slightly numbers-intensive couple of questions. So the first one is on your achieved pricing. I want to particularly focus on this because the achieved pricing on different quarters is going to be different this year because Q1 was very strong. So I wonder if you could bear with me and maybe help me a little bit walk through what your achieved price might be for the full year and sort of correct me if I'm wrong here.

But I think -- so you're aiming for about 45 terawatt hours of output for the full year based on the new nuclear guidance. You've already sold 12 terawatt hours of that at EUR 62.5. If I've done your hedge disclosures right, you're saying you've hedged about 25 terawatt hours at EUR 48, if you include a EUR 9 optimization premium. And then on the remaining 8 terawatt hours on my forward calculator spreadsheet, I'm looking at about a EUR 51 achieved price if you include regional premiums and a EUR 9 optimization premium. So you'd basically be looking at an achieved price of about EUR 52 all in, including optimization premiums and regional premiums for the full year, which is a little bit lower than the EUR 54, I think that was in the Vara consensus.

So I'm sorry that, that's a very detailed set of numbers. But is there anything that I've done wrong there, or would you push back on any of that? I'm sure any clients who are listening, feel free to push back to me on Bloomberg. That's the first question. And the second one, again, apologies, this is a numbers one. But on my model, and I know everyone will have sort of different valuations, but I have to put in around the mid-60s in long-term achieved all-in price to sort of get up to kind of EUR 21, EUR 22 where your share price is today. If you look at the forwards, I know we don't necessarily believe in long forwards, but for what it's worth, they're probably in the sort of low to mid-50s if you include a EUR 8 to EUR 9 optimization premium.

So basically, on my math, you need to get a EUR 10 to EUR 15 premium now on top of sort of forward Nord Pool and your optimization premium guidance to kind of get into the low 20s. And I wondered if we could just revisit and I know you've talked in the past about that you could get premiums on data center PPAs. But I just wanted to revisit that. Do you think getting a EUR 10 to EUR 15 premium and then effectively that being applied to entire output is really plausible? So sorry for the very long and numbers-heavy questions.

Okay. So two questions. Maybe I'll start answering and Tiina, you can fill in. So not commenting the actual number, but I just revisit what are the components we give. So indeed, we try to guide what is the normalized level of production. So hydropower, we do not know exactly what it will be for the rest of the year, but you can look at normalized years. Nuclear volume, we guided a little bit downwards.

So you can look at that component. And then the hedge ratio for the rest of the year, 75% at EUR 39. So then you do the math on the open position, what you expect there and what would be the optimization premium. So these are the components we are giving. And Tiina, if there's something I missed, then please fill in. But on the second point, so similar math. So the -- we give the production volumes, and now we have the 60% hedged at EUR 40 for next year. So that's the only price guidance we give.

And with regards to the forward curve versus our pricing, so we have said that, that forward curve is one indication, and it's a very thin indication of what the forward price would be. So we continue to price every customer contract individually, then reflecting the different characteristics that the profile or different types of energy that the customer needs. So this all will come in then eventually into the achieved power price. And on top of that, the optimization premium as well. So all the customer elements and then the optimization premium. We're obviously not commenting what would be the future achieved price. What I will, though once again say is that we do expect that the power consumption will increase, driven by different sectors and new production, full load production cannot be produced. It cannot be invested in with today's prices. So it will have to command a higher price. But maybe, Tiina, is there something I missed there?

No, I think you covered it very well. So maybe only to comment the first quarter. So of course, when the spot prices were very high. So in our areas over EUR 80, EUR 85 per megawatt hour. So of course, that meant that we maximize the absolute outcome and EBIT. And therefore, the production volume was higher in the first quarter which in a way, increased also the achieved power price. So the profile of different quarters, of course, we optimize inside the year as well. So -- but the components are you as you said, Markus.

One thing now when I look at my notes on what all have we told you previously. So we did in the Investor Day, we spoke about the EUR 330 million improvement that would come on a like-for-like basis from generation in availability and also the improvements in the other businesses that are all within our hands, then the EUR 40 million improvement from Consumer Solutions and then as well as improvements in other. So this is perhaps a component that you need to put into the model as well.

Okay. That's clear. Maybe just a follow-up and again, so sorry, such a convoluted, long question for monopolizing everything. Markus, maybe just in very simple terms, do you still think it's plausible that you -- if you did sign a PPA with a data center operator or an industrial customer that you would be able to achieve a higher price than the sort of current medium-term forwards plus optimization premium. And I think you've sort of alluded in the past that you could. Do you think that's still plausible that you could get a premium above what you were sort of looking at, that you might achieve on the forward market and the current optimization premium guidance?

So I'll repeat my earlier remark that the forward curve is at best indicative, and it's very short term. So when we go into longer tenors, then the question is that what does a customer need in availability? What is the profile that the customers need? What are the characteristics? What type RFNBO guarantees of origin, et cetera. So there are many components. I will not go further than that.

The next question comes from Julius Nickelsen from Bank of America.

The next question comes from Ajay Patel from Goldman Sachs.

I guess mine's all around the optimization. Is there any sense you can give us how the Q1 performance was against last year. Was it higher, lower, the same? I'm just trying to understand what's sort of embedded for the second half of the year for optimization, given the strong start. And then the other thing is any drivers that you can just help us with more high level on -- for this year's optimization versus last? Anything that's maybe declining that we need to just keep in mind when we're thinking about that picture?

So on the detailed picture, if Tiina, you want to comment that. But regarding the high-level drivers, which are now impacting this year's guidance versus last year and the coming years. So I go back to that. The main part is the physical optimization. And in today's market, we have a lot of flexible capacity, which we can then utilize to support the market when it needs it, when power is in high demand and prices are high, so we can produce. Then it's the grid services that we provide for the TSOs.

And the third one is the guarantees of origin. And if we look then going forward, we expect that there will be competition in this space for part of the services from batteries and from electrified heating. However, this then again makes room for new investments in renewables when the power demand grows and customers would contract more capacities. So I do see that these elements are supportive of each other. And what we have today is the long duration flexibility, which has a different value than short duration batteries.

And on Q1's optimization? First slide?

Do you know anything there?

Yes. Q1 optimization. So usually, the first quarter is very, very strong. And what we said that also this year like the last year, so it was the double-digit number. I think what really matters is that what is the volatility? And when we look at the volatility numbers, so compared to full last year, so it increased, particularly in Finland.

So in the Finland, it was the highest, but also in Sweden in price area 2 and 3, it increased. So overall, at least the first part of the year looks what comes to the volatility high. Of course, that will depend how the full year continues. But as the new renewables are quite a lot of in the system, solar coming also to the market, so increases the overall picture.

If it's a similar level to last year, in the broad brush sense, is that just generally you're making the expectation as you go through the next 3 quarters that the optimization achieved in the last 9 months of the year versus the first 3 months is lower year-on-year? And hence, there's some conservatism there? Or is that too optimistic?

Well, I think what we have in general said that further we go to the time span, it's more difficult to estimate what is the volatility. So therefore, I think we give the more precise guidance to the near term when we also can estimate that what are the hydro reservoirs, the snow situation, how does the market overall demand-supply situation look like? So I would say that it is the forecast and accuracy, which will really dominate our guidance in the short term.

The next question comes from James Brand from Deutsche Bank.

I've got three questions, if that's okay. The first one is on the data centers, the DayOne and Nscale that you've been involved in helping them with some of their procedures they need to go through to get data center up and running. I was just wondering whether you could clarify what the rough time lines are for those data centers? And also if you could give a bit more detail exactly what your role is, the things you're doing to help them? That's the first question.

Secondly, you mentioned in your comments at the beginning of the presentation that there have been some concerns in Finland around power availability. Could you give us a bit more detail in terms of kind of what's being said there on what discussions are being held? And is it something that's being considered that new data centers would be required to have renewables built alongside the data center in order to deal with any power issues? And then sorry, those are both quite long, but the third one is relatively simple. For Q1, you mentioned the 8 terawatt hours of weather-related extra demand. Where does that leave demand growth in Q1 ex weather? From our numbers, it seems like it leaves it quite flat, but maybe you could clarify that.

Yes. I can start with the 2 latter ones and partly comment the DayOne and Nscale and Tiina, if you want to fill in there. But first of all, the -- I think the concerns about the Finnish power availability vis-a-vis data centers is something we can observe across the world. So we hear similar discussions in the U.S., Continental Europe as well as Finland. So people are quite focused on that. Well, there's a new project, what does that mean?

And in data centers, the numbers often are quite high that are being published and spoken about. And then in reality, the ramp-ups are much more linear and gradual. There is discussion about how are different energy users carrying their responsibility for new supply. Our answer to that whole discussion is that when we look across the sectors, and I've given several interviews today on the same topic, we see the biggest demand in our customer pipeline coming from steel, aluminum, hydrogen, hydrogen derivatives and data centers are then a part of it, but not the biggest part.

They are, however, coming faster and more linearly. Then our answer to the power availability is that if there is customer interest in additional capacity, at Fortum, we are preparing for that. So we have the renewable pipeline, we have a flexibility pipeline. And if there is customer willingness to pay for new additional capacity, then we can do that. But primarily, we are interested in selling from our existing portfolio, obviously, and cater for the customer needs right away. But on the public side, we are bringing facts to the table on the good infrastructure and good availability for all sectors of power as well. Then for the third question, the weather related.

So indeed, that is the case. So the increase was more on the private side and that we can all experience in our homes here. So it was really cold, minus 15 to minus 20 degrees throughout January and February, which leads to increased heating and increased use of electricity. So weather-adjusted quite modest growth. So industrial demand did not change materially.

And then the DayOne and Nscale involvement, this is reflecting our, like gradual development of the whole industrial site availability. So initially, our idea has been to catalyze new demand and bring new sites, bring new infrastructure to attract new customers to our areas. And this is what we have done with these sites. So these have been developed in good cooperation with the municipalities to facilitate new investments.

Then whether there would be other involvement or PPAs that we would then -- if they are material, we will announce it separately. And otherwise, you will see the results in our hedge ratios and hedge prices over time. Tiina, anything more on that?

No, I think it is, as you said. And if we look at the countries, so particularly, I think the demand was kind of the higher side in Finland and Norway and maybe in Sweden, more kind of the stable or even flatter or decreasing. So of course, countries, countries also differ slightly, but overall picture, as you said.

The next question comes from Artem Beletski from SEB.

Two questions from my side. So the first one is just continuing on this site development agreements, what you have done with DayOne and Nscale. Could you maybe talk about potential monetary impact? So is it anyhow significant? And secondly, is there any commitment to do then eventually PPA with you as those data centers are completed? And then the second question, what I had was relating actually to some press -- local press coverage what we have seen around Fennovoima site and possible new nuclear build-out there. Could you maybe provide your -- some comments on this topic? So what you actually hear and see happening on that front?

Yes. So if I start with the Pyh joki question. So yes, we have seen this speculation, and I will not comment on other companies' projects, but this is a real estate developer that I think was mentioned in connection with this. Our own focus is in our new build feasibility study, which we are doing with EDF and Westinghouse and GE Hitachi, both for Finland and Sweden. And in Finland, our focus would be on the Loviisa site.

And right now, on the lifetime extensions of Loviisa, where we are then taking investment by investment. And we bought the land area in Loviisa for developing potential future energy-intensive industry site development and potentially also even for new nuclear, but obviously, no decisions on this front, but enabling this possibility. Then regarding the site development. So if there were material impacts financially, then we would announce that separately.

And then on the individual customer PPAs. So if they're material, we will announce them. And otherwise, you will see the impacts then in our hedge ratios and prices over time.

Maybe just a quick follow-up relating to site development. And at the Investor Day, you showed this number of 5 gigawatts of potential capacity could be developed on your sites. How much is actually left for new projects at this stage because you have been doing agreements like Nscale and DayOne and some other projects already?

Yes. So we have certain developments going on, for example, in Inkoo, but the majority of this 5 gigawatts is still in our control and under development. And if there is some hold on the land, then that is not, in all cases, even definitive. So I would say most of these 5 gigawatts is available for customer development. And good to say that in different stages, obviously. So we are in different stages of the grid connections and the land agreements and so on. So then we will develop this to the final stages depending on potential customer demand.

The next question comes from Ingo Becker from Kepler Cheuvreux.

I have a question on your optimization premium as well. Apparently, we have a new energy crisis, which induced quite a lot of price impact on Europe and also, I guess, contributed to at least higher volatility in the Nordic market. Still, you haven't changed your optimization guidance, neither the higher range for this year nor perhaps the one for next year. Do you see any impact from the crisis effects yet? And how would you think will that perhaps change during the remainder of the year? And if you can, is or not, any of those effects, are they included in your optimization guidance for this year and next? Or would it perhaps come on top?

So indeed, the Middle East crisis and other geopolitical crisis are impacting customer demand, customer sentiment, both on consumer side and industrial side. So I would say that there are risks out there that are hard to evaluate at the moment. But definitely, this is not something that's positive for long-term development.

We see that the crisis has had an clearly increasing impact on gas prices and coal prices, obviously, oil prices as well. So in the times when the price signal comes from the continent to the Nordics, then it will have a positive impact on Nordic prices. Good to remember now that in the current situation, the Nordics as a whole are exporting energy on an annual basis to the continent, about 40 terawatt hours. So most of the time, the power flow is going from the Nordics to the continent.

Then for the optimization premium, so the biggest element in the volatility is the high penetration of renewables in the Nordics. So this is causing the price volatility. And we analyze, of course, the impacts, all the impacts that are impacting volatility and our optimization premium. And we have held based on our analysis, the guidance for this year and the coming years at the current level.

So the really biggest elements that are impacting it is the future capacity build-out, which will be mostly renewables in the short term that will increase volatility. And on the other hand, the amount of batteries and electrified heating, which are then able to absorb volatility. So these 2 factors that offset each other are the big elements impacting volatility in the midterm.

The next question comes from Louis Boujard from ODDO BHF.

Maybe going a little bit into the framework and regulatory framework regarding the potential impact of the revision of the EU ETS, how do you assess it? And so how do you see the potential adjustment to the industrial policy like the Industrial Accelerator Act?

Is it something that you consider could have a meaningful impact into your projection in terms of future growth demand for the electricity? And then regarding the potential taxation or -- the taxation for the data center that has been an ongoing discussion and on which there is still some detail, I think that should be discussed, not only in Finland. Do you think that it is something that could have some impact going forward on the final demand that could be expected from data center? Or it's something that could be completely neutral for your forecast at this point?

Okay. So maybe, Tiina, if you take the taxation and how has that impacted our discussions with the data centers. But the first one, so regarding the discussion around energy market design and ETS. So also as in my role as the Chair of Eurelectric, we have scanned all of the member countries in Eurelectric, which comprises the whole of EU plus more.

And there is very strong support for the energy market design. So having a functioning market mechanism, which decides then which assets are dispatched and when, there's very strong support for that. So I don't see wavering there despite calls for changing that, but that is coming from distressed industries, which we respect a lot.

Then on ETS, similarly, that's on EU level and on national level, there is a strong support for ETS because that is really in the core of EU's climate policy. And if we think about the -- what is the crisis we are right now seeing, it's a fossil fuel crisis. So the countries that are faring well now are the ones who have actually invested in clean production and clean energy. So homegrown clean energy is the solution for dependency and fossil fuel-related risks. So the importance of ETS is highly recognized. Simultaneously, the distress that many energy-intensive companies and industries are facing, that has to be addressed by EU and on national level.

And the answer that EU, for example, is providing for that is that national governments can use the tools that they have. So they have free allowances on ETS, how to use the ETS revenues if they want and can support certain industries selectively. So this is the discussion that I see happening right now. Crisis is recognized. There certainly are ways that the national governments can address this and decide how they want to use and that EU would facilitate also them using it. And with that taxation, do you want to comment that?

All right. Yes. So the electricity tax for data centers, so there will be a change from July and onwards in Finland. So previously, data centers have belonged to the kind of the lower tax category, so EUR 0.5 per megawatt hour electricity tax. And now they will move to the normal tax, so EUR 22.4 per megawatt hour. At the same time, there is a discussion whether there could be some kind of investment support supporting the data centers, but this is open. No decision yet.

I think what is important for the data centers is predictable environment so that they know when they do the investment calculations and investment decisions that what is the future. And I think this is the big issue to know that what are the circumstances, not only the tax but also the other issues. I would say that still whatever the tax rate is in Finland, so the power is very competitive in general, if we compare, for example, the Central Europe or other markets. But predictability, that is the topic and that what the data centers also are looking for.

The next question comes from Rob Pulleyn from Morgan Stanley.

Two, if I may. Firstly, a follow-up on the optimization topic. And I was wondering what we should infer from the use of the adjective strong in the strong double digit? And does that mean to say teens or sub-teens? That would be interesting. And secondly, given lots of other things are covered, if I may ask, again, your balance sheet, of course, looks underlevered versus your max gearing. And I was wondering if there was any update on what the use of capital allocation could be throughout the year and beyond.

Okay. I can start with the balance sheet. And Tiina, if you want to comment on the optimization premium. So indeed, after first quarter, the leverage was at 1.1x. And then we paid the dividend after that. So then that increases our leverage to the same level as it was in the end of the year. So we're about one notch below the -- what we have said to be the max level.

This gives us the possibility to help our customers with additional capacity if they need that. So we are in a position to invest. We are also in a position to look at acquisitions. So examples from near-term history are the ABO Energy and Enersense acquisitions on renewables, and Telia and Orange Energia on the Consumer Solutions side. So Consumer Solutions, district heating, cooling, renewables are interesting for us.

Also, if -- like we have said before, if nuclear or hydropower would be on the market, we would constructively look at that as well. And then we have the dividend policy. So 60% to 90% of our comparable earnings, net profit, this we -- dividend -- pay as a dividend at the higher end when the balance sheet is strong and investment pipeline is thinner. And if we have large investments or a levered balance sheet, then we can use the lower end of the range. But these are the 3 areas where we can use the balance sheet capacity.

All right. And then for the optimization premium and the first quarter. So during the first quarter, the spot prices were very high. So in our areas, EUR 85 per megawatt hour. So that led that we also run a lot of hydro because there was a demand. And of course, the prices were high. So I would say that overall, we optimized the whole result, not only the optimization premium. So that is the one element. So therefore, I would say that the optimization premium, double digits, very strong, but the overall absolute result was, of course, always in the focus.

The next question comes from Julius Nickelsen from Bank of America.

I hope you can hear me now?

Yes.

Perfect. Apologies for earlier. I don't know what went wrong there. Two questions from me on the data centers. First one on -- like a follow-up on the time line. I mean there have been a lot of announcements over the last few weeks and months, the different players, especially like hyperscalers want to build new data centers. Could you just maybe give us like a generic example if, let's say, a data center would take an FID in 2026 and start construction on a new project. How long would you expect that to take until it's basically operational? And when would you expect them to sign a PPA?

Then the second one is a quick one. There was an article today in the Finnish press saying that Microsoft had already signed the first or the first full 200 megawatts of its first stage of its data centers. Just to confirm, is that the tender we were talking about at the last results call where you didn't participate? Or is that even more? And again, just to confirm, you didn't participate in that one.

Okay. So if I start with the time line. So what we see in our total customer portfolio is that we foresee that customers are making FIDs this year and next year. This is kind of the expectation from the announced projects in various sectors. And if these FIDs take place, then the demand, and this is not data centers only, this is across the board, then this would lead to demand increase roughly in 2029, 2030.

So of course, we know depending on project, it takes 2 years to 4 years to build and have the capacity up and running in whichever business. Then for data center specifically, I referred earlier to that the headline numbers can be very big and then the buildup actually is gradual. So let's say, if there's a data center where capacity is 100 or 200 megawatts, then -- and this is very anecdotal, but what we see happening is that then these are built in the tens of megawatts increments depending on the customer demand.

So the demand ramp-up is gradual. Then if you would have an aluminum plant or steel plant, then it's more binary. So when you start, then you -- after the start-up curve, you go for full capacity. So if these announcements happen, then we will see more lumpy demand happening. Then for any customer-related transactions. So if we have material transactions, then we would be announcing those. And -- otherwise, you will see our customer contracts reflected in our hedge ratio and hedge prices. And we are moving towards our target on the 10-year rolling hedging. So you have seen historically the increases, and we continue to focus on that.

Okay. Very, very clear. Maybe just a quick follow-up. If you say demand will increase '29, 2030, is it then fair to assume that usually players will sign PPAs a year before that, before they will actually start needing electricity?

So this varies -- it's a very good question. So this varies business by business, again, empirically. But if I try to kind of put some frame around it. So if you are a start-up business in steel or aluminum or hydrogen-related products, if your business is to forward sell your end production, then these customers typically would have an interest to lock in the input components before they take the financial decision. So this is the type of discussion we are having with certain sectors. So for the bankability of a project, certain type of customers need visibility on both their sales and their inputs. Then for the data center customers, let's say, hyperscalers, they, of course, have the funding to build their build-out and they are not dependent on locking in electricity first.

So they can go into -- they can go to production. They can be exposed to short-term market prices as well. This is a very crude generalization, but just giving the kind of 2 examples of different type of customers.

The next question comes from Wanda Serwinowska from UBS.

Two questions from me. The first one, Markus, you referred to a material impact a few times when you were talking about PPAs. Can you disclose what is the exact definition of material impact? Because I remember you signed a couple of PPAs in the past with an industrial customer, but there was never price attached. So I'm just wondering at what threshold or what is the criteria to basically give us more details once PPA is signed?

And the second question is on the site development. Are you expect any EBIT contribution from helping data centers/hyperscalers to develop the sites? Or -- and if so, I mean, apart from the PPA and if so, what is the magnitude of the EBIT or EPS impact from helping to develop the sites?

Yes. So Tiina, if you want to comment on how do we think about materiality overall in our communication. And then on the site development, so historically, like I said, we have been developing sites so that it has been done to attract new demand. So it has been land development and then some premiums over the land values. In the long run, what is our interest is that, of course, our business is to produce electricity. So in the long run, we are looking at that, how can we connect things that are important for us into the site development. And that depends then on the competitive situation around the site development. Tiina, if you want to comment on the materiality?

Sure. So basically, of course, we will include all the PPAs for our hedge ratio, hedge price. And then, of course, we have this longer-term hedge ratio, what also covers the next 10 years. In addition, of course, based on the stock exchange rules, so if there is a really material contract, so we need to provide more information so that can be assessed what kind of financial impact it could have to us. So typically, those relates to the size of the deal or length of the deal somehow, where you and us can evaluate the impact. But that is also, of course, case by case.

If I can just ask a very, very quick follow-up. On the site development and the PPAs, do you bundle them always? Or what is the ratio of the site developments with a bundled PPA, with unbundled so we can understand because I don't expect you to develop sites at a 0 EBIT contribution in the long term if you don't bundle it with a PPA at some stage? Or am I missing something?

Yes, depending on the competitive situation. So of course, our business is to produce electricity and sell that to our customers. So that is what -- in the long run, what we are targeting. So that site development will bring us additional business. And then how that materializes depends on the competitive situation in land development and grid access development.

The next question comes from Ingo Becker from Kepler Cheuvreux.

Can I just get your feedback on an observation within the Nordic system? What we're seeing since quite a while actually is that when system prices are higher, actually the EPADs go down and vice versa. So seemingly a realizable or attainable price, what you call the blended market price isn't really moving that much. Would you share that observation? And related to that, are your offtakers in the different markets, your industrial counterparties signing contracts with you, which you then include in your hedge ratio on your hedge price going forward. Do they behave in a similar way? Or are they looking at different curves?

I'll leave it to Tiina to comment on the kind of short-term movements if you have a view on that. But it's a good question. So I take the high-level view that we don't take price area risk. So when we do our -- both our hedging and our PPAs, then we do it by price area. So we either produce or we purchase the electricity that we sell in the same price area. We do not take a basis risk. And then what you are referring to, I cannot really comment that, but that's been a short-term movement, and that's then unrelated to the hedging and PPAs that we do.

What comes to the EPADs. So I think it really depends on the demand supply situation and then also the transmission or capacity between the different areas or whether there are outages of the lines which might impact. But for example, Q1, so system price was EUR 90. And in Finland, actually, the prices were higher. So EUR 90, nearly EUR 93, whereas in price area 2 and 3, there were EUR 86 and EUR 66. So quite big differences. But I think it tells that there are still bottlenecks between the different areas, which make the situation change. And of course, Finland being in the kind of the last island. So the volatility here is seen more than in the other markets. Now the Aurora line, so that has partly balanced the prices in Sweden 1 and 2 and the Finnish area.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Pierre-Alexandre Ramondenc from AlphaValue.

Sorry to come back on this topic, but I'm still struggling to understand your achieved price at the end of 2025. You indicated that around 75% of volumes were hedged at EUR 41 per megawatt hour. And now you are reporting an achieved price of more than EUR 62. So clearly elevated that given even in 2023, you achieved a bit more than EUR 63 for the full year.

So if we do a simple math, that would imply realized prices of about EUR 100, EUR 120 per megawatt hour on the remaining 25% of unhedged volume, right? But I know that the picture is a bit more complex and largely reflects the optimization premium, but I find it difficult to fully bridge the magnitude of this gap. And especially as I guess, as Q1 was more heavily hedged at the beginning of the year than the following quarter. So if you could try to give us an indication of the achieved prices potential on the unhedged portion, this might be very helpful.

Yes. So I can address that. So it's a good question. How do we get from our hedged prices to the achieved price? So if we start with that, we have the hedges in place. That includes both the exchange hedges and the PPAs, which are most of the hedging actually. Then for the what was 25% in the end of last year for this year as the open position. So we got the price for that, and we had good hydro volumes.

So we had good volumes in Q1. And then the optimization premium, when we look at the physical optimization, that's what we got compared to the average spot also. So we also time our production, and then we get the grid services and the guarantees of origin, and that goes then for all of our volumes. So the double-digit optimization premium, that's not only for the open position, but for the totality that we have produced and sold in the first quarter. But these are the 3 elements, and that's how we get to the EUR 62.5 for the first quarter.

There are no more questions at this time. So I hand the conference back to the speakers.

Thank you, moderator, and thank you all for your questions. We're really happy that we had this high activity here at the webcast. Thank you all for your participation here today, and we wish you all a very nice rest of the day. And to everyone in the Nordics, have a very nice Vappu as well.

Thank you. Happy Vappu.

Thank you. Happy Vappu.

Good morning, everyone, and greetings from a cold Helsinki. A warm welcome to Fortum's joint webcast and news conference for the investor community and media on our full year financial statements 2025. My name is Ingela Ulfves, and I'm heading the Investor Relations at Fortum. As always, this event is being recorded, and there will be a replay for you later today to be found on our website.

With me here in the studio are again our CEO, Markus Rauramo; and our CFO, Tiina Tuomela. Markus and Tiina will present the group's financial and operational performance during the fourth quarter and full year 2025. Now let's go to our presentations, after which we will take your questions in the Q&A session. So I hand over to Markus to start.

Thank you very much, Ingela. A warm welcome to our full year 2025 results call also from my side. I will start by going through the key elements of our highlights and our financial performance, then say a couple of words about the hydrological situation and our strategic KPIs. After that, Tiina will provide more details on the financials and how the operational performance turned into our results. Let me now start with the highlights. Starting with the outright sales price. In the fourth quarter and full year, the achieved power price was slightly below last year's level, EUR 51.4 per megawatt hour compared to EUR 52.5 per megawatt hour for the full year.

Our realized market price, i.e., the blended price for Fortum's price areas was almost at the same level as last year, EUR 38.5 per megawatt hour in 2025 compared to EUR 38.4 per megawatt hour in 2024. One of the clear highlights during last year was the optimization premium. In line with our guidance in the autumn, the realized premium in '25 was EUR 9.7 per megawatt hour. Last year was abnormal regarding generation volumes, especially the prolonged unplanned outages at the Oskarshamn nuclear power plant negatively affected volumes.

Overall, hydro and nuclear volumes were 3.9 terawatt hours lower than in 2024 and approximately 6 terawatt hours below the level of normal volumes. Our efficiency improvement program came to an end at the end of 2025. We reduced our annual fixed cost by EUR 100 million, excluding inflation. The full run rate will be effective from the beginning of 2026, and we expect our fixed cost to amount to approximately EUR 870 million this year. In 2025, we acquired 2 renewables development project portfolios in Finland from Enersense and ABO Energy. Fortum's pipeline of onshore wind and solar projects in the permitting phase is now approximately 8 gigawatts with more projects in the early development phase.

Our Consumer Solutions also made one acquisition when we bought Orange Energia in Poland. This doubled our Polish Consumer Solutions customer base. When it comes to decarbonization of our own fleet, we are making progress through the decarbonization projects in Poland, both in Czestochowa and Zabrze. This is in line with our target to exit coal by the end of 2027. At the beginning of the year, we also committed to SBTi validated short- and long-term targets and net zero target by 2040.

In 2025, 99% of Fortum's power generation came from renewable or nuclear sources, leading to one of the lowest specific CO2 emissions among European utilities. At our Investor Day in November, we updated and published some new financial targets and new strategic KPIs to support strategy execution going forward. We have a strong balance sheet and good liquidity, so our overall financial position is strong. This gives our Board the confidence to propose a dividend of EUR 0.74 per share, which corresponds to a payout of 90% of our comparable earnings per share, in line with our dividend policy. The dividend is proposed to be paid in one installment in April 2026. Our Annual General Meeting will be held on the 31st of March.

The AGM invitation was published this morning. Then over to our main figures and financial KPIs. Here are our familiar comparable headline KPIs for the group's fourth quarter and for the full year 2025. Almost all KPIs decreased in both periods. The full year figures reflect the clearly lower generation volumes. In Q4, our comparable earnings per share increased from EUR 0.18 to EUR 0.23 per share. Comparable operating profit totaled EUR 251 million, while in the previous year, it was EUR 257 million.

Operating cash flow decreased clearly to EUR 53 million. On a full year basis, the group's comparable operating profit declined to EUR 924 million. Our comparable EPS declined from EUR 1 to EUR 0.82 per share, and operating cash flow declined from approximately EUR 1.4 billion to EUR 840 million. All of these lead to a leverage of 1.2x for the financial net debt to comparable EBITDA ratio. Tiina will go into more details on the result analysis in her part. Next, a few words about the market environment. Let's start by looking at the hydro reservoir situation for the Nordic market. It's good to note that this is not only Fortum's reservoirs, but the whole market.

During Q4, the precipitation amounts were slightly above normal, especially in October and December. Hydro inflows were very high, around 11 terawatt hours above normal due to both high temperatures, almost few centigrades above normal and larger-than-normal precipitation amounts. As a result, spot prices and the Nordic near-term futures development was soft, especially during the latter part of the fourth quarter before the weather turned cold and dry during the holidays, which led to increasing power prices. Overall, the market hydro reservoir situation in the Nordics is close to normal at the moment, as you can see from this graph on the left-hand side.

So it seems that hydro volumes would be closer to normal in 2026. As we also said at our Investor Day in November, our nuclear volumes are expected to be below our normal annual level of 26 terawatt hours. Tiina will get back to this. I want to also say a few words about the current Nordic market situation. At the beginning of this year, colder, drier and less windy weather than usual increased demand and reduced the hydro reservoir levels. In early January, there was a consumption record in Finland and both Sweden and Norway also experienced days with very high demand. The weather conditions, consequent lower hydro reservoir levels and higher demand have increased spot and forward power prices.

Spot prices have clearly risen to levels above EUR 100 per megawatt hour during past weeks in all Nordic countries and forward prices for the next quarter have also increased. We continue to focus on our work with customers in all segments. We see consistently high activity levels across various industrial sectors especially in the data center industry. Recently, we disclosed a small site development project in Finland, where we will be the development partner for a data center of several hundred megawatts. In these kind of cases, our interest is naturally to also act as the power supplier.

With our efficient diverse generation fleet, we can offer competitive baseload, low-carbon nuclear and hydro, which are not weather dependent and volatile. Then over to our strategic KPIs. At the Investor Day, we updated our strategic goals and KPIs based on our focus areas of operations, commercialization and development. The aim is to ensure optimal performance, capture long-term opportunities and manage business and market risks. First, for operations, we measure fleet availability and optimization premium. Unfortunately, last year, the situation was challenging with the significant impact from the unplanned and prolonged outage, especially at Oskarshamn 3.

This has had a significant impact on our nuclear volumes. The outcome for nuclear availability was consequently 75%, far below the target of 90%. While our hydro volumes were below the normal level, mainly due to low inflows in the beginning of the year, the availability was 94%, almost at the target level of 95%. Efforts to ensure high availability for both baseload nuclear and flexible hydro will continue to be very high on our agenda. Our strength lies in the optimization of our flexible hydro fleet. This was proven by the very high optimization premium of EUR 9.7 per megawatt hour.

For 2026, we expect the optimization premium to be in the range of EUR 8 to EUR 10. Forecasting the optimization premium becomes more challenging for further years, which is why we keep the earlier guidance of EUR 6 to EUR 8 per megawatt hour from 2027 onwards. Second, for commercialization, we measure a long-term hedging share of rolling outright volumes on a 10-year basis and CSI or customer satisfaction index. The target is to have at least 25% of our Nordic wholesale electricity production over a 10-year period by the end of 2028. At the end of 2025, the hedged share of our production for 10 years was 19%.

For the CSI, we target 76% by 2028. And at the end of last year, it was 76. And for the third area, development, which over time provides us growth opportunities, we have set targets for the ready-to-build pipeline for renewables and also for ready-to-deploy flexibility solutions. At the end of last year, we had 70 megawatts of ready-to-build wind projects. Our target is to have 1.2 gigawatts at the end of 2028. Projects are being developed to match customer demand if and when customers request new capacity. Decisions for new investments would be linked to a PPA. Our project development portfolio totals approximately 8 gigawatts of renewable power projects in permitting phase in the Nordics with more projects in the early stages of development.

Our flexibility target is to have the readiness to deploy new flexibility services and assets of up to 2.5 gigawatts by the end of 2028. At the end of 2025, we had 730 megawatts of electricity-based district heating assets and customer assets under our management, including both market access and demand response. This concludes my part, and I would now like to hand over to Tiina to talk more about business performance.

Thank you, Markus. Good morning, everyone, also on my behalf. I will go through our financials in more detail. Let's start with the key financials. I will start with some of the comparable KPIs. The comparable operating profit for the fourth quarter amounted to EUR 251 million, a slight decrease from previous year. In the fourth quarter, both comparable net profit and comparable EPS increased. Our comparable net profit for the quarter increased to EUR 207 million.

Consequently, our comparable EPS for the fourth quarter increased to EUR 0.23 compared to EUR 0.18 last year. Comparable EPS for the full year 2025 amounted to EUR 0.82. Our cash flow during the quarter was EUR 114 million lower than previous year and totaled EUR 53 million, mainly reflecting the lower EBITDA and bigger negative change in working capital compared to the previous year. The main reason for the change in working capital in 2025 comes from higher inventory, mainly nuclear fuel in Loviisa. Then over to the segment result for comparable operating profit. Let's have a look at the fourth quarter first. The group result is almost at the same level as in the previous year despite the EUR 2.6 per megawatt hour lower achieved power price.

The result in our Generation segment decreased while both the Consumer Solutions and Other Operations segment improved. In the Generation segment, comparable operating profit decreased by EUR 20 million to EUR 245 million, mainly due to the lower hedge prices, lower sales of guarantees of origins and somewhat higher property taxes for nuclear and hydro in Sweden. Higher volumes partly offset the negative effect. The fourth quarter shows a record performance in our Consumer Solutions business. The comparable operating profit reached an all-time high fourth quarter level of EUR 26 million.

This is an increase of EUR 10 million, which mainly relates to improved electricity margins in the Nordics and improved cash margins in the enterprise customer business in Poland. In the Other Operations segment, comparable operating profit improved by EUR 4 million, showing a negative result of EUR 20 million. The main reason for the improvement was the positive effect from divestment finalized in 2024. Then let's move to the segment footfall of the full year result. When looking at the waterfall for the whole year, the comparable operating profit shows the same pattern as for the fourth quarter. Compared to the previous year, the result in our Generation segment decreased, while both Consumer Solutions and Other Operations segments improved.

In the Generation segment, comparable operating profit decreased clearly by EUR 325 million and amounted to EUR 893 million. The main reasons were the lower hydro and nuclear volumes. The result was further impacted by lower hedge power prices, increased property taxes for nuclear and hydro in Sweden and higher nuclear fuel costs. In the comparison period, the result of the renewables business was positively impacted by a sales gain of EUR 16 million from the divestment of the Indian solar power portfolio. Reaching an all-time high level also for the full year, Consumer Solutions comparable operating profit increased by EUR 46 million and was EUR 122 million. Every quarter recorded a record high result. The improvement was mainly a result of improved gas margins in the enterprise customer business in Poland, improved electricity margins in the Nordics and approximately EUR 13 million of cost synergies.

In the Other Operations segment, comparable operating profit improved by EUR 25 million and amounted to minus EUR 91 million. The main reason was the positive impact from divestment finalized in the Circular Solutions business in 2024. Then over to the balance sheet, leverage and liquidity. Our financial position continues to be strong, primarily supporting our objective to maintain a credit rating of at least BBB. It naturally also provides a good financial foundation in this very uncertain and turbulent market environment, but also caters for growth and shareholder returns. In line with our capital allocation principles, we balance leverage, investments and dividends while always keeping the credit rating in mind.

We are very pleased that Fortum's current long-term credit rating by both S&P Global Ratings and Fitch Ratings is BBB+ with stable outlook. For the fourth quarter, I want to go through the reconciliation of our financial net debt. As you can see, it increased slightly. At the end of the third quarter, our financial net debt was around EUR 1.3 billion. In the fourth quarter, the operating cash flow was EUR 53 million and investment amounted to EUR 189 million. The change in interest-bearing receivables amounted to EUR 47 million, while FX and other effects were EUR 13 million.

Consequently, at the end of the year, our financial net debt was around EUR 1.5 billion and the leverage ratio for financial net debt to comparable EBITDA was at 1.2x. Looking at our debt portfolio and the loan maturity profile, I want to highlight a few things. At the end of the year, our gross debt, excluding leases, totaled EUR 4.6 billion. Our maturity profile is very balanced, and there are no large maturities in any single year. Now in February, a EUR 750 million bond matures and will be repaid. Bonds are and continue to be our primary source of funding. We continue to have ample liquidity reserves, EUR 6.8 billion with EUR 2.9 billion of liquid funds and EUR 3.9 billion of undrawn committed credit facilities and overdrafts.

The cost for our EUR 4.6 billion loan portfolio is 3.1%, while the interest income that we get for our EUR 2.9 billion liquid funds has remained unchanged being 2.1%. With the strong liquidity position, we continue to optimize our cash and credit lines. The overall objective is to have sufficient liquidity while optimizing the balance between debt and cash to minimize funding costs. Then over to the final section, the outlook. The outlook section comprises elements of guidance for outright portfolio, taxes, CapEx and cost guidance. Let's start from the hedges. At the end of the year, the hedge price for 2026 was EUR 41 and hedge ratio was 75%.

From the last report, the hedge ratio has increased by 5 percentage points, while the hedge price has remained the same. The hedge price for 2027 is EUR 40, EUR 1 higher compared to last time disclosed, while the hedge ratio increased by 10 percentage points to 55%. Our optimization premium for 2026 is estimated to be between EUR 8 to EUR 10 per megawatt hour and for 2027 onwards between EUR 6 to EUR 8 per megawatt hour. In a normal year, our annual outright volume is approximately 47 terawatt hours. Based on announced outages, nuclear output for 2026 is estimated to be below the normal level of 26 terawatt hours. Based on current market information, we estimate that our nuclear volume will be between 24 to 24.5 terawatt hours in 2026.

Consequently, the variable procurement cost will be higher compared to the level in 2025 due to the higher generation volume from associated nuclear units. Our capital expenditure guidance is unchanged, EUR 550 million committed for the year 2026, including maintenance and excluding potential acquisitions. For the period 2026 to 2030, CapEx guidance is EUR 2 billion, of which EUR 750 million is growth. Annual maintenance is expected to be EUR 250 million. We have now concluded our fixed cost reduction program. For the year 2025, fixed cost totaled EUR 873 million. The new run rate for our fixed cost base in 2026 will be approximately EUR 870 million. This includes the fixed cost increase of EUR 20 million in the Swedish property tax.

While being disciplined, we continue to allocate development cost for growth. This relates, for example, to renewables development, site development, build up the commercial organization and the hydrogen pilot project in Loviisa. The guidance for our corporate tax rate also remained unchanged for 2026. We expect the comparable effective income tax rate to be in the range of 18% to 20%. The Finnish government plans to decrease the corporate tax from 20% to 18% from the beginning of 2027. There is, however, no official law in place yet. Our very preliminary estimate is that this would lower the comparable effective income tax by 1 percentage point from 2027 onwards. This was all for my presentation, and we are now happy to answer your questions. So with this, Ingela, over to you.

Thank you, Tiina, and thank you, Markus. So we are then ready to take your questions. There is already a queue. So let's begin the Q&A session now. Moderator, please go ahead.

[Operator Instructions]. The next question comes from Harry Wyburd from BNP Paribas Exane.

I'm afraid I've got 3 to start off with. So firstly, there was, I believe, a tender by Microsoft for a data center PPA in December. So I wondered if you could tell us whether you participated in that. And either way, when you would expect the results for that tender to be? And if you did win capacity there when you might be in the position to announce it? The second is on your -- on debt. So that came in a little bit higher than I was expecting, I think, higher than consensus as well. You mentioned working capital, you mentioned nuclear fuel purchases. I wondered if you could quantify that. What kind of abnormal moves in working capital have you had this year, so you can help us model working capital for next year and future years? And then the third one is -- has there been any update on the Uniper Nordic assets that you have right of first refusal on until, I believe, the end of this year? And if that right of first refusal lapsed, would that change your thinking on other uses of balance sheet, so for instance, something like a special dividend?

Okay. Thank you very much for the questions. We had a technical issue in the beginning. So we got your second question about net working capital, fuel purchases and the third one regarding Uniper Nordic assets. But the first one, we actually missed. So if you can repeat that, please.

Okay. Yes. And I will...

Sorry, if you also introduce yourself because we missed that as well. Sorry.

Okay. Sorry. So sorry, it's Harry Wyburd from BNP Paribas Exane. So assuming you got the second 2, which I think you mentioned, the first one, which I think is important because it's the most important one people want to hear about. So I believe there was a Microsoft PPA tender in December. So the question was, did you participate in that tender? And if you did or if you didn't, when would you expect the results to be announced? And if you did win capacity in it, at what point would you be ready to announce that to market? And then I believe you got the second 2, right?

Indeed. Yes. So I think I'll take the Uniper Nordic assets and the Microsoft tender. And Tiina, if you want to comment the working capital. If I start with the tender, so -- this is an issue related to what are the issue -- or what is the capacities that are being tendered, and we did not participate in the final stages of that tender. So we don't know when any outcomes would be released. And then for the Uniper Nordic assets, so we continue to be interested in nuclear and hydro in the Nordics. So if the assets were to come available, then we would certainly look at them, but we haven't heard any news from the German side. And then Tiina, on the working capital.

Yes. So the working capital in 2025 increased. Partly that was normal price-related fluctuation with the receivables and payables, but the normal price-related movements. The additional increase related to Loviisa where we have increased the inventory level. Partly, this is reflecting the higher prices, but also the main reason is the higher volume and the amount was roughly EUR 100 million.

The next question comes from Julius Nickelsen from Bank of America.

It's here from BofA. Just a few questions on the price environment in Q1. And maybe to start off, could you give us some color where your hedging would be right now and at what prices? And then also maybe given that obviously, the prices were quite high, but it seems like also quite volatile. Could you give us a little bit of color on how the opportunities for the optimization premium looked like in the first quarter, at least for the weeks that have passed now? That would be super useful.

Okay. So I can start and Tiina, if there's something to add. Indeed, we have experienced a very cold January in the Nordics. So we saw Finnish consumption records and also Norwegian and Swedish consumption has been high and the near-term forwards have increased substantially. Very little movement when we go into 2027. So if we can capture the high prices with our open position now in Q1, that would have an impact on -- a positive impact on the results. So we have hedged 75% at the end of the year for the full year of '26. And now it's -- the question is the open position for the first quarter. For the hedging, prices in the second quarter and partly also for the latter part of the year have increased. So that gives us potential for hedging in the short term.

Then for the optimization premium, price volatility, of course, is positive for our assets, assuming that we have hydropower and the -- or hydro in the reservoirs that we can then regulate. So all in all, volatility is a positive, but the outcome we will then see later on. And of course, we only report on the full year basis. Guidance now is the EUR 8 to EUR 10 per megawatt hour for optimization premium.

The next question comes from Pavan Mahbubani from JPMorgan.

I also have 3. Firstly, positive to see an increase in your forward selling price, particularly for 2027. I appreciate there's a lot of rounding in your hedging numbers. Are you in a position to give a bit more precisely where your forward sales were for 2027 between Q3 and today? That's my first question. Secondly, on the development agreement with day 1, and you mentioned in your opening remarks, it would be your ambition to sign PPAs alongside the work that you're doing with them.

Can you give us any color on when you see this data center being commissioned and any indication of a time line on when you think there would be a PPA tender? And finally, following up on Harry's question on the Microsoft data center PPA. I appreciate these are commercial discussions, but can you give a bit of flavor as to why you didn't participate in the later rounds?

Yes. Thank you. So Tiina, would you take the hedging question, and I can take the 2 latter ones.

Yes. All right. So as mentioned, our hedge price for 2027 is EUR 40, so which increased EUR 1 from the previous quarter and the hedge ratio of 55%. I think it is worth to remember that our hedge price and the ratio includes both the spot and the area. So it is not only the spot prices, but also the area which what we have experienced has varied quite a lot in the past. The rounding, yes, we round the numbers with every 5 percentage points. So -- but we haven't given any more specific quarterly numbers for different hedge period only on the yearly level.

Okay. And then to day 1, so we have been developing a site in Normi, not far away from Helsinki. And regarding the data center development, that's up to day 1 then to comment when they expect commissioning for the site. So also for the municipal permitting and zoning purposes, this had to be announced because it went into city council handling. And then for the PPA tendering, we do not have visibility when day 1 would be tendering and if they would be tendering for the energy procurement. So if and when we get color and contracts of the scale that they would be announced, then we will, of course, inform the market.

Then for the Microsoft PPA, this relates then from my point of view, to the renewable pipeline that we have. And our target is that we would have a relevant offering in solar or wind that would fit then the additionality requirements and time lines that industries would need. And in this case, we did not have capacity to be offered at the right time in this tender. So it was a question of our pipeline availability. And this is exactly why we have the target for developing our 8 gigawatts in permitting with a target to have 1.2 gigawatts ready-to-build assets in 2028.

The next question comes from James Brand from Deutsche Bank.

I think I'll probably have a go at 3 questions as well. Obviously, lots to talk about, lots of things happening. I don't know how easy this question to ask, but I was wondering whether you could step back a bit on the kind of whole PPAs potentially site sales that everyone's been so excited about from data centers because we've had kind of hope around this for like quite a long time. And encouraging comments from you in Q4, but we're kind of still waiting for a major deal. I think in Q4, you kind of suggested that some of the negotiations that you were in kind of felt like they've become a bit more tangible and a bit more serious. Is that still the case now that you feel like the momentum behind these things has accelerated? Or has there been maybe a bit of a slowing down again? That's the kind of first question.

The second one is on demand growth. Obviously, you're not really in the business for making a forecast for demand growth necessarily. But we didn't see any -- as you highlighted in your statement, any demand growth in the Nordics last year. Do you have any expectations for what we'll see this year? Do you think that we'll see an acceleration in demand growth this year? Or is it credible that we might just not see any growth again and it's kind of -- it's further down the track that we'll see demand growing? And then thirdly, I wanted to ask -- sorry, all big picture questions here.

The Q1 prices, you gave quite a nice explanation for what was going on there, but it's been pretty dramatic on the back of, I guess, obviously, the weather has been cold, I guess, wind hasn't been great. But the hydro seems to have been kind of okay overall. It's not like we went into Q1 with like particularly low reservoir levels. So kind of how exceptional do you think Q1 is? Because it's quite noteworthy that we haven't seen any increase in the forward curve on the back of this. So the market seems to be assuming that albeit yours highlighted it liquid, but the market seems to be assuming it's just a one-off, but it doesn't seem like the market conditions are that unusual for us to just say this is entirely a one-off.

Yes. Thank you. Good big picture questions. All 3 are actually related. So I would agree with what you were implying in the last question that this price spike that we see, this is a situation. So it is unusually cold now. So not a normal January. The temperatures in the Nordics have been, let's say, roughly between minus 10 and minus 30 now for the whole of January, and they continue to be -- seem to be also going into February, just looking at the next week or 2 forecast.

And I assume that, that is why also we do not see this impacting the 2027 prices. Indeed, if we look at what we just said about the hydro reservoirs, so we went into this situation with a fairly balanced situation. So there is capacity available. But then as typically happens with very cold weather, the wind speeds tend to slow down -- so the -- out of, let's say, the Finnish 9 gigawatts of wind capacity, the daily capacities have been a few gigawatts, so nowhere close to what the max could be. Then this partly relates then to the demand growth and PPA sales and whole momentum question.

So when we look at both the -- what DSOs are forecasting for demand based on the demand connection inquiries and what we see customers asking us, we see that there's potential for a good amount of financial investment decisions in 2026. The momentum compared to Q3 and Q4 continues to be positive. So things are advancing, but they seem to take time. But overall, I think the feeling is positive. I don't think the whole geopolitical backdrop is supportive. So that probably adds to that decisions may be moving to the right direction, but they take time.

And then how does this then translate into demand growth? So we would estimate that if [ FIDs ] are by customers are made this year, then this will translate into new demand really picking up in 2029, 2030. And then we see, of course, smaller additions, data centers and so on that have been decided already and are being built. They will come online later this year, '27, '28. So demand would increase based on this. And then finally, coming to -- more specifically to your first question about the -- then where are the PPAs and site sales coming from.

So we see -- again, even if the data centers are making headlines, but we see good activity in steel, aluminum, hydrogen, data centers and other sectors. And I would characterize it so that even inside those sectors, you have incumbents who make their own decarbonization decisions. And then you have new entrants who come with potentially a different business model. But this is characterizing the whole market. So momentum, steady, moving continuously forward. So we anticipate that customers will be making decisions this year.

The next question comes from Deepa Venkateswaran from Bernstein.

The next question comes from Anna Webb from UBS.

Two from me. Firstly, on the optimization premium guidance you gave, which is the kind of 8% to 10% for this year, but then kind of a more -- what you would call normalized from 2027. Given your kind of comments on power demand, and I know in the report, you put kind of in the first line of your statement, Markus, that you kind of expect power demand growth in the Nordics.

That would suggest that kind of volatility would continue. And if the power market is tighter, then the opportunity for optimizing with your hydro would be better or at least continue at the same level. So I guess my question is, is this kind of lower optimization premium guidance conservatism? Or is there a reason that you think volatility will be -- will be lower? And then secondly, going back to the question on the tender and you commented that you kind of didn't have the renewable pipeline ready to match kind of what was being demanded. Is there a reason you can't fulfill that with your existing power capacity? I mean, you have -- I'm assuming towards the end of the decade, still a lot of uncontracted or unhedged volumes. So is there a specific reason it had to be new capacity for that tender? That would be really helpful.

Thank you. So 2 questions. Tiina, do you want to take the optimization premium question? I can take the tender. So what I understand is that it was specifically a new renewable tender. And therefore, our capacity that otherwise, of course, would match customer needs technically was not qualified for that. So that was a specific feature, if I understand correctly. But we don't have all the details because we haven't been there in the final rounds -- and then Tiina.

Thank you. The optimization premium, so it is really driven from the volatility. And when we look at the numbers for 2025, so we can see that in Finland, the volatility has been the highest, slightly down in the last quarter, but still on the high level, whereas in the other market, Sweden, Norway, the volatility has even increased a bit. So I think this is a big, big driver and therefore, also gives a good backing for our this year's optimization premium forecast or guidance EUR 8 to EUR 10 per megawatt hour.

As we have said that then to give a guidance further, it is more difficult to forecast because the volatility and how it will develop. So it's still a bit uncertain. So I would say that it is more the kind of the conservative side, and we will further define our guidance as we have a more visibility and see how our optimization works.

The next question comes from Harrison Williams from Morgan Stanley.

Two from me. Firstly, maybe continuing on the Microsoft tender, I'm afraid. Previously, you had suggested that the lifetime extension to your Loviisa power plant would qualify for additionality. I just want to confirm in this tender, is it that they explicitly excluded nuclear? Or would this now apply to all potential tenders where they are looking for additionality? And maybe secondly, as a follow-up question to that. I mean, if these new data centers are explicitly looking for new renewable capacity and that's mostly wind in Finland.

I mean, looking at capture prices for wind in 2025, they were below 60%, which is leading to quite a heavy distortion in the market and driving up volatility quite significantly. Is that coming into any of these questions and debates with these offtakers? So that's kind of the first, apologies quite a long-winded question. And the second, just on nuclear volumes. So I appreciate the additional guidance for volumes for 2026. That's now 2 years where we are relatively meaningfully below your kind of '26 terawatt hours long-term guidance. Can you remind us of the outages this year? And what gives you conviction that '26 is still the right number going forward?

So I can take the first 2 ones -- the first 2 ones and if you take the nuclear volumes. Yes. Okay. So for the Microsoft tender and the question about lifetime extension additionality, yes, indeed, we can offer additional lifetime extended nuclear to customers when they specifically require that. And of course, that's a very different product compared to intermittent and volatile renewables.

So these are different things. And this was, to my understanding, certainly not the tendered subject in this case. So that is available. And this tender specific for the renewables. Then for the capture prices and that new renewables will increase volatility, that's certainly recognized in our discussions with customers who require additional renewables. So we're having continuously discussions about how can we then together also bring storage and flexible demand and flexible assets to the market.

So this relates to backup power and so on. And these discussions are happening across our customer sectors, relates also to our 2.5 gigawatt flexible ready-to-deploy assets by 2028. So I think that gives a flavor of the scale that we are targeting because the majority of that 2.5 would be customer assets, and that relates both to industrial as well as consumer. So yes, this is very much in discussions with the various customer segments. And then to nuclear volume.

Yes. So nuclear in 2025, so I would say that, that was exceptionally low because -- mostly because of the Oskarshamn long outage. So for 2026, the situation is better as we indicate that based on the current outage plan, so the production volume would be around 24 to 24.5. We have still some long outages in 2026. And the bigger ones are, again, in Oskarshamn, roughly 2 months outage. Also in Loviisa 2, we have 1.5 months outage this year and then also Forsmark 1 and 2, they have nearly 3 months outages. So those will still impact this year's production volumes.

The next question comes from Iiris Theman from DNB Carnegie.

I have 2. So firstly, still regarding Microsoft's tenders. So did they also exclude hydro? And my second question is that how do you expect the market supply to develop this year? And basically, how do you see the overall supply-demand situation in Finland this year?

Okay. Tiina, if you take the supply-demand question. And for the Microsoft tenders, I'll come back to that. Our understanding is that this was regarding new renewables. If it had been hydro, of course, we would have well qualified for such a tender.

Yes. Well, the market situation, so it depends fully as the demand supply and how the project will start to move on. And as Markus indicated that, yes, something probably will happen this year, but when and how so still, of course, uncertain. The other factors from the supply chain is the hydro balance. And as we currently see that the hydro reservoir levels at the Nordic level are roughly on the average level. So that would indicate that the supply side is fairly normal.

But as we have seen, the hydro balance can move very quickly during the year. And nuclear also better than the previous year, but still a bit lower. So it is really the balance between these 2 and how they go forward. So I would say, overall, better situation, but of course, remains to be seen.

The next question comes from Piotr Dzieciolowski from Citi.

May I please ask 2 questions. So the first one is I want to come back to this data center topic. So in the next tender, whenever it happens, would you -- would it also be subject to additionality and nuclear extension could qualify? Or how do you think it's the tender by tender or this Microsoft tender was just a small tender for new renewables and the new tenders may have a very different structure? Or how do you see ability to tender in your nuclear capacity into the future tenders? And the second question I have regarding RWE assets. So RWE recently sold some Swedish wind business. Have you looked at it? And more broadly, when you look at your pipeline, do you think it is good size and maturity and you're looking for something extra and this RWE offer was not just -- was not the right price? Or you think you are good to go when it comes to your development pipeline?

Yes. Thank you. So for the data center and other tenders, so customers have varying requirements. So some just need straightforward profile as they want it. The only criteria may be that it's CO2 free, so either existing nuclear or hydro. And then there are varying degrees of special requirements, could be RFNBO qualified or compatible, can be new renewables, could be additional nuclear. So we are exactly trying to answer the customer needs that we see. And the renewable pipeline of 8 gigawatts under permitting is built based on what we perceive the customer needs to be.

But then in order to qualify in those tenders, you need to be able to deliver then a project to start when the customer needs it. Our philosophy also as a backdrop is that if we tender and historically, we have done this also outside of the Nordics, if we tender, then we want to have certainty on permitting, zoning, grid connection and equipment tenders. And that, of course, takes a lot of effort. And again, we get back to our 1.2 gigawatt of ready-to-build target and that ready to build then truly means that we know the investment parameters and we can match the customers' timing and need and then start a project.

Then on the Swedish wind business, so there have been wind assets and wind development portfolios for sale over the last few years. Basically, we look at everything that's in the market that's relevant for us. And right now, after the acquisitions of Enersense and ABO Wind development portfolios, our situation with regards to development portfolio in Finland is very good.

So we have the biggest portfolio. In Sweden, we would have room for more development. And then if there are operating assets, then these are interesting for us at the right price. So if there are acquisitions that would meet our profitability criteria and this takes into account what was discussed earlier, capture rates and so on, then we are interested also in operating assets.

The next question comes from Louis Boujard from ODDO BHF.

Maybe 2 questions on my side. One regarding the nuclear availability, notably maybe a bit beyond 2026. If you can give us a little bit more visibility on this. You are currently at 75% availability. We understand that you'll still be below your target of 90% in 2026 because you already mentioned this.

Regarding 2027, do we -- shall we expect that you will be indeed at the 90% or you still have some expected outage to be taken into consideration, considering that indeed you will reach the 90% target in 2028. The second question would be regarding the flexibility assets. I understand that you have ready to deploy 730 megawatts. At the same time, we see huge volatility, notably with the spot price at the moment, but also it's quite recurring that the volatility is very strong in the region. So is there any way that you could eventually consider taking final investment decision on new flexible assets, even if it's not related to a specific contract or to a specific client, shall you eventually make some deployment and some CapEx expansion in order to take the position and to improve your capacity to reach and to eventually go beyond your current flexible assets? That would be my second question.

Okay. Thank you very much. I'll take the second question. And Tiina, if you want to comment on the nuclear availability.

Yes.

So I can start with the flexibility. So indeed, we have been developing flexible consumption assets and also in small-scale batteries as well as customer flexibility. The biggest flexible electricity consumption is our electrified heating. If we look at Espoo alone, we have more than 400 megawatts of electrified heating capacities either operating or under construction in form of electric boilers, water-to-water heat pumps and then air-to-water heat pumps.

And these are an excellent match with the volatile and intermittent renewables. Payback times have been very short and very competitive. That's also a factor that plays in when we consider the value of flexibility. So if there's a lot of volatile production, there will be also a business case for volatile or flexible consumption. Going forward, indeed, our thinking is that we do not need customer PPAs or customer contracts to develop storage or flexible assets.

They fit very nicely into our existing portfolio, and they can be a good complement for hydro. And what this like conventional hydro. So what this could be, it can be batteries. And this we have done actually since a very long time already, but in smaller scale. And then on the large-scale long duration pumped hydro is the potential where we have a development pipeline in our co-owned company, [ Kemioke ] in Finland as well as 3 sites in Sweden.

So altogether, we talk about around 2 gigawatts of pumped hydro flexible potential. That goes beyond our 2.5 gigawatt target because the timing is actually goes further than that. Coming back to the 2.5 gigawatts, we estimate that the big part of that would come from customer flexibility, and that goes to different customer segments, steel, aluminum, hydrogen, also data centers, where in our customer discussions, we are visualizing for our customers the value of their flexibility.

So we can get to a different price point if a customer is ready to flex, say, 10%, 20%, we can take the cost of providing the firm profile down significantly. And then by that, also advance the deployment of renewables. So maybe that in the broad scale from flexibility. And then Tiina on the nuclear.

Nuclear availability. Yes, the target of the 90%, that's a very, very ambitious target. Overall, if we compare worldwide the nuclear availabilities. But in the Nordic, I think we have the good records and all the possibilities to achieve that. The development towards the 90%, I would say it is more gradual than jumping immediately. So from last year, 75%, so that was exceptionally low. So based on the current UMM, so this year should take us over 80%. And I would say that then it would be gradually increasing to the 90% towards the end of 2030.

That said, so some of the units like our Loviisa. already last year, they were very close to 90%. Likewise, Olkiluoto 1, very good performance. So there are units which are achieving this 90% earlier. But when we look at the overall portfolio, so then it will take a bit more time.

The next question comes from Deepa Venkateswaran from Bernstein.

Hopefully, you can hear me now?

Yes.

Yes, we can.

Yes. Apologies to jump back on the PPA data center demand. I had 2 questions. One is the -- the deal that you announced with day 1. We had seen a similar kind of deal that RWE had done for one of their sites in the U.K. However, they did the permitting and they sold the land to the hyperscaler and they got a tiny amount of gain. So can I clarify that you are -- will you be participating in some kind of gains at a later stage? Or have you just sold the land for a nominal sum.

So I just wanted to understand what happens if you don't get a PPA? And secondly, on the PPA, a lot of investors like your stock because they expect that you will sign PPAs for your nuclear fleet at a premium to the forward prices. so far, it seems like Microsoft is wanting new wind generation or new clean energy generation, which is likely to be wind. So are the investors wrong in hoping you will sign PPAs for existing nuclear sites at some point? Or how would you characterize the position on the nuclear plants you have?

Thank you. Okay. So if I start with the latter part. So I go back to the different sectors. So we see the big demand portfolio and pipeline from steel, aluminum, chemicals, hydrogen, as well as data centers. And there seems to be demand for basically for all of the existing products that we have as well as additionality. So if I characterize that customers are asking for baseload, like mid- to long-term baseload PPA indications. They're asking for additional renewables as produced.

Some are asking quotes for additional nuclear. So that goes across the board. And then also, for example, RFNBO compatible supply. So everything that we have in our portfolio is under discussion. Then the second good question about the site development. So there are various approaches to our site development. So that ranges from everything from fully owned sites where we control the land, own the land. And if we sell it, we can sell it at the price that matches the customer needs. Then we have also more from a demand creation point of view, we develop land together with the municipalities, which is, for example, the case in [ Normier ] with day 1, where we have developed land in agreement with the municipality that if we find an investor, then we can buy and sell the land to an investor.

And then the premiums tend to be small. And then if it's fully on land that we control, that can be a different case. And then our interest with the sites is, of course, that we could combine and we can offer to our customers multiple features and services. So what we would, of course, ideally like is that we combine land development and grid access with PPAs with additional new supply and locking in our current supply with attractive prices.

Thank you.

Thank you. We are now already a bit over time. So -- and there was a lot of questions. Thank you for your questions. Any further questions, we are happy to help you with those then in the IR team. But at this point in time, I want to thank you, everyone, for your participation here today and wish you a very nice rest of the day.

Thank you very much. Have a good day.

Thank you. Bye-bye.

Good morning, everyone. A warm welcome to Fortum's Investor Day 2025. It's our pleasure to be able to host all of you both here in the venue in Helsinki and also everyone online watching from various global locations. My name is Ingela Ulfves, and I am heading Investor Relations at Fortum. This event is being recorded, and a replay will be available on our website later today. It has been a while since the last time we gathered representatives from the capital markets to give you deeper and broader insights into our business.

Fortum's President and CEO, Markus Rauramo; our CFO, Tiina Tuomela, as well as Simon-Erik Ollus and Mikael Rönnblad representing our businesses are hosting the Investor Day today. During the day, they will provide an overview on the company's operating environment, development of business operations as well as updates on the progress of Fortum's strategy execution and financial targets.

Let me briefly walk you through today's agenda. We'll begin with the presentation by Markus on our strategic priorities and growth vision. Next, Tiina will present our new financial targets and how we are promoting long-term earnings growth. After these two presentations, we will have the first Q&A session. At approximately 11:15 we'll take a coffee break.

For those of you joining online, please note that the webcast will pause during this break and then resume with the next session. After the break, we'll continue with presentations by Simon on our commercial strategy and business opportunities and Mikael on value creation in our Consumer Solutions business. There will then be another Q&A session before we close the formal part of the event.

So after the presentations -- and after the presentations, we'll be asking you to provide feedback about the event and hope that you can spare a moment to give us your valuable input, both here in Helsinki, but also online. And finally, for those attending here in person, we'll invite you to join us for lunch and networking from 1:00 to 2:00. We really look forward to an engaging and insightful day together. And with this, I now hand over to Markus to start.

Thank you very much, Ingela. A warm welcome to our Investor Day from me as well. Today in my presentation, I will outline our plans for creating value in the future, discuss our strategic priorities and present our vision for future growth. The overarching theme of today is value creation in our core operations, both now and in the future. There are multiple approaches to assessing value, but our primary objective is to consistently generate value for shareholders.

I will start by discussing our position in the Nordics and how we intend to capitalize on the business opportunities arising from the current operational environment and underlying market fundamentals. Following this, I will address our strategy execution and growth vision. To conclude, I will review the strategic KPIs, key enablers and sustainability topics before closing my presentation.

Fortum has a very strong position in the Nordic power market. This statement can be examined from several perspectives. I will address this from the geographical presence, our business portfolio, asset locations and capacities as well as result contribution. Our geographical scope covers the Nordics and Poland. From a value perspective, our core asset portfolio is very valuable as it represents the most relevant and optimal mix possible, flexible hydro and baseload nuclear at scale.

Hydro has an unlimited life span, but it is very difficult to build new conventional hydro, except for small capacity increases in connection with maintenance. New nuclear plants, on the other hand, are not economically viable today. Instead, lifetime extensions are currently relevant for nuclear energy. Furthermore, both hydro and nuclear technologies are low carbon, which makes them very attractive to our customers. We have one of the lowest specific carbon emissions among utilities in Europe today.

Our nuclear fleet has a total capacity exceeding 3 gigawatts, while our hydro assets amount to almost 4.7 gigawatts. Given that the Nordic power market consumes approximately 400 terawatt hours annually, we are one of the largest players with our outright portfolio of approximately 47 terawatt hours. In addition to power generation, we have district heating operations in Finland and Poland. We are the leading retail company in the Nordics with a lately expanded customer base in Poland. Furthermore, we have an 8 gigawatt renewables development portfolio for future growth and value creation.

Our EBITDA for the last 12 months was EUR 1,258 million -- EUR 1.3 billion and our comparable operating profit was EUR 930 million. As one of the largest Nordic energy providers, we are well positioned to serve our customers, and we aim to be their first choice. We have the offering that our customers request, including the scale, which makes us attractive as an energy supplier and partner.

Next, some words about the European power markets and why Nordics overall is the place to be for our customers. The recent discussion topic is why various industrial companies, especially data centers, are so interested in establishing their businesses in the Nordics. There are a few clear reasons. One is the power price level. There are large variations between power prices in Europe and the Nordics has the most affordable prices. The main reason is the energy mix, hydro, nuclear and renewables with basically no fossil fuels. What are the other advantages?

Very low emissions, very robust grid and good infrastructure, i.e., roads and harbors, possibilities for waste heat utilization, abundant land and water areas and skilled workforce, just to mention a few. Large land areas mean that we could build more supply when demand increases. Simon will come back to this in more detail a bit later on. It is good to note that Central Europe has roughly doubled their power price level. Today, the interconnection capacity amounts to 11.7 gigawatts and it will grow to 13.2 gigawatts by the end of 2026. This means more than 100 terawatt hours export and import possibilities between the Nordics and Continental Europe.

Cables are owned by the DSOs, and they are working automatically. This also means that in case of potential market tightness, power flows in both directions. Then over to the most interesting discussion topic at the moment, what demand projections look like and how consumption could evolve over time?

Here, we illustrate longer-term demand projections as reported by the Nordic DSOs, how they anticipate the power consumption to develop across various industrial sectors over time and related projects within the Nordic region. In June 2025, the Nordic transmission system operators, TSOs, updated their projections for power demand in the Nordics. According to the update, power demand is expected to grow to 550 terawatt hours per year by 2030. The estimate decreased slightly from previous estimates and indicates a delay in expected hydrogen production demand.

However, it also highlights increased demand from data centers and other sectors by 2030. By 2050, demand is estimated to increase to 975 terawatt hours per year, which means that annual demand would have more than doubled from the current 400 terawatt tower level. Naturally, the very long term is uncertain. No one knows for sure how the demand will materialize, but this gives an indication of the direction.

At Fortum, based on our discussions with customers, we continue to see robust underlying demand from various industrial sectors. And we believe that this well reflects power demand growth longer term. Customer appetite to sign long-term power purchase agreements of up to 10-year duration is currently low. However, we see interest to sign contracts with short and midterm durations for 3 to 7 years. Simon will tell more about the commercialization, pricing and customer cases in his presentation. The main take from the current situation is, however, that certain sectors are increasing demand already today, while some sectors seem to grow further out in the future.

There is a lot of customer activity going on with a large amount of industrial projects across the Nordics. The most active sectors right now are, as we all know, the data centers. They are also likely to have the fastest time to market, which is why we see par demand from data centers to increase before larger industrial projects. We have prepared ourselves to respond to this increasing demand in the future.

Although Nordics is currently slightly oversupplied, if the market tightens, power imports from Central Europe can help meet rising demand by serving as a buffer through interconnectors. This would mean higher prices. The other alternative is to build new supply. Let's have a look at how the new supply situation looks like at the moment. This picture is familiar to many of you. We have now updated the LCOEs for different generation types and related achieved prices. The LCOEs or the levelized cost of energy have increased because of inflation and higher interest rates. We are here looking at both LCOEs and achieved power price for the various technologies.

The achieved power prices are calculated based on today's market prices as adjusted for capture rates or value factors. This shows that for new supply to be built, power prices need to be clearly higher compared to today's forward prices. This means that for new capacity to come online, either market prices need to increase or customers need to pay a higher price through a PPA.

Let's look in more detail at these different alternatives, starting from the renewables. Onshore wind has an LCOE around EUR 50 per megawatt hour. While it looks to be the cheapest, the achieved power price is very low as the capture rate is currently as low as 50%. This means that if an onshore wind project was built on a merchant basis, the baseload market price would have to be around EUR 100 per megawatt hour. If a project would be combined with the customer PPA, the price could be slightly lower because typically, PPAs are done for 10 years, while wind farms are running for 30 or 35 years. Then the PPA price would be clearly above EUR 50 per megawatt hour.

For a customer that wants its power 24x7, wind is not sufficient due to its intermittency. This means that it needs to be complemented with something else, hydro, batteries or some balancing power, which again increases the price. New nuclear is another challenge as investments are high risk and construction times are very long. The LCOE level depends on what kind of project one assumes. In any case, some kind of public derisking and support mechanisms need to be in place for a customer offtake agreement.

The most realistic nuclear solution today is lifetime extension for existing nuclear power plants. At the moment, we are the only operator in the Nordics able to offer lifetime extended nuclear power. Nuclear is baseload, and we can offer it at a relatively good price. In discussions with customers, it seems that demand for this product starts to pick up. We are investing approximately EUR 1 billion in the Loviisa lifetime extension to keep the plant running until 2050. And this corresponds to almost 180 terawatt hours additional nuclear power over the extended lifetime. Finnish TVO, i.e., the owner of Olkiluoto, has already made its environmental impact assessment for a potential extension of Units 1 and 2, including a potential 80-megawatt capacity increase per unit.

In Sweden, too, there are talks about extending the lifetimes for existing units by 20 years from 60 to 80 years. Assuming lifetime extensions of all existing reactors in the Nordics, it would mean up to 300 terawatt hours of additional volume over a 20-year period, meaning 15 terawatt hours per year. The Loviisa extension totals 180 terawatt hours or 8 terawatt hours per year.

Then over to our group strategy and execution. Here is the essence of our strategy announced in 2023. We want to power a world where people, businesses and nature thrive together. Achieving this requires us as a company to transform and develop so that we can reliably produce and deliver energy to our customers and drive decarbonization of industries through electrification, which concretely means reduction of emissions.

Let's take a closer look at how we are executing our strategy to achieve our goals and targets. Based on the ongoing shift in the power market, where customers and power generators are transitioning from the wholesale commodity market and are increasingly signing bilateral power contracts, Fortum has also shifted its focus to direct interaction with its industrial customers. As our key strategic focus areas, we are now talking about commercialization, operations and development. Let me explain in more detail what I mean.

As the large-scale power generator in the Nordics that Fortum is, we want to be our customers' first choice. We want to partner with our industrial customers to be their energy partner and provide them with offerings with flexible solutions. Considering the projected demand growth, this offers us attractive opportunities to grow in long-term supply agreements, PPAs. While we do see a lot of business opportunities around the PPAs over time, we also want to increase profit contribution independent of power prices.

For us to be successful in serving our customers, our operations are the key foundation. We need to make sure that our generation fleet remains best-in-class. In addition to availability, productivity and efficiency are crucial. This supports value creation I will also cover the three critical enablers: people, digital, capabilities shortly. As we currently see robust underlying demand and the power market supply-demand balance is expected to tighten, we are preparing for future growth by making sure that we can offer also new capacity to customers going forward.

Today, we are allocating resources and capital for this development. To ensure value creation in our strategy execution, we have now set a new return target. Our 14% RONA target is calculated against historical balance sheet values. With this return target, we will ensure that our existing assets are performing well. In addition to our new RONA target, which compares results to historical balance sheet values, our strong focus is on future cash flows. For any new capital to be deployed, it must meet our return targets, and the most attractive investments are always prioritized.

Our target is to have a credit rating of at least BBB flat. Our dividend policy remains unchanged with a payout ratio of 60% to 90% of comparable EPS. Tiina will go through our capital allocation principles in more detail in her presentation.

I also want to give you some insights into how we look at growth and value creation from an earnings perspective longer term with this illustrative picture. Today, our main focus is on the next 5 years. Growth and value creation potential beyond 2030 depends on the longer-term demand and power price development. The result will, of course, vary based on our achieved power price and is unlikely as smooth as in this illustration.

Starting from the Generation segment. Earnings growth is mainly driven by volumes and price. The price component depends largely on the market price development, hedge prices and long-term PPA pricing over time. In addition, the optimization premium adds to the achieved power price. Volumes are driven by availabilities, capacity increases and, for example, lifetime extension of nuclear. Simon will today talk about the opportunities we see in flexibility solutions as part of our customer offering. The potential is based on growing customer demand over time.

This includes energy-as-a-service related to heating and cooling, batteries and longer-term potential, pumped hydro storage as well as flexibility service businesses with both B2B and B2C customers also in combination with renewables. For the flexibility solutions, the earnings potential lies further out in time and is expected to only have marginal impact on earnings in the next 5 years. The result performance of Consumer Solutions has clearly improved over the past years, and the business has reached record high results this year. Our ambition is to continue to build on the achieved track record with organic growth.

As this is, by its nature, a low-margin business, competitiveness is built on customer satisfaction and efficient, scalable operations. Mikael will come back to this in his presentation later today. On top of this and based on our track record, we are continuously looking at opportunities for inorganic growth, providing that both the strategic fit and valuation to support value creation. For both Power Generation and Consumer Solutions, we view it as likely that we will find future growth opportunities through M&A. Any acquisition will also be subject to our rigorous investment criteria.

We have updated our strategic goals and KPIs with metrics to measure our progress and performance going forward. The targets are set for the same key strategic focus areas just discussed, operations, commercialization and development. The aim is to ensure optimal performance, capture long-term opportunities and manage business and market risks.

First, operations. Fleet availability is crucial to ensure continued value creation and to meet market and customer needs. The availability rates of our power plants have historically been very good and we continue to strive to improve them. Last year, we achieved our target for the availability rate of hydropower, but we did not reach our long-term target for the availability rate of nuclear power as there were unplanned and prolonged outages during this year. Unfortunately, this year, the situation has been even more challenging with the significant impact from the unplanned and prolonged outage, especially at Oskarshamn 3, which has had a significant impact on our nuclear volumes. As announced, now the plant is back online.

Our flexible hydropower provides a strong competitive edge with which we create added value. This year, however, our hydro volumes are also below the normal level, mainly due to lower inflows earlier this year. Efforts to ensure high availability for both baseload nuclear and flexible hydro will therefore continue to be very high on our agenda. As said, our strength lies in the optimization of our flexible hydro fleet. Several factors influence the optimization, the most significant of which are power price volatility and environmental certificates. The higher the price volatility, the better opportunities there are for us to generate this premium.

This year, the continued power price volatility is one of the main reasons for reaching the optimization premium of approximately EUR 10 per megawatt hour. In addition, the lower volumes in 2025 have a slight positive impact on the premium. For 2026, we expect the optimization premium to be in the range of EUR 8 to EUR 10 per megawatt hour. Forecasting the optimization premium becomes more challenging for future years, which is why we keep the earlier guidance of EUR 6 to EUR 8 from 2027 onwards. In 2024, we achieved a very good result of EUR 8.7. Simon will go more -- into more details in his own presentation on how we generate the premium.

Second, commercialization. From the commercial angle, our aim is to stabilize revenue streams. To reduce the power price risk, we hedge our electricity generation to ensure a predictable and stable cash flow. Our target is to increase the share of long-term electricity contracts among contracts with industrial customers. We have now updated our target and aim to have hedged at least 25% of our Nordic wholesale electricity production over a rolling 10-year period by the end of 2028. At the end of 2024, the hedged share of our production for 10 years was 18%. We systematically always hedge the next 2 to 3 years, either on the exchange or over bilateral contracts with our customers. Long-term hedging can and will be done with customer PPAs, long-term power purchase agreement.

While we aim to stepwise increase the longer-term hedge ratio over time, we would not jeopardize pricing. We actively focus on optimizing the price as it is the key earnings driver. Simon will talk more about PPAs in his presentation. We have set the target for customer satisfaction index. We aim to reach a CSI of 76 by the end of 2028. Currently, the level is 76.

Moving on to development and our targets for how we develop opportunities for growth. The main performance measure is related to our readiness to invest in growth based on customer demand. This means in practice that we are developing investment projects for new onshore wind and solar power generation, which we can offer to customers if and when they request new capacity. This helps to speed up the time to market for our customers. Renewables are the fastest way to build new capacity. I want to stress that we do not intend to build any new merchant renewables capacity in current market conditions. We will only make new investment decisions if the capacity is linked to a PPA.

Our goal is to have at least 1.2 gigawatts of ready-to-build capacity by the end of 2028. During this year, we have acquired two development portfolios for renewables, one from Enersense and most recently, one from ABO Wind. Both portfolios comprise projects in Finland. These acquisitions give us valuable future capabilities and options. With these transactions, our project development portfolio totals approximately 8 gigawatts of renewable power projects in permitting phase in the Nordics with more projects in the early stages of development.

As a new target, we aim to have the readiness to deploy new flexibility services and assets of up to 2.5 gigawatts by the end of 2028. Part of these are already being developed. What does it take to ensure successful execution of our strategy.

Let's take a look at the required enablers. To meet our set targets and guarantee successful strategy implementation, we have identified the following key enablers that we need to strengthen further, culture, digitalization and capabilities. Regarding culture, it is crucial that we have the right competencies needed to successfully develop our businesses. This includes a leadership culture that drives high-performing teams with clear targets and accountability.

We aim to transition Fortum into a best-in-class energy leader and digitalization is identified as one of the most critical enablers for future success. We are integrating digital across all processes from operations to leadership so that data-driven decisions and automation become the norm. This accelerates execution and reduces complexity. Digital tools enable us to deliver superior customer experiences and unlock new B2B growth opportunities through tailored solutions and seamless interactions.

Automation and advanced analytics improve efficiency, reduce downtime and lower costs, directly impacting margins and reliability. Digital asset monitoring and predictive maintenance extend asset life, reduce risk and optimize performance, thereby protecting capital and improving returns. The final important area is our future capabilities. We are investing in talent and digital systems that align with our strategic priorities. This ensures that every part of the organization is equipped to deliver on our growth and transition objectives.

Customer relationships are central to our growth. Deep partnerships enable us to co-create solutions, secure long-term contracts and enhance revenue stability. Efficient project delivery and life cycle optimization reduce risk, accelerate returns and ensure our assets remain competitive. Trading is a key earnings driver. By improving analytics, systems and market access, we capture more value from volatility and optimize portfolio performance. Reliability and cost discipline protect margins and underpin trust with customers and investors. This is essential for delivering predictable cash flows.

Finally, on a very important theme for us, namely sustainability and our climate and biodiversity targets. Sustainability and especially climate targets are at the very core of our strategy and one of our key strengths in making us our customers' first choice. Early this year, we announced our ambitious targets confirmed by SBTi, i.e., science-based climate targets. Among other things, we aim for net zero greenhouse gas emissions across the entire value chain by 2040. Our own production emissions are already low, but our goal is to reduce our emissions by 2030 more than the 1.5-degree target would require.

In addition, we will exit coal by the end of 2027, and we are on track to reach our specific emissions targets already this year. Especially in the capital markets, we get a lot of credit for the very concretely outlined transition plan. Recently, we have also updated our biodiversity targets. The revised biodiversity targets address the impacts of Fortum's own operations, including land use in all operations, the effects of hydropower on aquatic ecosystems and the supply chain-related land use impacts from sourcing biomass. We have also outlined a concrete transition plan for biodiversity. This brings me to the end of my presentation, and I want to conclude by summing up how we create value from our activities and offer an attractive value proposition and an investment opportunity to our shareholders.

First, our comprehensive offering matches evolving customer needs, which makes us an attractive choice for our customers. Second, our competitive and resilient Nordic generation portfolio based on hydro, nuclear and wind power provides us with an absolute competitive advantage. Our best-in-class operations have already proven their ability to create value and generate sustainable cash flows, and we can procure low carbon -- produce low-carbon energy at large scale as required by customers. As mentioned, 99% of our electricity production is already decarbonized.

Thirdly, with nuclear and hydro at the core, complemented with renewables, we have both baseload and flexible electricity generation. We can generate added value for shareholders through reliable, flexible and efficient operations. And finally, we have a very strong position in the fragmented Nordic electricity market as one of the largest players in both electricity production and electricity retail. We pay a good return to shareholders, and we have a strong balance sheet. Sustainable cash flow and a strong financial position are at the heart of our operations.

This concludes my presentation. And now I will hand it over to Tiina.

Thank you very much, Markus. A warm welcome to our Investor Day also on my behalf. While Markus was elaborating our strategy execution and growth ambition, I will now provide more details around the financials and targets with focus on value creation as Markus outlined in his presentation.

I will first go through our achievements in recent years, which provides a solid basis for further development for Fortum, but also create an optimal platform for future growth. We want to maintain our strong financial position to ensure that we have the necessary capacity to capture upcoming business opportunities. Let me start with our recent achievement.

The largest part of Fortum's value lies in our flexible hydro and baseload nuclear fleet. Decarbonization of industrial companies is largely driven by electrification, which make our almost fully decarbonized outright generation fleet extremely attractive. Continuous efficiency improvements keep us competitive and drive earnings growth. Having cut EUR 100 million in annual fixed cost, our annual fixed cost level from 2026 onwards is expected to be EUR 870 million. We have been prudent and disciplined in our capital allocation in recent years, which is reflected in our strong balance sheet. This strategy has served us well as we now have the capacity for growth when attractive opportunities appear.

Our financial strength is also reflected in our current credit rating of BBB+. Another achieved strength is the solution for final nuclear waste disposal. The Posiva solution is unique, globally the first of its kind and so far, only exist in Finland. Sweden has already started the construction of a similar solution. Overall, nuclear waste and decommissioning liabilities for our share of the nuclear plants are overfunded in Finland and nearly fully funded in Sweden.

Turning to our ongoing areas on focus from a value-creation perspective. Flexible hydro generates significant value and earnings. To optimize our earnings, it is crucial that we aim for maximum availability at all times. Flexible hydro is low carbon and clearly more valuable than flexible gas or coal. Hydro has an infinite lifetime and is limited in the sense that basically no new hydro plants can be built. However, we are conducting a feasibility study on the possibility of pumped hydro storage.

Reservoirs represent the largest available storage capacity and fuel is both free and low carbon. It is also good to note that we own our hydro plants and the waterfall rights, while in Central Europe, they are normally concessioned, so Fortum benefits from a hydro fleet of perpetual asset, generating low marginal cost of decarbonized power.

Markus already highlighted the value and profitability of nuclear lifetime extension, which offers prolonged power generation for several decades. As part of our ambition to build preparedness for future growth, we have the updated target to develop our ready-to-build renewables portfolio. This provides growth opportunities for us while serving our customers when needed. In order to guarantee value creation, we have said that we would only invest in new renewables if there is a PPA linked to the project.

Today, we announced a new growth target. With the flexibility solutions, we aim to broaden our product offering to our customers. Simon will provide more details how we aim to do that. In order to provide you some more concrete result guidance, I want to take you through how we will improve our comparable operating profit in the next 5 years with our own actions. This outline is split in our externally reported segment and the baseline in the comparable operating profit for the last 12 months of EUR 930 million as reported in our Q3 interim report. We expect our results to improve by EUR 330 million by 2030.

The power price is the single largest result driver for Fortum. This guidance does not take into account the power price, which means that any assumption for the price need to be added, neither have we included any other external factors. So this is now based on what we can control, i.e., our own actions. My last point is that this improvement is related to the existing fleet and business operations. It does not take into account any potential use of CapEx, no investment nor M&A transactions.

Result improvement of EUR 260 million in the Generation segment are mainly related to nuclear and hydro volumes considering the very low volumes of 2025. Naturally, hydro volumes will eventually depend on the inflows. It also includes higher profitability in our heating and cooling business, improved performance in co-owned assets and result from new flexibility services. We are very satisfied with the good performance and all-time high result in Consumer Solutions. The Q3 year-to-date comparable operating profit is EUR 96 million and EUR 112 million for the last 12 months. We expect the result to increase by approximately EUR 40 million towards the end of the period, both to the organic growth and also efficiency improvements.

For this and next year, comparable operating profit is expected to be around EUR 100 million. Mikael will tell you how we are doing -- going to do this in his presentation. In the Other Operations segment, the EUR 30 million improvement is mainly driven by further cleanup and streamlining actions as well as cost improvements and digitalization. We expect this improvement to materialize in the next few years.

I will now proceed to discuss on our capital allocation principles. Regarding capital allocation, our objective is to maintain a credit rating of at least BBB because the basis of our funding is bonds, we want to ensure continuously good access to the bond market. With the credit rating of BBB, we assess that our leverage for the financial net debt to comparable EBITDA could be a maximum of 2.5x. Today, we are BBB+, both by S&P and Fitch.

This definition has been slightly modified as a clarification for the maximum level, as our previously communicated maximum leverage level was a range of 2x to 2.5x. For the next 5 years, our committed capital expenditure is going to be approximately EUR 2 billion. Further, there is potential to invest an additional EUR 2.5 billion. Our preference is to grow through investments. However, it requires highly attractive opportunities.

For any new investment, the project needs to meet our investment criteria WACC+ hurdle rate of 150 to 400 basis points. As Markus already said, new capacity requires much higher prices compared to today's levels. Today, we also introduced a new group comparable RONA target to drive efficient use of capital and improve profitability for existing assets, businesses and operations. As this is a long-term target, future investments, acquisitions and pricing decision should support its achievement over time. We remain focused on cash flows, continuous improvements and cost control.

Our disciplined capital allocation aims to deliver attractive returns and enhance shareholder value. This supports our continuous ability to pay highly competitive cash dividends, in line with our 60% to 90% comparable EPS payout ratio. The upper end of the range of the payout ratios is applied in a situation with a strong balance sheet and low investments, while the lower end of the range is applied with the high leverage and/or significant investment and high capital expenditure.

Then a few words on our balance sheet and focus on cash flow. Today, we are talking a lot about the value creation. It is essential that we use our capital effectively and generate good cash flows. Our comparable EBITDA reflects the underlying cash flow well, i.e., our conversion to cash is very high, close to 100%. We are generally not recording any loss provisions, which would affect the cash conversion. Further, our cash flow is transparent as we are providing separate guidance for relevant items. I will come back to this.

After deduction from the EBITDA, financial net debt is assumed to remain relatively balanced based on guided current investment plans. Our balance sheet remains strong. At the end of the third quarter, the financial net debt to comparable EBITDA ratio was 1 compared to the maximum threshold of 2.5x. To be clear, we are not targeting a 2.5x level. You can consider it as a ceiling that we would not wish to exceed. In view of the current market volatility and uncertainty, we prioritized some flexibility.

At the corporate level, we maintain a risk policy that provides oversight of future cash flows. This underpins our approach to hedging where we have established a solid track record of successful risk management. Hedging involves balancing, market, credit and liquidity risks. Hedging has largely transitioned from the power exchanges to bilateral contracts with customers. Today, a clear majority of our hedges are done as bilateral contracts. Consequently, our liquidity risk has diminished, given lower margining requirements while credit risk primarily counterparty related has increased.

Hedging serves as protection against both price declines and spikes, but its core purpose remains to enhance predictability of future cash flows. Our business structure, which is heavily weighted towards ultra generation, is particularly exposed to power price volatility. Although hedges allow us to manage future cash flows, it is crucial to recognize that price fluctuation enable us flexible hydro asset to capture the optimization premium. As we have guided, this income remains relatively stable, although it is derived from price volatility.

Overall, when considering both hedging and optimization premium, a significant portion of our realized result actually originate from stable income sources. Today, we announced an update of our target for hedged share of rolling 10-year outright generation volume to be at least 25% by the end of 2028. Our previous target was to have hedged at least 20% by the end of 2026. At the end of 2024, the hedge share of rolling 10-year volume was 18%. In his presentation, Simon will address pricing and execution of PPAs in further detail.

I'm pleased to provide further insight into our capital expenditure planning. In this picture, let's start from the bottom of the graph. For the period 2026 to 2030, a total of approximately EUR 2 billion of CapEx has already been committed. That includes maintenance CapEx of approximately EUR 250 million per year. Committed CapEx for growth for this time period totals approximately EUR 750 million, including announced investment such as the lifetime extensions of the Loviisa nuclear power plant, initiatives for decarbonization and electrification of Espoo district heating network and recently announced decarbonization project in Czestochowa and Zabrze, Poland.

Investment to hydropower are partly shown here in growth CapEx and Consumer Solutions investments are customer acquisition costs, which are recorded through CapEx and depreciation in accordance with IFRS 15. Of this total CapEx of EUR 2 billion, approximately EUR 550 million is estimated to materialize in 2026. This includes both maintenance and growth CapEx, but excludes any potential acquisitions. Should attractive investment opportunities arise, there is flexibility to increase CapEx by an additional up to EUR 2.5 billion over this time period. This could include investment in renewables, district heating or potential M&A. However, as I already said, we are not targeting a 2.5x leverage level, and that is why this graph presented potential CapEx is not based on that level.

As previously stated, any investment in new generation capacity, including wind projects, would be contingent of securing PPAs to ensure profitability. We have a very solid history of shareholder distribution. We have paid cash dividends every year since Fortum's listing in 1998. In our history, we have also paid special dividends, especially in situation with an overcapitalized balance sheet. Over the entire time period, cash dividends of as much as EUR 21.7 billion have been paid. At the same time, I also want to highlight that we have said that we do not expect to deliver shareholder returns in the form of share buybacks, but rather aim to continue to pay highly competitive dividends.

I would also want to take this opportunity to outline our general approach to providing guidance for the capital markets. To offer content clarity on this topic, we have compiled a summary of the toolbox you can use to forecast our earnings. As the company value is driven by future cash flows, we are providing insights into all relevant line items. EBITDA can be estimated through hedges, market prices and optimization premium. Normal annual generation volumes are also known. Depreciation levels are best reflected in the recorded figures for the last 12 months. Maintenance CapEx is below depreciation.

Regarding our associated companies, the only relevant one today is DHC, a Finnish district heating company. We record a small annual profit of some EUR 5 million to EUR 10 million. On the associated company line, you see the impact of various nuclear items. These are usually volatile and not possible to guide. For gross debt, liquid funds and interest rate, clear guidance is provided and updated on a quarterly basis. Loan maturities are also clearly disclosed. There is also continuous guidance for the annual comparable income tax rate. Minorities are currently marginal, close to 0.

Regarding capital allocation, we provide capital expenditure guidance rather clearly on annual or multiyear basis, distinguishing between maintenance and growth allocation. In addition, shareholder return principles are based on our dividend policy. For the balance between CapEx and dividend, we have said that we use the upper end of the 60% to 90% payout ratio in case we have modest investment and vice versa, apply low end of the range when going through large investments and programs. So with this set of guided elements, one can model our result quite well.

With this page, I want to summarize building blocks of our financial performance and targets through which we aim to create value, increase earnings and ensure efficient use of capital. Leverage optimization and hedging are our guidance. The group comparable RONA percentage is a long-term target operating in parallel with our investment criteria. Dividend is a policy and an important element of our shareholder position. All of these contribute to drive value creation for our shareholders. Optimization and hedging drive profitability and manage risk in our outright generation business. Leverage optimizes the use of capital and return targets ensure efficient use of existing and new capital.

This concludes my presentation. Over to you, Ingela.

Thank you, Tiina. [Operator Instructions] I think Deepa was first. Please go ahead.

Thank you for the update in person. So I have 2 questions, 1 for each of you. So Tiina, maybe starting with the efficiency target of EUR 330 million. You mentioned EUR 260 million is from Generation. And a big part of that is normalization of volumes, which we generally might have in our models anyway. So can you clarify how much of that is new beyond -- so out of the EUR 260 million, what is like new from -- you mentioned efficiencies of heat, et cetera? So that's my first question. So we know what is the true uplift to our earnings.

And then, Markus, in the EUR 2.5 billion target, you did allude to M&A at some point. So I just wanted to understand what is in scope of this M&A? Is it renewable platform acquisitions? Or is it something like more of what you did a few years back if some assets were available from Uniper, for example, what is in scope for this M&A and this EUR 2.5 billion? Sorry, I didn't mention, I'm Deepa from Bernstein.

Okay. Tiina, if you want to go ahead.

So our efficiency target, EUR 330 million. So first of all, this is our own action. It doesn't include any price impact or potential impact of the investments or acquisition and so forth. And as you mentioned, the big part of the EUR 330 million is coming from the Generation, so EUR 260 million for Generation and main part will come from the volumes. So nuclear availability, hydro normal inflows, but also some marginal capacity increases when we do the refurbishment and so forth. The volume, I think the baseline, what you can use is our Q3 last 12 months numbers. So this is the basis where we have built up our earnings potential from these items. And as we know, 2025, the volumes have been lower. So the 12 months volume roughly 41.2 terawatt hours at this stage. Of course, it might change by the end of the year.

Good. Thanks, Tiina. And then over to the EUR 2.5 billion target. The main purpose is that it's scope for organic growth. So it could be renewables investments and it could be flexibility investments. These would be the two main areas. When it comes to M&A, M&A is a potential use of funds as well. And they have a more dynamic impact because on organic investments, you invest first, get cash flows later. So then if we would do M&A, then we would reassess that EUR 2.5 billion, of course, accordingly regarding depending on what would be the acquisition.

What acquisitions could include is acquisitions in Consumer Solutions, in district heating and cooling, renewables, operating assets and pipelines and nuclear and hydro, if they were available, which they seldom are. And regarding costs, Orange Energia, Telge are examples. So synergetic bolt-on acquisitions in district heating and cooling. District heating and cooling to be decarbonized and electrified. So typically, it would be now from waste-to-energy and biomass to electrified and then operating assets in renewables, if available and potentially some pipeline in Finland, I would say that our position is very strong already. Uniper is a potential. If it were available, then we would look at it and consider what we could do there.

I think then we continue here in the middle, yes.

It's Harrison Williams from Morgan Stanley. Firstly, can I come back to the 2030 targets. So you say that this is price neutral. Can you clarify how you're adjusting for the optimization premium, if at all, because I guess my understanding is the last 12 months, that's been around EUR 10 megawatt hour, whereas your long-term guidance is EUR 6 to EUR 8 if we take EUR 3 off, that could be EUR 150 million impact. Can I just confirm the math there? And that is your guidance?

And then secondly, can I ask on data centers unsurprisingly. So I guess there was nothing firm in the release today. And I think it's fair to say there's probably some expectation. I appreciate maybe not that much has changed since your Q3 results recently, but can you give any color on anything that has changed? Were you expecting something to be able to announce today? Or is everything still a little way down the track? Any further color on timing there would be very helpful.

Thank you. So Tiina, if you want to continue to elaborate on the EUR 330 million and the impacts, and I will take the data center question.

Yes. So the baseline really being the last 12 months in Q3, so the achieved power price at the end of September was EUR 52.1. And this is the baseline of how we calculate and assuming that, that price level will contain. When it comes to the optimization premium, so it is according with our guidance. So in the longer term, of range of EUR 6 to EUR 8 per megawatt hour and as Markus in his presentation, say that, that is the number when we get closer to the time, we might update the guidance because the predictability of course, in the longer term, is fairly difficult.

And regarding data centers, Simon will go into more detail on that, so I'll take a very short kind of overview. But indeed, the discussions are active with both hyperscalers and colocators. So there's number of discussions we are engaged in. And what the data center operators and developers are interested in is the access to land, access to grid and access to power, as I explained in my part. But more details about that from Simon, but discussions are active.

And then we move over here to Artem.

Artem Beletski from SEB. Thank you Markus and Tiina for presentations. Two questions from my end. So the first one, continuing on this EUR 2.5 billion CapEx topic or incremental opportunity and what was interesting, in my view is you highlight relating to district heating. Do you think that all potential investments could be sizable, and what type of opportunities you see on that front?

And the other topic is relating to the outlook that comes through optimization premium. So it is a high number of what you are providing for '26 versus for '27 and beyond. Is it really only the factors that you want to be conservative, having not that much visibility for '27 and so are there some structural drivers, which would be pressing your optimization premium like guarantees of origin?

Thank you. So Tiina, if you take the optimization premium, and I can build on the district heating part. So with regards to organic CapEx, our main projects now are the clean heaters pump, which is coming towards the end of the investments there. And now we just recently announced the investment into the decarbonization of Zabrze, and we have Czestochowa going on.

On the M&A front, what we are interested in is the similar development as we have done in Finland for our Espoo operation. So gradually moving district heating from fossil to waste energy and biomass, which we did already basically in all of our operations, which many have been divested and the next stage is electrification.

So the dynamic underlying is that a lot of these reheating companies are under pressure with increased fuel costs, increased interest rates and lower electricity prices, so this puts a squeeze on CHP. And this is where we come in with the potential then to electrify.

Thank you. I think at this point, we will now move to the teleconference. We can come back to the studio then at the end if we have time. But moderator...

And we had Tiina still wait to the second...

Sorry. Then let's take -- sorry. Let's take that first before we go to the teleconference.

Very good. So in general, I would say that the volatility in the market is increasing. And what we have seen also in our numbers, so more renewables coming to the system, more different kind of offerings being there. So therefore, what we can see that in the short term, we have provided quite nice numbers for the optimization. For the longer term, it is more that it is difficult. Volatility is very difficult to predict in that long time. So structurally, no major changes, but it's more that forecasting volatility closer, easier, and therefore, we are more confident to give a higher numbers in the short term.

Thank you. And now, moderator, let's take some questions from the teleconference.

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

So two, and I apologize because they are obviously going to be on data centers and power demand. The first one, so Markus, take your comments, and I know we're going to have a later presentation on this, but can we just talk about timing of these discussions you're having?

I think if we sort of read the end trails of the language you were using on the Q3 call, we all got the impression that something might be imminent here. And obviously, there's nothing yet. How long is it do you think until these discussions you're having on colocation and PPAs or data center operators will be concluded? Is that something you think you could have by year-end? Have we maybe missed an announcement today by a matter of weeks, which you'd previously hoped you might have signed already?

And then the second part is on the politics. So I guess your entire strategy is built around what you said on power demand growth and the increases in prices that are needed to bring new capacity onto the system. When you discuss that with governments, how do you think a significant increase in power prices in Finland would go down politically? Do you expect any resistant or political intervention if you signed a lot of data center PPAs at very high prices and ultimately, no pool is much higher by 2030? Is that something that you think the government would be willing to accept?

Thank you. So I'll start with the politics. So we do engage with all sectors' customers, decision-makers, citizens. So we explain continuously what's happening in the power market. And we also explain this dynamic, the potential which we think is likely increase in demand, eventually will result in higher power prices because new full load supply cannot be done with these price levels. And I think this is generally well understood. I don't see with the dynamic ahead of us that there would be any special level with where the states would start to intervene, but this is something we have an ongoing discussion in the normal cost of business all the time.

Then on the timing of discussions, we are discussing not only with the data center operators, but with also other sectors, steel, aluminum, chemicals, battery factories. And they are in various stages and projects are in various stages of maturity. So when we have something material to announce, then we will do it. But I cannot preempt when or when not we would be signing agreements with our customers.

The next question comes from Anna Webb from UBS.

Two from me. Firstly, on the new ready-to-deploy flexibility, you talked about 2.5 gigawatts by the end of 2028 with no CapEx requirement or at least for some portion of that, no CapEx requirement. Can you talk a bit more in detail about what that is and why it requires no CapEx and how you see that kind of 2.5 gigawatts, which is quite a reasonable amount of capacity? So that's the first question.

And then secondly, on the guidance for your returns, 150 bps to 400 bps spread above WACC. Can you talk about what you see at the different ends of those ranges? I mean, it's quite a relatively wide range. So I guess it will be based on how much risk you see in different investments, but what kind of investments would you see more -- you'd be happy to say the 150 bps versus you'd mean more like 400 bps? It'd be good to get some color on that.

Tiina, if you take the ready-to-build flexibility part. And then kind of a generic answer first to the 150 bps, 400 bps. So it is regarding the technological maturity and then the type of contract risk or other that we would be taking. So the more unproven technologies, untested technologies, the higher the premium. Typically, what we do in hydropower, what we do in CHP, this would be -- and renewables, if it's like established players and ways of working, then it would be in the lower end. So we haven't seen ourselves being at the 400 basis points end in the recent years. But this is more to cater also for potentially less proven technologies. And then Tiina to the RTD?

Ready to deploy, yes, so the overall target is 2.5 gigawatts by end of 2028 of which the majority, so 2 gigawatts relates to services to the customer. So those are, I would say, very minor investment, if any investment. And then the other parts, so 0.5 gigawatts relates to our own assets. And there, we have already a project going on. So 350 megawatts related to electric boilers and those investments are already in our committed capital. Then what is the rest will depend what kind of solutions we are doing. So whether there's heat pumps, batteries, any other installations. So I would say that the capital frame is still fairly limited.

The next question comes from Ajay Patel from Goldman Sachs.

I think I've got two areas to discuss or wanted to ask about. Firstly, was on the CEO presentation on Slide 5, where you talk about power demand. I mean you look at that 2030 picture versus to date, it's a huge step-up in demand. But largely, it's coming from ammonia, green metals, battery manufacturing, pulp and paper rather than data centers at that stage. And these projects typically take a fair bit of lead time to develop.

So I just wanted to understand, as it stands today, going into '26, 4 years to that date, how much visibility do you have on that part of the increase in demand, i.e., do we already have a lot of these projects signed, in the process of being executed in the next 12 to 18 months, so that we will have visibility on that type of demand growth? Or is it still relatively vague? And as a major participant in this market, I thought you would have quite a sizable view there?

And then secondly, on the hedging -- the rolling hedge, which you talked about more than 25% by '28. I think that's like 18%, I think, at the end of '24, doesn't really sort of imply there's going to be a huge step-up in contracted power. But I'm wondering, given that you're in deep discussions with a number of parties, can you just give us the framework in regards to setting contracts? Like should we just purely simply look at this as you currently have a power price plus optimization in terms of a revenue line on the generation assets?

If you were to sign contracts, how much of an additional premium could you extract? Because I think this is a key focus point on most of the time I talk to investors that this could be quite substantial. And I just wanted to understand what the drivers of a substantial premium would look like and come from?

Tiina, if you take the hedging question and I can take the demand outlook. So indeed, as I highlighted, these are the TSO forecasts. And the way they do their forecast is that they take the incoming connection inquiries, both for demand and for production, and do a massive haircut based on their methodology. So the gross number of the connection inquiries is way, way bigger than this. On the other hand, we are discussing likely with the same customers who talk with the TSOs, so what we -- this is the TSO forecast, not our own forecast. But like I said directionally, we would certainly agree with this because we are in intimate discussions with the customers.

So we put on the time line per half a year, how the financial investment decisions are done and when these projects should hit the market. So we would say that '27, '28, we see the demand really kicking in already from the decisions and new demand increases that are happening today. And then we will see the uptick further until 2030. Then how it happens between these different sectors, that, of course, there, the TSOs have a view. We have our own view about that. So it may vary between these different sectors. But directionally, certainly agree with the forecast. And Tiina?

Yes. Then to the hedging. So as we indicated, so hedging is mainly to increased predictability of our cash flows and then the risk management. And what we do is our normal hedging for the 2 to 3 years, so we hedge 60% to 80%. For the longer term, we have also now stated that directionally, we would like to increase the level and now it's at least 25% by 2028. And this is also to bring the stability to our cash flows, but of course, not jeopardizing the prices. So prices are all, of course, very important parameter when we set those hedges. PPAs then, of course, would be then part of those numbers as well, but it is at least 25%.

Do you mind if I follow up? I just want to say that given that number doesn't really tick up aggressively, is it fair to say that a lot of the PPAs you would expect will be shorter duration type contracts? Or is it too if not -- you can't infer that? I just wanted to make sure I understood.

Well, basically, how we build our portfolio is to do that gradually. So this is an indication, indication that we would like to increase the hedge level at least, if not the ceiling, so it can be higher. But directionally, with the good prices, we are increasing the longer-term hedge.

Thank you. Now we're a bit over time already. So in order to honor the break, I think we cut it for now and then continue at 11:35 after a small break. So thank you all for your very good questions and your activity. Let's come back then to more questions at the end of the event when we have heard the next two presentations. We'll be back at 11:35.

Thank you.

Thank you.

[Break]

So welcome back from the break everyone. And we are now ready to continue with the second part of this event. First, we will have Simon, who will talk about our commercial strategy, after which Mikael will continue with our ambitions for our Consumer Solutions business. And after this, we then end with a second Q&A with all our presenters. So with this, Simon, over to you.

Thank you very much, Ingela. A warm welcome to our Investor Day also from my side. As Markus already mentioned in the beginning, I will be talking about our commercial strategy and business opportunities for Fortum and how we are creating value with our large customers. Fortum is very well positioned to serve its large corporate customers with a broad and attractive offerings.

As Markus already said in his presentation, we have increased the bilateral engagement with large industrial customers in recent years. In our customer approach, our focus is on understanding the customers' business, the challenges and business targets in order to be able to successfully fulfill their needs and requirements. Consequently, we can make sure that we have the correct offering in place.

We offer the customers the ability to hedge their power procurement needs long term through PPAs, usually with tenors longer than 4 years. These contracts can be standard or nonstandard in their nature, depending on customers' need, like underlying sustainability targets or requirements. We have seen an increasing interest in these contracts and request for more complex products in recent times. Hedging services are one of our core products where the customer usually prefers a shorter time horizon. These products usually have tenors up to 4 years prior delivery and are usually very standardized products. These services offer the customer a cost-efficient hedging channel for their needs.

And for Fortum, they provide an alternative hedging channel to exchanges. We also provide physical power delivery and flexibility services with rising demand for more advanced solutions to help customers to optimize their industrial operations and balance power supply and demand. Due to its energy mix, the Nordic energy market is almost fully decarbonized and consequently, very established regarding environmental products like guarantees of origins. At Fortum, we already have a solid trading position in this market, but are constantly looking for new product innovations in this domain to match new customer requirements.

And finally, we also support selected industrial projects with deeper partnership models, usually in quite an early stage of development of the establishment of the investment project. The partnership can include site development, joint engineering of flexibility solutions, heat recovery models, development of power procurement strategies or even a limited equity stake. And I will get back to our partnership model later in this presentation. Markus already presented the outlook as forecast by Nordic DSOs in his section. And Nordic power demand is expected to grow significantly towards 2050 with the main part of the projected growth still expected to come from energy-intensive industries.

So far, the electricity demand has been driven by district heating electrification and the uptake of electric vehicles. However, the most active and dynamic segment today is data centers. We assumed that the DSOs underestimate the data center's demand outlook in the Nordics up to 2030. Based on direct customer interaction and inquiries from customers, we see that it can be larger. Then the outlook post 2030 largely depends on how well Nordics can position themselves in large electrification of various industries and how fast new technologies like hydrogen electrolyzers will mature. As Markus already said, Nordics are very well positioned for large-scale electrification investments. And let's take a closer look at the various industrial sectors.

This slide highlights the key sectors driving Nordic electricity demand and where we see the most considerable commercial opportunities. At the moment, we see data centers as a clear growth driver, fueled by digitalization and the increased demand for cloud and AI services. We also see that steel and aluminum are moving towards electrification, with large projects, both brownfield and greenfield are being developed in Northern Sweden and Finland, both by existing and new players in the market.

The transportation industry is transforming with the lead of electric vehicle adoption and heavy-duty vehicle electrification. In aviation, hydrogen-based fuel alternatives, have been set into EU with regulation and with biogenic CO2 availability, this is also a very promising opportunity for the Nordics further out in time. Another fast-growing segment is electricity-based heat production and heat pump adoption, which is transforming the Nordic district heating system to rely on electricity. And this trend is already progressing, and Fortum has a strong experience through our Espoo Clean Heat program here.

And then the last segment we serve is other power companies. Here, the demand outlook is more moderate, but the segment is increasingly consumer-driven, which opens opportunities for new offerings also for Fortum. I want to pause a while on data centers. For years, Fortum has worked with various kinds of data center players. The map shows all the large data centers and announced projects under development in Norway, Sweden and Finland, both by hyperscalers and colocators.

There are several reasons why data centers are so interested in the Nordics. There is space and powered land with good grid connections available even for large data centers. The climate is cold, and there is water available, which supports efficient cooling. We have a low carbon power system, affordable electricity prices and plenty of opportunities to build more renewable and low-carbon electricity if and when needed. The infrastructure is strong, both through power grid, roads and airports and the political environment is rather stable to operate and there are plenty of skilled white label engineers who are able to support data centers and the surrounding ecosystems.

And finally, Nordics has some of the fastest permitting and licensing processes for new energy-intensive industries in Europe. Nordics provide competitive time to market for potential data center investors. And what we see is an increasing interest towards data center investments in the region, especially in Finland due to the reasons mentioned above. We currently estimate that the power demand for data centers in the Nordics could be up to 25 terawatt hour per year by 2030, of which about 2/3 could come from colocators and 1/3 from hyperscalers and projects we currently see proceeding could lead up to 4.5 gigawatts of capacity.

So what are we then concretely doing to capture these opportunities? I promised earlier to talk about our industrial partnership models also beyond data centers. And as Markus presented the strategy, our strategy is to support industrial decarbonization through electrification, which means that we support both existing and new industries. And this would mean increasing investments in the Nordic region. We are currently engaged in energy partnerships with a few selected customers with the target to both create an optimal supply strategy for the customers and support customers' activity to become flexible.

We also have a good quality land bank comprising of 12 industrial sites in Finland, which support the customer on time to market. These sites, which we either own or contractually lease, allows full control of the permitting process. The development of the sites concretely means that we conduct the permitting process, we ensure grid connection, we develop infrastructure, et cetera. The power connections available today for the sites range from 60 megawatts to 1.3 gigawatt per site.

And this ensures that the customers get expedited access to powered land. And with these actions, we can save several years of time to market for the customer to advance their investments. The total capacity for all sites is approximately 5 gigawatts. We also develop advanced PPA offerings for these customers, both from existing and if needed, also from new assets. And finally, we can also support our partners with heat offtakes and heat as a service concept to efficiently utilize the waste heat in the project.

Now let's take a look at a few customer cases. We have already a strong track record of industrial partnerships and how to turn them to long-term value. And here I present two cases. Our collaboration with Microsoft in the capital region in Finland is notable even on a global scale. It started several years ago, already back in 2019. The project is executed on site, which Fortum has developed for the customer. Fortum is the waste heat offtaker for Microsoft data centers and this will eventually cover 40% of our district heating demand in the area. And the waste heat utilization represents a key competitive advantage for the Nordics and for Fortum in attracting data centers to the region.

Another partnership example is our role in Arctial greenfield primary aluminum plant in Finland, where Fortum is the selected energy partner. This is the first planned low-carbon aluminum plant in Continental Europe in over 30 years, and it has high potential to boost low-carbon aluminum supply. Fortum supports the plant's feasibility study on energy management and power procurement strategies. And Fortum has also invested a small equity stake into the project. And in both of these cases, we have been very close to our customer from the beginning and codeveloped the concept from the start.

Let's then take a look at the pricing dynamic and logic. At the moment, the Nordic supply-demand balance is loose with an annual export to Central Europe. Current oversupply situation is reflected in today's power price. And the existing baseload power of flexible hydro and baseload nuclear is cost competitive as it's well depreciated. As also Markus explained, the projected demand growth in combination with the current high LCOE, or levelized cost of energy, should over time lead to a tighter market. And the primary source of new supply during next decade is renewables combined with flexibility.

Then the more the market tightens, there will be a need for a new type of baseload supply, which will become available at a higher price compared to today. Alternatives to build new baseload are example, hybrid renewables, complemented flexible assets or even new nuclear. And price levels for these would be clearly above today's market prices. The more the market tightens, this will gradually also increase the price for existing baseload power. This dynamic provides us the opportunity to offer power to our customers based on customer-specific preferences and requirements. We can include a broad range of various features in the offering to our customers.

These include, for example, profile matching, environmental products, flexibility services, and time to market, which mainly relates to the availability of powered land. If needed, we can also offer additionality through new assets, including nuclear lifetime extension. These value elements can be combined in more advanced PPAs, while others will be remunerated through sales margins for services or even equity stakes in customer projects, such as the Arctial case that I explained on the previous slide.

Then I will talk about value creation from flexibility. As you all know, the optimization premium is the backbone of our value creation. As hydropower has a critical role in balancing intermittent renewables in the system, it provides substantial optimization opportunities to create additional value and earnings by capturing prices above the baseload price. The main element that contributes to the optimization are flexibility and environmental values.

Flexibility comprises of 2 components, physical optimization and ancillary services. Physical optimization is how we allocate our hydropower fleet to peak hours on an hourly, daily, weekly and seasonal basis. The need for ancillary services has increased with higher volatility caused by renewables. This means that the need for time predictability of the generation in the energy system has increased, and TSOs request clearly more balancing services to the market, which we can offer with our flexible hydro.

The environmental values are basically guarantees of origins and some other similar products. And these are externally verified certificates for low carbon power. The optimization premium is added on top of the market price. And it's important to note that the optimization premium applies to 100% or total volume of the generation, irrespective of the hedge ratio. Another point, which is good to note, is that the optimization premium is for the physical generation while hedges are financial instruments.

The most recent market change, i.e., moving to 50 minutes market has further increased price volatility. Flexible assets continue to be a key contributor to value creation in the longer term with hydro representing the largest share of this value creation. And as we said in the connection with our Q3 results, we expect the optimization premium to be about EUR 10 megawatt hour for this year. And today, we have provided guidance for next year 2026 and expect the premium to be to EUR 8 to EUR 10 megawatt hour and the guidance for 2027 onwards is EUR 6 to EUR 8 megawatt hour. And this confirms the strength and the value of our flexible hydro fleet.

I will now continue with our renewables development. For Fortum, competitive low-carbon energy production is our foundation. And as you all know, we can offer hydro and nuclear at scale, supported by the lifetime extension of the Loviisa nuclear power plant. We are also very well prepared for the Nordic demand growth with the capability to build new renewable production at scale. Looking ahead, we are developing optionality to expand our wind and solar capacity in the Nordics through PPAs, which will also include various sources of flexibility to match customers' consumption profile.

Today, we have 350 megawatts of operational wind in Pjelax in Finland. Based on our 8 gigawatt of development projects in various stages of the permitting phase, we now target to have 1.2 gigawatt of ready-to-build onshore wind and solar projects by the end of 2028. And this gives us the optionality for new capacity in the future if and when customers request new supply. On this map is a part of our renewables portfolio. The recently acquired ABO Energy portfolio with an additional 29 development projects is not included as the closing of the transaction is still pending.

As my last topic, I will talk about our announcement today, our target to develop flexibility solutions. We see increasing opportunities for wider flexibility offering and target to grow and create value in this segment. We have set a target to have a pipeline of 2.5 gigawatt ready-to-deploy flexible assets by 2028, including both customers' flexible assets and Fortum's own assets, which will complement renewables growth.

First, flexibility services to customers. We will increase our sales of flexibility services to consumers and companies to help them optimize their electricity procurement in volatile markets. The business model of services is based on both value sharing and service fees. By 2028, 2 gigawatt of our flexibility-related growth is expected to come from service business.

Second, new Fortum's flexible assets. The primary alternative is to have ready-to-deploy new flexible assets up to 500 megawatt by 2028. Part of this, 350 megawatts of electric boilers are already under construction in Finland. We could consider stand-alone investments in flexible assets, or linked to PPAs based on market conditions.

Finally, to sum up my presentation, Fortum's commercial strategy is about creating value together with our customers. By listening closely and understanding their needs, we are able to offer the right solutions, whether it's through partnerships, value-adding products or even expertise in energy management. Our approach ensures that we are not just growing our business but helping our customers to succeed as well.

And what truly sets us apart is our ability to combine deep industry know-how with a dynamic customer-driven mindset. We have the experience, resources and technical capabilities to deliver reliable, innovative solutions, no matter how complex our customers' needs may be. This gives us the confidence to adapt quickly and support our customers as their needs evolve.

Thank you for your attention. I really look forward to what we can achieve. And now I will hand this over to Mikael.

Okay. Very good. Now we get the slides in order. We're all good. Thank you, Ingela. Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon on my behalf as well. During the following 15 minutes or so, I will walk you through the highlights of our business as well as trends for Consumer Solutions.

I will go through 4 parts of the business. I will start first by talking about our financial and operational performance. I will then move to elaborate on the key trends and our market environment outlook. Having covered that, I will focus on our growth opportunities as well as our operational improvement opportunities. And finally, I will end by summarizing our key strengths and position in the sector.

Let's first take a brief look at Consumer Solutions today. We are the #1 energy provider in the Nordics holding an approximate 17% market share across Norway, Sweden and Finland. This leadership position gives us the scale and the platform for growth from one of Europe's most advanced energy regions. In Poland, we are the leading challenger, a strategic position that unlocks significant opportunities as the market continues to liberalize and demand for competitive energy solutions accelerates. Our reach extends to 2.3 million customers, including consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises, representing approximately 41 terawatt hours of annual energy demand. Backed by a team of around 1,100 skilled professionals, we deliver growth excellence and value.

We are satisfied with the steady top line performance of our business overall, which has grown by low-single digit to mid-single digit annually. This excludes the disappointing 2023 performance with weak and volatile results in our Finnish business and negative impacts from the government imposed price cap scheme in Poland. As the financial performance of Consumer Solutions is primarily growth-driven by its top line net revenue performance, we have identified and now also implemented several concrete improvement areas going forward.

This has reduced overall volatility of our financial results, derisked our service offering as well as simplified our operating structure and model. We are equally satisfied by the results performance, which has continued to outpace our top line performance. The main reasons are our continued cost improvements, a more favorable revenue mix and a constantly improving scalability of our business. This is the case even though we have made acquisitions during the past years.

Following the integration of Telge Energi and the other brand mergers in 2025, we have reduced our fixed cost by EUR 13 million for the last 12 months when comparing this year to 2024. As said, these actions have improved our top line net revenue growth and our EBITDA and EBIT as well as RONA, all of them now reaching new all-time highs. As Tiina highlighted in her presentation, our ambition is to continue our growth and improvement efforts. We target to improve our comparable operating profit by circa EUR 40 million by the end of 2030. The majority of the result improvement is expected to materialize towards the end of the time period.

This result improvement derives from our organic growth and efficiency improvement actions such as growing our customer reach, broadening the service adoption among our customers and improving our customer retention and loyalty. For this and the next year, we expect our comparable operating profit to be around EUR 100 million.

When we compare Consumer Solutions performance to our European peer group, our performance has improved to our European best-in-class ambition, this despite us being subscale in size versus our European peers. As I already mentioned, when excluding the blip in our performance in 2023, in the aftermath of the energy crisis, our EBITDA per customer has been very much in line with our European best-in-class ambition. We understand that difference is in principles, and segment structure for some players naturally impact comparability. Despite such differences, we assume that the peer group average work as their proxy for the overall European subsector performance.

I will now move to elaborate on our key secular growth trends and our overall market environment outlook. I'd like to highlight 3 secular key trends that support growth across our subsector and underpin our growth ambitions going forward. Firstly, decarbonization through electrification is driving growth. There is a clear and growing demand for solutions and services that reduce carbon emissions of our customers and support their transition to cleaner energy sources.

This trend is driven by ambitious climate targets, regulatory shifts and increasing customer preferences for sustainable solutions and services. Fortum's strategy is aligned with these goals. For example, via our ambitious climate targets, especially our commitment to SBTi, enabling us to capture opportunities as we help our customers to move towards net zero.

Secondly, digitalization is transforming not only how energy is produced, but also how it is consumed. We foresee growth of connected energy assets and enabling smart technologies to create new possibilities for further improving efficiency, flexibility and customer engagement. By leveraging digital platforms and data-driven insights, we can unlock value across our ecosystem and deliver innovative solutions and services for our customers.

Thirdly, decentralization is reshaping the energy landscape. We're seeing rapid growth in distributed energy resources, such as electric vehicles, solar panels and battery storages. This shift empowers both consumers and SME businesses to participate actively in the energy market, driving demand-side flexibility and resilience. Our approach supports this transition, enabling scalable and secure integration of decentralized assets.

These key trends are backed by strong market growth. For example, the number of electric vehicles, connected energy assets and the demand-side flexibility markets in Europe alone are all multibillion euro market opportunities forecasted to grow at double-digit rates over the next several years.

So in summary, decarbonization, digitalization and decentralization are all enduring key trends and drivers supporting our business growth and overall performance going forward. With the business strategy aligned with these trends, we are well positioned to capture emerging opportunities and deliver sustainable financial growth going forward.

I'm now moving on to the next part of my presentation, which is a walk through of both our growth opportunities and our operational excellence improvement opportunities that we see ahead. In our business strategy execution, our strong and diversified position in the Nordic energy market sets the stage for our growth and value creation opportunities going forward. As the clear market leader in the Nordic market, which still remains highly fragmented with around 350 players, we see that our scale and expertise allows us to capture additional market share. The Nordic market with a size of close to EUR 20 billion and growing at a healthy CAGR of around 3% remains a core focus for us.

Simultaneously, we are growing in Poland, where we have reached the position as the #1 challenger in the market. The Polish market is a market of approximately 24 million energy customers in electricity and gas, being of similar euro size and with a similar growth profile as the Nordics. The market is developing. However, with still around 80% of customers still never having changed their electricity provider, this naturally represents a unique opportunity to leverage our capabilities and win market share from incumbent players.

Beyond traditional energy, we are actively growing in our energy-related digital services business with, for example, sustainability related services and demand response solutions. As the energy market is transforming, demand for new energy-related and primarily digital services continues to increase. The market size, we approximate EUR 4 billion with a mid-double-digit CAGR growth towards 2030.

Finally, in addition to our energy and services business, our minority investments into digital growth domains further strengthens our competitive edge, which, for instance, software-based sustainability services, energy optimization services as well as energy-as-a-service and AI-driven platforms positions us at the forefront of the digital energy transition. Our innovations and start-up portfolio, including leading digital high-growth platforms such as Eliq, Fifty Energy and ImpactOS supports both sustainability and energy efficiency for our customers.

So in summary, Consumer Solutions' leading and diversified market position, combined with our focus on further growing our digital services business, provides us a solid platform for future value creation.

I will now talk about our improvement opportunities in operational excellence. As Markus said in his presentation, our competitiveness is built on customer satisfaction and efficient scalable operations. We have a solid track record of creating more value for our customers as reflected in our improving customer recommendation rates and customer loyalty. Simultaneously, our integrated and scalable, highly digital platform is a key driver of our operational efficiency with further potential via data and AI.

As customers increase their use of our digital services, our scalable platform continues to improve customer satisfaction and rise further cost efficiency resulting in lower cost to serve. Thus, we have been able to improve our operational efficiency significantly with our cost to serve per customer reduced by mid-teens since 2022, and we foresee that to continue to decrease with double digits by 2030.

Looking ahead, we see further opportunities to enhance cost efficiency and value creation through continued digitalization and continued integration of AI. Our focus on operational excellence, digital transformation and AI, positions us well to continue to deliver sustainable growth going forward.

In addition to our organic growth and operational excellence opportunities, I will say a couple of words about our track record in inorganic growth. We have a proven M&A playbook that brings concrete value. Our successful acquisitions and integrations are the concrete proof points of which our M&A track record is built on. Our most recent transactions are Telge Energi in Sweden and Orange Energia in Poland. Through these transactions, we have acquired circa 270,000 new customers.

The successful integrations have contributed to our all-time high financial results this year with materialized cost synergies of EUR 13 million from the integration of Telia and our earlier acquisition integrations. The integration of Orange Energia is progressing according to plan, and once completed will bring cost synergies of between EUR 5 million to EUR 6 million by the end of 2028.

As I underlined earlier in my presentation, despite some level of consolidation over the past few years, this subsector remains still very fragmented. The market is characterized by a large share of subscale players with limited financial resources or even willingness to invest in, for instance, the required digital operations, top quality customer advisory as well as modern customer offering development. Given the need for investments to meet evolving customer requirements and the scale needed to fund these, we expect consolidation to continue.

To sum up, we are convinced that Consumer Solutions has a unique position and business strategy that helps us grow faster than our competitors, deliver solid results and to create concrete value for all our stakeholders. The results speak for themselves. Thus, we are comfortable and glad in reiterating our key uniquenesses and attractions. Firstly, our clear market leader position in the Nordics as well as our leading challenger position in Poland. Secondly, our growing digital services business that provides and captures more value. And finally, our proven M&A playbook and scalable global operating model that fuels our further growth and efficiency.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your time and attention. With this, over to you, Ingela, please.

Thank you, Mikael. Okay. We are now ready to move over to the second Q&A session where you can ask questions from all the presenters. And I really hope that we will be able to answer all your questions. We will have approximately 30 minutes time for this. And let's start again from the studio, then we move to the teleconference, and then we can come back and also want to take some questions from the chat.

I think Artem, that you were first. Oh, sorry. Yes, let's move there then next. I promise.

All right. Sorry for that. Artem Beletski from SEB. Two questions from my side. So the first one is relating to 5 gigawatts of industrial sites, what you have in Finland. I remember when for the first time you showed these sites and numbers, what you have there. So you didn't really expect this to unlock somehow value relating to these units or plots what you have. But looking at the latest developments, so we have seen quite meaningful transactions being done at high valuation multiples. Has your view changed around this topic?

And the other question is relating to data center capacity outlook in Nordics. So looking at number of 4.5 gigawatts, could you maybe provide some details how it is split between Finland and other markets? I think you mentioned that Finland is the biggest one in terms of opportunities.

So I think these both questions are Simon's expertise and on the industrial side about what actually can we provide, and we know that mostly our activities in Finland. But Simon, if you elaborate on these 2 points?

I mean we have various sites in various stages of development. Some are like closer to permitting and some are further out in permitting. And then -- so that's like the sites. And then the business model is a little bit depending on the customer case. Do we try to get the site, let's say, development premium? Are we bundling it into the PPA? Are we even doing some equity investment that depends case by case with the customer, what is then the business model.

And then to the DC, so the 4.5 gigawatt is the full number that we identify ongoing projects, either existing data centers or in development. 4.5 gigawatt is not the number which is online 2030, but it will be later on all of those online. And what we currently see is that a big part of data centers originally went to Sweden and then also to Norway. And now recently, Finland has become increasingly attractive for data center investments, mainly because of the time to market. This is the fastest place to establish new data centers.

Okay. Then [ Perio ]. We go...

Jakob Magnussen, Danske Bank. Also two questions from me. First of all, on the PPAs, just to understand the risk in those. Is it still possible to do pay-as-produced PPAs? Or are we more progressing into baseload contracts? And will the emergence of batteries change that mix?

And then the second question regarding your new net debt-to-EBITDA refinement of max 2.5x. Why this refinement now from 2 to 2.5 to now max 2.5, you've been under for quite some time. Should we put in something into this? Or is this just reflecting that it's very uncertain where you will be given your potential growth CapEx?

So two questions. So the PPA type of demand, what are the customer negotiations again, same on a net debt to EBITDA. Tiina, if you take that one.

What we see that the interest toward pure payers produce are decreasing because they have the challenges that usually either the consumption profile or the production profile is not matching each other. And that makes that there is more interest towards baseload contracts and also more kind of like nonstandard contracts where also there is some kind of flexibility element or profile matching elements included. So we are seeing a shift towards more complex products than they were in the past.

Then to the net debt-to-EBITDA number. So basically, what we are saying that we want to keep our balance sheet strong and credit rating at least BBB. And based on those numbers, we have derived the maximum net debt-to-EBITDA number. Previously, we gave a range, and now we want to be, in a way, more clear that it is 2.5 is the maximum, also reflecting our confidence of our current situation and the balance sheet strength.

Then let's take a few questions. Iiris?

Iiris Theman from DNB Carnegie. Firstly, regarding data centers. So they have typically announced PPA deals with the wind power producers in Europe. So how do you see this developing? Could they sign a PPA deal with nuclear power producer?

And second question, you mentioned -- or I think you mentioned the current oversupply. So do you have any thoughts that when this situation could improve, i.e., demand to exceed supply?

Very good. Do you want to take, Simon, the first one? What kind of PPAs could the customers consider, and I can take the oversupply.

We are seeing that, let's say, PPA landscape is evolving and pure payers producers are getting more complex. So the data center players, like especially hyperscalers are more interested in more complex products going further where you combine solar, wind and other type of assets. And we also see that additionality is important for some of the players where especially also Loviisa has a lifetime extension providing additionality.

Then the other block of data center players that I also tried to raise in my presentation is co-locators. They are usually more conservative or, let's say, more traditional in their power procurement and they buy like all kind of power. For them also brownfield electricity is a very important element. So all kind of power is needed in the various PPAs.

And with regards to the market demand and supply situation, so we think that this is going to melt away quite soon in the next couple of years based on the TSO forecast and also what we see. So if you look at the TSO forecast from 440 -- from 400 to 550 by 2030, and there's now about 50 terawatt hours of export. So let's say, a few larger projects could already start to eat that away. And based on this view, we are also developing the new supply opportunity. So we create the optionality so that we can also answer the increased demand.

Very good. Then I think -- let's take Pasi first.

This is Pasi from Nordea. So in the case you are going to build a new nuclear power to Sweden, are your financial targets still valid for this kind of project? Because I would assume that it will require more than EUR 2.5 billion to get the new nuclear power, even the smaller one to Sweden. And if the project takes, let's say, 10 years, so is this net debt-to-EBITDA target of 2.5 valid in that project also?

And secondly, if I may, yes, regarding the supply-demand bars, let's say, in Finland. So you highlight the demand growth, but actually, if I remember right, Fingrid estimates that the power supply will grow more than demand will actually grow. So do you disagree with Fingrid's forecast for the all coming years and periods?

And maybe lastly, if I may, the third question regarding the data centers. So if I do forecast EUR 55 PPA agreement with the data center in coming years between Fortum and let's say, for example, between Microsoft. So what are the drivers? I don't understand with this kind of estimate in the background.

So with regards to the whole data center complex, maybe Simon, you once again want to recap how we see the data centers. But with regards to Sweden and potential new nuclear, so we are preparing the possibility for new nuclear somewhere in the future. It's clear that we have said that with today's prices on merchant conditions, new nuclear will not happen. So first of all, there has to be the customer demand. There has to be technology -- projects have to be bankable. And our targets do apply. So it's correct that with the headroom we have, we would not ourselves build alone with these parameters a nuclear plant. So we build a technical and commercial readiness. And then if the conditions are there, then we can see how this can be applied.

Then for demand growth and supply, this is correct that there's a very strong number of demand projects that are asking for connections, and there's a big number of supply. But as we have seen now, when the market conditions are not there, new supply will not come online. So what we are targeting is that if new supply is needed, we have the most profitable, most competitive projects, and we will be in the market first.

And then for data centers?

For data centers, it depends on the data centers business model. I mean, some data centers, especially co-locators, they are like wind developers. They need for bankability. They need to secure both the offtake on the data and also the offtake on electricity in order to get the bankability. And actually, we assume that 2/3 of the data center demand would come from co-locators.

And then hyperscalers, they have stronger balance sheets, but they also start to become more and more concerned on electricity supply that is there sufficiently enough. And this is then the partnership that we create. And when we early enough know is it a data center or even a conventional industry, when they will need new supply, we can also accordingly start to develop our renewables, our hybrid offerings towards the customers when we early enough know it. So there is enough supply to meet the customers' demand in the next period.

And then let's take Deepa before we then move to the teleconference.

So I think two questions. How much of that 4.5 gigawatts do you expect to kind of benefit your markets by 2030, so in your specific zones in Sweden and in Finland. That's the first question.

And secondly, on the PPAs that the hyperscalers want to sign, you were mentioning that they want complex PPAs. But in the past, and we certainly see in the U.S., they are ready to sign pay-as-you-produce PPAs. So does it not make sense for them to do that at EUR 51 than do a base load at, I don't know, EUR 100 or EUR 150, and then they can just -- I mean -- and not everybody wants to do minute-by-minute matching. Many of them just have an aggregate target. So just wondering why with an LCOE of EUR 50, EUR 51, why would they not sign new PPAs for wind?

So again, you're -- Simon, most intimate with the PPA discussions. So if you want to take that dynamic on what -- again, what kind of product they are looking for. I can take the timing.

As I said, there are 2 kind of like investors. There's more the co-locators who don't really -- for them, it's not important is it like new or brownfield electricity, but they need bankability. And that's one important segment. And then the other segment is hyperscalers. And hyperscalers are really -- actually every hyperscaler is different. Some of them have very ambitious sustainability targets, and they want to be 24/7 matched with profiles in the future. Other ones are less. So it's customer-specific, what are the requirements. And then depending on that, then we try to answer with our offering, the customers' requirements.

And then for the timing of the demand, so I address it also from a larger point of view. So we try to match both our existing supply and the potential new supply exactly with the customer demand so that we -- in Peter's area in red, we have the wind and solar projects matching the customer demand that we see. So CCM is bringing us the insight and where we see the customer demand now hitting the market will be around '27, '28. So this is when these projects that are now being built are hitting the market and then we bring in as accurately our insight from the customer discussions to our development portfolio. Then when this 4.5 gigawatts will actually materialize, that will remain to be seen. But clearly, the activity level for us in the data center and AI space has increased now clearly in the recent months.

I would say 4.5, that's like Norway, Sweden, Finland. And I would say that that's one region. We have one Nordic power market. So it's like in the whole region, it's coming in. What we currently see is that Sweden has been growing first. Now the interest is increasing towards Finland and Norway.

And you have your generation...

Price area, that's what she's asking.

Yes. So basically, we could -- on that map, we could overlay. We listed the projects that are visible there. So of course, all of them are not in our price areas. But that number, we don't have rightly available now.

Okay. So thank you for these questions so far. I think now let's move to the teleconference, then we'll come back here again for some final questions. But moderator, please go ahead.

The next question comes from James Brand from Deutsche Bank.

Apologies, I couldn't be there in person. I've got three questions. So the first is just a clarification. So the 5 gigawatts of capacity at your sites where you're saying you could partner with data centers, that's the spare grid capacity and where you'd have enough grid capacity, water, land, et cetera, if you aggregate up all the capacity across all of your sites. So that's just firstly, a clarification.

Secondly, I guess this is also a clarification in a way, but the -- so the customer solutions -- just to clarify, you were saying that you expected the profitability to come back down to EUR 100 million in that business in 2026? Because it looks like in 2025, you're at the kind of run rate to get up to more like EUR 130 million. But I think you said a couple of times that you expected operating profit of around EUR 100 million in that business kind of near term. So you're expecting that to kind of come down to EUR 100 million from a run rate of EUR 130 million and then the guidance is to increase EUR 40 million from the EUR 110 million that you've delivered over the last 4 quarters. So you're going to kind of go from EUR 130 million down to EUR 100 million and then up to EUR 150 million. Is that kind of what you're saying? And if so, that seems like a lot of growth to go from EUR 100 million to EUR 150 million. I was wondering whether you could flesh out a bit more what -- I guess you have fleshed that out, but is that just expansion in the markets as you were talking about because it seems like a very large increase.

And then thirdly, on the optimization, there's already been a question on this around the kind of position in '26 versus '27, where you're saying that you have more visibility in '26 and therefore, more confidence delivering 8 to 10 versus the 6 to 8 in '27. My question is, is there an element here of the guarantees of origin because you hedge those quite a few years forward and the price has come down a lot. So is there an element that the 2026 optimization is still capturing a higher guarantee of origin price and that's going to kind of normalize down to back to the EUR 1, whatever it's trading at now in '27? Or is that normalization already happened largely in '26?

Okay. So three questions. Tiina, if you want to start with the optimization premium and then, Mik, cost profitability, obviously, for you. And then the -- what do we refer to with the 5 gigawatts, Simon?

Yes. So optimization premium, so the bigger part will come with the hydro optimization. And then there's environmental values, as you mentioned. Values or -- environmental values have decreased. We have said that we also hedge them. So I would say that partly, it is already showing in our numbers, that share. So -- but it might be -- we are not guiding that detail, but overall trend is that it will eventually equal to the market price.

And Mik, on cost profitability.

Yes. Thank you very much for the question. Absolutely. So what we are guiding is that approximately around EUR 100 million on comp up going forward. And with regards to the question that where does that come from? I would say that there is 3 plus 1 components of that. The first one is increasing customer scope in our core markets. The other one is a larger uptake of our services. The third one is improving customer retention and loyalty and then this combined with operational excellence improvements going forward.

And that's the EUR 40 million?

Yes.

Yes. And then -- and Simon, the 5 gigawatts.

The short answer for the question is, yes. So the 5 gigawatt is -- but we either already have today or we assume that we will have at the sites as the grid connection like in the future.

The next question comes from Daniel Haugland from ABG Sundal Collier.

I have three questions. Two of them is for the first presentations you have today. So just to kind of clarify a little bit on these targets towards 2030 and especially the EUR 260 million increase in generation. So could you just first clarify what is the normalized annual production you expect from your assets when availability goes back up? Is that still 47 terawatt hours per year? Or do you think it's going to be higher?

And then the second question, which is partly related is, inside that EUR 260 million EBIT bridge from the LTM number towards 2030 for generation, does that assume flat Nordic achieved prices, which I think was EUR 50 -- around EUR 52 rolled into that 2030 level? Or have you kind of taken into account that current forward prices, et cetera, is lower?

And then my last question on data centers is, given that you say you have discussion with data centers are kind of very active and it seems like you have both the industrial sites available for development, you also have renewable development pipeline, which looks quite strong. You can sell that on long-term PPAs. What's kind of the missing puzzle to start -- for us as analysts to see you start signing contracts with the data centers? What's kind of the missing links? So that's my question.

Okay. So again, the third question on data centers and the customer dynamics goes, Simon, to you. And then, Tiina, if you want to take the EBIT bridge and price and assumption on volume.

Yes. Happy to do so. So the earnings potential, so EUR 260 million, assumes that we will go to the normal production, and it is the 47 terawatt hours, as you mentioned. Also the price, so we assume that the price what we had in the end of September, EUR 52.1 per megawatt hour will sustain. If prices or elements increases, the impact would be higher and of course, vice versa other way.

Thank you, Tiina, and Simon, data centers.

As such, I think Fortum has like all the ingredients. We have a site development. We are doing a lot of flexibility services that also data center actors are very interested in, and we have a growing renewable portfolio that we can develop for the customers.

The missing piece is actually that permitting and licensing take a certain time to get to the investment decisions. So we are also waiting for our customers to be ready to move forward, and they are moving full speed, but permitting and licensing processes also take a certain time, even if Nordics are the leaders in Europe on time to market here.

Okay. Just a quick follow-up on the last answer. So the permitting, is that kind of more of the building permitting, et cetera, on the customers' end? Or does it also include kind of the grid connections and licenses and permitting related to that?

It's like grid connection and then like zoning usually. Those are the 2 -- and environmental permitting that takes time.

The next question comes from Julius Nickelsen from Bank of America.

Just one follow-up on the 5 gigawatts of grid connection sites. I guess the question was asked previously, but I'll try to maybe a little bit more specific. So I appreciate that there are different stages within the portfolio. But do you think that multiples like the EUR 1 million per megawatt that we've seen in other areas in Europe, are these like in any way or form realistic in Finland for some of these? So that would be the first question.

And then just as a follow-up -- apologies for this on this EUR 330 million bridge. I think the pricing now is clear, but just in terms of the CapEx that is assumed in there, I think it says no CapEx, but is that only -- you don't include the potential CapEx they can do? Or is that also the EUR 750 million of growth CapEx that you flagged that you also don't assume in this, that would be useful to know.

So the CapEx question, Tiina, if you take that, and I'm also happy to take the grid connection point.

Very good. So basically, what we say that is EUR 330 million, so it does not include any price increases or any additional growth CapEx. We have EUR 750 million of the growth CapEx in our committed one, but those are mostly like Loviisa lifetime extension. So the impact will come anyway later. There is also the decarbonization of the Polish plant. Also the construction happens on those times, so not that much impact. And then there are also the customer acquisition cost in Consumer Solutions and then also some hydro modernization. So I would say that fairly modestly coming the impact, only the regular one is included there.

And regarding the valuation, so what we see is very valuable for both data centers and other potential investors is the time to market. So that is valuable. Access to the grid is valuable and access to clean power is valuable. Whilst we don't speculate on what would the valuations be in any particular case, but these are elements and then there are several elements relating to other aspects that Simon described already.

The next question comes from Anna Webb from UBS.

Just one for me. I wanted to ask again on the data centers about the kind of dynamics you see between the suppliers of power and who's demanding it. So obviously, I think you're in an advantageous position with your scale in Finland. But also it seems that the data center projects that you showed on the slides actually are also quite centered around a smaller number of players, which are the very big hyperscalers that you talked about. So I just wanted to understand how much you feel that obviously, they need your power, but they also can play a big role for you. So how do you see their willingness to, for example, pay above the forward curve? And how much do they kind of pushback on pricing, for example? And is that part of what takes the time to get the discussions? Basically a bit more on the kind of competitive dynamics with the supply and demand side of the kind of deals that you're in discussions with, would be really helpful to hear any detail you have on that.

Okay, Anna. So I'll give it over to Simon, but maybe I'd still take the strategic view that like I explained and Simon also in our presentations, we have quite a unique position being able to supply both Sweden and Finland and with the flexible and full load power in large volumes. So when we come to hundreds of megawatts of contracts with a certain profile, then there are a small number of players who can provide that. But I'll give it to Simon to give more color on what do the customers talk about.

Markus, thank you for the question. I mean, there are -- all the data center players are different. So they have different like requirements. Some are really interested just in, let's say, standard products, some are interested in more less standard products. And then especially like on top of the scale advantages we have, the more the project is like less standard, also the more, let's say, competitiveness we have. And then usually also, data centers also try to find a certain kind of competition. So it's always like a bargaining and a negotiation game then to find each other and create value together. And here, what we also do and what we have provenly done the track record, we start very early to try to understand what is that the customer require and develop the products accordingly. So we are in a very good position then to answer the needs when we are then like doing the procurement like process later in the process.

The next question comes from Harry Wyburd from BNP Paribas Exane.

So they're both on Simon's presentation. I wondered if we could look at Slide 3, you mentioned that -- and this is the TSO demand forecast, I think. So you mentioned that you felt that the data center demand forecasts were not ambitious enough. Are there any other of their forecast that you would query? Clearly, there's some hydrogen still in there for 2030 and a lot for 2040 and beyond. How do you feel about the accuracy of the TSO demand forecast for the other sources of demand other than data centers?

And then on Slide 8, and I'm returning to, I think, a comment that Markus made on the conference call that Q3, I think you mentioned that you could sign PPAs, I think, several euros above both the Nord pool price and the optimization premium. The chart on the right of Slide 8, how much of these bridge gaps are included in the optimization premium and how many aren't? So in other words, can you just help us understand roughly order of magnitude wise, how much of a premium you could get for some of these additionality, time to market, et cetera, i.e., what should we expect on top of the base optimization premium?

Okay. So Simon, maybe you take first the question on not so much the accuracy of the TSO, but really what's happening in the different sectors from our point of view and maybe together also Tiina, if you want to comment on the optimization versus the bridge?

As I said in my presentation, so I mean, the TSOs forecasting methodology is that they take all the grid connection requests and then they make an educated guess how many of those will be realized and they take a quite big haircut. And especially on data centers, at least based on the activity levels that we are seeing, we assume that they are too conservative currently, and it could be higher, what is the data centers' demand to 2030.

Then when you go to the other industries, when it's case specific like what is then the number. And then when you go to 2040 to 2050, it's especially -- then it's more like even guessing because there is not grid connection request to 2050 on various cases. So that's the TSO's view. And we don't reveal directly our view like -- but directionally, we are on the same page.

Very good. And Tiina on the like optimization versus the other elements?

Yes. So basically, our optimization premium mostly happens with our hydro fleet. And this is done on the spot basis, what we sell. So of course, this is something what we look at very carefully. For the PPAs, so if some hydro or also the physical delivery is included. So of course, then we need to see that we get the compensation if we give up our normal optimization premium. But that will, of course, depend what the customer wants, and as Simon has explained, what is included in the pricing. But for us, it is the total value creation, and we want to keep on that and optimize that.

Okay. And maybe just a final last -- just a technical follow-up. So just to make sure we got it absolutely clear on the data center figures that you gave on that pipeline slide. So the 4.5 gigawatts is not a figure that you think would be operational in 2030, that would be sometime after that. But am I right that the 25 terawatt hours was a 2030 expected figure, if I understood that rightly.

Yes. I mean, up to 25 terawatt hour is what we see that the demand could be by 2030 based on the, let's say, discussions we currently see with the customers, and the 4.5 gigawatt is the total number of data center developments that we currently see, but not all of those will be operational 2030, some will be later in the 2030s.

Thank you so much to the teleconference, and then we come back here. And now Siri, if we take one or two questions from the chat.

Yes. You mentioned new power investments require higher prices on LCOE and you cite EUR 150 to EUR 200 per megawatt hour for nuclear. What would be the marginal price of hybrid renewables in your eyes?

And second question, DCs require 24/7 baseload, which cannot be served by intermittent renewables. Can you please more deeply explain the supply/demand of baseload power in your key markets?

So Simon, if you take the DCs and how you see the baseload, I can start with the LCOE. So indeed, these are, of course, when it comes to nuclear, especially, these are estimates. So we are studying -- with our new nuclear feasibility study, we are exactly studying this point, which is a key point for us to understand. But then when it comes to hybrid, so we have simulated hybrid products with wind, solar and battery combination. And then we are somewhere around EUR 100 level. But this is, of course, very tentative because we haven't gone and tendered out this. But like I explained also that where would the price have to be if we would do now merchant wind also reflecting on the capture rates.

And then on the data centers, Simon?

Yes. I mean, fully correct that most of the data centers need 24/7 electricity, and especially the Nordics is in the corner of the European power system. So matching profiles become increasingly important and many data center players are very interested in ensuring that there is sufficient baseload meeting their needs. And that's something that we believe that will have a value in the future.

Do you have another question? Another quick one.

Yes. Regarding power prices and optimization. In the new target of EUR 260 million increase in EBITDA and if the achieved price remains and the optimization goes from 10% to 6% to 8%, that means that the implicit price would go from EUR 42 per megawatt hour up to EUR 45. Are these the right assumptions?

So Tiina, I think the EUR 260 million is definitely your competence.

Yes. It is my number. Well, I think we are not opening up. The EUR 52.1 is only the reference. So assuming that the price will remain the same, what is the impact to our earnings? We don't take account or give a view that whether the optimization premiums go up or down, only our guidance, what is there or the basic prices or hedges or whatever. It is just a reference number, and it's good to make your own assumption how the prices will develop in the future.

No further questions from the chat. That's really good. Okay. Let's allow one last question here in the studio and then we move on.

Yes, I think the main question I had is that it costs a lot of money to put up a gigawatt of a data center, I think EUR 35 billion to EUR 50 billion per gigawatt of the data center. Obviously, you've mentioned you have 5 gigawatts of site, but I would think that nobody would want to put such huge investments in one country, also bordering Russia and so on. So what is the geopolitical aspect which might limit the bankability of a given site that you have or more broadly in the region because I didn't see that in your slide because that might weigh against the Nordics or maybe Finland at least somewhat.

Right. I can answer that very shortly. Geopolitical concerns haven't come up in our discussions. And I attribute that to Finland's excellent preparedness, being an EU country joining NATO, being extremely self-sufficient when it comes to defense and resilience. So it's very deep. We talk about holistic defense. So all sectors of the society are deeply involved. We have one of the strongest reserves in the whole of Europe. So I think this seems to be very convincing to our data center customers as well as other sectors. And this goes across. So we have been traveling across the world, into the U.S., into different regions, talking with customers, and this question just doesn't come up.

Thank you. So we are now coming to the end of the program. I thank you all for your participation, for your active engagement and good questions during the whole event. And with this, we then conclude the Q&A session. So thank you, and thank you to those asking these tricky questions. And now I ask you to step down here. And then -- you can actually stay. Yes, that's fine.

Okay.

But before we conclude, I would still come back to the feedback survey. So I would now ask you to provide us some input on the presentations and also on the whole event. So please spare a moment for this valuable input for us, and we already thank you beforehand. Here is the QR code that you can use. You also find it in the handouts, and you also find it on the webcast now on the screen. So we appreciate all of your input to this.

And after this, I hand over to Markus for closing remarks for this Investor Day. Thank you on my behalf. Markus, the floor is yours.

Dear guests, as we draw this Fortum Investor Day to a close, I want to extend my sincere thanks to all of you, our shareholders, investors, analysts and other stakeholders, both here in Helsinki and all of you joining us online. Your engagement, insightful questions and perspectives are very valuable as we shape Fortum's journey forward.

I also want to thank our leadership team as well as our dedicated teams in Investor Relations, strategy and our business units for their invaluable work on today's presentations and execution in ensuring the smooth running of this Investor Day and a special thanks to Ingela.

Today, we set out to provide a transparent and comprehensive view of Fortum's strategic process, operating environment and financial and growth targets. I hope you leave with a clear sense of our direction, our confidence in the future and the unique opportunities ahead.

Let me close by reflecting on 3 themes that I want to highlight when talking about Fortum's future and our value proposition to our shareholders. First, demand growth and our unique position in the Nordics. We are at a pivotal moment for the energy sector in the Nordics. The demand for low carbon and reliable power is set to accelerate, driven by data centers, decarbonization and electrification of industry and the broader transition to a low-carbon economy and society.

What sets Fortum apart is our comprehensive customer insight, ability to partner with industrial customers and ability to provide low-carbon power at scale based on customer needs. We are uniquely positioned with our flexible hydro and baseload nuclear fleet as well as our renewables development portfolio to capture the upcoming growth. Our in-depth understanding of customers and our nearly fully decarbonized generation portfolio mean that we can respond quickly and decisively as demand materializes. We are confident that Nordic electricity demand growth will come and Fortum is ready to lead that wave.

Second, delivering results through our own actions. For us, operational excellence is not just a slogan, it is something we strive to continuously improve and put into practice. We have already delivered efficiency improvements and reduced our annual fixed cost base. But looking ahead, we are committed to further improvements in availability, efficiency and digitalization. Our target is to improve our comparable operating profit by EUR 330 million by 2030 based on actions within our control. This is about running Fortum at a cost level that is sustainable and competitive while continuously finding ways to do better.

We have also introduced a new group level comparable return on net assets, RONA, target, which reflects our commitment to capital efficiency and long-term value creation. This target ensures we remain disciplined in our investments and focused on delivering sustainable returns to our shareholders. We will continue to communicate our progress towards our targets as we want to be transparent about our performance.

Thirdly, I want to highlight our other opportunities for growth. We are actively developing new offerings that will shape Fortum's future. These include expanding Energy as a Service and Heat as a Service solutions, electrified heat, potential investments in batteries and pumped hydro for greater flexibility and launching innovative services for both businesses and households, such as electric vehicle integration and home energy management. By broadening our portfolio, we aim to capture value from the evolving energy landscape and complement our generation business.

Furthermore, inorganic growth continues to be a strategic option available to us. Of course, we carefully evaluate opportunities that align with our strategy and investment criteria. Our strong financial position and disciplined capital allocation mean that we can seize attractive opportunities, always with a focus on long-term value creation.

So to sum it up, Fortum stands on a strong operational and financial platform, uniquely positioned to capture demand growth, committed to operational excellence and ready to pursue strategic growth opportunities. We do this with a clear sense of responsibility to our customers, our shareholders and society at large, guided by our purpose for electrification.

Thank you once again for your interest in Fortum's future. We look forward to continuing this journey. Thank you. Have a great afternoon and all the best for the remainder of the year.

Good morning, everyone. A warm welcome again to Fortum's joint webcast and news conference for the investor community and media on our January-September interim report. My name is Ingela Ulfves, and I'm heading the IR team at Fortum. As always, this event is being recorded, and a replay will be available on the website later today.

With me here in the studio are again our CEO, Markus Rauramo; and our CFO, Tiina Tuomela. Markus and Tiina will present the group's financial and operational performance during the third quarter and first 9 months of this year. I would also like to remind you of the upcoming Investor Day for analysts, institutional investors and other capital market participants to be held on the 25th of November. It is possible to attend both in person in Helsinki and also virtually online. The registration is open on our website until the 17th of November.

As we do not want to preempt the content and discussions for the event, we aim to strictly focus on the Q3 performance and results in today's webcast and then leave all the other topics to be addressed during the Investor Day. We look forward to your participation and hope that as many as possible of you are able to join us then.

Now let's go to our Q3 presentation, after which we will take your questions in the Q&A session. So with this, again, I hand over to Markus to start.

Thank you very much, Ingela. A warm welcome to our Q3 results call also from my side. I will start by going through the key elements of our quarterly highlights and our financial performance, then say a couple of words about the hydrological situation. After that, Tiina will provide more details on the financials and how the operational performance turned into our results.

Let me now start with the highlights. Starting with a very positive point. Our third quarter achieved power price was higher than last year's level, EUR 46.1 per megawatt hour compared to EUR 44.1 per megawatt hour, supported by higher spot prices and strong physical optimization. Realized market prices, which means the blended price for Fortum's price areas were EUR 17 per megawatt hour higher than in the third quarter last year.

Then a few words about the volume challenges we have faced this year. As you remember from earlier quarters this year, both nuclear and hydro volumes have been clearly below the normal level. The same situation continued during the third quarter. So this year has been abnormal when it comes to generation volumes. However, this should be seen as temporary due to hydrology and unplanned nuclear outages. It shows quite clearly in this third quarter, which is typically the smallest quarter result-wise in our business.

As said, unavailabilities in our nuclear generation fleet still continue to impact the fourth quarter. Tiina will talk more about generation volumes in her part of the presentation. The efficiency improvement program is coming to an end now by the end of this year. Fortum reduces its annual fixed cost by EUR 100 million, excluding inflation gradually until the end of 2025. The full run rate will be effective from the beginning of 2026.

In July, we announced the acquisition of a wind power project development portfolio in Finland, which we bought from the German renewables developer and constructor, ABO Energy. This acquisition strengthens our development pipeline for renewables as we prepare for future growth. With the acquired 4.4 gigawatt portfolio, Fortum's pipeline of onshore wind and solar projects in the permitting phase is approximately 8 gigawatts with more projects in the early development phase.

Potential investment decisions for these projects will be made case by case. The projects will be backed by customer PPAs and need to meet our investment criteria. Currently, there is sufficient power supply in the Nordic area, and we can sell PPAs from our existing outright portfolio.

Fortum's coal exit progresses with the decarbonization of the Zabrze CHP plant in Poland. Today, we announced that we will invest approximately EUR 85 million in the plant's retrofit. This is in line with our target to exit coal by the end of 2027. On another positive note, we also updated our optimization premium for the year 2025. Now we estimate the optimization premium to be approximately EUR 10 per megawatt hour for the year 2025. Previously, we forecasted EUR 7 to EUR 9 per megawatt hour for '25. The main reason for the increase is higher power price volatility. The lower nuclear volumes this year also contributed slightly to the higher premium.

Then I move over to our main figures and financial KPIs. Here are our familiar comparable headline KPIs for the group's third quarter and for the first 9 months 2025. As you see, all KPIs decreased in all periods, which reflects the lower generation volumes. In Q3, our comparable operating profit totaled EUR 97 million, while comparable EPS amounted to EUR 0.08. On a cumulative basis, the group's comparable operating profit amounted to EUR 674 million. Our comparable EPS was EUR 0.59 per share.

The operating cash flow was at a good level. However, it decreased to EUR 787 million. For the balance sheet, our leverage, defined as financial net debt to comparable EBITDA was basically unchanged at 1.0x at the end of September. Tiina will go into more details on the result analysis in her part.

Next, I will say a few words about the market environment, especially hydro conditions. Let's look at the situation of the hydro reservoirs for the Nordic market. It's good to note this is not only Fortum's reservoirs. As we have communicated earlier this year, reservoirs were record full during the winter, meaning in the first quarter. However, the water was mainly in Norway and northern parts of Sweden, where Fortum does not have hydropower. As the winter was mild and the snowpack was thin, this resulted in minor spring floods. Because of this, the reservoir levels decreased fast in the spring. And as you can see, now the reservoirs are close to normal level.

As we have said, generation volumes will be clearly lower this year. The unplanned outages in our nuclear fleet, mainly in Oskarshamn 3 in Sweden, reduced our annual nuclear volumes by approximately 3.6 terawatt hours for the full year 2025. This is based on announcements so far. The current estimate is that Oskarshamn would come back online on 1st of November. We have also highlighted the risk of lower hydro volumes for the full year. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case.

For the last 12 months, hydro volumes are 17.8 terawatt hours compared to a normal hydro output year, which is between 20 and 20.5 terawatt hours. It is not possible to give an estimate for the full year as hydro conditions might change, but the assumption is that our annual hydro volumes will be below that of a normal hydro year. Still coming back to the power price volatility. Lately, we have again seen increased volatility, partly because of the introduction of the 15-minute market. The continued high power price volatility supports our capability to generate a premium through our optimization.

From a value creation perspective, this is reflected in the updated guidance. We expect our optimization premium for this year to be approximately EUR 10 per megawatt hour. This concludes my part, and I would now like to hand over to Tiina to tell more about our business performance.

Thank you, Markus. Good morning, everyone, also on my behalf. I will now go through our financials in more detail. Let's start with the key financials.

I will start with some of the comparable KPIs. The comparable operating profit for the third quarter amounted to EUR 97 million. In the third quarter, both our comparable net profit and comparable EPS decreased. This reflects the lower result in the Generation segment. At the same time, our Consumer Solutions business is doing well as they generated a record high third quarter result. We are very satisfied with the Consumer Solutions result performance this year. Our comparable net profit for the quarter declined to EUR 70 million. Consequently, our comparable EPS for the third quarter declined to EUR 0.08 compared to EUR 0.14 last year. Comparable EPS for the last 12 months is now EUR 0.77.

Our cash flow during the quarter declined by EUR 218 million and totaled EUR 131 million, mainly reflecting the lower result.

Then over to the segment result for comparable operating profit. Compared to the previous year, our result in our Generation segment decreased, while both Consumer Solutions and Other Operations segment improved. In the Generation segment, comparable operating profit decreased by EUR 84 million to EUR 92 million, mainly due to the lower nuclear and hydro volumes, lower hedge power price and somewhat higher property taxes in nuclear and hydro in Sweden. It is also notable that similar to the second quarter, the hedge ratio was high also in this quarter as a result of the lower volumes. The result contribution from the Pjelax wind farm was slightly negative.

Seasonality is reflected in the district heating business, which was loss-making, mainly impacted by lower sales price for power in Poland. As said, the third quarter shows good performance in our Consumer Solutions business. The comparable operating profit reached an all-time high third quarter level of EUR 23 million. This is an increase of EUR 17 million, which mainly relates to the improved electricity margin in the Nordics and improved gas margin in the enterprise customer business in Poland.

In the other Operating segment, comparable operating profit improved by EUR 6 million, showing a negative result of EUR 18 million. The main reason for the improvement was lower fixed cost and higher internal charges for the services of enabling functions.

Then let's move on to the cumulative result waterfall for the segments. When looking at the waterfall for the first 9 months of the comparable operating profit at the segment level, it shows the same pattern as for the third quarter. Compared to the previous year, the result in our Generation segment decreased, while both Consumer Solutions and other operation segments improved.

In the Generation segment, comparable operating profit decreased clearly by EUR 305 million to EUR 648 million. The main reason were lower hydro and nuclear volumes, lower spot and hedge power prices and somewhat higher property taxes in Sweden as well as higher nuclear fuel cost. The result contribution of the Pjelax wind farm was slightly negative and lower than in the comparison period as a consequence of lower power prices.

In the comparison period, the result of the renewable business was positively impacted by a sales gain of EUR 16 million for the divestment of the Indian solar power portfolio. The result of the district heating business was at the same level as in the comparison period. Lower fuel and CO2 costs as well as higher heat price offset the impact from lower sales price of the power.

Reaching an all-time high level for the first 9 months, the Consumer Solutions segment's comparable operating profit increased by EUR 36 million and was EUR 96 million for the first 9 months of the year. The continued improvement was mainly as a result of improved gas margin in the enterprise customer business in Poland improved electricity margin in the Nordics and approximately EUR 13 million of cost synergies.

In the Other Operating section, comparable operating profit improved by EUR 22 million and amounted to minus EUR 17 million, mainly due to the positive impact from divestment in the Circular Solutions business finalized in 2024, lower fixed costs and higher internal charges for the services of enabling functions.

Then over to the leverage and liquidity. Our financial position continues to be strong, primarily supporting our objective to maintain a credit rating of at least BBB. It naturally also provides a good financial foundation in this uncertain and turbulent market environment, but it also caters for growth and shareholder returns. When considering our capital allocation principles, we balance leverage, investments and dividends while always keeping the credit rating in mind.

Fortum's current long-term credit rating by both S&P Global Ratings and Fitch Ratings is now BBB+ with stable outlook. I want to go through the reconciliation of our financial net debt in the third quarter. As you can see, it is fairly unchanged. At the end of second quarter, our financial net debt was EUR 1,270 million. In the third quarter, the operating cash flow was EUR 131 million and investment amounted to EUR 122 million. The change in interest-bearing receivables amounted to EUR 14 million, while FX and other FX were EUR 9 million.

So at the end of second quarter, our financial net debt was EUR 1,283 million and the leverage ratio for financial net debt to comparable EBITDA was at 1.0x. Looking at our debt portfolio and the loan maturity profile, I want to highlight a few things. At the end of the quarter, our gross debt, excluding leases totaled EUR 4.7 billion. Bonds are and continue to be our primary source of funding. Our maturity profile is very balanced, and there are no large maturities in any single year. The next maturing bond is EUR 750 million in 2026.

At the same time, our liquidity position is strong. We have ample liquidity reserve, EUR 7 billion with EUR 3.1 billion of liquid funds and EUR 3.9 billion of undrawn committed credit facilities and overdrafts. The cost for our EUR 4.7 billion loan portfolio is 3.3%, while the interest income that we get for our EUR 3.1 billion liquid funds has come further down and is now 2.1%. With the strong liquidity position, we continue to optimize our cash and credit lines. The overall objective is to have sufficient liquidity while optimizing the balance between debt and cash to minimize funding costs.

Then over to the final section, the outlook. The outlook section comprises 4 familiar elements: guidance for outright portfolio, taxes, CapEx guidance and our fixed cost reduction program. As we have stated already a few times today, we will fall clearly behind the normal historical output level this year because of announced availabilities in nuclear and lower expected hydro output.

For the sake of comparison, in a normal year, our annual outright volume is approximately 47 terawatt hours. Based on announced outages, nuclear output for 2025 is now estimated to be 3.6 terawatt hours lower this year, of which 3 terawatt hours realized in the first 9 months of 2025. Our hydro output for the last 12 months was 17.8 terawatt hours compared to the normal level of 20 to 20.5 terawatt hours.

About the hedges. At the end of the third quarter, our hedge price for the rest of 2025 was EUR 42 and the hedge ratio was 90%. The hedge price for 2026 is EUR 41, EUR 1 higher compared to the last time disclosed, while the hedge ratio increased by 10 percentage points to 70%. As an update today, our annual optimization premium for the year 2025 is estimated to be approximately EUR 10 per megawatt hour. Previously, it was between EUR 7 to EUR 9 per megawatt hour.

The guidance for our corporate tax rate also remains unchanged for the years 2025 and 2026. We expect the comparable effective income tax rate to be in the range of 18% to 20%. The Finnish government plans to decrease the corporate tax from 20% to 18% from the beginning of 2027. There is, however, no official law in place yet.

Our very preliminary estimate is that this would result in a 1 percentage point decrease in the corporate tax rate from the year 2027 onwards. I also want to repeat that in Sweden, the property taxes are revised from 2025. For Fortum, the increase of the property taxes is now estimated to be approximately EUR 30 million for the years 2025 to 2030. The major part of the cost increase is recorded in our fixed cost.

We do not make any changes to our capital expenditure at this point of time as this year is about to come to the end. However, we will come back to this topic in our Investor Day.

Finally, a few words in our fixed cost reduction program. For the first 9 months, our fixed costs were EUR 615 million. For the last 12 months, fixed costs totaled EUR 884 million. We reduced our recurring annual fixed cost base by EUR 100 million, excluding inflation by the end of this year with a new run rate from the beginning of 2026. Our current estimate is that the new run rate for our fixed cost base in 2026 will be approximately EUR 870 million. This includes the fixed cost increase of EUR 20 million in the Swedish property tax.

As mentioned before, there are additional costs for growth in 2025. These are related to, for example, renewables development, site development, buildup of commercial organization and the hydrogen pilot project. This was all for my presentation, and we are now happy to answer your questions. So with this, Ingela, over to you.

Thank you, Tiina, and thank you, Markus. So as this was a more straightforward quarter, the presentations were also a bit shorter. So now we are then ready to take your questions, and let's begin the Q&A session. You can also ask your questions in Finnish. Moderator, please go ahead.

[Operator Instructions]

The next question comes from James Brand from Deutsche Bank.

English, unfortunately. Two questions for me. The first is on demand. So you highlighted that energy demand was pretty much in line with last year. And you said that was after industrial demand experienced a slowdown, particularly in Sweden. I was wondering if you could just give a bit more detail in terms of what you're seeing there and what's caused that? Is that just the general economic situation at the moment? Or is there something else going on? That's the first question.

And then the second is on the supply business. You've obviously had a great year in supply, and you've seen quite a significant step-up in profitability and it looks like you'll be producing EBITDA of comfortably over EUR 200 million this year, depending on what happens in Q4. I just want to get some color from you on whether you think the profitability that you've seen this year is sustainable going forward or whether it's been a slightly exceptional year and we would be expecting a step down in 2026. Not necessarily looking for a precise guidance, but just directionally, is this sustainable?

Thank you. English is absolutely fine. So on the first one, so I attribute the, let's say, sideways movement of the demand a bit to the global geopolitical turbulence. So difficult for our customers to take investment decisions. So if I put this into a big perspective, we see good signs of decarbonization and electrification going ahead. We get the incoming inquiries for new power, but investment decisions take long to take place. We see that the consumers are saving and companies are being very scrutinous about their costs. So that's my quick take on the customer side.

Then on the supply side, I assume you meant our Consumer Solutions business. So the business has experienced so far a very stable year. So there have been a few surprises. There's been volatility, but something we have been able to manage. So we haven't had risk events like we had in '21-'22. So in these conditions, this is a good indicator of what the business is able to produce. But the team is doing really good work. We're getting in synergies from the earlier acquisitions, and Mika and his team are working on the efficiencies continuously.

The next question comes from Harry Wyburd from BNP Paribas Exane.

The line went blank for me at the very beginning of the call. So apologies if I've missed something in the very early part. Can I -- so two questions. So firstly, the CMD, I presume you want to sort of keep things back. But I wondered if you could clarify one very specific thing, which is, have you been in negotiations with a data center or hyperscaler developer over a PPA during this quarter? And would you rule out or rule in that you might announce a data center PPA at the CMD on the 25th of November?

And then the second one is on the data center tax in Finland. So I read in the press and I noted in the release that the government has gone ahead with raising the power tax on data centers in Finland. So I wonder that they also mentioned that there might be some offsetting support package. So I wondered if you could give us some color on what that support package might be and when it might be announced and whether there might be a bit of a blockage on data center PPAs until -- in Finland until that's been straightened out. And are you seeing any discussion elsewhere in the Nordics along these lines about potential tax increases on data centers and politicization of data center demand?

Thank you. So maybe, Tiina, if you take the more general tax question. And then for the -- regarding -- well, I don't think you missed anything material that you wouldn't be aware of in the very beginning. It was about the results and the markets. But then with regards to negotiations, we are in negotiations and discussions with actually several data center operators.

So like we have said earlier, there are discussions going on about steel, aluminum, chemicals, hydrogen and data center operators are looking for electricity contracts. So I cannot -- and of course, I'll not preempt the CMD or Investor Day, but discussions are going on certainly on many fronts. Then on the -- more generally, so indeed, there's a discussion going on as we can see it globally in various places. Regarding location of new industries, including data centers and what kind of pressure that puts on the systems. And that's why we engage in discussions about how will the whole energy system develop and what are we doing to make sure that there's then additional supply if customers are willing to pay for that, and how do we also bring stability to the market as well.

And on the Finnish case, particularly, indeed, this has been now in discussion for a longer time that would or would not be the lower tax rate be applied to data centers going forward. And now it seems that the government is going ahead with the tax increase, but then a compensating support for data centers up to a certain level. Those details, how does that work? And what are the approvals needed for this whole setup? I think that's very much in the works still. But Tiina, do you want to comment further on the Swedish Finnish tax?

Well, maybe to put some numbers around what has been discussed currently. So in Finland, we have the electricity tax and there the general level for the tax is EUR 0.0224 per kilowatt hour. And then data centers have been among those reduced tax level, which has been EUR 0.05 per kilowatt hour. And now this will change. So data centers will go back to this general tax level.

But as Markus said, there is also a plan to have some kind of support mechanism, which should compensate at least some part of the increase in the taxes. In Sweden, there has been also discussing about the electricity tax, and they reduced the level from EUR 0.04 per kilowatt hour to EUR 0.03 per kilowatt hour. So still Sweden, slightly higher than the Finnish tax level.

Got it. Okay. And sorry, just to clarify on the first one. I think in your past conference calls, you've generally said that you didn't have any substantive discussions on the go with data center developers. And I think your past comments were that generally interest was more in the shorter tenors of 3 to 5 years. So Markus, should I take your comments and I know you want to hold back for the CMD, but should I take that as a change in the comment there? Has the nature and substantiveness of your negotiations on PPAs changed since we last had the conference call on Q2?

Not materially. But in the CEO comment, you would have noted that we said that we continue to see robust demand and that we thought very carefully. So like I said in the previous -- for the previous question, there is geopolitical turbulence. We see all kinds of questions around is the transition happening and so on. But our customer pipeline for the discussions we are having with the different sectors, that looks very similar to earlier quarters. So clearly, it looks like that industries and commercial actors continue to look for places where to locate their businesses. So the robust is the good work.

The next question comes from Anna Webb from UBS.

Two from me and then maybe a clarification, if I can. So firstly, on data centers, when you do the site development, can I ask if you bundle that with PPA contracts, so you always do the sell the site and the PPAs or if they're sold separately? And what's the rationale on how you do that?

Secondly, I think you said you had a negative contribution from the Pjelax wind farm, which was an issue as well earlier in the year. Can I ask what drives this because the operating cost for that should be pretty low. So I know you mentioned low power prices, but how do you get to a negative result, still a little bit unclear to me? And also whether that's a kind of one-off effect or you think this might be a headwind into the future?

And then finally, just if I can clarify on the volumes. I know you said hydro volumes are variable and you can't comment on full year guidance. But if Q4 is normalized, can you comment on how much has the debt in the first 3 quarters has been versus a normal year? And so if Q4 was normal, what the loss would be on hydro, that would be really helpful.

Okay. I can start with the data center question. And then Tiina, if it's okay, if you can comment on the Pjelax impact and the hydro and nuclear volumes. So as you would know, when we developed the -- what is now becoming the Microsoft cluster in the capital region in Finland, we developed 3 sites, then found Microsoft and we sold the sites. And we actually did -- we bundled that with a deal to do the world's largest heat offtake.

So we try to look for solutions where actually, we do a win-win both for our customers, for the society and ourselves. So this is supporting the Clean Heat Espoo project and decarbonization leading to a massive excess heat offtake. Of course, our interest is that we would do PPAs with the site development. But then we need to look at the various customers' situations that how committed can one be at the stage when we do the sites. And this is a dynamic discussion that we're having all the time, depending on the demand for the sites, what all can we bundle to that. But there is no one size fits all for these situations.

All right. Then moving to the Pjelax. So we commented that in the third quarter, the Pjelax result was negative like previous year as well. So these are usually the quarters when the power prices are low, and this is also the reason. If we look at it on cumulative basis, so we can say that we are nearly to the 0 level. So it is, in that sense, let's say, seasonal. And the main reason really is the power price in the market and what the wind farm will capture. So even though the average price in the market is high, then when it's windy, so then the prices tend to be lower. So the capture rate has been lower now in the summer months.

Then about the volumes. So what comes to the hydro volumes, so we have stated the average production is between 20 to 20.5 terawatt hours per year. And this year, I would say that particularly the second quarter was the biggest difference. There, we had the production volume of 3.7 terawatt hours, which is absolutely the lowest ever production volume in our history. And that was due to the lower inflow to the water reservoirs.

And this second quarter, the hydro volumes were roughly 1.5 terawatt hours lower than our average production. So that gives some kind of indication. What is the difference to our average production in general. In third quarter, the production was lower than the previous year, but not that much difference to if we compare the longer-term average.

Now the hydro reservoirs are nearly on roughly on the 0 level or 1 terawatt hour lower. So now the outlook for the remaining of the year looks fairly kind of normal.

The next question comes from Julius Nickelsen from Bank of America.

Just two for me. One follow-up on these PPA discussions that you've mentioned with the data centers and the industry. I mean, to the level that you can comment, do you see in these more long-term discussions that there is demand to pay a premium to the current futures curve? Because if I look at the '27 hedging that you've now disclosed, it doesn't seem that there's much premium to the current futures.

And then secondly, on the optimization premium, obviously, the upgrade to EUR 10 this year. I mean, you haven't touched the long-term guidance is 6% to 8%. Is it still fair to say that given how the opportunities shape out at the moment that at least for the next 1 or 2 years, we should be more at the upper end of that scale? Or is that difficult to forecast?

Okay. Again, I'll take the first question. And Tiina, do you want to comment on the -- then on the optimization premium.

Yes.

So indeed, compared to the implied forward curve, which I have to say is very thin. So liquidity is not high at all when you go further out. So when we think about the pricing, if we go out a few years and longer, then our price curve -- implied price curve is upward sloping. And that reflects the point of view that like was highlighted by the Pjelax example that new capacity with these prices is very hard to get to the market. So the prices need to be higher for new supply to come to the market.

So to start with the further out we go in time, the higher our expectation for the price and then on top of that, there is still the optimization premium. So what we agree with the customer is then separate from what we get on top of that.

Then the third element I'll mention is the different characteristics. So the more specific the customer demand is tied to the profile. If you want 8,500-hour product, that will have an impact on the availability of the product. If it's RFNBO earmarked to a certain asset, even more. And this we see practically in the PPA. So we talk about several euros of impact for longer-term contracts depending on what characteristics a particular contract would have and then optimization premium on top of that. And that's a good bridge to Tiina.

All right. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Markus. So the optimization premium, so we had a guidance for this year, EUR 7 to EUR 9 per megawatt hour, and we increased that after a very strong first quarter. So then the volatility was high, and we said that the optimization premium was around EUR 10 per megawatt hour. What we have seen that the volatility in the market has increased.

Also, as Markus mentioned, our production volume has been somewhat lower, which was improved the number. But also what we can see that the predictability is getting more difficult. So therefore, what we have done that we fine-tuned the guidance further we go to the year and see how the optimization premium will develop. So EUR 10 for this year and for the time being, for the next year, EUR 6 to EUR 8 per megawatt hour.

The next question comes from Louis Boujard from ODDO BHF.

Two on my side. Maybe the first one regarding the hedging strategy. We see indeed that going forward, '26, '27 price are slopping down on a hedge point of view. At the same time, optimization is quite strong and is expected to remain quite strong. So I was wondering if you were thinking about eventually changing a little bit your hedging strategy going forward, notably in terms of duration or in terms of openness to the market prices in the short term so that you could capture better the short-term volatility of the market instead of having a stronger visibility into lower prices.

And maybe the second question would be regarding what you mentioned on the wind farm Pjelax, notably regarding the fact that the capture price in the end below the one of the market regarding the fact that the wind, of course, blow for everyone at the same time. Do you think that it would make sense eventually to consider some investments in specific dedicated battery systems, which could be related to the different farm that you could develop in the future so that you could improve the returns expected from these wind farms? That would be my second question.

Okay. Thank you. So with regards to the hedging strategy, so of course, this has -- for the 13 years I've been with Fortum, this has always been the question that what is the strategy? And the idea with the hedging is to get visibility into the short-term cash flows. Then when we go longer out, then we can adjust also our operations. So when you go 3 years out, then we can do changes in our resources and processes and so on.

If we look at spot price this quarter, the average in our areas was EUR 37. So rather close to the hedge price. So then having an open position wouldn't have had a huge impact, but negative nonetheless versus achieved power price. But in the comparable quarter last year, it was below EUR 20. So then being open would have impacted our result massively if we just look at the spot prices. So that's where the fundamental driver comes from.

Then mostly when we do the bilateral hedging, as we did also in NASDAQ, it is financial hedging. So then we have still the possibility for the physical optimization. And then, of course, we have the risk that can we deliver the power at spot delivery, but that we settle, of course, always on a daily basis. But financial hedging with customers and then leaving the optimization. In the longer run, we have said that we want to get to 20% rolling 10-year hedge level. So we wish is that we target to stabilize the cash flows also going further. And the idea with doing PPA-backed investments, if there is need for additional power stems from that when we make investments, whether it's wind or solar or any other, the payback times typically are quite long and then stability has a positive impact on our internal cost of capital and thereby the return requirements.

And that's a good bridge to the second question, which is that do we consider batteries or other flexibility connected to renewable investments? The answer is yes. So that's part of our development. We are typically citing also space for batteries connected with the renewables investment so that there is a possibility to do it if the financial conditions are there. Historically, we have built some batteries since a long time. Actually, when Tiina was heading generation even, we were doing that so already many, many years ago. And I believe that batteries will be -- of course, they will be a needed part of the system. What we see happening on that front also is that there are new uses coming for the -- that are catalyzed by volatility.

For example, electrified heating, which I mentioned earlier, so heat offtake, heat pumps, electrical boilers, they can utilize very flexibly the low cost or even negatively priced towers. So the volatility will change also the business opportunities, and we are capturing those as we speak.

Can I maybe a very quick follow-up?

Sure.

Yes. Just wondering regarding the batteries. Do you consider that currently the regulation is supportive enough for you? Or does it need any change?

So of course, there are issues that need to be considered, for example, on the consumer side, when we have investments behind the meter, of course, then the taxation and grid fees and so on, these are of a lesser issue. But when we get to a communication between customer assets and the market, then these are things that need to be seriously addressed on European level and national level.

[Operator Instructions]

The next question comes from Harrison Williams from Morgan Stanley.

Two for me and possibly one clarification. Firstly, on the optimization premium, so I appreciate that it's very strong this year with guidance at EUR 10 per megawatt hour. Can you give us what that number would be had you had a normalized nuclear year? Because clearly, that is helped a little bit by the lower nuclear volumes. Just understanding if that's within the 6% to 8% range or kind of above the top end of that.

The second question I had was again going back to PPAs. I mean, I guess we've not yet seen any of these longer-term PPA contracts being struck. And trying to understand, is this a case of offtakers not being certain on the kind of volume requirements in the 5- or 10-year period? Or is this a mismatch between pricing expectations because you say yourself that you have maybe a higher exited forward curve than what we can see on our screens. So trying to understand where that is. Is that a volume mismatch? Or is that a price mismatch?

And then the final clarification, thank you for the color on nuclear volumes this year. Can we clarify that next year, you are still expecting a normalized 26 terawatt hour output? Or is there anything we should be aware of?

Okay. So if I take the PPA question and Tiina, if you take again the optimization premium and volume question, so then we start to follow our pattern here.

Yes, we will.

Okay. So for the long-term PPAs, so of course, we have a kind of inherent wish when we do new investments that are volatile and also we have the capture rate issues. So they would benefit from visibility long term. Otherwise, historically, we have been hedging in the short term. So the drive to do long-term PPAs isn't really coming primarily from our side, but it is how we communicate is based on what we hear from the customers. So customers are making inquiries on 3-year, 5-year, 7-year, 10-year and even longer PPAs.

There are a couple of points I see there. One is this whole geopolitical situation. So the customers' investment plans are taking time to materialize. So our customer pipeline has stayed very stable. Like I said, the outlook from that point of view is robust. Then a contradictory point is that if I look at the Nordic traditional heavy industries, they typically would have a wish to get visibility for various inputs. But the order books, whether it is steel or chemicals or pulp and paper, they tend to be rather short. So we talk about months or a year. And then locking in input costs create a basis risk, which we all are very familiar with.

So even if something would look inherently very affordable, there's still a risk that your incomes go below your costs and then you have out-of-the-money contract. So this is one structural thing that continues to be impacting our customers' ability to do long-term contracts. But overall, there is structural demand for power, power availability. And if the format to get that to the customers is the PPAs, then structurally, we're heading that way.

We haven't done massive PPAs that we would have announced separately. But if you look at our hedging levels and the volumes, that actually implies that we're doing hundreds of bilateral contracts, also longer-term PPAs, which you can see in the 10-year rolling hedge ratio. So we are doing also long-term PPAs, but the volumes are not massive. But they're a good indication in line with what I said earlier. And then to the optimization premium and nuclear volumes.

Alright, thank you. So when we calculate the optimization premiums, so we take the full volume, as you said, so 47 terawatt hours in the normal year. This year has been exceptional when it comes to the nuclear, so 3.6 terawatt hours more outages what we planned at the beginning of the year and also hydro being somewhat lower, particularly because of this low second quarter. Of course, what is the final number will depend on what will happen and how we run in the fourth quarter.

But if we take roughly to give you an idea, so the optimization premium would have been roughly at the same level as the previous year. So previous year, it was EUR 8.7, so somewhere EUR 8.5 or that range with the normal, normal without particularly the nuclear extensions.

Then what comes to the next year nuclear production. So the normal year, we have indicated is roughly 46 terawatt hours. And all the time, the nuclear producers will put the UMMs with the updated outages. And what we now know is that Loviisa and also Oskarshamn 3, they have a normal cyclical longer outages. So those are normal and planned and goes according to the schedule, but they are a bit taking the production volume lower.

The next question comes from Harry Wyburd from BNP Paribas Exane.

Sorry to monopolize and to come back, but I'm sorry to really labor this topic, but it's driven a 10% or nearly 10% move in your shares since this morning. So it's really important, I think, to get the language sort of understood correctly. So I think from my question earlier, I interpreted that you were -- there maybe been a positive change in your discussions with data center operators versus what you told us at Q2.

In the subsequent questions, you've kind of mentioned that if you did a big PPA, you'd announced that separately. You're doing -- you're not really doing big long-term PPAs. I think really to distill it down, what I think the market is questioning here is, are you poised to sign a big long-term PPA with a sort of big industrial data center operator.

So just to really clarify what you said, is it plausible that you could sign a significantly sized long-term PPA with a data center operator or announced it in the next few weeks? Or is that something that we should interpret from your comments that is less what you're looking at, at the moment? Sorry for the long question.

That's absolutely okay. So like I said, I think the one word, the robust says it very well. So when we look at all the customer segments, there is continuous activity. And from our point of view, we see that electrification, decarbonization are driving industries. It will be more efficient. Clean power is actually more affordable than fossil power, the brand promises that companies have made, these are all pushing ahead what we have been preparing for.

So the underlying activity is at a good level. But then in all honesty, there's a lot of uncertainty. So even with all these discussions, we don't know what they will materialize into before deals are done. And to -- not to try to shy away from the question, but to give you color on how do we address this is that we see the potential, but we see a lot of uncertainty. And that's why our preparation is that we're spending almost EUR 100 million a year in developing the renewables pipeline, pumped hydro, batteries, even new nuclear as a feasibility study for the future. We're developing the sites.

So we want to create the optionality that if there is additional demand, we can answer that. And then we have the efficiency programs, the availability. We improve our processes to be able to serve from our existing portfolio. So it is not 1 or 2 discussions that we are having. It's a big list of customers that we're talking with all the time and preparing for that potential. Sorry for not being able to be clearer than that, but this is the very kind of honest picture of what is happening.

But bottom line is that I'm positive about the whole decarbonization, electrification opportunity and the Nordics are in an excellent position to answer that. But it seems that the overall sentiment has a lot of uncertainty. So investment decisions also take time.

There are no more questions at this time. So I hand the conference back to the speakers for any closing comments.

Thank you so much. Thanks for all your questions. Very interesting. And also happy to have gone through now the Q3 performance. As there were some technical issues in the beginning, I would just quickly repeat what I said about the Investor Day.

So it was a reminder that we will host the Investor Day on the 25th of November and also then saying that the registration is open until the 17th of November. You're able to attend both in person in Helsinki, most welcome to join us in -- at the event, but then also participate virtually online. But with this, thank you for your participation, and we all wish you a very nice rest of the day.

Thank you very much. Have a good day.

Thank you. Bye-bye.