Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the conference call on the half-year results 2025 of VERBUND AG. I am Shari, the call's call operator. I would like to remind you that all participants will be in listen-only mode and the conference is being recorded. The presentation will be followed by a Q&A session. You can register for questions at any time by pressing star and one on your telephone. For operator assistance, please press star and zero. The conference must not be recorded for publication or broadcast. At this time, it's my pleasure to hand over to Mr. Peter Kollmann. Please go ahead. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Let me welcome you to the presentation of VERBUND's half-year results, and let me thank you for joining today's conference call. At the beginning, let me say that the first half confronted us with some challenges. On the macro side, we saw ongoing geopolitical uncertainties and risks related to the consequences of the tariff policies triggered by the U.S. government and its potential impact on the European economy. On the macro side, we were confronted with a very volatile electricity pricing environment, a very low hydropower production, and regulatory uncertainties with regard to the Austrian energy profit tax system, which has been extended until 2030. In these highly volatile markets, VERBUND presents declining but still solid results for the first half year 2025. Now, on the next page, let me highlight the most important influencing factors for the results development at a glance, and let me highlight one of them, which is, of course, the hydro coefficient. The hydro coefficient determining the generation from our run-of-river hydropower plants was significantly lower compared to last year and also well below the long-term average. At a historic low level of 0.76, it was 24% below the long-term average and 36% below the half year 2024. The reason for the decline was an extraordinarily low snow level in winter. As a consequence, a low hydro availability in the melting season, and in addition, low precipitation levels afterwards. Luckily, we had some offsetting factors which were the reason why we were able to partially compensate the reduction results. First, the average achieved contract price in the first six months 2025 increased slightly by EUR 4 to EUR 117 per megawatt hour compared to the first six months 2024, mainly because of limit sales at the beginning of 2023 and from November 2023 onwards. This allowed VERBUND to benefit in 2025 from the still high futures for electricity at that time. Second, we had much better income from flexibility products, especially resulting from the optimization of the use of our storage power plants. Third, we had a temporarily higher result contribution from our electricity high-voltage grid, Austrian Power Grid, APG. Now, to finalize the list of influencing factors, let me add another two having a negative effect on the results development, which were the lower generation levels from wind power as a result of the low average wind availability and the negative impact from the extension of the Austrian energy profit tax system. Now we'll go into more details. On the next page, you see our hedging volumes. I will start with the fact that, and I repeat this in every conference call, but it's important, EUR 1 per megawatt hour plus or minus higher average achieved price has a sensitivity of approximately EUR 25 million on our EBITDA line. Now, the development of the average achieved contract prices reflects the backwardation of the electricity futures. We have achieved an average contract price for the first half year of EUR 117.2 compared to EUR 113.3 in 2024. For the full year 2025, we have sold 87% of our wind generation volumes as of the end of June at a price of EUR 115.8. For 2026, we have sold 49% at a price of EUR 81.4. For 2027, we have only sold 3% at a price of EUR 81 per MWh. Now, on a mark-to-market basis, with prices as of the 23rd of July, the average achieved contract price for 2025 is at EUR 112.5, for 2026 at EUR 85, and for 2027 at EUR 82.7. However, as I mentioned before, only 3% hedged, so there is still a lot of volatility in the power price for 2027. On the next page, a very important subject, which I'm sure we will discuss later. This topic has a negative impact already in the first half year 2025. This is the extended levy on excess profits in Austria, which hits the utility industry here and particularly VERBUND. Let me highlight the most important cornerstones for you, but let me also stress that the final impact for 2025 still depends on the average contract price on a monthly basis, the relevant generation volumes to be taxed, and the deductible renewable capex. The tax has started on the 1st of April 2025 and is divided into yearly periods lasting until the end of March 2030. The revenues are capped at EUR 90 per megawatt hour for existing installations and at EUR 100 for new installations. Now, there are exemptions for, an example, and that is an important one, pump storage, but also control power and congestion management, as it provides stability to the system. Of the surplus revenues, 95% will be taxed. It will also be possible to offset investments amounting to 75% of eligible investments. Please note that the respective Investitionsverordnung, which is sort of like an invest regulation with all the details, is not published yet, meaning that there are some legal uncertainties regarding the points I can give you at this point in time. What we have summarized here on this page is basically our current understanding, and I think there is a relatively high probability that this will actually happen the way we have described it here in our presentation. The levy in the first half 2025 amounted to EUR 22 million in Austria, EUR 4.8 million in Spain, and EUR 1.3 million in Romania on the EBITDA level. For the full year 2025, we are still within the range which I have given you three months ago, which is between EUR 50 million and EUR 100 million on the group profit level. However, as it looks today, we are moving towards the EUR 100 million as a result of the investments which we can use to offset the levy. On the next page, the flexibility products, which, as I mentioned before, had a very significant offsetting effect for us. The first half year 2025 amounted to approximately EUR 160 million, after approximately EUR 130 million last year. For the full year, we expect approximately EUR 280 million coming from flexibility products. We saw a very positive development, particularly in the pumping reverse operations. You also see the last three years in comparison, as well as the different products of flexibility products. Please note that flexibility products contribute to three different segments at VERBUND AG: the hydro segment, the sales segment, as well as the thermal segment. For competitive reasons, we do not provide more information in terms of this particular separation into the three segments. On the next page, the hydro segment. Now, there I would like to comment on some important developments. As I mentioned before, 0.76, the hydro coefficient, was 24 percentage points below the long-term average and 36 percentage points below the level of the first six months in 2024. The production from annual storage power plants decreased by 3.5%. Our own production from hydropower, therefore, overall decreased by 4,890 GWh, by 28.3%, to 12,400 GWh compared to 2024. The decreased volumes could not be compensated by the slightly higher average achieved contract price. It helped, but only to a relatively small amount. It was mainly the strong contribution from flexibility products. Therefore, the EBITDA in the hydro segment decreased by 31.9%. To slightly above EUR 1 billion. Regarding CapEx, 2025 will be marked by the planned COD of two important projects, the Limberg III pump storage power plant project, which increases the flexible pumping capacity by 480 MW, as well as the 14 MW Stegenwald run-of-river power plant project. Now, on the new renewable segment. The new renewables coefficient, here it is an index quantifying the generation from wind power and photovoltaic power, was also significantly below the average and below the first half 2024 levels. It amounted to 0.78 in 2025 compared to 0.94 in 2024. The generation from wind power decreased by 14.6% or 144 GWh and amounted to 144 GWh in the first half year 2025. Less favorable wind conditions in all countries of operation of VERBUND, namely in Austria, Germany, Spain, and Romania, were the reason for this development. Generation from photovoltaic power in Spain, Austria, and Italy rose by approximately 10 GWh to 219 GWh due to new installations. Now, taking a look at the EBITDA development, in this segment, we see a slight increase of 5.2% to an EBITDA amounting to EUR 92.6 million. The increase, despite lower production volumes, is due to higher average prices achieved. VERBUND today operates currently 1.2 GW of new renewables in Spain, Austria, Germany, Romania, and Italy, and the activities in the target market continued, as described on the chart under present information. Here, on the next page, we talk about the sales segment. When we look at the EBITDA development in the sales segment, we see that EBITDA strongly increased to a positive value of EUR 94.4 million because we were able to improve the earnings development in the end customer business. The EBITDA in the retail business improved from minus EUR 44 million in 2024 to a level of plus EUR 4 million in 2025. The improvement in the end customer business is a result of the implementation of several measures to increase profitability, like an optimized electricity procurement strategy and cost-cutting measures. The EBITDA in the trading business improved from EUR 59 million to EUR 91 million. The improvement here is mainly due to storage optimization on the day-ahead market. Our trading subsidiary is very focused on implementing storage capacities primarily in our core market, Germany and Austria, in order to benefit from the increasingly volatile pricing environment and volatile systems, which we currently see all over Europe. Currently, we have approximately 110 MW of battery storage in operation. Three large-scale battery storage projects in the implementation phase, and more than 400 MW of projects in development. With that, I would like to hand over to Andreas Wollein. Please, Andreas. Thank you, Peter. On the next page, please mind. You see the development of the grid segment. The EBITDA from the electricity grid business, according to IFRS, was approximately EUR 185 million, an increase by about EUR 56 million. This increase is mainly due to higher contributions from auctions. In addition, higher congestion management services and higher national network revenues based on higher transported volumes were the reason for the strong results. Let me add, however, that this additional income is only temporary because we are only allowed to earn RUP multiplied with WEG. As a consequence, based on the regulatory system, we have to give the surplus back with a time delay. However, we have raised the EBITDA guidance for the electricity grid for 2025 by EUR 30 million to a level of approximately EUR 330 million. The planned amount of the regulatory account reflecting the surplus profits of the past at the end of 2025 will be approximately EUR 600 million. With regard to the results contribution of Gasconnect Austria, we report an EBITDA of approximately EUR 28 million. The strong decrease can be explained by higher fixed costs. The EBITDA guidance for 2025 with regard to GTA is at approximately EUR 50 million under IFRS. The decline compared to last year can be explained by the cessation of Russian natural gas transport through Ukraine. As a consequence, the shortfall of approximately EUR 30 million will reduce the 2025 result and will be compensated with T+2 starting from 2027, as the regulator will amend the volumes for the tariff calculation at the end of 2025. For 2026, we do not expect a negative impact. Regarding CapEx, 2025 will be marked by the implementation of the national grid development plan, which foresees CapEx of approximately EUR 9 billion within the next 10 years. In 2025, APG plans to invest roughly EUR 550 million, which increases the RUP, the basis for the return calculation. The CapEx goes into the closing of the 380 GW ring in Austria, the increase in interconnector capacities, and in various substations, all measures necessary to cope with the increasing volatile electricity system. Let me continue with all other segments. Generation from thermal power plants was up to 965 GWh, which was driven by higher market-driven production. In 2025, the use of CCGD MELAG was only determined by market signals, whereas from April to September 2026, one line of CCGD MELAG will again be compensated in a market stability reserve system. In addition, higher average prices achieved, and in particular, positive effects from the valuation of energy derivatives and a higher contribution from flexibility products led to the increase in EBITDA. The contribution from KELAG, the provincial utility of Carinthia, decreased slightly from EUR 52 million to EUR 49 million. Now, starting from page 11, we show how the effects described before influence VERBUND's key financial figures. Because of the aforementioned development, EBITDA decreased by 19.8% to EUR 1.413 billion. Depreciation increased by 5.1% to roughly EUR 300 million due to the increased investment volume, especially in the grid segment. The financial results strongly improved from EUR 24.7 million to EUR 29.9 million. On the one hand, we saw slightly weaker results from KELAG and lower interest income from money market transactions. The other financial results had a clearly positive one-off effect due to the measurement of an obligation to return an interest relating to the Jochenstein hydropower plant. Taxes on income amounted to EUR 259.7 million. The group result, therefore, decreased by 11.8% to EUR 802.7 million. The adjusted group result decreased by 22.3% to EUR 783.6 million. Finally, I would like to mention the slight decrease in additions to tangible assets in total from EUR 444.6 million to EUR 417.1 million in half year 2025. On the next page, 12, we see the final key figures of VERBUND. VERBUND's operating cash flow in half year 2025 decreased to EUR 1.3384 billion, mainly due to lower contribution margins from the hydro segment as a result of significantly lower hydro availability and the change in margin in payments for the hedging transactions. The free cash flow after dividends showed a slightly positive development from EUR 602.4 million to a level of EUR 559.9 million. The lower operating cash flow and higher investments in property, plants, and equipment, as well as lower dividend payments, were the reason for this development. Net debt increased from EUR 1.976 billion at the end of 2024 to EUR 2.467 billion at the end of half year 2025. Gearing correspondingly increased to a level of 23.2%. Now, let me hand over to Peter again to present the outlook for 2025. Thank you, Andreas. At the end of our results presentation, as always, our outlook. I would like to highlight the sensitivities. As of the 30th of June, a deviation of ± 1% in the generation from hydropower has an impact of ± EUR 7.5 million on our group result. A deviation of ± 1% in the generation from wind power and photovoltaic power has an impact of EUR 1 million in the group result. The deviation of ± EUR 1 in the wholesale price has an impact of ± EUR 1.8 million in our group result for 2025. Our updated guidance for 2025 is as follows. We expect the reported and adjusted EBITDA of approximately between EUR 2.75 billion and EUR 3.1 billion and the reported group result of approximately between EUR 1.45 billion and EUR 1.65 billion under the assumption of average hydro, wind, and photovoltaic generation in the next two quarters, as well as, of course, the actual chances and risk situation of the group. The earnings forecast is contingent on the group not being impacted by any further legal or regulatory changes for the financial year 2025. We are planning to pay out between 45% and 55% for group result after adjustment for non-recurring effects. That would be between EUR 1.43 billion and EUR 1.63 billion. With that, I would like to move to our Q&A session. Please. We will now begin the question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and one on their touch-tone telephone. You will hear a tone to confirm that you've entered the queue. If you wish to remove yourself from the question queue, you may press star and two. Anyone who has a question may press star and one at this time. The first question comes from the line of Wanda Serwinowska, UBS. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning. Wanda Serwinowska, UBS. Three questions from me, if I may. The first question, Peter, is on 2025 guidance. I'm still trying to understand the moving part because you've lost at least 2 TWh, so this is anything between, I would say, EUR 150 million to EUR 200 million. You upgraded grid EBITDA by EUR 40 million. Yes, Peter was a bit better, but how much, I mean, what are we missing? Because you had your guidance largely unchanged. It is the first time I saw the flexibility products guidance for 2025, so how much it improved versus May, that would be very helpful. The second question is, do you mind sharing the latest hedging without a mark-to-market and also the hydro level in July? I'm just wondering if hydro rebounded or remained below the long-term average. The third question is, yesterday, there is something happening in Austria on the Electricity Industry Act. Do you mind, which has been in discussions for one month or so? Do you mind sharing your view? I think there was something about taxes, about social tariffs. Any high-level comment would be appreciated. Thank you. Thank you, Wanda. Quite a lot. We will go through it one by one. First of all, let me give you sort of the hedging levels for 2025. We are currently 89% hedged at a level of 116. We are currently, for the mark-to-market, using a price of 103. As a result of that, we come up with the total volume price mark-to-market at 113 for 2025. Now, the same for 2026. We are 50% hedged. What we have already contracted is at a price of EUR 82. The open volumes are priced at EUR 89. As a result, the total is at EUR 85 per MWh. For 2027, as I mentioned in the presentation, we have hedged only 3%. Those 3%, we've hedged at 81, and the current forward price for 2027 is at 83. As a result of that, the total would be at 83. That is on the hedging levels. In terms of the full-year guidance, there are a number of issues which we had to analyze and calculate for our full-year guidance. Number one, as you know, we always use a hydro coefficient for the remainder of the year at one. We take the long-term average because we can't speculate if the weather continues like it is or if it gets better. We always take the long-term average. If we take the first six months and we take the long-term average, the yearly hydro coefficient based on that calculation would be 0.88. That is on the hydro generation. On the flexibility products, we were surprised that the flexibility products—happily surprised, I should say—that the flexibility products came in better than we had expected. It wasn't the controlled energy. It wasn't the congestion management. This time, it was mainly taking advantage of pumping and turbine at very good times. What does it mean? It means that we were able to pump at very low pricing levels, and we were able to sell at high prices. The spread has gone up vis-à-vis our own expectations, vis-à-vis our planning, which is great news because that is exactly the year when you have a low hydro coefficient that you need offsetting areas. In this case, it was the flexibility products. The third point which I would like to mention is. You know that from past years, it is very difficult to estimate for Austrian Power Grid. The congestion management, the auction results, have a big impact. The auction results were much higher than Austrian Power Grid had expected. As a result of that, we were able, step by step, because at the beginning, the guidance for APG was much lower. Now, we were able to increase it again from EUR 300 million to EUR 330 million. I would say those are the key factors which played into our guidance discussion. Of course, there is one important point which I'm sure we will discuss further, which is the levy. People call it a windfall tax because that is sort of like a terminology we got used to during the high power prices for the last few years. This time, I wouldn't even call it a windfall tax. It is more like what is considered by the Austrian government, the contribution for the next five years to the Austrian deficit, which is quite high and which needs to be seriously addressed by the Austrian government. This is sort of like the contribution from the utility industry. It is something where we would have preferred it to be for one year. It allows a very clear calculation. What is the downside? What is the impact? We're not very happy that we have this for five years, and we don't exactly know what exactly will be the calculation for every year. What we have summarized on the page in terms of the levy is our current understanding. As I said in my presentation, there is a high probability that this will be the case. The big factor for us is how much Austrian domestic CapEx can we use to offset the levy. If that amount is relatively small, then we will probably be very close to the EUR 100 million on the bottom line. If we can use more, and that doesn't look very likely at the moment, we would be probably at around EUR 75 million. This is something where we have some uncertainty, and this obviously goes into our guidance consideration as well. That is a kind of a summary of our thinking in terms of the guidance. What you mentioned yesterday in terms of the new regulation, this is, if I may say, a work in progress. The so-called LWG is a law that has been discussed for much too long. I think it's like four years by now. There are always other and new components which enter the discussions. Something that has been discussed more and more is some sort of a social tariff, which is a contribution from the utility industry to the poorest, which cannot afford their utility bill. Another area that is being discussed is basically payments which would be provided into the system by the generators. It would be a payment of whatever euros per megawatt hour produced for the generators in the country. This has not been decided yet. This is all under discussion. As always, when we have either the facts or if we have a high probability, like on the levy, the stuff I mentioned before, we will obviously inform you. The one thing which you should know is that there is a big resistance by the provincial utilities because it would obviously have an impact on their profitability. The provincial utilities are majority-owned by the provincial states. Therefore, this is not just a pure, how should I say, this is not just a business discussion. This is a political discussion as well between the Austrian government and the provincial states. Sorry, that has been rather long. I'm aware of that. It's a lot of system ahead. Just hydro in July because that was on my very, very long list. Apologies. Hydro in July? Hydro in July has been around 0.78, 0.79, probably higher. I will check the exact number for the month, and I will give it to you in a couple of minutes. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Olly Jeffery, Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. from the line of Olly Jeffery, Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Hi. Thanks very much for taking my question. The first was just coming back to the change in the grid guidance for the year. Thanks very much for taking my question. The first was just coming back to the change in the grid guidance for the year. Thanks very much for taking my question. The first was just coming back to the change in the grid guidance for the year. If we take it from the start of the year, we're in excess of over EUR 100 million in terms of the increase in the guidance for that. Can I confirm two things? we're in excess of over EUR 100 million in terms of the increase in the guidance for that. Can I confirm two things? One is that is your view that the higher regulatory account that you would expect compared to what you thought would happen even in the last quarter, that this would impact your EBITDA from IFRS and that division more negatively in 2026, 2027? You expect the One is that is your view that the higher regulatory account that you would expect compared to what you thought would happen even in the last quarter, that this would impact your EBITDA from IFRS and that division more negatively in 2026, 2027? You expect the regulatory account to come out more strongly, so that would decrease your EBITDA contribution. You've increased the guidance just quite a lot throughout the year. Do you think the same trends You've increased the guidance just quite a lot throughout the year. Do you think the same trends that you've seen could carry on into the second half, and that there's probably more risk to the upside for that guidance to be lifted further given the same trend. Repeat? Just on the sales business, you had a very strong H1 there versus expectations. What do you see that sales division doing for the full year? Just on the sales business, you had a very strong H1 there versus expectations. What do you see that sales division doing for the full year? What do you think is sustainable into 2026? I'm just trying to understand What do you think is sustainable into 2026? I'm just trying to understand how much of the 2025 performance is one-off, essentially. Sorry, lastly, just coming back to the grid, the regulatory account, I presume that's not factored into the net debt. how much of the 2025 performance is one-off, essentially. Sorry, lastly, just coming back to the grid, the regulatory account, I presume that's not factored into the net debt. If you take that off from the net debt or underlying net debt, it's probably closer to EUR 3.1 billion rather than EUR 2.5 billion after stripping out the regulatory account. Is that the right way of looking at it? Is that the right way of looking at it? Thank you very much. Let's start with Thank you very much. Let's start with the grid. You're totally right. We have increased our guidance starting from the beginning of the year the grid. You're totally right. We have increased our guidance starting from the beginning of the year the grid. You're totally right. We have increased our guidance starting from the beginning of the year as a result of excellent auction results. That has been the key driver. as a result of excellent auction results. That has been the key driver. There were other components as well, but that was the main reason. Do I think that we are going to see a continuation of upping our guidance? I don't think so. There were other components as well, but that was the main reason. Do I think that we are going to see a continuation of upping our guidance? I don't think so. There were other components as well, but that was the main reason. Do I think that we are going to see a continuation of upping our guidance? I don't think so. In terms of your assumption on the regulatory account, i.e., what we have in excess revenues now going into the regulatory account, and therefore the regulatory account going up, yes, you're right. The regulatory account is at the highest level ever. If you had asked me three years ago yes, you're right. The regulatory account is at the highest level ever. If you had asked me three years ago yes, you're right. The regulatory account is at the highest level ever. If you had asked me three years ago if I could have seen a regulatory account at around EUR 650 million, I would have said no way. That's where it is. You might remember we have been for years in negotiations if I could have seen a regulatory account at around EUR 650 million, I would have said no way. That's where it is. You might remember we have been for years in negotiations if I could have seen a regulatory account at around EUR 650 million, I would have said no way. That's where it is. You might remember we have been for years in negotiations with E-Control, the regulator, because we said we would like to reduce the regulatory account step by step in a linear way every year. The regulator has not agreed to that. Please don't ask me why. The regulator has not agreed to that. Please don't ask me why. Maybe to have some cushion for tariff increases in the future. Yes, under IFRS, if we reduce the regulatory account, it has an impact on the EBITDA line. have some cushion for tariff increases in the future. Yes, under IFRS, if we reduce the regulatory account, it has an impact on the EBITDA line. In terms of your theoretical debt level, if you were to include the regulatory account as a debt towards the system, if you made that theoretical calculation, because APG is a regulated business, therefore the regulatory account is separate, obviously. The way you described it, you're right, it is a debt towards the system which we owe, and that is something that we need to "repay" through a reduction in the tariffs in the future. If in the future we basically reduce. and that is something that we need to "repay" through a reduction in the tariffs in the future. If in the future we basically reduce. Every year the regulatory account, that would have an impact, as we mentioned before, and it would also reduce that sort of artificial debt towards the system. The next point was on the sales. and it would also reduce that sort of artificial debt towards the system. The next point was on the sales. We had an increase of EUR 30 million in the sales, and that increase came mainly from the flexibility products. Are we going to have a further increase from flexibility products for the rest of the year? I think our guidance, and we have thought about that good and hard, is at EUR 280 million, and there, I think that is a solid number, and that is a good assumption. The next question you posed is, is that a good level for the next few years in terms of thinking about flexibility products and what we think going forward? Yeah. I mean, thinking about flexibility products and what we think going forward? Yeah. I mean, thinking about flexibility products and what we think going forward? Yeah. I mean, the EUR 280, given the volatility of the system, given the challenges of stabilizing the system, is probably not a bad number. Could it be EUR 240 million, EUR 230 million? Yes, of course. Could it be slightly higher? Yes, it could be slightly higher as well. I'm not trying to evade. Could it be EUR 240 million, EUR 230 million? Yes, of course. Could it be slightly higher? Yes, it could be slightly higher as well. I'm not trying to evade. Could it be EUR 240 million, EUR 230 million? Yes, of course. Could it be slightly higher? Yes, it could be slightly higher as well. I'm not trying to evade. Could it be EUR 240 million, EUR 230 million? Yes, of course. Could it be slightly higher? Yes, it could be slightly higher as well. I'm not trying to evade. Could it be EUR 240 million, EUR 230 million? Yes, of course. Could it be slightly higher? Yes, it could be slightly higher as well. I'm not trying to evade. I'm just trying to sort of express that making an assessment on control energy, congestion management, pumping and turbining, intraday trading, etc., that is not an easy task because there are many external factors which have a big impact. Again, talking about Austrian Power Grid, Austrian Power Grid, they know exactly the kind of auctions that are coming up. The one thing they cannot assess is Again, talking about Austrian Power Grid, Austrian Power Grid, they know exactly the kind of auctions that are coming up. The one thing they cannot assess is how much is the demand and what are the auction results. That is all a reflection of those external factors which are extremely hard to plan and to how much is the demand and what are the auction results. That is all a reflection of those external factors which are extremely hard to plan and to assess. Thanks very much. The next question comes from the line of Bartek Kubicki, Bernstein. Please go ahead. of Bartek Kubicki, Bernstein. Please go ahead. Hello, and good morning, and thanks for taking my questions. Two or three issues I would like to discuss. First, on the flexibility product and more specifically on your pump storage power plant. Two or three issues I would like to discuss. First, on the flexibility product and more specifically on your pump storage power plant. You mentioned that spreads have expanded during the first half, but I just wonder, is it normal that in the situation of subdued hydro conditions, you are able to get higher spreads on your pump storage, or is it a one-off event? Consequently, also on pump storage and subdued hydro, does actually low hydro levels in Austria impact your pump storage production or operating kind of efficiency or irrespective of hydro levels in Austria? That would be the first thing. Second thing, of course, does actually low hydro levels in Austria impact your pump storage production or operating kind of efficiency or irrespective of hydro levels in Austria? That would be the first thing. Second thing, of course, does actually low hydro levels in Austria impact your pump storage production or operating kind of efficiency or irrespective of hydro levels in Austria? That would be the first thing. Second thing, of course, you saw, I mean, first half saw that flexibility is an important part of your business model. You are also pointing to some battery projects you have in your pipeline. Just high-level picture, how do you think in the next couple of years the trade-off between batteries and gas-fired power plants will play out in Europe overall or in Austria or the regions where you are operating? As you can imagine, some of the players are very bullish on gas-fired power plants, will play out in Europe overall or in Austria or the regions where you are operating? As you can imagine, some of the players are very bullish on gas-fired power plants, but there are also a few that think batteries will cannibalize gas-fired power plants. Just to know your view on this one. Maybe the last one, sorry, on APG and the potential CapEx ramp-up, because of course, the potential CapEx ramp-up needs to happen. Just to know your view on this one. Maybe the last one, sorry, on APG and the potential CapEx ramp-up, because of course, the potential CapEx ramp-up needs to happen. The typical question we ask networks is, how are you doing with procurement and the supply chain? If you can actually kind of guide us here how much of the future CapEx is already pre-procurement, pre-agreed in terms of the prices, and how are you doing with permitting as well on the potential ramp-up? Thank and how are you doing with permitting as well on the potential ramp-up? Thank you. Okay. Good question. I will start with the last one, then I will talk about the flexibility product. Good question. I will start with the last one, then I will talk about the flexibility product. Andreas, could you talk about pump storage? Yeah, I'm great. You are absolutely right. Procurement is a big issue, You are absolutely right. Procurement is a big issue, not only in Central Europe but actually globally. The same is true for the U.S., the same is true for Asia. not only in Central Europe but actually globally. The same is true for the U.S., the same is true for Asia. Obviously, there is huge CapEx in terms of the entire energy system. You have limited amounts of high-quality producers, and they produce as much as they can, but there is a limit, which basically means that there is a procurement challenge in the system for transformers, for cables, for everything you need for the grid, for transformer stations, etc. Procurement strategy for all the infrastructure operators is critical. What they try to do is to have agreements with the key producers that cover basically a long period of time to give the producers some stability. As a result of that, they can make sure that they get the product in line with their CapEx planning, that there are not going to be major delays, and that is a very, very important aspect. Austrian Power Grid and that is a very, very important aspect. Austrian Power Grid APG has started to adjust their procurement strategy many years ago, anticipating that this could be an issue. On the flexibility products, if I understood you correctly, and let me paraphrase, you were basically thinking about the duality between classic flexibility products and the build-out of batteries in order to alleviate some of the issues with system instability. Is that with system instability. Is that correct? No, the question would be whether you think in the midterm the build-out of batteries can cannibalize on gas-fired power plants or consequently gas-fired power plants would become less and less relevant to the system in the midterm. As a result, of course, your strategy of focusing on batteries rather than on gas-fired power plants in your kind of flex. How do you think about this? Yeah. It sounds like Yeah. It sounds like an easy question. It's very complex. First of all, it depends which type of gas-fired power plants you would install. an easy question. It's very complex. First of all, it depends which type of gas-fired power plants you would install. an easy question. It's very complex. First of all, it depends which type of gas-fired power plants you would install. I mean, if you go for so-called peakers, that are power plants that are much less expensive, and you basically use them for less hours than you would use a CCTP. A CCTP is very expensive, has longer duration, and basically needs to run on a base load basis and not to provide flexibility products. less hours than you would use a CCTP. A CCTP is very expensive, has longer duration, and basically needs to run on a base load basis and not to provide flexibility products. That is the first key question. When you can actually use written-off existing gas-fired power plants, then of course, they can act That is the first key question. When you can actually use written-off existing gas-fired power plants, then of course, they can act as a very efficient flexibility product provider. They're probably pretty certain then they would be more effective than batteries. Why more effective? Because when you look at the capacity of batteries and you compare it with the capacity of gas-fired power plants, there is a dramatic difference. Why more effective? Because when you look at the capacity of batteries and you compare it with the capacity of gas-fired power plants, there is a dramatic difference. In order to have a real impact on the stability of the system, you need a huge amount of batteries. When you just look at capacity numbers and you compare a gas-fired power plant with batteries, you will see that there is a huge delta. As a result of that, only a dramatic build-out of batteries, batteries coming down in cost, and batteries being based in those areas where you have critical instability, like sort of critical knots, as they call it in the grid system, then you could increase the effectiveness of batteries. I think it will take quite some time before batteries can replace gas-fired power plants to provide the necessary stability. Okay. Let me continue with the Okay. Let me continue with the pump storage topic. I would say that the profitability of pump storage is not so much dependent pump storage topic. I would say that the profitability of pump storage is not so much dependent on the availability of hydro. I mean, at the beginning of the year, we had hydro in the system, so in the storage. on the availability of hydro. I mean, at the beginning of the year, we had hydro in the system, so in the storage. When you have hydro in the storage system, which is a closed system, in a pump, when you pump, then I think you are relatively independent from the level of hydro. The reason why you are relatively independent from the level of hydro. The reason why it was supportive is basically more because. We see an increasing trend of, let's say, it was supportive is basically more because. We see an increasing trend of, let's say, higher prices at off-peak times, more in the morning or, let's say, more towards evening night over day. We had here higher prices at off-peak times, more in the morning or, let's say, more towards evening night over day. We had here higher prices and lower prices during the day when PVs are in operation or when we're in operation. That is the reason why we had this higher prices and lower prices during the day when PVs are in operation or when we're in operation. That is the reason why we had this support and basically a doubling of the pumping spread roughly compared to what we had originally in the plan. Is this a trend? I mean, it's a good question. Is this a trend? I mean, it's a good question. I would say yes. On a short-term basis, the more volatile electricity you have in the system, of course, the more beneficial, the bigger the spreads, the price spreads between peak and off-peak times, and the more support you have for the storage power plants. We also have a second effect, the more beneficial, the bigger the spreads, the price spreads between peak and off-peak times, and the more support you have for the storage power plants. We also have a second effect, and this is a little bit coming back to the question of the compensating effect and the impact on hydro levels on other areas of the pumps. We had a supportive effect from the hydropower in our on other areas of the pumps. We had a supportive effect from the hydropower in our run-of-river business, which was supportive for the hydropower segment because clearly when you have an extremely low hydro level in Austria, you usually have a much bigger price spread between Germany and Austria. I think the you usually have a much bigger price spread between Germany and Austria. I think the proxy hedge, which we do for our run-of-river power plants, is clearly benefiting. You know that we are selling basically on the basis of our electricity on the basis of the German futures. When we close the contracts and we buy electricity on the basis of the German spot price and sell electricity on the basis of the Austrian spot price, when you have a higher spread, then it is clearly, which we had in the first half year, I think the average spread was more towards EUR 8, EUR 9 per megawatt hour. This is clearly supportive. The second point, price, when you have a higher spread, then it is clearly, which we had in the first half year, I think the average spread was more towards EUR 8, EUR 9 per megawatt hour. This is clearly supportive. The second point, price, when you have a higher spread, then it is clearly, which we had in the first half year, I think the average spread was more towards EUR 8, EUR 9 per megawatt hour. This is clearly supportive. The second point, when we have low hydro in Austria, then usually you have the necessity to import electricity. You have also the necessity to transport more electricity across the high-voltage grid system. in Austria, then usually you have the necessity to import electricity. You have also the necessity to transport more electricity across the high-voltage grid system. Peter mentioned before, let's say, the auction being one of the biggest positives in the first half year, yes. The second was the higher transport volumes, which led to higher tariffs. biggest positives in the first half year, yes. The second was the higher transport volumes, which led to higher tariffs. When there is low hydro, you have to transport more electricity on the high-voltage grid, and this is also supporting the research development in the grid business. Thank you very much. The next question comes from the line of Alberto de Antonio, Exane BNP Paribas. Please go ahead. of Alberto de Antonio, Exane BNP Paribas. Please go ahead. Hi. Good morning. Thank you so much for taking my questions. My first question will be a follow-up on the guidance. Hi. Good morning. Thank you so much for taking my questions. My first question will be a follow-up on the guidance. Hi. Good morning. Thank you so much for taking my questions. My first question will be a follow-up on the guidance. Hi. Good morning. Thank you so much for taking my questions. My first question will be a follow-up on the guidance. What I want to clarify is on the hydro guidance. You mentioned that for the remaining part of the year, you are taking the one hydro coefficient for your numbers. What I want to clarify is on the hydro guidance. You mentioned that for the remaining part of the year, you are taking the one hydro coefficient for your numbers. Is that correct? If there is a deviation, could this have a positive or a negative impact, therefore? The second one will Is that correct? If there is a deviation, could this have a positive or a negative impact, therefore? The second one will Is that correct? If there is a deviation, could this have a positive or a negative impact, therefore? The second one will be on the batteries. I would like to understand the economics that this particular project that you are installing has. on the batteries. I would like to understand the economics that this particular project that you are installing has. What's the average cost of installations, the number of cycles, where they're located, or if you have received any subsidies related to them? Finally, the last one on CapEx. or if you have received any subsidies related to them? Finally, the last one on CapEx. You are guiding for EUR 1.95 billion CapEx for the full year. During the first half of the year, you have invested around EUR 500 million. How do you expect the second half of the year to be? Could you explain as the bridge? Is there any big payments related to the commissioning of the How do you expect the second half of the year to be? Could you explain as the bridge? Is there any big payments related to the commissioning of the How do you expect the second half of the year to be? Could you explain as the bridge? Is there any big payments related to the commissioning of the hydropumping plants or any other asset expected in the second half of the year that has not happened during the first half of the year? Thank you so hydropumping plants or any other asset expected in the second half of the year that has not happened during the first half of the year? Thank you so much. Okay. Sure. Now, the first one on the guidance and the hydro coefficient. Okay. Sure. Now, the first one on the guidance and the hydro coefficient. Okay. Sure. Now, the first one on the guidance and the hydro coefficient. If we take the long-term average for the rest of the year, i.e., one, the overall hydro coefficient at the end of the year under that assumption would be 0.88. If, of course, the dryness would continue, then it could be below that. If there is a change in the trend and we have If, of course, the dryness would continue, then it could be below that. If there is a change in the trend and we have more precipitation in the second half of the year, then, of course, this can change as well. This is a pure mathematical calculation taking into account what we have in terms of hydro coefficient, the volume which we have, and taking the long-term average for the rest of the year. It is no indication whatsoever on what we think about weather development. In terms of the batteries, what we do internally is we do discounted cash flow models where we basically make an assessment on future cash flows, which we think we can get from those batteries. We take into consideration the different products which we have available, which is, of course, control energy, intraday arbitrage, etc., etc. We make those batteries. We take into consideration the different products which we have available, which is, of course, control energy, intraday arbitrage, etc., etc. We make those assumptions, and our WACC plus our hurdle rate is basically what we're looking for. If we have our hurdle rate, that is a green light for the investment. We don't give specifics in terms of cycle times, If we have our hurdle rate, that is a green light for the investment. We don't give specifics in terms of cycle times, in terms of the specific CapEx per megawatt. This is information which we don't give out. In terms of the CapEx, yes. in terms of the specific CapEx per megawatt. This is information which we don't give out. In terms of the CapEx, yes. in terms of the specific CapEx per megawatt. This is information which we don't give out. In terms of the CapEx, yes. You are absolutely right. The CapEx plan was much higher than what we had achieved in the first six months. You are absolutely right. The CapEx plan was much higher than what we had achieved in the first six months. There's a reason for that. Similar to the previous years, there is a trend that we have more CapEx in the first half of the year. The first six months is the previous years, there is a trend that we have more CapEx in the first half of the year. The first six months is basically a lot of the preparation, if I may say, and then the actual CapEx, when it hits the accounting, is usually the majority in the second half of the year. However, we have some delays as well. We have a delay of However, we have some delays as well. We have a delay of something between EUR 200 million and EUR 220 million in the new renewables on solar installations where we had originally planned to do those in 2025, and they will now be postponed into 2026. Those are the key factors. into 2026. Those are the key factors. Thank you very much. The next question comes from the line of Louis Poujoir from Odoo. Please go ahead. of Louis Poujoir from Odoo. Please go ahead. Yes. Hi. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for taking my question. Yes. Hi. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for taking my question. Yes. Hi. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for taking my question. Yes. Hi. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for taking my question. Maybe some follow-up going back on certain topics, notably regarding the regulatory account, first of all. Could you please remind us what would be currently the expected timing for you to go back to something around zero? Is it something that is possible going forward on the regulatory account, considering that you will most likely still generate above normal earnings in the next few years? How do you see this evolving in the next few years, and is there a kind of timing at which we could expect it to converge back towards zero? above normal earnings in the next few years? How do you see this evolving in the next few years, and is there a kind of timing at which we could expect it to converge back towards zero? Second topic, maybe, regarding the hydro, once again, we witnessed a very dry beginning of the year. You expect, of course, to go back to normalization in our guidance, as always. In the past, did you already see such a move, meaning that after such a dry period, is it something that is possible on a statistical point of view to come back to something which is normalized for the next five months, or is it something that looks unprobable according to you and based on the data that you have on the historic level of hydro in Austria? Maybe the last one, if I may, regarding the tax and regarding the discussion. I understand that you are able, eventually, in the best-case scenario, to affect EUR 25 million of tax for this year, 2025, in the discussion that you gave us during the presentation. regarding the tax and regarding the discussion. I understand that you are able, eventually, in the best-case scenario, to affect EUR 25 million of tax for this year, 2025, in the discussion that you gave us during the presentation. I struggle to understand if there is a possibility, considering the current tax environment and probably a decision that will be taken, that this level could be a bit enlarged going forward, meaning that you would be able to maybe offset a larger share of tax in the next few years from 2026 to 2027, notably because of the reallocation of some CapEx eventually in Austria that would be eligible for tax deduction going forward. Is it something that is a possibility or not, according to you? Thank you very much. Is it something that is a possibility or not, according to you? Thank you very much. Thank you. I will start with the easy one. Thank you. I will start with the easy one. There was a second one. Historically, this is great about the weather. It is totally unpredictable, and I think not even Channel AI will be able to help us a lot with weather predictions. There was a second one. Historically, this is great about the weather. It is totally unpredictable, and I think not even Channel AI will be able to help us a lot with weather predictions. There was a second one. Historically, this is great about the weather. It is totally unpredictable, and I think not even Channel AI will be able to help us a lot with weather predictions. Historically, we have really seen going from very dry to sort of wet, even sort of the last six weeks of the year making a real difference because it had been so wet, and then, of course, the other way around. I totally understand where you're coming from, but it is very, very difficult to predict. and then, of course, the other way around. I totally understand where you're coming from, but it is very, very difficult to predict. If there is a trend and if the trend could continue, and if there is any historical, how shall I say, historical fact that would allow us to make a judgment. There is not. On the regulatory account, There is not. On the regulatory account, that was your first question. We would not go down to zero because the regulator has always said in the past that he would like to have some sort of a base regulatory account. Call it 250. The regulator would not We would not go down to zero because the regulator has always said in the past that he would like to have some sort of a base regulatory account. Call it 250. The regulator would not We would not go down to zero because the regulator has always said in the past that he would like to have some sort of a base regulatory account. Call it 250. The regulator would not allow to go below that. What we're talking about is we're currently at 650, going down to 250, 400, 400 over a number of years. That is something we would like to see. It would make our planning easier. It would be easier in my communication with you guys to give you some guidance on that. That is something we would like to see. It would make our planning easier. It would be easier in my communication with you guys to give you some guidance on that. That is something we would like to see. It would make our planning easier. It would be easier in my communication with you guys to give you some guidance on that. However, as the past few years have shown, it is very difficult to predict. We would like to sort of reduce step by step, if in any way possible, down to approximately 250. However, as the past few years have shown, it is very difficult to predict. We would like to sort of reduce step by step, if in any way possible, down to approximately 250. Yeah. On the tax one, again, I understand where you're coming from. However, I have to tell you that using domestic Yeah. On the tax one, again, I understand where you're coming from. However, I have to tell you that using domestic Yeah. On the tax one, again, I understand where you're coming from. However, I have to tell you that using domestic CapEx, To offset the future levy and bringing it down to a low level will be very unlikely because the Ministry of Finance looks exactly at how much they can get, and if they don't get enough, they make adjustments. They have made an announcement publicly where they said, "We want to get at least EUR 200 million every year for the next five years." For example, if they realize that in 2027 they would not get EUR 200 million but only EUR 50 million, they would probably make some sort of an adjustment. The reason being, there has been no growth, i.e., negative growth, GMP, over the last three years in Austria. That has been, you know, I think it has been the last one in Europe within the EU in terms of GMP growth. At the same time, debt and budget deficit are increasing, so the Ministry of Finance is basically looking into very specific measures to counter the deficit. This has been one, and he needs the money as a result, and he has already said he will make adjustments. To summarize, the probability of being able to use CapEx in 2026, 2027 to bring down the number is relatively small. Thank you. This is helpful. Thank you very much. The next question comes from the line of Piotr Dzieciolowski from Citi. Please go ahead. Hi. Hello. It's Piotr Dzieciolowski from Citi. I have a couple of questions. The first one I wanted to ask you about, in the changing power price profile, is there a chance, or is there a case where you could maybe try to think about the investment of changing your dispatch of your hydropower from run of the river, so kind of like building a reservoir from the side? I'm not sure if that's technically possible, but if I look at the fall zone, they typically guide us to a way higher optimization premium. I understand there's a couple of components in there, but how do you think about opportunity to change your, the way, given that the discrepancies between the peak and off-peak prices is much bigger? Is there any rule of thumb by which you would say how much you utilize this flexibility of dispatching your plant and what that translates into, at least premium over the base price or whatever the benchmark you use? That would be question number one. Second, regarding the taxation in Austria, is there a risk? I'm sorry to be so direct, but can you just pinpoint the bond and say, trust the tax in a shape that it would direct only large-scale hydro or really distinguish you from small municipality utilities that own some hydro assets and basically take more of the money from you? On this taxation, if the aim is to get the EUR 200 million and EUR 100 million from you, why are you trying to offset it with the CapEx? Because in reality, what you just said before is that even if you pay less because you spend more CapEx and you lower the burden, then all of a sudden the need should then come back and really take the EUR 100 million. This would be the kind of a question on the opportunity to invest and change the dispatch and the second on the taxation, whether you can really pinpoint the bond. Wow. Okay. Now those are, you know, those are questions which don't allow an easy or simple answer. I will start with the power price profile, as you have called it, and I hope that I understood correctly what you asked. If I go in the wrong direction, please stop me and redirect. First of all, the system of how we look at run of river, versus reservoirs, versus pump storage, flexibility products, that system has been optimized over decades, literally over decades. We're not going to change it because, you know, we make slight adjustments every year, and we think that the system, the way it is structured today, works very well. We don't really have any rules of thumb. The only rule of thumb which we have is that every hour of the day we try to optimize. We don't really use benchmarks, because, as I've mentioned before, we have a lot of volatility in the energy system, which is exactly why we have not been able to plan for the higher flexibility products because all the data points which we have had did not guide us towards that. Otherwise, you know, we would have planned for it. At the same time, every day when we saw relatively low numbers, low prices for pumping, we have immediately taken advantage of that, and equally on the turbine. The things that Andreas before has explained very well, sort of like the logic behind the way how we optimize pumping, storage, and turbine. The premium is an artificial premium. I mean, I know that the market talks about premium, but what it really is, is like, you know, run of river is baseload. You sell the baseload according to our hedging principles, and then we have the flexibility products, and we have the optimization, basically from our pumping, from our reservoirs. That is, you know, you could argue that that is a premium per megawatt hour, but at the end of the day, it is a very specific product, which we take advantage of given the instability of the energy system, which will certainly continue for quite some time. Now, on the taxation, first of all, the EUR 200 million is not a bond number. The EUR 200 million is all the Austrian utilities. The fact is that by far we are the largest. As a result of that we are hit more than others. There is also for wind and solar, there's an exemption, i.e., the ones that have a feed-in tariff are not burdened with the levy. The rationale being you get a feed-in tariff from the Republic of Austria as a result of making those investments. Excuse me, as a result of making those investments. We would, in fact, sort of like reduce the feed-in tariff through the back door. That is something that has been discussed, and they decided against that. The CapEx which we use domestically will not be influenced by the levy, i.e., we're not going to invest more here in Austria as a result of being able to deduct. We invest if we think that we achieve a good return on that investment. If then, and that is secondary, if then we can use that CapEx to offset, obviously, we are going to use it if we are able to offset more, and as a result of that, our contribution to the EUR 200 million is lower because of that. The finance minister cannot only look at us, at VERBUND, but he basically has to look at the entire utility sector. We will continue to use any CapEx which we have domestically. We will continue to use it as an offset in terms of the taxation. Okay. Can I just have a follow-up, maybe on a slightly different subject? Did you have any power buybacks in the second quarter? What's the, like, how should I think about the kind of the hydro coefficient below which you have a need to do a buyback, power buyback? When you look at our hedging, you will see that we have 60% kind of one-and-a-half year forward. We have 20% in terms of the quarterly product, and we have 20% in terms of the sort of like the monthly and the weekly product, which basically leaves another 20% which is open. Those 20% gives us a cushion, a rough cushion. Of course, we make adjustments when we see that it is particularly dry, then we reduce the weekly product in order to reduce the amount of power which we have to buy in the market in order to fulfill our obligations. There you see that the cushion which we have is 20%. That's quite a lot. Does this mean you had some power buybacks in the second quarter that impacted your numbers? Yes, we have. Whenever we have such low figures in terms of the hydro coefficient, despite the fact that we obviously optimized in connection with what I've mentioned before, we usually have buybacks. The buybacks for the first half year were approximately EUR 130 million. Negative impact, right? Negative impact. Okay, thank you very much. That's very helpful. You're welcome. The next question comes from the line of Richard Alderman, BTIG. Please go ahead. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah, we can. Thank you. Hi. Yes, just a couple of quick questions, if I may, to follow up on the previous comments. I'm interested in your comment earlier on where you said that the regulator had refused your plan to reduce the regulatory account. I was just wondering why that is, because clearly if you reduce use of system charges into the whole system, it ultimately reduces prices for customers. What's the rationale for letting the regulatory account just keep building up over the last few years? The second question would be, you mentioned that you pushed into 2026, EUR 200 million to EUR 300 million of solar-based CapEx. Do I assume that's all in Spain? If so, is that partly because at the moment the returns are looking suboptimal, so you're just postponing it whilst you consider whether you can find PPAs to actually back up the CapEx in the first place? Okay. I will start with the second one. Yes, we have pushed into 2026. It is basically a result of the permitting processes. It is not a very specific decision that we say we think that, you know, we can optimize power prices in 2026 versus now. The first one, you're absolutely right. That is exactly what we say. We basically say, "Look, you know, reducing the regulatory account is a win-win situation." No, actually, it's a win-win-win situation. It is a win for us, because it gives us more stability, more earnings stability. It is a win for the customers, for the system, because of a tariff reduction. It is a win for the regulator because the regulator has, I would say, more stability in terms of tariff strategy and tariff policy. The reason why he's not doing it, I cannot give you a specific answer, because I don't have one. I could only speculate. Actually, I shouldn't speculate, I think, but I'll do it anyway. The regulatory account gives the regulator flexibility in terms of his future tariff policy. For example, if for whatever reasons tariffs continue to go up, and you know that this is a big discussion across Europe, everybody complains about the fact that on the one hand, you need the infrastructure. On the other hand, the huge investment into infrastructure, somebody has to pay for it. You know, there's a big discussion in Germany. Is it the system, i.e., the clients? Then people say, "You know, it's too much for the clients." It is not the clients. It's the taxpayers. Somebody has to pay for it. There is no clear solution to the issue, to the problem. A solution would be to reduce CapEx. If you reduce CapEx, how can you synchronize all that with the build-up of renewables and with system stability? It's not an easy one to solve. Coming back to the regulator, the regulator might think that if tariffs go up even further, and it does pressure on the regulator to reduce the tariffs or to reduce the increase of the tariffs, he has the possibility of working with the regulatory account. That could be a possible explanation. However, we will continue to discuss that it might be better to go step by step in a linear way. Just on that point, given that the new government is obviously interfering more in the energy system and the cost of the system and thinking about a social tariff, could there be some point in the near future where they put pressure on the regulator because it's obvious that this is another way of reducing costs in the system when people are struggling in terms of cost of living and moving GDP upwards? Yeah. It is possible. The regulator is totally independent. In the past, the politicians have been very careful to try and influence the regulator. They have been respectful of the regulator's independence. If there is a lot of pressure, you know, and the pressure is not just on a sort of like an expert discussion level, the pressure is in the media, in the mass media. As a result of that, it could well be that there might be some pressure on the regulator, you know, to use all means he has to reduce some of the tariff increases. Thank you. That's helpful. One last quick follow-up question to the question before me. On the cost, the EUR 130 million cost of buying in because of the hydro shortfall in the first half, do you see any risk of that at least carrying through in Q3, given the coefficient is still struggling to get above 0.8? I don't see it. It could be that there will be buybacks in the second half, but I don't see a big risk there. Okay, thanks very much. We have a follow-up question from Olly Jeffery from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Thank you. Two follow-ups. The first one is on your financial costs for the first half. That financial result was EUR 50 million, positive. How has that evolved versus your expectations at the beginning of the year for what would happen for the first half? My sense is that that might be, you know, better than what you initially anticipated. If that is the case, what has driven that? That would be helpful to know. The second one is just coming back to the debate around grid costs and how they'll be allocated. What's the timeline on, or is there a timeline on when we should get news on that and therefore get clarity on what the implications might be for yourselves without 2025 event, or unknown? Thank you. Sure. First of all, unless there is something really urgent, this will be the last two questions on this conference call. Obviously, we're always at your disposal. You can call us anytime. Our Investor Relations team, and we will answer anything you have. However, there is a limitation in terms of our follow-on schedule which we have. Now, on those two questions, I will start with the second one. Andreas, maybe you could do the first one. On the second one, you're absolutely right. It is a big discussion, and it is an important discussion. It's not just an Austria and German discussion. Quite frankly, it is a European discussion. There are many, you know, there is a game. There are rules to the game. There are many players. Every player or every stakeholder has a slightly different approach and a slightly different opinion. Don't forget that at the end of the day, we have national energy systems. They are all different, and they all require different measures. The EU is trying hard, not always very effectively, to look at Europe as a whole and to find measures within Europe to solve the conundrum. It really is a conundrum. I will try to sort of like, to really bring it to the concentrated focal point of where the problem lies. In Europe, we have a baseload problem. As a result of the build-up of the renewables that we need to, you know, that system instability, we need to resolve. We can either resolve it by having a lot of baseloads, which is a backup, and that is expensive. The more natural way of resolving it, because it's a long-term solution, would be the build-up of infrastructure. The build-up of infrastructure, as I've really said over the last 10 years on these calls, should have been synchronized with the build-up of renewables. It beats me why it has not been synchronized because it is technically totally logical and rational, but it hasn't been done. As a result of that, there is now a lot of additional infrastructure CapEx which needs to be made across Europe. The final answer to who is going to pay for it has not been made. The reason is that how much more can the taxpayer be burdened in Europe? Number one. Number two, how much more is the industry or the retail clients willing to pay in terms of tariffs? What can you do overall? Mr. Merz, as you might have seen, he has basically said already quite some time ago, and he has repeated it. He's basically said, "We need private capital to fund the massive build-up of infrastructure." The only way to get private capital is to have a fair market return. I don't even want to say attractive return. I want to say you want to have a fair market return in order to attract the capital. This is why you have seen big discussions in Spain. You have seen big discussions in the U.K. We're discussing it here with the regulator in Austria. You are seeing revisions in Germany in terms of the new regulatory period. My assumption would be that you will see an increase in allowed returns as a result of that, hopefully more private capital going into the system, and the entire build-up being properly synchronized as to hopefully reduce the increase in the tariffs. Now I'll make a last comment, otherwise we go into too much technical detail. The tremendously fast development in artificial intelligence, which is surprising us every month with new things coming out, obviously will allow for the systems to be way smarter than what the systems are today. If we use that possibility over the next few years, we should be able to have a much, much better synchronization between the supply side and the demand side. With those kind of intelligent adjustments, we should be able to reduce the tariffs. That brings me to our last answer today, at least on this conference call. Andreas. Yeah, Olly. So the financial results will speak to millions. As you said, in half a year, it's, yeah, it's better than what we would have expected and what we have planned. There are, I think, two variables which we can, which are difficult to be planned. First one is the contribution from Kellogg, which was better than originally budgeted. This is one effect. The second one is a valuation effect coming from the measurement of an obligation to return an interest in Donaukraftwerk Jochenstein, which is a hydropower plant, yeah? This is, as I said, it's a valuation effect which is highly volatile. The measurement is dependent on the development of the wholesale electricity price. Usually when wholesale electricity price goes up, the valuation goes down. There's a negative valuation effect and vice versa. This quarter, or this half year, as prices are lower or have declined, we have here a positive valuation effect. I think that's quite significant with about EUR 35 million. This is, of course, always dependent on the development of the wholesale price. It's difficult for us to forecast as well, yeah. Great. Mm-hmm. Thank you. I would like to thank all of you for your interest, in the middle of the summer. This is great. This has been a very important and a very interesting discussion. Many questions, covering a lot of different areas. Thank you. Should there be any follow-up questions, please don't hesitate to contact us. Today or tomorrow or whenever. I look forward to speaking to all of you for our third quarter conference call. Many thanks and have a great summer vacation. All the best. Bye-bye. Ladies and gentlemen, the conference is now over. Thank you for choosing VERBUND AG, and thank you for participating in the conference. You may now disconnect your lines. Goodbye.