United Utilities Stock

So good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for joining us today. This morning, as you all will be aware of what published its draft decision its inaugural totex reopener process, which is, of course, the topic of today's call.

The format for the session will be a brief presentation by our CEO, Louise Beardmore and CFO, Phil Aspin. And then I think we'll have plenty of time to take questions at the end of the presentation.

So with that, I'm going to hand straight to you, Lou, to kick us off.

Well, great. Thanks, Chris. And thanks ever so much for everybody joining this morning. Im conscious there's a lot going on. You'd be pleased to know we'll keep this brief. We've just got a couple of slides that provide some of the overview. But more than anything, as we said, this is your opportunity to ask any questions that you may have of ours.

So look, for this morning have published their draft decision. That's completely in line with our expectations. That gives us an allowance of GBP 975 million. And what I'm really pleased to be able to report is that Ofwat has supported the majority of our first year's unpaid submission. So 97% of the scope that we put forward. That leaves us in a position with that first one as they annualize, we opened a process in terms of being on track to deliver that GBP 2.5 billion worth of additional growth that we identified back in April when we updated our guidance as we go through that coming annualized process.

I think what we're really pleased to see this morning is the supportive regulatory backdrop and the fact that we've been talking about the benefits of this annualized process as we move forward because more than anything else, it gives us the ability to respond to new and emerging needs as they come through. And there is a huge amount that's happening here in the Northwest. So the fact that we're able to put these in-year adjustment claims in, is a really strong position to be in. I'm really pleased that we've seen our asset health submission virtually approved in full. We've seen our Windermere submission approved in full. There's some real positives. And I think what's great about that asset health submission is that this was a sort of key legacy of [indiscernible] in his recommendations about the need to make sure that there was rates of investment in base assets.

We've got some ongoing discussions to have with Ofwat in relation to funding of industrial growth projects and specific high net and Hightnet is a government-based project, a series of partners, and we're in active conversations with both the government and around that project specifically. I suppose more than anything else, positively, it gives us the ability to sort of sum back, be very clear and reinforce the guidance that we provided back in April, the capital investment of circa GBP 11.5 billion, the asset base growing to GBP 25 billion by 2030 and those regulatory returns of 10% to 11%.

So look, on this next slide, I thought it would be helpful to just provide that bridge in terms of some of the numbers. I'm conscious there's a lot of data, as always, out this morning. So as I've said, that GBP 975 million worth of totex that's been approved. Obviously, that's GBP 1.2 million after inflation. What is really encouraging is that Ofwat have been clear where they're looking for additional evidence. What the evidence is that they're looking for? And again, this is a bit of a step change that we've seen compared to submissions in the past. The team are already on with pulling that information together and providing that evidence pack .

And then also, we're very clear around these future submissions. And we talked back in April about the fact that scope would be fluid, it would move around. But actually, we're really clear. And more importantly, we have got total visibility of what that scope looks like and what that opportunity looks like as we go forward. And therefore, we shape each one of those reopeners accordingly. We're already in conversations with Ofwat about what's going in the 2027, we opened a process. And it looks like to be helpful on this next slide, just to remind everybody of what we said and also some new fees that are coming through as well.

So as part of those additional submissions in future years, and just to reiterate, this is all consistent with the guidance that we previously provided, is that we've got a huge amount of growth that's coming as a result of the defense investment that's happening here in the Northwest and particularly chip building programs that are happening up in Barrow.

The proactive asset replacement. So as I said at the beginning, I'm really pleased to see Ofwat taking such a positive set on asset replacement. But also, as I've said, we're already in active conversations about asset pluses that they're looking to see and starting to build those evidence cases.

And as well as that, we've got some new requirements that come through, too. So only last week, we were in a meeting with the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the Chief Inspector Marcus Wink and [indiscernible] Who are now calling more an additional submission around cyber resilience and security. So an additionality to what we talked about, and all of that as well as the opportunity around what we take for month 9 and bring into AMP8 make sure that we continue to smooth that supply chain cycle.

So a sort of positive start to the first submission that we put in, great that they've identified that need and that scope, no opportunity to further dialogue and conversation. Just thought to be helpful to outline the process and the time line. So obviously, 13th of August today, we've got to go back by the 24th of September. And then we've got a final decision that is due just before Christmas on the 15th. And then as I've said, we then get into these annualized reopening process. So it's a [indiscernible] As we go through each of the following years.

So with that, I'll probably hand over to Phil just to reiterate our guidance.

Thanks, Lou. Good morning, everyone. Yes. As we already said, effectively, we're really pleased today to be reaffirming our guidance on our financial claim work. And just calling out the 3 key items here. So regulatory returns, 10% to 11% nominal. 10% compound growth rate in our asset base and about GBP 11.5 billion. And as you all know, a very strong balance sheet. We're gearing in the bottom half would be 55% to 65% range, securing a robust set of credit ratings and good access to the capital markets.

So with that, I guess. I pass on to questions.

Thanks Phil, short and sweet and to the point. So first up, we've got Pavan, would you like to ask your question?

I've got two to start with, please. Lou, I appreciate it's obviously a hours let alone days. But based on what you've seen so far, what do you think the key issues are that you need to be getting through with all Ofwat areas where you were maybe a bit more disappointed or where there were challenges to what you submitted. It would be great to hear your thoughts there? That's my first question.

And then secondly, maybe on the flip side, looking differently at what they've approved overall throughout the sector or you mentioned in your last slide around cyber, are you starting to see any areas of opportunity that you think could provide even more upside to what you guided us to earlier this year? Those are my two questions.

Okay. Thanks, Pav. Look, I'll take the second question first, if you like, and then put it around. Probably too early to have a look at what everybody else has done. And I think from what we can see, we seem to have done very well in terms of what we've got approved and and that's really encouraging to see. And of what we're sort of very complementary when I spoke to them last night about the quality of the cases that we put forward and the engagement with the team. And I think that's really good. And I think the fact that they've approved a GBP 975 million worth of escape. I think, is reflective of the fact that we put the right things in and around where those investment needs were and also have been clear, if you like, about the route to deliver.

In relation to where do those questions come from, I think there's one area really, which is where we've been talking to Ofwat, and we will have those conversations, which relates to the certainty of funding around industrial growth and specifically HyNet. So if we take that GBP 975 million that we've had allowed at a scope level, we've got GBP 715 million where there is certainty of funding. This GBP 260 million were we need clarity on funding. And that's because it's HyNet, it's a government project and there's multiple partners. And so we're having conversations with those partners about what that funding is.

I think just from your perspective, there will be no -- that project won't be proceeding until that clarity is sort. And then the question that you asked around opportunity I think the reason that we went out, we did the raise, we were very clear our guidance that we put forward was that we could see where this opportunity was. And I think the fact we say much of our scale has been approved, is a reflection of our understanding and the ability to make sure the submissions that we're putting forward are reliant with where those needs are. And we are seeing additional things coming in all the time.

Like I said, only last week, around cyber. So we always talked about that, that this would be fluid, things would move around as projects and programs move around, in terms of broader economic delivery. But where we sit today, we're confident with the guidance that we've given. And more importantly, the fact that we've got visibility of what can be in each of the hoppers.

Jenny, over to you next.

If I can hone in on the HyNet GBP 260 million spend a bit, please. As I understand it, the funding structure is not secured as we stand. So there could be the project could effectively be funded by industry themselves, in which case you may not need to spend the money. And also just on a like-for-like basis, I think there's quite a lot of confusion this morning because of also the EUR 1.4 billion that you submitted, had rapid projects which needed to be taken out, et cetera.

So on a like-for-like basis, if we look at what's been approved this morning, i.e., the GBP 975 million less the GBP 260 million. What is that number comparing to what you've submitted? Because some people are saying that the Ofwat has allowed all of your bulk of your asset, I think it's not apples to apples. So if you can help us to dissect that a little bit to put it to apples-to-apples, that would be helpful.

Yes. Okay. Well, we do. I'll get Phil to just talk through the growth chart. If you could just pull back up just in terms of the -- we've tried to do that for you, Jenny, if we can just -- if my team can just reput in the presentation, and we'll see through the active -- the sort of the bridge, if you like. So if we can just redisplay that presentation slide. What isn't helpful here is we've got -- obviously, we've got real and we've got nominal. And you're right, also rapid as you can see here, is going through a separate mechanism in terms of that approval process.

But Phil, do you want to just talk us through the bridge between the two?

Yes, I think try and keep this quite simple, Jenny, if I can. But I mean you've already highlighted the GBP 260 million, which is in the sort of GBP 975 million at the start of year. So effectively, there would be an extra blocking there to sort of pull by [indiscernible] So as you say, that that is subject to ongoing discussions around funding certainty and the investment will only happen if we got clarity around something certainty in delivery rig effectively. And that's the main area of ongoing discussion.

And as Lou talked about in the presentation, when we actually set our guidance back in April, we were very clear that this was an area of uncertainty and that projects will come in and go out of scope through the period, and that this is the first stage of the number of reopenners. And in setting the GBP 2.5 billion to CapEx and a 10% CAGR, we did a number of scenarios looking at what may move around in that process, and we're very comfortable with the guidance we gave. And so that position is reiterated and reconfirmed to anywhere.

Sorry, just on that, if I may. So the GBP 1.4 billion you talked to include GBP 80 million of rapid and that was in nominal prices. So if we take off the AT and deflate everything. Basically, your ask going in without the HyNet piece is about GBP 1.1 billion. And what you've approved -- got approved in the GBP 975 million is with HyNet inside. Is that correct?

So that's the approval for the expenditures. So Ofwat has confirmed the need and scope and approve the expenditure effectively the sort of component that goes into the RCV is lower by a factor of the [ 260 ] you pulled out in terms of HyNet and that gives clarity of the route of funding for that of those projects. The HyNet is what needs clarity around funding route at this stage in the ongoing discussions.

And as I say, that -- that was something we were very conscious about going into the process. And we've talked as we have through the process and projects moving in and out to scope through the period, and that was something we factored into our guidance at this stage we gave the guidance back in April.

Thank you very much, Jenny. Ahmed, your insightful questions, next, please.

So I have a very similar question to Jenny, but more from a RAB impact perspective for 2030. So I see we're in the table where Ofwat mentions the [indiscernible] you also mentioned a RAB impact of GBP 668 million for March 2030. So I'm assuming this is excluding the HyNet of the GBP 260 million that we have been talking about. So as and when that sort of gets approved, what should we consider that as an additional element to what I see in this sort of table 2 of the draft methodology? So a, just to clarify that.

And then I mean, just maybe a sort of a broader point, where would you -- in your -- I mean, you've seen already that it's a positive step. I mean I understand the GBP 260 million point in HyNet, where else would you be seeking improvement in terms of in the run-up to the final determination in this?

Do you want to pick up the first question, Phil, and I'll do the second one?

Yes. I mean, I think you answered your own question actually, Ahmed. I think you're quite correct that the revenue allowance of GBP 975 million compares to the RCB adjustment of [indiscernible] And the GBP 260 million difference is HyNet. So effectively, you can see the allowed expenditure has got a certainty of funding for the RCV component that the ongoing discovery is around certainty of tuning for the HyNet piece, that underpins the investment effectively. That will be [indiscernible] Discussion.

So Lou, do you want to pick up other areas?

Yes. I mean, of what I've been quite clear in terms of areas where they're looking for additional evidence. We've got 2 specific sites where they've asked for additional information. I think what was good was that our costs were put in line with their models. And again, I think that was reflected in what we've seen come back. So again, I think that's encouraging. So again, it's the evidence cases that they've asked for, they're just looking for specific information. So we will be going back and having that backwards and forwards conversation.

So there's two specific sites that we're particularly looking at that we think the interpretation requires some element of challenge so we're having that specific conversation. And obviously, we were doing that over the next couple of days.

Okay. James, over to you.

Congratulations on the award. I have two questions. The first was related to bills. So I was wondering whether you could just clarify the position on bills because Ofwat kind of hasn't allowed any bill increases already, but I think your plan was to defer at request until the license change has gone through? So maybe you could just clarify your position? And are you confident in getting revenues in this period to cover the additional expenditure?

And then the second question is on incentives. And I was wondering whether you could just clarify on Totex and ODIs. How this impacts on incentives? I think the position is that there isn't scope for Totex outperformance on the new CapEx. And I think the position is that they might adjust the ODI targets. But maybe you could just clarify if that's correct or not.

Yes. So first thing on revenue, James, you're absolutely right. We didn't -- as part we will clear as said, part of the submission that we put forward, is that we would wait as part of Ofwat's consultation that we were doing and have those conversations about revenue allowances because, obviously, you may or may not have seen it, but Ofwat launched their license change consultation last week. And therefore, we were explicit as part of the submission that we put forward is that we would have those conversations as part of that consultation process. So that's exactly what we're doing.

In relation to Totex, yes, that doesn't look like there is outperformance opportunities. And I think ODIs it's not yet clear. We're just working through the documents. We probably know as much as you do at the minute in terms of working through the absolute deliverables, in terms of where they are. If you look at the things that we've put forward, they're probably less about ODI benefits, if I'm honest, there are around additional capacity into the system, additional water resources, additional waste water capacity to enable homes to be built and growth to happen as opposed to specifics of things that you might be doing that would then drive a specific outcome. So again, we're going to be working through that in the next couple of days.

And James, just to build on Louis point about the license change. Obviously, we're a little different to others because our submission was probably 1/3 asset held and 2/3 growth. And the license change conditions required to facilitate the sort of revenue allowance for growth [indiscernible] know, which is what the purpose of the consultation is that we refer to. So effectively, it makes sense for us to sort of wait until we've got that through, so then we submit one sort of application for revenue. And that's an ongoing conversation with Ofwat. And as you can see from the table is upward of allowed circa GBP 200 million of revenue adjustment at the end of AMP, but we'll be seeking to get as an [indiscernible] As we move forward.

Dominic, next.

A couple of questions from me, please, if I might, 3 or 4. First one, the HyNet one. Can you just remind me on the time line expected for a decision? Is it realistic that we can get something through before December 15 for your fine? Or is this going to be sort of a permanent rolling sort of addition? Secondly, on the accounting of this, could you just help me out here on this one.

So first of all, you get no revenue announced in period. How are you going to be accounting for in your IFRS accounts for the cost of finance and depreciation? Would you be capitalizing this? Or is this going to be sort of an earnings drag through until you start to see the revenues sort of kick in? And I'd just say probably on that issue, could you just expect me why the RAB is growing slower in your reopeners, I think [indiscernible], whatever it is a RAB increase when you actual expenditure is going to be significantly higher.

And then the other thing is maybe there's a revenue adjustment coming through and the cost of capital that you allowed on it, I presume is kind of in the mix rolled up and then we're going to have to model it and revenue higher than the FD in AMP, I presume. Is that how it's going to be working through? So they are my sort of questions.

All right. I'll pick up on the first one. So in relation to time line, which is probably the easiest question. In relation to time line, Dom, as you can imagine, we've got a new Prime Minister and therefore, a new team, HyNet has a number of partners. People are extremely committed to enabling HyNet to be delivered. And it's part of the sort of strategic growth here in the Northwest. So that is continuing. And those conversations are continuing. I think what is important is the Ofwat approved the scale. So there's a [indiscernible] but actually recognizing that government here is the biggest customer in this case. We've got to just work through that time line.

In relation to accounting, Phil and particularly, IFRS?

Yes. And just coming back from a HyNet, just to build on a little bit, I think as well. I think clearly, Dominic, you asked about 15% and what will be key for the [indiscernible] understanding the principle Ofwat, as to the route of funding around HyNet. And that's needed to guarantee the sort of investment profile effectively. So without certainty funding, it's difficult for us to proceed with the investment. So that will be the main first conversation.

On the accounting, you're quite right. So currently, there's no revenue in some determination because that's part of an ongoing conversation and is something Ofwat is aware of. So we do expect that to change, and that will be the GBP 200 million of our asset for [indiscernible] to James. You asked how the accounting will be done for the assets that you just [indiscernible] IFRS accounting. So the investments or the investment is effectively capital investments that will be capitalized. As a standard under IFRS accounting, you also capitalized interest in relation to financing costs for assets that's a standard effectively. So that won't change.

And then I think you had a question around the difference between the RAB and I think it was effectively between the sort of surface [indiscernible] as a number a couple of different numbers banding around and the [indiscernible] out expenditure. And I think that is effectively behind that sort of GBP 260 million we've been talking about. So with the order approved the allowance of the GBP 975 million, that includes the GBP 260 million of HyNet, which means that the balance goes into the RCV and has a secured funding route. The GBP 260 million is subject to ongoing discussion around the clarity of funding route to support that investment. And that's the [indiscernible]

And then there will be other [indiscernible] sort of adjustments that will be made such as the GBP 200 million on revenue at the moment, but we're going to [indiscernible] we going forward if it's not taking the revenue in period. So probably quite complicated. I think in these very early few hours post determination, it's probably about as good as I can guide on at this stage. We will be able to have more detailed conversations in coming days.

I mean the question wasn't the HyNet on the difference in RAB increase in your total expenditures at on like-for-like there's a GBP 50 million gap, will be rolled up into the GBP 200 million of revenue into PR. And just finally, on the accounting on this one here, the annual performance reports that you will publish the expenditure on these will be in your shadow RAB? Or will it actually go through into your main RAB into the -- into the accounting?

I think it probably shows on point of detail, I need to check on Dominic.

Okay. No more questions. Thank you all for your time today. Lou over to you.

Great. Look, thanks so much. Early days, we'll continue to digest. I think we've got a sort of series of meetings in the sort of days and weeks ahead. We're pleased to see the scope being approved to the level that it has. We're now in conversations specifically with Government regarding HyNet. And as I've previously said, we're now actively on already with engaging with around March's submission and more importantly, making sure that, that is equally as high quality.

So look, we will no doubt continue to exchange questions in the days ahead. Chris, Jenny and the team, we're all here to answer those. But I'm conscious there's a lot on, so we'll let you off the call. But many thanks for your time this morning. Thank you,.

Thank you, everyone.

Good morning, everyone, and welcome, and thank you for joining us at such short notice this morning. This morning, we've released preliminary fiscal '26 financial results slightly ahead of schedule and launched an GBP 800 million equity placing to accompany upgraded capital expenditure guidance. We have around 45 minutes for today's call, giving us plenty of time for you to ask questions.

And with that, I'll hand straight over to Lou and Phil. Lou?

Great. Good morning. Thanks, Chris. Look, good morning, everybody, and thank you for joining Phil and I to talk through our FY '26 results and details of the additional AMP8 growth submission and equity raise that we have launched this morning.

I'm really keen to talk through our results and to share more about the exciting plans that we've submitted to Ofwat today. As we move through the deck, you will hear 3 key messages. Number one, we've made a really great start to AMP8, and we are delivering on the things that matter most to our customers, our communities and the environment. We've delivered a strong set of financial results with a 7.5% asset growth, coupled with a 42% increase in underlying EPS. We're delivering improved environmental and operational performance, and our supply chain is mobilized and our delivery pathways are well established.

Number two, our supportive regulatory backdrop and a new approach to incremental investment provides the opportunity for rolling submissions. This has enabled us to announce investment plans of GBP 1.4 billion as part of Ofwat's 2026 Re-opener process, representing the first phase of our incremental investment program. With this investment, we're focused on providing the water infrastructure for thousands of new homes, powering data centers, enabling clean energy and strengthening the resilience of our infrastructure. Due to this, we have added an additional circa GBP 2.5 billion to our CapEx guidance, the balance of which is expected via future Re-openers as we continue to invest further in the Northwest through the AMP.

Incremental CapEx is to be fully funded with an GBP 800 million equity placement that we have launched this morning, of which GBP 400 million is a cornerstone investment from ATLAS with the Future Fund.

And lastly, I'm pleased to announce our upgraded financial framework. Our asset base is growing to GBP 25 billion by 2030, equating to a compound growth rate of around 10%. This growth is fully funded, and we're now guiding to regulatory return of 10% to 11% across AMP8, which is an increase of 100 basis points.

So let's start with year 1 performance. Look, I'm not going to cover everything that's on this slide, but I'm really keen to pull out a few key highlights. While the U.K. experienced a relatively dry year, the Northwest still saw average rainfall. Despite this, our spill performance improved despite that above-average rainfall and with activations falling 23% and duration falling 27% versus the prior year. The focus on pollution incidents remain. But importantly, we've recorded no Category 1 pollutions, the most serious form of pollution.

We've seen an 80% year-on-year improvement in our performance measures. And this year, we fixed more leaks than we've ever done before. We replaced over 150 kilometers of mains more than in the previous 5 years combined, supporting long-term leakage reduction and fewer supply interruptions.

Our in-year leakage performance is the best the Northwest has ever seen. But despite this progress, we do expect to miss our regulatory 3-year rolling average target for FY '26 because that reflects the impact of prior years and the time it then takes for the rolling methodology to capture this year's really good improvements.

Our in-year ODI penalty of GBP 35 million is in line with management expectations for the year 1, and we're confident in delivering net rewards across the AMP8 period. Delivering a high-quality service every time for customers is really important, and it's central to building trust. We've got a Trustpilot score of 4.5, which is excellent, and we remain above median and in reward position across all regulatory customer service measures.

With bills rising this year, we are focused on robust credit control and our bad debt charge is in line with expectations at 1.8%. With the size and scale of our capital program, health and safety remains our top priority. Our lost time injury rate has reduced by 30% during the year, reflecting strong continuous improvement. Engaged committed colleagues are central to our success, and we're really proud to report an outstanding 90% engagement score, well above global and U.K. high-performance benchmarks. And our strong culture is also reflected in our Glassdoor rating of 4.6 out of 5. The strength of our brand as an employer is really critical to ensure that we retain and that we attract the very best talent we need to deliver our ambitious plans.

And lastly, on financial performance, we've delivered a 42% uplift on underlying EPS compared to the prior year, coming in at 107.1p. We're making real strides on our CapEx delivery with spend in line with expectations of GBP 1.5 billion. We've delivered asset base growth of 7.5% and a regulatory return of 13%. And our balance sheet remains strong with gearing at 60% and a final dividend of 35.78p per share.

So look, let's move on to the capital program. As we've transitioned into AMP8, we've made a great start managing the ramp-up in the capital investment. We've successfully recruited over 1,300 new colleagues to join United Utilities, whilst at the same time, onboarding over 100 suppliers that's helped us deliver our ambitious AMP8 program. And the scale-up of our activity, which you can see demonstrated here on the graph on the left-hand side, hasn't impacted the quality of our output. Our effective and efficient delivery of the capital program has enabled us to achieve our year 1 regulatory outcomes and our spend is in line with profile.

As the pie chart shows on the right-hand side, AMP8 is scaling up with projects progressing through the delivery cycle. And our award-winning approach to standardization project blueprint is playing a really vital role in the key stages of project delivery. The methodology and focus is keeping us within cost and quality allowances while accelerating delivery for customers and our communities. By standardizing those designs and bulk purchasing materials and embedding more efficient maintenance regimes, we're cutting cost and time across multiple projects. This approach allows us to identify repeatable solutions, streamline design and secure critical components early.

Government policy and regulation is now underpinning a multi-decade of growth. And the opportunities as we see with tightening environmental standards, a need for greater asset replacement, coupled with new housing and industrial growth targets focused here in the Northwest, a region that has some of the strongest growth of anywhere in the U.K.

The recommendations from the Cunliffe review provide the conditions for a new direction for water, resetting regulation with a single integrated regulator and the need for balanced risk and reward.

Today, we submitted to Ofwat our proposals for additional investment to support growth in housing, the new green economy here in the Northwest, coupled with proactive asset replacement. And the new regulatory landscape I just outlined is evidenced by Ofwat's new approach to in-period adjustments. This new and much welcome change allows us to now address new and emerging requirements that have been established since our PR24 Determination in a way that is more agile, enabling us to respond to national and regional growth requirements whilst also supporting a more sustained capital delivery profile as demonstrated in the chart.

The additional CapEx that is proposed for AMP8 enables us to maintain and strengthen the supply chain and support economic growth as we transition into AMP9 and the delivery of a sizable future investment program that will be supported by this retained and deployed supply chain capacity.

The GBP 1.4 billion program submitted today sets out how we will deliver the vital infrastructure required for thousands of new homes across the Northwest region, unlock capacity for data center expansion and facilitate decarbonization. We've also outlined investment in our gated delivery schemes to drive improvements at Lake Windermere as well as investments in our assets to strengthen the resilience and reliability of our networks, treatment works and services. Beyond this, there are additional regulatory windows in 2027 and 2028 and to propose further investment to support asset health and regional growth alongside other targeted areas specified in the AMP8 determination.

Taken together with the prospect of additional investment in the final years of the AMP, we expect this to lead to circa GBP 1.2 billion incremental investment in AMP8. And subject to approvals, in total, this would deliver an additional GBP 2.5 billion of capital investment on top of the current AMP8 program previously announced. That supports a circa 10% compound growth in the asset base between 2025 and 2030.

The growth will be facilitated by an equity placement of GBP 800 million that has been launched today. So we expect to remain within our gearing target of 55% to 65% throughout AMP8. The visual shows the communicated time line for decisions and also dates for future in-period submissions. We expect a draft decision in August for the submission we have made today and the final decision during December.

Our focus has been ensuring we have a high-quality submission that reflects the categories and investment areas that Ofwat has identified and expects to see. We're really encouraged to see the changes to in-period adjustments that Ofwat has embraced and the signal that this sends about the changing landscape ahead. This will help us to deliver with pace and flexibility, the infrastructure that's needed to support the rate of growth that we're seeing here in the Northwest.

I'm now going to hand over to Phil.

Thanks, Lou, and good morning, everyone. So now turning to the FY '26 financial highlights. At the headline level, underlying EPS was up 42% on the prior year, coming in at 107.1p. This was driven by rising tariffs, resulting in 20% revenue growth, partly offset by rising costs, which I'll come to in a moment.

We're making real strides on our capital program, and our CapEx stepped up around GBP 0.5 billion this year with the same increment coming through to take us up to the GBP 2 billion mark for FY '27. Lastly and importantly, our dividend continues to grow in line with inflation.

Next, turning to the underlying profit bridge. Underlying operating profit was up GBP 274 million, in line with expectations. Underlying revenue increased by GBP 431 million, reflecting the PR24 Final Determination. Consistent with the typical regulatory approach to setting prices, there's a big step-up in allowed revenues in the first year of the AMP, which increases in revenue allowances over subsequent years expected to be lower. This is partly offset by a GBP 40 million adjustment relating to diversions activity to accommodate the now aborted Northern leg of HS2.

And as I mentioned earlier, operating costs were up year-on-year, primarily due to 3 factors: expenditure associated with the expansionary impact of the AMP totex program, inflationary pressures impacting the cost base and specifically employee costs, rates and regulatory fees, and with other costs, including both a step-up in contributions to Ofwat's innovation fund and the impact of dry weather last summer.

We continue to maintain financial discipline with balance sheet gearing at 60%, benefiting from near-term inflation. Our capital investment program is progressing well, resulting in the RCV growing to GBP 16.5 billion, a 7.5% increase year-on-year with net debt at GBP 9.9 billion at March 2026.

In the year, we raised around GBP 1.5 billion in term funding, outperforming the Ofwat debt indexation mechanism by around 80 basis points and locking in sustained benefit across all 5 years of the AMP8 period. This funding, together with the renewal of committed bank facilities, extends our liquidity profile to the second half of FY '28.

In the first year of this new regulatory period, our regulatory returns strengthened to 13%, supported by near-term inflation. Financing performance continues to be a robust underpin to our return on regulated equity or RORE, while we also benefit from both a gearing impact given the notional company's gearing of 55% and the higher level of near-term inflation when calculating the nominal regulatory return on the actual capital structure.

Now turning to look ahead. I'm pleased to set out here our near-term technical guidance. Underlying revenue next year is expected to be between GBP 2.7 billion and GBP 2.8 billion, with underlying operating costs increasing by around GBP 100 million, in line with the regulatory allowance. We continue to benefit from our disciplined and prudent energy hedging. Our hedging levels remain above policy minimums, reflecting proactive execution during the benign market conditions, which means we're fully hedged for summer '26 and over 90% hedged for winter '26, '27.

Depreciation will be up by GBP 50 million to GBP 60 million, reflecting the continued asset base growth, while underlying finance expense will be lower and underlying tax is expected to be negligible due to full expensing. As I've already mentioned, CapEx will step up again significantly to around GBP 2 billion next year, resulting in asset base growth of around 10%. ODIs are expected to improve markedly, resulting in a net lower net penalty. We remain on track for a cumulative reward over the AMP.

And lastly, our total dividend for next year is expected to be 55.54p per share. Complementing our near-term technical guidance, we have our medium-term financial framework. I'm pleased to be able to upgrade our financial framework today, reflecting both the revised outlook for capital investment and the associated GBP 800 million capital raise also announced today.

Key aspects of the upgrade to the AMP8 financial framework are regulatory returns expected to be in the range of 10% to 11%, an increase of 100 basis points in the level of outperformance. AMP8 capital investment is now expected to be around GBP 11.5 billion, an increase of GBP 2.5 billion, and that results in an RCV annualized growth over AMP8 accelerating to around 10%, an increase of 3% in the compound annual growth rate.

Thanks. And I'll now pass back to Lou to take questions.

That's great. Thanks, Phil. Look, the plans that we've outlined today see capital investment over AMP8 move to circa GBP 11.5 billion, which in turn delivers a strong compound asset base growth of circa 10%. Our robust balance sheet will be supported by the GBP 800 million equity placement that we've launched this morning. And this enables us to maintain our 55% to 65% target gearing range across the AMP. Underpinning strong regulatory returns of 10% to 11%, this is coupled with the progressive inflation-linked dividend.

So I want to just summarize before we go to questions. We've made a really great start to the AMP. We've delivered a strong set of operational and financial results. The GBP 2.5 billion investment plan will enable the growth that is needed in our region. And finally, the plans that we discussed this morning reflect the upgraded returns guidance that we've taken you through. More importantly, it also sees our asset base growing to circa GBP 25 billion by 2030.

I'd really like to thank you for your time this morning and recognize that you've jumped on a call quite quickly. So more than anything, really keen to get to questions, and Phil and I are keen to hear anything that you'd like to ask. Thank you.

Thank you, Louise. Okay.If you would -- if you'd all like to use the raise hand function to ask a question, and given we don't have a lot of time, if you could keep your questions to one or two to begin with, then we can come back with follow-ups if we have time at the end.

So, jumping straight in, Pavan, would you like to go ahead? And if we could see you, that'd be brilliant. Thank you.

Congrats on getting the strategic update out. So my -- my question is you're raising today even though the Re-openers have yet to be approved by Ofwat, we have to get the draft and final determinations later in the year. So what gives you the confidence that this additional spend you're requesting will be approved? Is there an automatic element that was embedded in the FDs? Or have you had conversations with the regulator? And the one small add-on I'll add to that is, can you talk about your engagement with the supply chain in terms of actually delivering on this CapEx? I'll keep those questions.

Okay. Thanks, Pavan. Look, I think there were sort of 3 elements to that question. So I suppose let's start first with why now. I think what's really clear is we can see what's ahead. We've been able to see the ambitious growth rates have been put here for the Northwest the additional housing, the new towns. As we look forward, we can see that runway. And more importantly, given the size of the 2026 Re-opener that we've put forward today as well as the fact that Ofwat have now set out that annualized process, which is moving much more consistently with what you're used to seeing from an energy and an Ofgem perspective, we can see that future runway ahead. And the call that they've put forward for asset replacement and supporting additional growth across the region.

So those things combined mean that we've now got full visibility of what that future runway looks like. In terms of the regulatory process, look, as I said, there are sort of 3 opportunities, if you like, '26, '27 and '28. What we thought was really important was providing visibility to the market about what that future runway and that pathway looks like and being in a position where we were fully funded to ensure that as we put those submissions in, they could actually be delivered.

We're really clear that the drivers of the investment that we are putting forward are absolutely aligned with the government strategy. What we are seeing is a rapid rate of growth here in the Northwest. Manchester is growing at a rate that is much greater than what we're seeing in the rest of the U.K., but significantly across Europe. I've got a huge amount of defense spending that's going to be happening here in the Northwest with BAE, for example, and the submarine program that's been announced in Barrow.

So there's a number of strategic programs that are going on here in the Northwest that have been announced that this growth is also underpinning. I also think what's really important is the point about the supply chain. And I think you saw it in one of the slides. What we're actually doing here is strengthening the supply chain. We've been really pleased, Pavan, with the start that we've made to year 1. We've moved from a supply chain model that saw us have 2 key suppliers and a sort of sub model that's underneath that to 100 suppliers now working and embedded across the supply chain.

The submission that we've put in today goes in as well with support from the supply chain and also support from local politicians, Andy Burnham and the team at GMCA, for example, in terms of underpinning the growth. And I think what's really important, it's remembering that this work that we're putting forward is predominantly civils driven as opposed to component driven in terms of some of the infrastructure growth that you're seeing elsewhere. So we're seeing that capacity in the supply chain. It's enabled, it's here. It's working with us already in the Northwest.

And more importantly, we're committed to make sure that it is actually maintained as we go through that AMP because we know AMP9 is going to be a big plan, and we want to make sure that, that supply chain is strengthened and continues to grow as we move from one AMP period to the next.

Terrific. Thank you. Pavan. Dom, would you like to go ahead?

Yes, it's Dominic Nash here from Barclays. Two questions from me. Firstly, clearly, you're putting this GBP 2.5 billion of extra sort of totex. Could you give us some color as to the impact on bills and what you think -- how you think you're going to be profiling bills and the revenues for this extra spend?

And secondly, I think you've given a new RORE update for AMP8. Could you give us a little bit more color as to sort of the breakdown of the components within the RORE component as to where we think the outperformance is going to come from?

Brilliant. I'll pick up impact on bill, and then I'll hand over to Phil to pick up on RORE. In terms of the impact on the bill, the sort of package and the sort of cumulative impact, if you like, of the GBP 2.5 billion that we talked about is circa GBP 10 on customer bills. I think what is very clear is that, obviously, this is investment that's happening now. And what we've announced this morning is 4,000 additional jobs. That's in addition to the 30,000 that the AMP8 plan is already supporting. So this is an increase in bills, but it's for growth today for a bill impact that will materialize somewhat later on.

I think it's also important to note that, obviously, we've got strong financial support out there. Our bad debt charge is absolutely in line with management expectations and what we were expecting to see. And more than anything else, we've got a robust package of support that's there for customers as they may need it and United Utilities is recognized as doing so. So we've had lots of conversations about what that bill impact is, but that's materializing a little bit later on, but for the growth that's happening now and underpins both the government and the regional growth strategy.

Phil, on RORE?

So on RORE, when we set out our AMP8 guidance initially when we accepted the FD, we said the 100 basis points of outperformance was coming across a number of different areas, financing, ODIs, PCDs and totex. And we were very clear that the substantial underpin to that was financing outperformance.

As we move forward through this first year of the AMP, we've had more visibility of things. Things have settled down. And in the context of the financing outperformance, we've talked a bit more about that today in the context of continuing to outperform in terms of the new debt that we've issued. So there, we've outperformed by 80 basis points in year 1 against the Ofwat debt indexation model. So that's locking in more outperformance, both in year 1 and through the rest of the 5 years of the AMP that's supporting the overall position.

And then obviously, you'll have seen me talking through the bridge in terms of the current year performance. Obviously, that position is leveraged because, as you know, the sort of the way the regulatory model works is the focus is on real returns and so the higher inflation environment is also leveraging the financing outperformance as well. So that's flowed through into the numbers. And as we look forward for the 5 years of the AMP, we're now sort of confident of revising our guidance to at least 200 basis points of outperformance.

Okay. Thank you very much, Phil. Mark, over to you.

Firstly, on -- how -- I mean, my understanding is the filing has to be with Ofwat tomorrow. How much have you actually asked for relative to the, I think, GBP 1.4 billion CapEx? Have you risked the amount that you've asked for and said, look, Ofwat will not give us -- it is unlikely to give us all of that?

And secondly, in-period adjustments, when we spoke, Phil, if I recall correctly, you did mention that you will do some work with consumers to see if you can recover some of the returns and the amortization of that within this review. So within that GBP 1.4 billion CapEx or in addition to that, how much fast money is there to help support the balance sheet? Those are my 2 questions.

Okay. I'll take the first question first. So the GBP 1.4 billion is the totality of the submission that's gone in today. And there are sort of a number of key elements of that. GBP 400 million is the sort of the asset classes that Ofwat have specifically asked to see. So that's where they have invited submissions based on certain types of asset types. And then the rest is around supporting housing growth and industrial growth here in the Northwest, which is sort of underpinned by really strong, sort of, growth and planning activities that are already here and underway in the Northwest. And as we also said, there's some elements in there as well that are also around our gated submission that we've been in very detailed conversations with Ofwat about.

And I'll hand over to Phil to pick up on the in-period adjustments.

Yes, so in terms of the in-period adjustments, sort of, as you know, the revenue is subject to sort of effectively further discussions with Ofwat. And as you sort of highlighted, that's also subject to customer engagement, which is a normal process that you go through. So we are expecting and planning to have revenue coming back into the back end of the AMP. We're not particularly looking to accelerate fast money, as you sort of outlined. So effectively, most of this is -- the investment is slow money CapEx going into the RCV. Clearly, there will be returns and other sort of contributions coming back through revenues, but we're not accelerating beyond the normal rate of, let's say, depreciation, fast cash effectively.

So basically, what you're saying is that you asked for GBP 1.4 billion you expect 100% of what you've filed for because you've, the gated -- you've spoken to Ofwat or you see it such a short thing. And there's not really much in terms of impaired adjustments at the back end.

I think what we're saying, Mark, is that we've guided to GBP 2.5 billion worth of CapEx. We see that across '26, '27 and '28 submissions. Those submissions will go in. As you know, there are always discussions backwards and forwards with Ofwat. But based on that forward trajectory of what we can see, the fact that they've now put forward annualized processes for investment, particularly around asset replacement and with the growth that we see over the totality of the period of the remainder of AMP8, we're guiding to a central point of an additional GBP 2.5 billion CapEx. That will be over those 3 submissions, and that's the entirety of what we see for AMP8.

And Mark, just to add, I think in terms of the revenue coming back, there will be a modest revenue, but we're not accelerating lots of fast cash, which I think was the gist of your question. So this is effectively CapEx and slow cash money, but the normal depreciation and the return rates, et cetera, will be flowing back into revenues. And that will be potentially a 3-figure number. So we need to have those discussions with Ofwat as we step through the process.

I think it's also worth, sort of, just reflect on the fact that these Re-openers are going to act like a mini price review. So the submission that we've made today is exactly what you'd expect to see in terms of, from an AMP8 perspective, the level of assurance, the level of submission that's gone in. Again, we'll get an interim determination view on that in the summer, opportunity for further conversations in December. And we've already got wrapped and stack what's going in for 2027 and have started some of that early engagement with Ofwat.

So from a regulatory process, this will be conversations backwards and forwards. But what we can see is that forward trajectory and based on the demand that we're seeing here in the Northwest and how that underpins the strategic growth the defense program, submarine program in terms of Barrow, the new town that's been announced in Manchester, et cetera, that's where this is the new news and the additional growth, coupled with the asset replacement Re-opener process as we move forward.

Great. Ajay, your turn, mate.

Is it fair to say that the bulk of the increase we're seeing in the return side is coming from higher inflation? And what inflation assumptions are you assuming over this period, just so -- or at least maybe how they've changed so we can kind of factor that in?

And then the second one is on ODI performance. The start has been a little bit more disappointing than maybe the beginning of the AMP. And can you just maybe just revisit the picture of getting to a positive territory by the end of the AMP?

Certainly. Do you want to pick up inflation assumptions and I'll pick up ODI stuff?

Yes. Great. So the bulk of the -- as I said, the 200 basis points is significantly underpinned by financing outperformance. So yes, it's coming from financing outperformance. And as I said, that breaks down into 2 components. On a nominal basis, we are outperforming the Ofwat debt indexation model, as I said, by around 80 basis points. So that's a very significant level of outperformance from debt issuance on a nominal basis, nothing to do with inflation.

When we step into the inflation part, because we're regulated with a real cost of debt, any high levels of inflation do play through and leverage that position further. So there's a combination effect going on there.

In terms of the inflation assumptions in our plan, we're assuming a 3% average inflation over the sort of AMP8 period. Obviously, that's higher at the front end, reflecting the higher near-term inflation in year 1 and the expectations for higher inflation in year 2, given the sort of recent events in the world. But that reverts quite quickly back to Bank of England sort of target levels at the back end of the AMP period.

And Ajay, in relation to your question on ODIs, I mean we've always been quite clear that we see a negative start in terms of the AMP period, and that will build to an overall positive position over the AMP. In relation to those measures, they are taking time to build. So as I say, with leakage, had a cracking year 1, but actually, I've got a rolling average from the previous 2 years that needs to roll through. So those ODI returns are exactly where we thought they'd be and over the period of the AMP contribute a positive performance as part of the overall returns guidance that we've provided.

I think next up, we have Ahmed Farman.

And congrats on the update. Maybe just Phil, a quick clarification question for you. We -- as I see on consensus right now for 2030, the net income is about GBP 800 million. So bringing together all the pieces, the higher RAB, the outperformance, but then the profiling of the revenue. Could you give us a sense of what sort of -- what does the new plan means in terms of potential upgrade to the 2030 sort of numbers that we see on consensus? Or is the earnings benefit more in AMP9? I just want to maybe just bring it all together to get your views on that. And maybe, sort of, a separate question from the transaction today. Could you just remind us where we are in the sort of the reform process now and your latest expectations on the transition plan, et cetera?

Do you want to pick up the first bit, and I can then pick up the transition plan?

Yes, I'll take the first question. So I guess, as you know, we have a regulatory model, the way the regulatory model works, as I sort of discussed when I was stepping through the revenue bridge, there's a very big step-up typically in the first year of the AMP and then a, sort of, modest progression of revenue going through the AMP period. That's typically how the regulators have profiled revenue. So you're right, there's always a lag in terms of a regulatory model of revenue coming through.

So the real accretion to EPS here will fall into effectively AMP9. As I sort of talked earlier, we are going to be talking to Ofwat around revenue adjustments in AMP period as well. So at the back end of the AMP, there will be sort of revenue coming back into the numbers as well. But the sort of material component of the step-up in the value will flow really into the AMP9 period. So yes, that's fine.

Yes, perfect. All right. And your question Ahmed about where we're up to with reform and the regulatory agenda. You may or may not have seen yesterday that the government announced Dame Julia Black, who is essentially going to lead a lot of the transition activity and the transition to a new regulator. And I think that's a real positive step and something that we really welcome. Obviously, we've got the King speech in the next 2 weeks, which again underlines a number of the elements of the water bill more broadly. So we are starting to see movement. And I also think that the Ofwat communicating the processes in terms of in-year submissions is also a really great signal of the transition that's starting to be made to the new regulator. So that announcement only happened yesterday with Dame Julia Black's appointment, but there's a lot of work going on now to enable this transition, and we look forward to seeing what's outlined in the King's speech in a couple of weeks' time.

Perfect. Alex Wheeler.

Two from me, please. Just following up, I guess, on the Re-openers. It sounds like you're pretty confident in the submissions. But if there were to be a haircut on the number that you ultimately got there, should we still think about it as a GBP 2.5 billion total CapEx? Would it be a case of bringing CapEx forward from AMP9? I know you've spoken in the past about that AMP9 CapEx plan being very large. So interested to get your thoughts there. And then just on the gearing, Phil, I'd just be interested in where we land now. And I know you talked about the 55% to 65% range, but what's the sort of expectation on the moving parts there and the phasing upwards?

Great. Thanks, Alex. I'll take the point around the CapEx and Phil from a gearing perspective. I think what we're really clear about is that we've got these Re-openers, '26, '27, '28. There will be movement in scope across those dates. We're already starting to build what's in 2027. Some things may move around according to planning time lines and things like that. But that's that sort of central view of what we can see, also coupled with the asset replacement that Ofwat are pulling for.

In relation to the point about transitional investment, it's a really great point, Alex, because we've been really clear. And if you remember AMP8, I talked about the fact that we needed an adaptive plan. There were things that we would -- that we push from AMP8 into AMP9 circa GBP 1 billion worth of investment, for example, on the Manchester Ship Canal. So as well as the '26, '27 and '28 Re-openers, we also have the opportunity around transitional investment as we move into what is going to be a sizable AMP9 program. So all of those combined is what's added or what's led to us upgrading our CapEx guidance to a central point position of an additional GBP 2.5 billion for the AMP period.

Phil? Okay.

Alex, yes, picking up the gearing point. So today, we're at 60% gearing, and that position is sort of benefiting effectively from the near-term inflation position we've had in the last 12 months. So when we've looked forward in terms of the equity raise and the GBP 2.5 billion of additional CapEx we expect to see, you'll note that we're raising less than 40% of the additional amount that we're expecting to raise. Post the raise, we'll fall to the lower half of our range, and we'll see that trend back up through the range. And we are using the balance sheet capacity that we've benefited from, from the sort of near-term inflation sort of the current year outturn and the expectation of higher inflation in the next sort of 6 to 12 months will support some aspects of the program and leave us with a degree of headroom as we get to the end of the AMP period.

James Brand, moving straight on to you.

I just have one question. Obviously, the RAB growth in AMP8 is going to be very strong now. But how should we think about how that transitions into AMP9? Is the prospect that you could be looking at 10% RAB growth per annum for the next decade? Is that feasible? Or do we see things kind of slow down a bit in AMP9 at least in percentage terms?

James, thanks for the question. I mean, we've always been very clear that AMP9 is a sizable program. And we can see here what we need to deliver as part of the Environment Act requirements that are coming through. We can also see how additional requirements are stacked with what's coming through from the drinking water inspector, et cetera. And that's before we get to anything that's additive around things like PFAS or forever chemicals. So the amount that we need to do in AMP9, we were always quite clear was significant.

And so I think as we move through and we start to provide greater visibility and clarity of that, you will get a sense of the shape and the scale. I think that's the other reason as well why we're taking the opportunity to provide that forward guidance for the -- looking forward in terms of the end of AMP8 is because what we're also doing is shoring up that supply chain. I don't want to be in a position where we've worked so hard to mobilize that supply chain. We've got that commitment that as we literally start to go into AMP9, it starts to come down the other side only for us to give back up again. That makes no sense.

It makes no sense for what we need to deliver in AMP9. It makes no sense in terms of the regional economy because actually you're going to be managing job losses only to then sort of 12 months later turn around and say, well, actually, we now need to all back again. It makes no sense. So it starts to smooth out what currently is looking like a traditional curve and provide that smooth trajectory as we move from AMP8 to AMP9. So we can see what's out there right here right now based on legislation alone, and it's a significant program that we need to deliver.

It looks like last but not least, Sarah Lester from Morgan Stanley, please come through. Actually, one more from Bartek after that. Sarah?

And sorry, you either see me or hear me today because tech is not on my side. So for the question, you can hear me. It's another question, please, on the Re-opener quantum, but it's slightly different to the ones you've had so far. I mean, we obviously knew the Re-opener opportunity was there as part of the PR24 process since business plan submissions back in 2023, you did have that very intentional step down in the later 2 years -- the last 2 years of the AMP. And as you've talked about, the LTDS showed that massive step-up in AMP9.

I'm just curious, if we isolate the GBP 1.4 billion of the Re-opener, had you always intended to spend this much as part of that process? Or has that increased recently? Were you sitting there one day going, look, we're talking about a larger than we had initially expected.

I think what is really coming through is a lot of new news. And I think it's remembering that when the AMP8 plan went in, it was back in 2023. The current government weren't even in position. If we think about the additional housing that's been announced, the 1.5 million homes, I've got new towns that have been announced here in the Northwest, the shipbuilding program, there's a huge amount.

HyNet has been designated as one of the government's strategic programs and that pipeline running from Ellesmere Port. So there's a huge amount of regional growth that's been enabled that essentially is new news. We've always been very open and talked about how we manage that transition for AMP8 to AMP 9. So it's those things combined. I also think that Ofwat being very clear, they've left a number of sort of hooks, if you like, for additional opportunities in the price review process, particularly around certain elements and also regional elements.

So for us, they've left wind to me if we wanted to go back and do anything, which we're obviously putting forward here. But also, I think the moving to this annualized process and welcoming Re-openers in relation, not just to the additional growth items, but in relation to asset replacement is a real step forward and I think a recognition of how Ofwat are moving and transitioning post Cunliffe's recommendations. So again, I think that's something we push for and something we're, therefore, really, really keen to embrace as well.

Okay. Great. And one last quick question and one last quick answer. Bartek, fire away.

Let's see the answer. Just a very quick one. How do you assess the risks that the regulatory framework may evolve in the way where your financial performance will be eliminated or kind of will go down, meaning, for instance, the regulator will move to a framework where cost of that will be a pass-through or more company specific as we are seeing in other countries?

Look, I mean, I'll let Phil specifically answer that question. But I think what is important is that post Cunliffe, there was a very clear direction that this needed to be a sector that was clearly -- had a strong investment profile. And there is a recognition that everything that we need to do, not just in AMP8, but AMP9 and AMP10 beyond, there needs to be the returns that accompany that. And I've not heard anything that moves away in any way, shape or form from strengthening that narrative. Phil?

Yes. It's sort of hard to comment definitively, but I guess I'd probably make the observation that incentive-based regulation is really important to maintain incentives on companies to deliver and perform. And you can see lots of potential dangers of just having a direct pass-through mechanism in terms of cost of debt. So I think we'll have to see how things evolve, but I don't really -- I've not really seen anyone talking about that as a proposal effectively.

Thank you very much, everyone. That brings us to a close. Thank you for your participation this morning. And as always, the team is available for you if you would like to contact the team, and good morning. Thank you.

Brilliant. Thanks so much for joining us. Have a good morning.

Thank you.

Okay. Good morning, everyone. It looks like we've got most people dialing in. So terrific. Thank you. Thank you very much, and good morning. Welcome to the United Utilities Fiscal '26 Interim Results Q&A session. My name is Chris Laybutt, as you all know, and I'm delighted to play the role of host for this session.

Today, I'm joined by Louise Beardmore, CEO; Phil Aspin, CFO. We'll stick with the usual format.

So if you'd like to ask a question, please raise your hand or shoot through an e-mail or a Bloomberg. And I think leading us off this morning is Julius. You were first off the rank. So please go ahead.

I guess 2 for me. The first one is you mentioned in the presentation that like the emergence of new investment drivers that I think there's also PFAS mentioned on the slides. So just wondering, are you referring to this more like after AMP8, like into AMP9? Or is that something that we could already see now through the reopeners in AMP8?

And if so, give you us any indication on how sizable that could be? And then secondly, I mean, given that I'm the first on the line, obviously, I have to ask on your expectations on Cunliffe and the white paper that comes out in December, just in terms of like which recommendation do you think we'll be taking? And what's the process? What's the time line? Any color would be appreciated.

Fantastic and nice to see you this morning, Julius. Thanks for the question. Let's take the reopeners and the growth first. I think as we went through AMP7, there were a number of opportunities for additional growth items. We saw that with green recovery. And we've been really clear both when we spoke to the capital markets and also in terms of interactions with regulators that we see lots of opportunities for growth drivers as we move forward, both in terms of additional housing, new legislation that's coming through, whether that be new drivers that we can see emerging data centers, additional areas of growth from the government.

And we are engaging with regulators, as you'd expect us to in terms of those opportunities, and we expect them to play through just like they did in AMP7. You're absolutely right with AMP8, there were a series of reopeners that were actually stated in addition to those and they're particularly around asset health and the opportunities to drive asset health improvements. And so we are engaging with regulators with those conversations.

In relation to Cunliffe and the white paper and the time line for the white paper, I think, look, in terms of when the recommendation of the report that came out in the summer, there were lots of recommendations, 88 in total, many of which very investor-friendly in terms of the things that Cunliffe was promoting and suggesting. And we're now obviously waiting for the government's response. We expect that to be in December.

But what I think is probably useful is to just look at what am I seeing and feeling in relation to intent. And I think there's a couple of things I'd point to. The first is Emma Hardy, when she spoke at the Moody's conference, was very, very clear about her desire to drive those recommendations and also for the white paper to be out before Christmas.

I met with Emma Reynolds last week as the new Secretary of State. And again, she is very, very clear. She's picking up the recommendations. She's driving those hard with the team in terms of coming out with both the white paper and the implementation plan.

And also, you may not see, but she was also at the EFRA Committee this week. And again, on record was very clear about her intent in terms of driving those recommendations through. So I think what we can expect to see in December is that white paper and transition plan. And at the same time, I think what we're also expecting is that we will also see a strategic policy statement for both Ofwat and the EA.

Okay. Thanks very much, Julius. Jenny, over to you.

Two questions. One, just around politics. Obviously, we're getting more and more noise around the energy side in terms of government treasury want to do something deflationary on bills on the energy side. Are you thinking or hearing anything with regards to water, any noise there in terms of support on the affordability aspects?

And then just coming back on the uncertainty mechanism, is there any firm time line in which you will be going to Ofwat to apply for the reopeners? And what should we be watching out for on sort of getting the clarity on the size of potential investments there?

So look, to pick those up in order. I think the first thing I'd say is from a bills perspective and a cash performance perspective, I've been really pleased actually with the way that cash performance is maintained with the increase that we've seen in bills. Team have worked exceptionally hard. We've doubled the number of customers who are on affordability schemes, et cetera. So we've not seen any degradation in cash performance.

In fact, it's held extremely strong, and that's down to the way that, that's been managed. But one of -- Sir John's recommendations was very clearly the need for a national social tariff. And again, we expect that to come through as part of the white paper. You know that, that's something that United Utilities has long pushed for and is something that would be an extreme benefit, particularly in terms of here in the Northwest.

So we continue to influence and discuss how that could look as we move forward. So I'd expect that we may well see some movement on that or clarity on implementation of that as the white paper comes out. In relation to the uncertainty mechanisms, the conversations are ongoing. You know as well as I do what our CapEx profile looks like. It goes up and then it comes down either side. It's in everybody's best interest to smooth that out.

We've talked about AMP9 and AMP10 and what we can see coming with the Environment Act legislation, along with everything else that we can see. So it's in nobody's best interest to have a CapEx profile that looks like it does. And again, there were opportunities last time around, particularly in terms of things like transitional investment and the green recovery, and we expect those to play through. So conversations are ongoing.

Okay. Thank you, Jenny. Sarah.

Yes. Sorry, just to come back to the white paper. I think it's going to be a massive document, a lot of noise in there. So just to make it really simple for us, please. Three simple questions. What specifically should we be looking for? What will you be looking for? So if we can do a control find, is there something you can point to that if we see it, we can go, okay, this is good for you.

Sarah. I'm probably not expecting it to be hundreds and hundreds of pages long. So just to give you an indication, I think it will be thematic in terms of what comes forward and what they are proposing to set out. I think we're all clear that we want to understand what the regulatory regime looks like as we go forward, how that's going to be managed and how that's going to be coordinated, what supervisory regulation starts to look like and more importantly, essentially what the structures and the time lines look for as we move forward.

So I think what we're all looking for is exactly the same thing, which is clarity around the time scales and what that transition plan looks like. So I think it is not going to be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages long. I expect it to be thematic to set out the direction of travel, the things that they're taking forward and at pace.

I also think it's important to point out, there's a number of things that can be done without legislation change. And again, I think I'd be looking to see how much of that, that they're making a commitment on and moving on ahead of any of those legislation windows as well.

Terrific. Thank you very much, Sarah. Pavan.

I have 2, please. Firstly, I'd like to ask about the EPA and the 2-star rating from a few weeks ago. I can imagine you found that outcome, sorry, disappointing. And I wanted to just get a bit more color from your perspective on what drove that rating and whether you see there's anything in your underlying performance that you think you need to reprioritize? And on a related question, can you provide some color on the potential EPA reforms that we should be seeing in terms of those ratings in the coming years? That's my first question.

And then secondly, I wanted to ask about funding and the balance sheet. Can you remind us if you see yourself as fully funded for AMP8? And does that change in a scenario where you have additional, whether it's reopeners or transition spend? And how should we think about your balance sheet and funding options, particularly as we look into AMP9 and beyond?

Thanks for those questions. I'll take EPA, and I'll hand over the balance sheet to Phil. So I think first things first in terms of EPA, yes, we're obviously disappointed. But we are the second highest company in terms of EPA performance. So 13 out of a possible 16 stars for this EPA period. The underlying performance remains on track. What we have seen is a change in methodology and particularly in relation to definitions on pollution.

So things that were driven by both storms and power interruptions are now included in EPA. 1/3 of our pollutions are actually caused by issues with energy resilience that we're seeing up here in the Northwest. And there are 2 drivers to that. One is storms and the fact that we're on an overhead network, and that's particularly a challenge in some of our more rural areas of Cumbria and Cheshire.

And secondly, the balance loading that we're seeing between renewables and the grid. So we've got some real specific challenges. And actually, Phil Duffy referenced that himself just recently at the EFRA committee, and it's something that we're focused -- very focused on both in terms of what could we do, but also working with the energy companies as well because I need to see better levels of resilience in terms of driving those improvements. We are extremely focused though on what it is we need to do.

I'm really pleased to see the improvements that we're seeing in terms of combined overflow reductions, some of the areas of focus where what we're actually seeing is some of the early investment that's going in and more importantly, the improvements that we're seeing as a result. You're absolutely right. We now have a new methodology that is being consulted upon. That sees a series of changes again, most notably a change in categorization of pollutions.

So currently, we have pollutions categorized 1 to 4. It's categories 1 to 3 that count for EPA. Going forward, there will be no category 4. That will all become category 3. So again, it's going to be another change. So I think we're going to continue to see the methodology change and evolve. That's out for consultation at the minute. And United Utilities, along with lots of others will be making obviously representation about its implementation.

But I think what is -- there is some good stuff in the EPA too. It's going to, for example, include details about combined overflows. That's not included at this minute in time, and I think that's important. And I think what is important is anything that drives greater transparency is something that we all embrace, but we do need to understand when methodologies are changing because as a result of that, what's important is that we're tracking underlying performance, and we can see where that's improving and more importantly, if there's areas that we need to focus.

So the results of the consultation are due to be published early next year, and then that will drive in terms of the implementation of the new methodology. I'll hand over to Phil in relation to balance sheet.

Nice to see you. Yes, sort of as you know, we've got a very, very strong balance sheet. So today, we're reporting 60% for net debt to RCV gearing, benefiting slightly from a little bit of an inflationary tailwind at the moment. So that's sort of feeding into the numbers a little bit. And as you know, we're very comfortably within our 55% to 65% range as we look through this AMP in terms of the funding of the AMP8 program. And it's probably worth just reminding you that the headroom extends beyond that because the Moody's Baa1 threshold is 68%.

So there's quite a lot of flexibility there. Clearly, in terms of any reopeners, there'll be a lot of discussion around the context, the scale, the size of that, how Ofwat may or may not fund that in period, in-period revenues. So there's quite a lot of moving parts to all of that. But I think we're approaching that from a really, really strong position.

And then just longer term in terms of AMP9, clearly, we all expect a lot of funding, a lot of investment continuing into AMP9. But we also are very, very positive around the Cunliffe recommendations in the context of Cunliffe calling out the need for the sector risk profile to be looked at. And I think specifically, you cited the Moody's work that has been done where effectively, they progressively downgraded the quality of the regulatory framework over the last 2 price reviews.

So if we have some reversal of that, that will extend that sort of capacity as well. So as a reminder, if we were to revert back to a Moody's position that was more in line with energy, then that 68% will become 75%. So that's worth bearing in mind. There's a lot of moving parts and understanding how that price review in the future lands is going to be a big part of that as well.

Thank you, Pavan. Mr. Freshney.

Myself, you hear me okay?

We can now.

Can I ask on -- went to the hypothetical of the hypothetical when we're talking about the white paper next month. But I mean, it's clear that normally, I mean we're already starting to talk about AMP9 now. Normally, the next review should start next year, right? The regulator should -- once they're done, CMA should be moving across to the next review. Yes, the primary legislation is probably not going to be done next year for the Cunliffe implementations and then the regulator has to be set up.

So it would seem that at some point, we may be looking at a rollover review or a 1- to 2-year, likely 2-year extension of this review. What are your thoughts on that? And the reason I would ask is because your returns have been fixed relative to what CMA and Ofgem are doing at fairly low levels. And this review doesn't appear -- we're yet to see outperformance. So I'm just wondering what you guys would like to see on any potential rollover review and what your thoughts are there?

Thanks, Mark. I think there's 2 things. I mean, obviously, we've guided to 100 basis points of outperformance. But just in terms of the 2 years versus 5 years in terms of the regulatory cycle, I mean, I think what matters for us is that any growth that we have to deliver is facilitated. So whether that be within a 2-year or a 5-year cycle. And we've got very strong relationships with our regulators. And I think what's important is that we get clarity over the funding mechanism.

And I think it probably brings me back to one of the questions that Sarah asked me in terms of what am I most looking for in terms of the white paper is clarity around some of those time scales actually and how that evolves over time. And I think that's something that we're all looking for. CMA obviously, will publish its final outcomes in March.

And I know there's already a lot of conversation going on with DEFRA, with the Cunliffe implementation team about both the regulatory cycle and some of the inputs in, particularly in terms of the long-term strategic plans for both water and wastewater. So I think we're all looking for that clarity on that time scale. But I think what's important, whether it's 2 years, 5 years, a rollover or whatever, is that the growth that is to be delivered is facilitated and recompensed accordingly.

Terrific. Thank you, Mark. Mr. Nash.

A couple of questions from me, please. Firstly, can we go back to the CMA. They published in their initial findings what I thought was quite an interesting study on coming up with a new sort of frontier modeling sort of tool for your totex. And usually, at this point, I'm usually in front of you going, Louis, why did you not appeal the FD? And on returns, maybe clearly, you would have got higher, but the totex one was a bit of an eye opener for me because it looked to me that they seem to think that Ofwat had awarded you more totex than they would have given you if you had a CMA appeal.

And so the question I've got for you on that one there is that how -- how much indication does that give to us or how much does it give to us potentially that you could be -- you should be coming in line more with the CMA number than the Ofwat number and that we could probably see a totex outperformance come through?

Secondly, I like your term, I think, environmental super cycle that you have in your presentation. And you talk about PFAS. There's very little in PFAS in AMP as I understand it in spend. And I know we had a couple of questions earlier about your reopeners, but I'd be interested in what sort of scale -- what actually is the scale of the reopeners that we could potentially look and particularly with things that aren't in AMP at all like the PFAS one. I mean I've been reading some reports that the industry could be up to sort of GBP 10 billion a year of PFAS that's clearly across the whole country, but does have a reasonable PFAS exposure. So some color on that would be great.

Great. Thanks, Dom. So look, I think first things first in relation to CMA. The decision that we ultimately made was around the overall package rather than each individual item. And we've talked quite a bit about that. Obviously, it's remembering that going to the CMA opens up everything, not just the particular item that you may be appealing.

And we felt that the FD for us was balanced. We saw significant movement between the interim and final position, particularly on totex allowances. And we were able to negotiate some company-specific targets on things that were important to us, both in terms of combined to overflow spills, internal flooding and also some changes to the economic models in relation to rainfall patterns. So those were things that were really important.

You're absolutely right to say that when you look at some of the outcomes from the CMA, there is a number of companies where when you look at the models that they've run, they've suggested a different totex allowances. I think everybody always points to models and sort of says, well, they're very, very simplistic. And I'm sure that's what the economic regulation teams will be saying too, particularly in terms of some of those broader conditions that those models need to take into consideration.

And I think what is important that is something that Cunliffe brought out in his review is that you need to understand the regionality in the context of which you're operating on. So I'm expecting there to be lots of representation on that, Dom, as part of the response that's gone back in from companies. In relation to your questions about low, should that give us some confidence about totex outperformance? I think there's 2 things.

One is, look, we've got a number of transformation projects growing -- running where we are driving transformation in relation to totex delivery. And I talked at the Capital Markets Day, particularly around driving standard assets and standard deployment as a way of managing costs and managing costs within profile. I think long of the days have gone where you can deliver big totex outperformance and not continue to reinvest in your assets. There's always more that needs to be done.

And so I think it's incumbent on us to continue to do the right thing. But rest assured, there is a huge focus on cost and cost delivery. In relation to the scale of the reopeners, look, PFAS is one that's talked about. And there's both obviously PFAS in water, and we've got 2 projects in there. You may have seen something on the BBC recently about well, what are these projects and one of these notices. That was the regulatory notice to enable us to access the funding to get those projects in and they're purely precautionary.

But there's a couple of elements. One is PFAS in the actual water supply itself, but also in terms of biosolids. And that is an area that is continuing to emerge and evolve. We're also seeing quite significant increases in relation to housebuilding in terms of new housebuilding targets. My -- our previous Secretary State, who's now got the housing portfolio has just announced 10 cities, 2 of which in the Northwest region. So it's really an emerging and changing picture as we go through.

In relation to scale, it's a bit hard to scale at this moment in time. And I think -- but rest assured, those conversations are ongoing with the regulator on those topics, driven by those areas that they're focusing on growth. We've had 35 applications, for example, for data centers. There is a huge volume of additional work that we're seeing in terms of demand, and we're now working through and prioritizing that.

Thank you, Dom. And last but not least, James.

Very kind. A couple of questions. Firstly, on reopeners. There's been a couple of questions already on reopeners. But -- and I guess this has been touched upon a little bit. But I was wondering whether you had any visibility on how the split might look for reopeners between fast money and slow money. Obviously, the biggest theme in a way in Cunliffe was spending more on maintenance of assets. So maintenance CapEx is normally treated as OpEx. So maybe that points to a bit more kind of fast money bias, but maybe you could share some thoughts on that, if that's possible.

And then the second question was just touched upon. I can't believe I'm at the end of the queue and has asked this already, but the topic of the moment data centers, which you just mentioned, you had a lot of applications. Obviously, data centers use a lot of water. Could you talk us through how we should be thinking about data centers in the context of United Utilities. Is this going to be a big driver of investment for you of demand? You mentioned the applications. Are they ones that are likely to be progressed in the near term? Or is this further out, that would be super useful.

Great. Thanks so much, James. Do you want to pick up the sort of fast and slow money and I'll pick up on data centers, Phil?

Yes James. So I mean, as I alluded to with Pavan, the split of how Ofwat intend to fund any reopener is clearly one of the things that we'll have to consider in terms of how that impacts funding, et cetera. And clearly, a lot of the investment would go into CapEx and would typically be slow money. But clearly, we'll be pushing to make sure we've got the right balance between fast and slow in the context of what that means for financial ratios and the performance of the business. And as always, that Ofwat will be looking to balance that with the impact on customer bills in the near term as well.

And James, just in relation to your comments about data centers, look, they're all at various different stages of maturity. We've done 2 things. We've sort of identified areas in the region where we have spare water capacity. They're not necessarily always aligned with areas where people want data centers, but we've done a huge amount of work in that particular space. But in relation to the data centers that we're seeing, it also generates an opportunity for us as well.

So how can we potentially use storm water in terms of those -- the cooling that is required. So if you think about combined sewer overflows and the challenge that I have and the fact that our sewers are never more than about 15% to 18% fall, the challenge we have is one of rainfall, and we have the highest combined rain network in the U.K., there's a significant opportunity here for how we potentially think about this slightly differently. So there's some really interesting engineering that's happening in this particular area as well.

But they are all at different areas of maturity. There are certain areas where we're going to have to put in additional water resources to provide the capacity that is actually needed. But I also think it's a bit of an opportunity for the U.K. to think fundamentally differently. And we're working with a number of international organizations looking at how can we use -- there was an awful term in the sector called final affluent.

But in other words, what's come out of your treatment works then gets returned into the environment, how could we use that? They don't necessarily need potable water. So just looking at this differently from an engineering perspective as well. So there's a huge opportunity in there for us to both innovate at the same time as growth infrastructure as well.

Thank you, James. Back for another bite, Mr, Nash. Yes, we can't hear you, Dom.

I'm trying to make sure it overruns, Chris, as much as possible. Yes. One question from me, please. Supervisory regulation. Clearly, we are in some negotiations with the regulatory bodies and governments as to how that will work. What sort of options are you potentially looking at? And/or what would you like to see to come out of supervisory regulation? And do you see it as a potential sort of hindrance or a help in the way that you're actually going to perform your functions going forward?

Look, Dom, I see it very much as a help. There is a regionality about these businesses that we run, both in terms of the context of the infrastructure and even within region. You've heard me talk about the fact that we've restructured the business to be across 5 countries. Merseyside has got 84% of its wastewater system is a combined system. It's on the West Coast. Those storms hit it every single day. Even within region, it performs very, very differently.

And I think regulation that understands the context of what's going on within a region, what those local priorities are, the ability to understand both the performance of the assets and the cost base is hugely important. Sir John talked a lot about moving away from notional models and the need to really understand those cost drivers, and we're hugely supportive of that.

We saw the benefits some of that from the work that we did in AMP and particularly the allowances that we got in relation to some of the rainfall patterns we're seeing, CSO targets and things like that. But this moving away from this ability to just think of something being notional and really understand and both supervise and regulate accordingly, I think, is something that we would really, really encourage.

Thank you very much. Next, Ajay.

Look, I get the argument of like the scope and need for more CapEx and an improving return profile even for the sector. But the bit that always seems to be at [indiscernible] is the affordability and how this clashes with those aspirations in some respects.

I'm trying to understand where -- what do you need to see happen in regulation to ensure that these are more aligned with each other? And not a series of a case of we move 5 years from now, we're asking for higher returns. We're asking for more investment, but there's a consequence of higher bills and the clash with that. And ultimately, it just adds to the risk to the sector.

Great question. And I think some of this comes back to what Jenny said a little bit at the beginning in terms of what needs to happen. We have seen a level of resilience as bills have increased, but bill increases are a challenge. And I think does a huge amount in relation to affordability support. We've doubled the number of customers that we're helping.

But I think that is where a national social tariff can really play its part because I've been very, very clear that water is the only sector that doesn't have that level of universal support and that isn't right. From an energy perspective, we have warm homes discount. It isn't a postcode lottery according to where you live. And therefore, it won't surprise you that I continue to advocate for that because to some degree, that provides some additional capacity that's absolutely required.

I think the other thing to remember is we all got really strong customer support in terms of the bill package that was put forward. So 3 and 4 customers supported the increase in bills and more importantly, the improvements that they would see as a result. And so I think it's also about making sure that you're spending customers' money wisely that we're driving efficiency, we're driving innovation.

But at the same time, there is a cost and there is a cost for the infrastructure that's needed. And we are seeing the impact of climate change in a way that continues to evolve and to grow. And as water companies, it's essential that infrastructure is in place so we can enable a growth that we want to see, whether that be new housing targets or industrial growth targets. But at the same time, how do we make our assets more resilient.

And just to give you an indication of some of the things that we're seeing, you may have heard on the news last week, there was a train that derailed up here in Cumbria, but I saw 8% of the annualized rainfall for the year fall in 1 day just in Cumbria. So the volume that is coming at us is very much changing. And the infrastructure is going to have to change and evolve to be able to cope with the climatic patterns. So I think that national social tariff is going to be key in terms of how do we maintain that balance.

Terrific. Bartek.

I hope you can hear me well. Just to maybe talk a little bit about how you have started AMP8 in terms of the potential outperformance. Obviously, you have given a guidance on ODIs in year 1. But I just wonder, if we think about your latest debt issuance, where do you see the cost of debt versus the benchmark, meaning what kind of implied outperformance or underperformance we have here?

And also similarly, if we think about your totex performance, are there any surprises to the upside or to the downside so far into AMP8 versus the allowances in terms of costs inflation or in terms of CapEx inflation? And maybe lastly, also on ODIs. Obviously, for FY '26, we know it will be negative. But shall we expect FY '27 to be already positive in ODIs? Or it's too early to say?

Bartek, do you want to pick up the first 2 and I can pick up on ODIs, Phil?

Yes. So just picking up on the debt side. So your question was around how we're performing in terms of recent debt issues, Bartek. And I think probably the simplest thing is to refer you back to our Capital Markets Day slide that we sort of tabled where we showed how our performance was tracking against the Ofwat index. and that was a very, very positive position. And I'm pleased to say that existing debt issues that we've issued in this half have continued to perform in line with the expectations that we had at that time.

So basically continuing to perform as we expect. On the totex side of things, I think Louis has already touched on this a little bit in the context of Dom's question around totex outperformance. And I think we are very focused on managing our cost position and living within the totex envelopes. We don't particularly see huge scope to outperform. So I think there, that's probably all I'll add to the totex position.

In relation to ODIs, Bartek, I mean, I think we've been really clear in terms of we put the 100 basis points on the table. We see that coming both from financing outperformance, ODIs and PCDs. There are some ODIs that are in penalty this year, some that are very much in reward. And we're very clear we're driving against very hard against targets.

Obviously, as the infrastructure goes in the ground, you start to see the benefits of that and those ODIs continue to build. We've made a really great start. So for example, on leakage, we'll deliver a leakage benefit this year alone that was bigger than what we delivered last AMP. So there's some real great progress and work that is happening, but they continue to build as we go through the AMP period.

Okay. Heading back to Julius with a...

I'll try and go for a second. Maybe just on the last point on ODIs you've seen some improvement in the first half year, but could you maybe give us some indication how much of that is driven by weather? And then maybe also, I mean, the guidance hasn't changed overall on the net penalty. But has there been some change given that we had like some warmer weather this [ far ] that there will be maybe some improvements on the waste side? Just some color.

Yes. Thanks, Julius. I mean, look, we've been really clear that we expect that we will be in a penalty position for this year, but they build over the AMP, and we will be in a net reward position over the AMP period. The weather, although we have seen some dryness to the weather, we've seen some significant storms, too. So there are some areas we've made great progress and great delivery where we're seeing real improvements.

We've made great strides in all of our customer service targets. We're in reward on all of those. We will deliver our targets this year in terms of CSOs, for example. And we've seen some other areas where we've got challenges driven by some of those storms. So it is a series of ups and downs. And as infrastructure goes in the ground, we continue to see that build and that delivery. But we are extremely focused on driving the benefits and that contribution to the overall 100 basis points.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much, Louise, and thank you, everyone, for joining today. As always, if you have any follow-up questions, please feel free to reach out to the team and all of the materials that Phil mentioned are on the website in relation to the CMD. I'll hand back to Louise.

Brilliant. Thanks, Chris, and thanks very much to everybody for joining this morning. I suppose just to summarize really, we've made a really great start to the first year of the AMP, really strong operational and financial performance. The AMP program is going really well. I'm really pleased with the way that the organization and the supply chain have mobilized, our CapEx is all in line with expectations.

And we feel that we're really well positioned to -- as we move forward in relation to the transformative period for the sector. So thank you so much for joining us this morning. No doubt, we will get the opportunity to speak in the coming days. But I know there's a lot going on and it's busy, but thank you so much, much appreciated.

Thank you, everyone.