Good morning. Thank you for joining us today for the presentation of our half-year results. You're most probably feeling the same way that we are. The first six months of the year have flown by. Let me start by introducing you to today's key speakers, Bernard Gustin and Marco Nix, CEO and CFO of Elia Group. Welcome to both of you. We'll kick off today's presentation by looking back at the Group's most important highlights from the past six months. A lot has happened, both at Elia Group and across Europe's electricity sector more widely. One of the most prominent examples that comes, which is on screen now, contains important information that you should take. Script will be published online shortly after the livestream comes to an end. The first highlight I would like to take you through is Elia Group's successful completion of a EUR 2.2 billion capital increase in April. The following video features the ring the bell ceremony in Brussels. Three. Two. One. We are in the hall of the Euronext, so that's where every morning the stock exchange starts. We've been ringing the bell to celebrate our transaction. We raised EUR 2.2 billion, which is the second biggest capital increase on the Brussels market ever. This is the biggest since 2009. I'm super happy about this achievement. I think as a Group raising EUR 2.2 billion in such a market environment, I think it's a remarkable achievement. First of all, we had a quite solid story to tell, and that was appreciated. Nobody questioned it. It was clear for everybody, okay, we need to invest further and we need to raise money to do so. We decided to go with a two-step approach. First, we raised EUR 850 million via a private transaction. Here we managed to attract some amazing players in the market. The second step, we also gave our existing shareholders the opportunity to participate in this capital increase. 93% of our shareholders have committed again in the capital raise. Take the picture. Elia is in green. Green is definitely a good color. Bernard Gustin, the capital increase was your first big milestone as a new CEO of Elia Group, and the equity raise followed quite a difficult period for the company. Can we say new shares, new beginnings? I would say that is absolutely the case. Since the announcement at the beginning of March, our stock price has increased significantly, and that's a clear signal from the market. Just as important is how we structure the capital increase. By combining a private placement with the launch of a rights offering, we achieve three key objectives. Firstly, through the private placement, we secured the support of high-quality investors who carry a deep level of expertise in the sector and can support the long-term growth of the Group. This includes our reference shareholder, Publi-T/NextGrid, and new international players such as Atlas Infrastructure, along with the Future Fund, CPP Investments, and BlackRock. Secondly, we significantly strengthened our balance sheet, giving us a clearly defined set of tools and the flexibility to finance our growth in the lead-up to 2028. Thirdly, we struck the right balance between attracting new investors while allowing existing shareholders, including retail investors, to participate. This helped us to minimize dilution and maintain broad support. In summary, the capital increase was a key step towards safeguarding our financial resilience, and it ensures that we can continue to invest in our grid and strategic projects at the pace that society requires. Okay, let's stay with the Brussels Stock Exchange for a moment because this year marks the 20th anniversary of Elia Group's initial listing. We managed to dig up an old picture of that moment, and the initial listing took place at a price of EUR 28.75 per share. So over the past two decades, Elia Group hasn't just grown as a company. We've also consistently created value for our shareholders. Marco, can you provide us with some numbers? Since our listing, Elia Group has delivered a total annual return of about 10.5%. This achievement combines two things: an average annual share price increase of around 6.5% and over EUR 1.95 billion in dividends returned to our shareholders. Value creation lies at the core of Elia Group's strategy. We have a strong track record, one we can be proud of, and one we are determined to build on. Yeah, and we can also be proud of some other key milestones we celebrated during the first half of the year. Let's start by taking a look at our offshore projects. The construction of the Princess Elisabeth Energy Hub is progressing steadily. The artificial island will enable new wind farms in Belgium's North Sea to be efficiently connected to the grid. The offshore installation of the island's building blocks, or caissons, is underway. Three, two, one. Another important project milestone was also recently celebrated: the first steel cut, a symbolic moment that marked the start of the construction of the island's first AC substations. These will be directly installed onto the island, located 45 km off the Belgian coast. For the next phase of the project, which originally involved direct current, or DC technology, the Belgian government recently announced that an alternative approach will be developed. For the second phase, it decides not to sign the contracts because the cost increased quite a lot the last years. But the ambitions are the same. We want to integrate as much as possible wind in the North Sea in Belgium and to realize a second interconnector. That's the reason why the government asked Elia to develop some alternatives less costly than the reference case. That's what we are doing for the moment with a colleague in the U.K. 50 Hertz is continuing its work on another island project. Connecting Germany and Denmark together via a hybrid interconnector using the existing Danish island of Bornholm is the plan. We, as Elia Group, believe in European cooperation. We are sure that the single market for energy in Europe is cheaper, more reliable, and more resilient. So 50Hertz is willing to be engaged in the Bornholm energy island project, and we are working hard with our colleagues from Energinet in Denmark to make this project happen. A more coordinated approach to offshore grid planning was also discussed during the Wind Europe Conference in Copenhagen. Elia Group is one of the founding members of the Offshore Transmission System Operator Collaboration, the OTC, that brings together 12 system operators from countries located around the North Sea. In Copenhagen, we presented a grid map that outlines promising cross-border projects. It's the first time that we have really an integrated common view on what's necessary for the North Sea. And therefore, I'm very proud of what has been done. If you look at the North Sea, we're kind of half the North Sea, and the other countries are the other half. So we need to work together. There is a shared belief amongst TSOs that Europe's energy independence will start at sea. 50Hertz's connection projects in the North and Baltic Seas are already helping to prepare the grid for the integration of massive amounts of renewable energy into the system. Ostwind 2, Ostwind 3, Ostwind 4, and Gennaker. More and more projects will be commissioned in the next few years. Also in the North Sea, our projects Lanwind 3 and Lanwind 6 are well on track. Please don't forget, we need new teams to run and operate these offshore grid connections in the future. The investment of 50 Hertz in a new offshore operation center in Rostock is key to manage all these assets quite well. Our offshore activities in Belgium are also steadily increasing. Elia is currently constructing a new offshore operation center in the Port of Ostend, from which its current and future offshore maintenance activities will be coordinated. The structural works have now been completed. In half a year's time, this center will be up and running. Back on the mainland, Elia is implementing a multi-year upgrade of its 380 kilovolt grid with stronger conductors to accommodate higher electricity flows. This work includes the Brabo project that has spanned a period of 10 years and is aimed at reinforcing the grid in and around the Port of Antwerp region. [Foreign language]. It's not the only project we are working on the backbone. Also, with Ventilus, we are making quite good progress with the permits, and we introduced all the permits in June this year. Together with Boucle du Hainaut, it will basically become the new design of the backbone in Belgium. The strengthening of the grid's backbone is also underway in Germany. Progress on the SuedOstLink project, which will become one of the country's key onshore DC corridors, is advancing well. The link, which will span more than 500 km, will play a vital role in transporting renewable electricity from the north to the south of the country. Also in Germany, 50Hertz recently successfully completed the tunnel drilling for the Berlin Diagonal Power Link, a new underground 380 kilovolt connection that will boost transmission capacity by around 40% to meet the city's growing energy needs. Over the past two and a half years, the tunnel boring machine has created a seven-kilometer tunnel. The project forms part of a broader program to modernize and expand Berlin's high-voltage grid. Obviously, one cable tunnel is not enough to make the system more reliable and to bring more electricity into the heart of the city. We will need two additional cable tunnels till 2040. Focusing in on the Belgian North Sea, at the beginning of June, the Belgian government confirmed the launch of two tenders relating to the development of additional offshore wind capacity in the Princess Elisabeth zone, with one tender covering 700 MW and the other covering 1,400 MW. However, no decision has yet been taken about the development of the third offshore wind concession zone, which the previous government decided on. Bernard, this is clearly a complex puzzle, I would say. How can this type of policy uncertainty be handled at Elia Group? Yeah, sure. Well, the decision taken by the Belgian government regarding this new capacity constitutes an important policy update. And as you said, it confirms that the two first concession zones will carry a combined capacity of 2.1 GW. As the video just demonstrated, we have already started building the AC infrastructure needed to connect these two new offshore concession zones to the transmission grid. Moreover, the government's decision also confirms the importance of building an additional interconnector between Belgium and the U.K. So we now have to work on the most cost and energy-efficient setup for this interconnector and its potential combination with a third offshore wind farm. And as Frederik mentioned in the video we just watched, we are actively working on this alongside our counterpart in the U.K. We hope to have more clarity about the project at the start of next year. We are very satisfied that the main subpart of this unique energy hub project can continue to be worked on. In the meantime, seven of the island's 23 caissons have already been placed on the seabed. However, discussions about the project timing are ongoing. It is not clear whether the island's foundations will be ready by the summer of 2026. Bernard, could this carry consequences regarding the European subsidy that we will receive from the Recovery and Resilience Facility Fund or the RRF? Europe wants to support forward-looking innovative projects, and this project clearly fits that description. But there is not much room for delay, which is something we regret given the scale and ambition of the work involved. We're working in full transparency with our government and the regulator. Indeed, we have to adopt a more cautious outlook regarding its realization. The preparation of the construction site in Vlissingen took more time than expected. A more cautious outlook would help to ensure that the project can still count on EU support. Discussions are ongoing, and we expect more clarity about this in the coming months. However, at this stage, we assume that the EU subsidy will be reduced to a prorata of what Elia can realize by the end of June 2026, and that is reflected in our forecast. Okay, thank you, Bernard, for providing us with some additional insights regarding the island dossier. Let's now take a look at some numbers from the half year. Marco, what do they tell us? The first half of the year was quite productive. We invested around EUR 1.5 billion, making strong progress on several of our key investment projects, as demonstrated in the video earlier. This momentum helped us to deliver a net result, Elia Group share of approximately EUR 270 million, driven largely by strong performances in both Belgium and Germany. None of this progress would have been possible without the dedication and expertise of our staff. Attracting, developing, and retaining talent is essential in these times of high demand for scarce technical skills. We continue to expand our workforce by successfully recruiting 421 new employees. This growth goes hand in hand with our strong focus on employee well-being, which remains a cornerstone of our corporate culture. Our health rate reached an impressive 96.3%, a clear sign that we are creating a work environment where people feel valued and can grow both personally and professionally. It's part of a positive trend we have seen every year since 2020. From a capital markets perspective, as Bernard already highlighted, the first half of the year was a very successful period for us. Earlier this year, the group raised EUR 2.2 billion in equity. Beyond that, we took important steps to further strengthen our financial resilience across all entities. At 50 Hertz, we secured an additional EUR 2 billion in debt to support our investment plans using a mix of financial instruments. Recognizing the importance of securing liquidity in today's volatile market, we also enhanced our liquidity lines for all entities. At the end of June, Elia Group had EUR 11.9 billion in available liquidity. Overall, these transactions show our ability to secure funding, which is essential for the group's growth. Marco just mentioned the group's workforce. On that note, over the past few months, Elia Group has reinforced its leadership team. Bernard Gustin took on the role of Elia Group CEO. Marco Nix was appointed as the group's CFO. Nicolas Pire and Christine Janssen were appointed as the local CFOs of Elia Transmission Belgium and 50Hertz, respectively. Apart from Christine Janssen, the appointments involve internal people moving up to top positions. Bernard, I think that's a strong signal when it comes to talent management and succession planning, isn't it? Absolutely. It shows that Elia Group values the capability of its own people. We are promoting people who already know the culture, the strategy, and challenges of the company. It also shows the quality of our people. But above all, these appointments ensure that our leadership team is now fully established and firmly anchored in each of our core TSO markets. That's not all. These new appointments were accompanied by integration of strong independent profiles with our board of directors. Two new profiles have been added: Michel Sirat and Olivier Chapelle. Michel, who has an impressive track record developed in top financial roles in Europe, both within and beyond the energy sector, has taken on the role of Chairman of the Audit Committee. Olivier Chapelle, an experienced executive with broad industrial experience as CEO, has joined the Nomination and Remuneration Committee. But we are also pleased to see the return of familiar faces. Pascale Van Damme was reappointed. Saskia Van Uffelen, who previously served on Elia Group's board from 2014 to 2021, and more recently served on the board of our Belgian subsidiary, is back with us once again. As you can see, these board appointments reflect our attention to diversity, both in terms of skill set and gender. This is something we care deeply about, and it will remain a key focus as we continue to develop the Elia Group organization. Thank you, Bernard. Let's now change topics completely. Just after noon on April 28th, a major blackout hit Spain and Portugal. While the rest of the European grid remained stable, the incident showed how devastating the impact of a large-scale blackout can be on society. It immediately raised a pressing question: could something like this happen here? Concerns about this possibility were significant enough that Belgium's newly appointed Minister of Energy, Mathieu Bihet, paid an immediate visit to Elia's National Control Center in Brussels. From what we know so far, the blackout appears to have been triggered by voltage management issues. A European expert panel is currently investigating the root causes of the blackout, and a full report about the incident is due to be published in October. Voltage control is indeed becoming a key focus in electricity systems that carry high shares of renewable energy. There will undoubtedly be lessons to be learned from the incident, and mitigating measures are already being prepared. Our experts will tell us more in the next video. [Foreign language]. We all see that the system is under stress because of the renewables. Here in 50Hertz grid, we are very much exposed to the renewables. We have a very high penetration of renewables. Thus, we have also a lot of fluctuations. We have fluctuations also in voltage levels. This has to be managed well. Yes, indeed, it could be a wake-up call. [Foreign language]. Spain and Portugal are always part of swings within Europe. They are at a higher risk, you can say. So we are better protected by our location within the European system, that's for sure. Of course, we are screening our emergency management documents. Are there any things that we could extend in order to be more resilient? Even without knowing what the actual root cause was, it's always good to take those events which we do not like to have. However, to make the best out of it and trying to find out something that we can still improve. [Foreign language]. Yes, the blackout is a powerful reminder that electricity grids are the backbone of modern societies. Bernard, as Dirk Biermann said in the report, is it really a wake-up call? You know, it's a major crisis. But as we say, also never let crises go to waste. Of course, no one wants to go through something like this. But when it happens, it reminds us just how crucial our electricity grids are and how important it is to make them strong and resilient. It's normal that people are asking questions about the cost of the grid investments. But then something like this comes along and puts it in all perspectives. Investments are important for the grid stability, for our country's energy security, and for a system that can handle shocks. Yes, we need to stay mindful of the costs. At the same time, we shouldn't lose sight of the value that grid investments deliver. They are essential if we want a future-proof grid. Some people immediately suspected that it was a cyberattack, a reaction that reflects today's tense geopolitical context. Bernard, how is Elia securing its critical infrastructure? We are the operator and owner of critical infrastructure. Physical and digital security are therefore top priorities for us. During the first half of the year, we made progress on our security strategy, working closely with national and European authorities to protect critical energy infrastructure. We also strengthened our partnership with the police, civil protection units, and international partners such as NATO to safeguard our physical assets. Security in all its forms is and will remain a non-negotiable priority for the group. Yeah, and of course, the details of these measures are strictly confidential. Keeping the lights on at all times is also the central theme of Elia's Adequacy and Flexibility Study, which was published in June and covered the period 2026-2036. It was Elia's fifth such study aimed at ensuring that Belgium always has enough electricity to cover the level of demand. It demonstrates how electrification and digitalization are triggering a transformation of the Belgium electricity system. Bernard, what are the key findings of this year's study? Firstly, the rate at which electrification is occurring in Belgium will push the level of demand beyond the level of available capacity from 2008 onwards. However, the capacity remuneration mechanism, called CRM, remains a cornerstone of Belgium's adequacy strategy. It keeps vital thermal capacity online while driving investment in new low-carbon assets. Secondly, flexibility is becoming critical on both the demand and supply side for managing increasing volatility and periods of oversupply. By unlocking end-user flexibility, a double win is created for consumers: lower system costs and lower electricity bills. Finally, to complement the capacity secured by the CRM and close the supply gap in the long term, additional levers should be applied, such as the extension of nuclear units or the construction of new units, an increase in offshore wind capacity, cross-border interconnectors, or a structural reduction in demand. While this is a Belgian report, it's also highly relevant at group level. We are seeing similar trends and challenges in Germany. So it gives us an opportunity to tackle them in a coordinated way across the entire group. Thank you, Bernard. I strongly recommend anyone who is interested in a detailed breakdown of the results to take a closer look at the study on our website. Before we take a more detailed look at our half-year results, Marco, could you give us an update about the potential upcoming changes in the regulatory framework for TSOs in Germany? Yes, for sure. The German regulator, the BNetzA, is in the process of updating the entire regulatory landscape for both electricity and gas networks. For the next regulatory period, starting in 2029, we are seeing a shift towards a more dynamic cost-plus model. This new approach acknowledges that our operational and capital costs change rapidly. Rather than fixing parameters for five years, as carried out in the past, the framework will allow for annual adjustments based on actual needs and investments. That's a positive step. Expert-level discussions have already begun, and 50Hertz is currently preparing several position papers to contribute to the ongoing discussions about this new approach. Yeah, so far, the BNetzA has only published key points and first drafts. So when can we expect more information about the actual return figures, Marco? We anticipate that a draft framework for the TSOs, so the transmission system operators, will be available by the end of 2025, with the final decision expected in the first half of 2026. After that, the BNetzA will continue working out the technical details up until 2028. So it's very much a step-by-step process. At this stage, it's too early to speculate about concrete numbers. That said, it's encouraging that we are closely involved in the discussions that are being held about the changes. We are making sure our voice is heard, especially when it comes to advocating for competitive market-based returns that reflect the scale and strategic importance of our grid investments. Yeah, there's been talk about harmonizing the returns from existing and the new assets. Can you tell more about this? The BNetzA is proposing a WACC remuneration model with a single return level on the equity for all assets, independent of when the investment has been taken, removing the current distinction. That brings clarity, which is helpful for long-term planning. The cost of debt will be further adjusted annually to reflect actual market conditions. This again aligns with the shift towards a cost-plus model. The regulator wants to better link financial parameters to real-world developments. So to sum up, I would say we are cautiously optimistic. The new regulatory framework is still a work in progress, but the direction we are headed in is constructive. That's for Germany. What about Belgium? We are still in the current four-year tariff period that runs from 2024 to the end of 2027. Discussions with the federal regulator, the CREC, for the next period will start in early 2026. Elia will prepare the file carefully to be able to fulfill its societal mission, including the rollout of our ambitious investment plan for the energy transition. Thank you, Marco. Yeah, we haven't talked about our activities in the U.S. As you probably know, Elia Group, via its non-regulated activities, holds a minority stake in energyRe giga projects, an independent U.S. developer of renewable generation and transmission projects. That brings us to the Trump administration that just rolled out a new fiscal policy, the so-called Big Beautiful Bill. This cuts support for renewables and introduces extra costs and restrictions on clean energy projects. So Bernard, does this impact our U.S. activities? Before diving in it, it's worth noting that Elia Group's exposure to the U.S. market is still very limited compared to our other activities. But that being said, in a nutshell, the new policy accelerates the phase-out of tax credits for clean energy. So yes, there is generally less support for renewables going forward. The broader impact of this Big Beautiful Bill should be manageable for us because our focus in the U.S. is now on transmission infrastructure, which isn't directly targeted. As for our current portfolio of projects, the fundamentals remain solid. But that said, it's clear that these projects will take more time to move forward. So we'll need to show a bit more patience than initially anticipated. Let's not forget the big picture. The U.S. still has huge structural needs when it comes to electrification, both for the heavy industry and the increasing electricity demand for AI and data centers. So that means more electricity, more transmission lines will be needed. Okay, thank you for sharing this update, Bernard. Let's now turn to the full update of our half-year financials. Marco, take the floor. Thanks, Marleen. Elia Group delivered strong results with an adjusted net profit amounting to almost EUR 326 million. That's an increase of 49% compared to last year. In Belgium, we delivered solid results supported by a growing regulatory asset base, increased equity, and a higher return on equity. In Germany, 50Hertz performed strongly, driven by asset growth and higher floating rate returns since 2024. However, this was partly offset by lower contributions from the non-regulated segment and Nemo Link. Although the operational performance of Nemo Link remained outstanding, its contribution was kept by the regulation. Furthermore, the funding costs of the holding increased. The net profit attributable to Elia Group shareholders increased to almost EUR 270 million. This is based on solid progress made on our investment plans, with approximately EUR 1.5 billion invested in both our Belgium and German grids during the first half of the year. At the same time, our net financial debt was reduced by around EUR 1.5 billion. This was mainly driven by the successful completion of our capital increase in April, as well as the fact that a significant portion of our investment program was funded through operating cash flows. The average cost of debt slightly rose by 10 basis points to 2.9%, as Eurogrid proactively tapped the capital markets in the first half of 2025 while reimbursing a maturing debt. Finally, I'd like to highlight that our Standard and Poor's credit rating remains unchanged at BBB flat, with a stable outlook confirming the resilience of our financial structure. Yeah, that covers the group results. You already mentioned the good results for Belgium. What are the key drivers behind those results? Indeed, Belgium delivered solid results, with an adjusted net profit rising by more than 30% to almost EUR 130 million. This growth was primarily driven by higher fair remuneration from asset growth and increased equity following the capital increase, as well as an improvement in the underlying risk-free rate. Strong operational performance with increased incentives thanks to the timely commissioning of projects, maximum availability of the modular offshore grid, and reduced reservation costs for ancillary services. A one-off tariff compensation linked to the capital increase. This compensation is recorded as equity under the IFRS, but as you may know, these costs are fully passed through to the tariffs. Finally, the higher capital borrowing costs supported the results. These positive effects were partially offset by regulatory settlements from the 2024 review. Turning now to ETB's funding and balance sheet, following the capital increase at the group level, we injected EUR 1.05 billion into ETB to further strengthen its equity base. This step ensures that ETB is well positioned to support future organic growth in line with its regulatory framework. On the liquidity side, we also saw a notable improvement. This was supported by an increase in its commercial paper program, as well as the additional cash received following the capital increase. Looking at the debt profile, the weighted average debt duration stands at 6.6 years, and the average cost of debt remains stable at 2.5%. Yeah, and now let's shift to Germany. We see a significant increase in 50Hertz adjusted net profit for the first half year of 2025. What are here the main factors, Marco? We are pleased to report that the adjusted net profit rose to EUR 207.5 million. This strong performance is the result of several key factors. First, asset growth continues to be the major driver of the results. The expansion of both onshore and offshore infrastructure led to a EUR 94.7 million increase in the remuneration. Additionally, we also changed the regulatory estimate for intra-year onshore investment remuneration, which is now reflecting a pro rata share of the full year expected CapEx rather than the actual CapEx spend. This change enhances comparability and better reflects the economic reality of our investment cycle, given that a substantial portion of the CapEx will be spent in the second half of the year. For the first half of the year, this change had an impact of EUR 28.1 million year over year and will disappear until year's end. Second main factor on the cost side, inflation-indexed base year's revenues helps to offset most of the operational expense increase. That said, some offsetting effects also occurred. Firstly, mention depreciation, as several major projects were successfully commissioned and brought online. Second, financial costs rose primarily due to the higher net interest expenses from debt financing. However, this was partially mitigated by interest income from a pre-financing agreement with an offshore wind farm developer. Furthermore, capitalized interest during construction increased due to our ongoing investment activities too. Yeah, having reviewed 50Hertz results, let's turn now to its financial position. On the liquidity side, we took several proactive steps to ensure funding flexibility. In early 2025, we tapped EUR 200 million from an existing bond issued in 2024. We then issued a EUR 800 million green bond with a 12-year maturity and a 4.06% interest rate. At the same time, we reimbursed a EUR 500 million bond that matured. We fully drew down a EUR 1 billion green loan under the Kf W Climate Protection Program, syndicated with 12 banks to support our offshore projects. This loan carries an attractive 3.0% interest rate. As a result, our average cost of debt rose slightly by 10 basis points to 3% by the end of June 2025. We continue to maintain strong liquidity buffers. All EUR 3.9 billion in backup facilities remain unworn. We also established a new EUR 750 million commercial paper program, enhancing our short-term funding flexibility. Just to bring this section on the equity side to a close, while the total equity remained broadly stable, I'd like to highlight that EUR 1 billion in proceeds from the capital increase earmarked for Eurogrid GmbH will be pushed down and evenly distributed throughout 2025 and 2026 to support our investment program in a phased and efficient way. In addition to its regulated activities in Belgium and Germany, Elia Group also operates Nemo Link and engages in various activities outside of our regulated home markets. How does this third segment contribute to the results, Marco? Our non-regulated Nemo Link segment posted an adjusted net loss of EUR 11.8 million. This was mainly driven by the following factors. Firstly, a lower contribution from Nemo Link of EUR 9.2 million despite its strong operational performance. The cap mechanism limited its net impact. Secondly, a reduced loss from Energy Ray Giga, which improved by EUR 1.2 million thanks to tighter cost control. Then, higher holding costs amounting to EUR 6 million, largely due to last year's debt financing. Finally, other items totaling around EUR 5.7 million, including regulatory settlements and lower contributions from EGI. While last year's result was positive, this year's performance reflects a combination of lower interconnector income, higher financing costs, and regulatory adjustments. To bring my presentation to a close, we reconfirm our outlook. We expect to deliver a net profit at Elia Group share in the range of EUR 490 to EUR 540 million for the whole year 2025. In Belgium, assuming a 10-year OLO rate of around 3.1%, we anticipate a net profit between EUR 255 and EUR 285 million and plan to invest EUR 1.5 billion throughout the year. In Germany, with a base rate of around 2.5%, we expect a net profit between EUR 380 million and EUR 420 million, supported by a planned investment of around EUR 3.6 billion. The non-regulated segment, including Nemo Link, is expected to report a net loss between EUR 35 and EUR 45 million. This includes a positive contribution of around EUR 25 million from Nemo Link, assuming it continues to operate with a high level of availability. As always, I would like to point out that this guidance obviously doesn't take into account any potential M&A transactions. Thank you, Marco. Before we move on to the Q&A section, Bernard, I would like to invite you to share some final thoughts with us. What is the focus after the summer break? Our focus remains very clear: delivering on our CapEx program. Now that we've strengthened our financial foundation, it's all about execution, staying on budget, and where possible, doing better than the budget, outperforming it. All while maintaining the right balance between affordability and ambition. Our strategy remains unchanged. The energy transition is accelerating, and our role as its enabler is more relevant than ever through the delivery of sustainable infrastructure, system integration, and innovation. To that end, we will continue to focus on investing in cost efficiency, exploring synergies across the group, and reinforcing the resilience of our supply chains. We're also keeping a close eye on key industry developments such as the new regulatory framework in Germany, the preparation for the North Sea Summit in Hamburg early next year. If Europe wants to achieve energy independence, accelerating offshore wind development will be essential. In that context, we'll be following the next steps on the Bornholm Energy Island project with great interest, especially now that the German and the Danish governments have agreed to move forward. We are also looking ahead to our upcoming viewpoint study on storage integration, a critical enabler of system flexibility. In short, the second half of the year will be about delivering with discipline, innovating with purpose, and staying aligned with our long-term vision. Many plans, a busy agenda ahead, just the way we like it. I suggest we now move on to the Q&A section. Yannick Dekoninck, Head of Capital Markets, will lead on this. Stéphanie Luyten, our Head of Investor Relations, will take us through the questions we have received so far. Stéphanie, could you share the first question with us, please? Thank you, Marlene. And a warm welcome to all my analysts. Can I please ask you to only keep it to two questions so that everybody has time to also ask their question? We will start today with UBS. Wanda, please go ahead. Hi. Hopefully, you can see me and you can hear me. Two questions from, I mean, congratulations on H1 results. Two questions from me. The first one is on the EUR 20 million benefit year on year from the accounting change. What has triggered it? Because it's the first time I hear about it. I assume it's included in your guidance, but was it Elia's choice? Can you confirm it was already included in your guidance? The second question is a more high-level question on Germany. There was a study commissioned by Germany's economy ministry on the plan to assess whether the current scope of grid expansion is still needed. Does it pose any risk to your 2024-28 CapEx plan? How much of your CapEx 2028 is basically set in stone so it won't be changed? In your view, I mean, there's a lot of discussion about the end energy use, the cost of the electricity for the end users in Germany, how the regulator can change your CapEx plans? Okay, thank you, Wanda. I think on the EUR 20 million question, Marco, I think that's definitely in your area and potentially also on the CapEx. Happy to take it. The EUR 28 million is a temporary effect. We changed the treatment on an intra-year basis to show a more stable progress compared to the final expectation, how much the CapEx volume is going to be. Based on the CapEx volume, we then calculated the connected return as the regulatory treatment is usually based on a full-year consideration on the average, and that's something we reflect as well. The guidance itself for full year is not affected at all. It's only changed the presentation during the year, and it's now aligned. Yes, it was our choice in that regards as we've seen that it's a kind of common standard in usage, and we aligned with the treatment which we already applied in Belgium on that one. That's a little bit a better presentation, a fair presentation within the year, but it doesn't change anything on the year end. That's on the accounting one. On the CapEx itself, we can confirm that the CapEx plan is intact. The volume which we have announced then for the period 2024-20 28 is still the plan which we are following. On one hand, all discussions which are around in the political sphere are more hitting the horizon beyond the 30s to some degree. We already committed more than 70% of the remaining CapEx program until the end of 2028, and we are full on track to deliver what we have promised. Short term or mid term, there is no impact on the CapEx plan at all. Our goal will be to deliver that what we have promised, and that's connected to that number. No change on the mid run. In the long term, it's of course a discussion which you might have followed in terms of affordability, how future big DC corridors, for instance, will be executed, whether it will be still underground in cables or an overhead line. There's a cost difference between both, and that's a discussion which is up and running. But these projects come to commissioning mid of the 30s or even later. There's no immediate impact on our CapEx plan. We reiterate the planning which we have given. Basically, going forward, we should assume a better seasonality in your 50Hertz net income, right? They shouldn't be like, there should be less swings between the years. That was the purpose. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much, Wanda. Let's now go to Virginia from Santander. Yes. Hello. Good morning. Hi. Sorry, sorry. I hope you can see me. Yes, I had two questions as well. First of all, on the grants you had been mentioning that potentially you need to prorate from the EU on the possible delays on the foundations. I wanted to know how much grants you had assumed initially in your business plan to better understand what this could mean. And second, on the capital raise you have implemented, which you still have not put any of the equity into 50Hertz, I understood. And you said it will be done along 2025 and 2026. Just wanted to know how much will go actually in 2025 for the modeling purposes. Thank you. Thank you. I will propose that I take the question on the grant and then the capital increases, Marco. For the grant, we received the initial amount of EUR 99.7 million from the fund, and that was linked to construction of the island by June 2026. As you've seen in the movies, we are progressing quite well, but it's likely that it's not been fully finished. The grant will be reduced pro rata to the completion of the island. Nevertheless, all in all, it will have a very limited effect on our results considering the amount which was EUR 99.7 million initially. On the capital increase, maybe, Marco, there you can give guidance. Happy to take it. As pointed out during the presentation, there's EUR 1 billion designated to inject in the German subsidiary. Last year, we injected EUR 600 million in total, commonly KFW and Elia Group. With our 80% around, it was EUR 480 million. That's the order of magnitude you can expect. It will be more or less equally split between the two years. 2025, almost EUR 500 million, and 2026 again, the same portion that we can deploy capital in an efficient way in the subsidiary. Of course, KFW is a partner on our side, which appreciates a kind of stability and visibility on that injections too. That was the agreement which we made. Thank you. Thank you very much. Let's now go to Morgan Stanley. Harry, please go ahead. Hi, good morning. Thanks very much for taking my questions. Maybe two from me. Firstly, on the German review that is currently ongoing, so appreciating there's limits to how much you can say here, but obviously lots of interest. We've obviously had some color from the DSO reviews to some of the changes on the period for cost of debt and the arithmetic mean. But as we think about what you are targeting for an all-in ROE, I mean, there's a comment in your slides talking about an additional kicker. I mean, how significant could that be? And what do you need as an all-in ROE to make the whole package investable? So that'll be the first. And then secondly, as we think about the German reg potentially moving to this cost plus model, can you remind us on your historical outperformance, how much of that came from OpEx outperformance and how much of that came from the additional leverage? Thanks. Maybe I start and then let Yannick complement on the second part. What we do see is indeed a trend to more simplification, a trend to reduce risk for us, and that's something we appreciate. That's first of all something we do see that the regulator is acknowledging that we are in a different situation than 10 years ago. That's something which we do see positive. On the other side, it's fair that with a WACC model, of course, the concentration on the return and the cost of debt is relatively high. There's a huge visibility on the returns, which is still a political discussion as well. Of course, by taking off options to outperform, that will be connected to a relatively huge lift up there. There are on the other side discussions to reintroduce other incentive schemes. How big the allocation between two is, it's really early stage as we are currently in a discussion on ideas, what could be incentivized and what order of magnitude that could bring to the returns. That's a little bit determining what kind of return rate is then something the BNetzA has put in place. I apologize that we couldn't give more color at this stage in that regard. That's the situation we are. As we said, we hope to have more clarity until end of year how the structure will look like. Not being said that, of course, the ingredients have been set there. To have a look backwards, I think the operational outperformance was around in Germany was around 1% depending on the year on the return on equity. The leverage is a one and a half percentage depending on the year as well. These two factors help us to lift up the return rates in the past. It's fair to say that with the cost plus model, a part of that will disappear and needs to be replaced either by reflection in the return rate or in something else, some incentives to be put in place. That's helpful. Thank you. Thank you very much. Let's go now to Deutsche Bank, Olly. Please go ahead. Thanks very much. My two questions, please, are first of all, on the grid development plan. For 2025, there's an initial view being given on capacity for 2045. Obviously, nothing really yet on investment. But do you see there being an opportunity, or do you think the CapEx envelope is expected to be spent on the grid, potentially increased or decreased? The capacity numbers seem kind of similar on the middle scenario. The second question is coming back to incentives for the next regulatory period. I understand there could be incentives around dispatch and city services and grid expansion. Are you able yet, from your view of the initial papers, to discuss that in a bit more detail at all, or not yet? Thank you. I think it's again more questions directed to Marco. I'm happy to take it. Maybe I start with the last one on the incentives. This is a good connection then to the question before. As I said, we are currently more in a kind of brainstorming what kind of incentives can be put in place and what order of magnitude it could give. There's been shared some ideas connected to commissioning and maybe some avoided redispatch costs to be shared as a benefit for the grid operator who can manage to put that in place in time or even earlier. But of course, the proof is in the pudding. We are still discussing then what kind of date, for instance, is being eligible. It's rather early. I think it's pretty clear that incentives on the energy cost management will remain one or the other way. That's something which we do see today. That being said, order of magnitude for the bonus to be achieved is relatively low. Maybe that's something which is going to be extended. But it's a little bit guessing. It's really early to say. I appreciate if you have ideas to bring it into the process. I mean, there's a public consultation foreseen on several stages. If you do see something which is working in the U.K. or whatever, we are happy to take it with us to propose it to the regulator as well. Regulators, and that's good as well, is open for that discussion. They are really keen to get ideas on that one, which they can consider as a kind of part of the framework. On a grid development plan, there's a discussion running indeed. The scenarios provide a broader spread compared to the last grid development plan, which helps to better distinguish between different scenarios. Last time, it was more or less all the time the same. That's what you do see a little bit more distinctive now. I think for the final outcome, the change will not be that big. It will be more on the offshore side where you then can discuss whether you are still connecting the 65 GW- 70 GW or less, as of course the last 15 GW are rather expensive and of course less productive than the first 15 GW. That could be a choice the government is going to make. Together with the regulator, we are discussing what is a useful dimensioning on that one, which is determining the costs. It's fair to say that with the last grid development plan, we potentially have seen the peak of projects to be added into the entire development plan until 2045 to become climate neutral. Now it's more the question how to put it on a timeline and whether you need the residual, which is then topping a little bit the cost items at the longer end and how you are allocating it over time. It's still a likelihood that the regulator is in the end taking the lower scenario as the lead scenario, what is different to the past as well. Thank you, Oli, for your questions. We can now turn to Citi. Piotr, please go ahead. Hi, yes, good morning, everybody. Thank you for the presentation. I have two questions, please. First one, I wanted to ask you about your funding plan by 2028. How much of the hybrids you have to issue to make your funding through to the end of the period? Or alternatively, how much of a stake you have to sell in the subsidiaries? When you have to start looking at these options, I know it's a little bit early. You just raised the equity, I just wanted to have clarity. You had a EUR 4 billion equity needs, then it was changed into what you've done on the equity side plus the hybrids. I just wanted to get the amounts of what's required to get there. Second question, I wanted to ask you about how if the German government changes the long-term offshore targets from 70 GW down to whatever the number will be, at what point does this affect your CapEx plan? I understand this is more like 2030, but I just wanted to understand what's the cadence of CapEx could be if it's lower than how you think about it. Is it big amounts that you will not be forced to spend and so on? Essentially, I'm aiming at, is this, if we change the strategy on the offshore grid development in Germany now, does this mean that the tightness of your balance sheet really disappears beyond 2028 because the CapEx requirement is probably gradually getting lower as a proportion to your company size? Thank you very much. Maybe I start with the offshore and then let Yannick say about our funding position. It's been clear that any changes in the offshore development will hit more the longer-term horizon. We will continue to connect offshore wind farms. Recently, there has been a tender, even though we have not been affected. It will continue for the time being. We have less than 10 GW connected in Germany. Next projects in the pipe, which are under construction, will give an additional 15. You do see there's still a way to go, even though the number will be reduced by 10 or 15 GW based on the 70 you mentioned. For 50H ertz, it will impact potentially the portfolio by one offshore grid connection. That's the order of magnitude we are talking about. It's of course a billion investment, no doubt on that. On the timing, it's hard to say which of that, which are currently dedicated to connect by 50H ertz, will be the one which is then being taken out, maybe replaced by another one which originally has been thought to connect later. That's still ongoing as that requests a change in the spatial planning of the authority as well. Grid development plan gives a little bit the capacity. Then the spatial planning is the next step to allocate it to a certain wind area. Then the connection is being dedicated to one or the other TSOs. That's a process which is still running and will be completed potentially mid of next year. Which project is then really affected, we cannot say. That being said, it gives you a little bit the glance that we are not talking about something which we do see in the 2030s already. Good. Then on the funding toolkit, I think Bernard mentioned it. With the capital increase, we created for ourselves a lot of optionality how we could further finance that plan. It's clear that hybrid could be part of that option. We have today a hybrid capacity which allows us to close the remaining EUR 2 billion funding need we roughly have. There we are monitoring very closely how the market is evolving. We've seen that the interest rates have come down slightly since the beginning of the year in that respect. But we also have that optionality to look on how we can strengthen the capital at our operating entities. There is no clear decision. That can be both in Germany or in Belgium. But that's something that we are monitoring as well without there is a firm decision on that topic. I think it really depends on the moment we need to decide. The good luck we have is that we have the flexibility. And now we are really making sure that our toolkit allows us for all options so that we have that flexibility and we can take the decision at the right moment. But you see that we have the choice. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you very much for your questions, Piotr. Now let's take that to Bank of America. Julius, please go ahead. Yes. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for taking my question. Some have already been taken, but still two from me. Maybe the first one, I mean, we already talked about it. There's obviously lots of interest on the German regulation. You said it yourself, Marco, that it's moving more to the low-risk cost plus model. Are you in any way worried that there will be the argument made that low risk should also come with lower return and lower value creation? Or do you think that's not justifiable given the pace of growth? And then secondly, just on the technical side, a lot of interest on the Princess Elisabeth Island. What are your options to make the design cheaper? Could you change it away from a DC connection? What are the technical options there? I propose Marco takes regulation. And I think Bernard can tackle your question on the islands. Yeah, happy to do so. What we don't expect to be clear is that, as this is something we perceive is understood, the return rate is nothing, which is further shrinking. I mean, that's our expectation that's being placed from different players. The perception we do have is that there is an understanding that it needs to be a sufficient rate to fund the growth of all grid operators and to provide proper funding on that one. From that perspective, we don't see further pressure to push it down. However, how much the lift-up could look like, that's a little bit the open question. Therefore, we will not position ourselves in guessing what the outcome will be. But the clear expectation has been placed. So far, our perception is that's understood that there needs to be a sufficient return to fund the means for that CapEx program. On the Princess Elisabeth Island, I think first we need to salute the decision of the government of the fact that what is today in our CapEx plan is confirmed so that we go ahead with the first wind parks, but also that the government clearly said that an interconnector between U.K. and Belgium, a second interconnector next to Nemo, is needed. I think this is a very important decision. We had, as you know, a DC component so that we wanted to create a hybrid interconnector so that basically we would have extra investment, DC investment on the island to create an energy hub and to allow a better choice according to circumstances between using the Belgian parks or using the interconnector. The alternative to reduce the cost and to just eliminate the extra transfer that we needed to put and the DC component we needed to put on the island are different. There are different options. The first option is just to go to a classical point-to-point interconnector next to the island, which is the first option. Of course, you don't have then the opportunity to select according to circumstances whether you use the wind from the Belgian parks or whether you use the interconnector. However, so long we are with one interconnector, we can have the advantage of a hybrid interconnector, having this interconnection being handled at the beach, if I may say so, and not on the island and not having an extra transformator. That's something we are considering now. Of course, if we do that, we have all the benefits of a hybrid interconnector so long we have one interconnector. But the day we have more, the function of an energy hub is not met. You might say, well, it's in a very far future beyond 2035 and beyond. But if we want to keep that option, we could still keep the current design. But then that would maybe mean, and we are discussing with our U.K. counterpart, whether we could consider also another allocation of cost between the two countries because the U.K. is also an interested party in this hybrid interconnector. Of course, another allocation of cost means also another allocation of benefits. But that means that also the initial design might not be completely excluded. Great. Thank you, very clear. Thank you very much, Julius. Now let's head to Alberto from Exane. Hi, good morning to everyone. I hope you can hear me. And it's a question for me. Can you hear me? Yep. Perfect. Great. Thank you so much. So the first one will be regarding your guidance. If I take your half year results and consider them this year, the Belgium and German prorata is expected to be more aligned with your full year guidance. It means that you could be close to the upper side of your guidance, the EUR 540 million of net income. Is it a fair assumption or is there any adjustment that we should consider in the second half that has not been recorded during the first part? My second question is regarding the CapEx profile. You are targeting a EUR 5.1 billion investment during 2025. You have only invested EUR 1.5 billion. Could you explain why there's such a big difference and how you expect in the second half of the year to invest the remaining part? Thank you so much. Yeah, maybe I'll start and then let Yannick complement on the half-year result. There was a relatively big impact from a settlement with an offshore wind farm developer where we took some financing costs in the past and we have now agreed that we are passing through the wind farm developer. That's a EUR 20 million impact on the half-year result. That's something which we do not see in the second half year. To put it a little bit in perspective, in general, your assumption is quite logical, knowing that, of course, classically, at least in the past, we do see often a cost ramp up in the second half of the year, which gives the first half year a little bit of favor compared to the second half as all the maintenance is being done over summer. That's something which then plays a bigger role in the second half year, knowing that, of course, the order of magnitude is going down compared to the total remuneration, as of course, the impact on the capital remuneration is much bigger than on the OpEx in the next years. On the cost side as well, maybe to complement that on the third pillar, even though the question has not been raised, it's a little bit similar as we expected second half year some cost in the development of our wind grid activities, which lead us to a little bit unweighted view compared to the first half year in that regard. On the CapEx, it's indeed the fact that the spending in the first half year is significantly lower than in the second half year. It's a little bit similar like last year where we spent 35% in the first half year and the vast majority in the second half, even though this year the relationship is a little bit even more unbalanced with 30% - 70% to be spent in second half year. We are confident taking the progress all of our projects has been made into account and there are significant payment milestones being connected to milestones which we are targeting to reach in the next few months. The number which we have guided on in quarter one is something we can reiterate and confirm. We are confident that the EUR 5.1 billion of CapEx to be spent in the year 2025 is still robust and valid and still something we are basing our guidance on. Thank you. I think then we can head it to Bernstein. Bartek, please go ahead. Thank you very much and good morning. Thank you for taking my questions. Two very broad issues I would like to discuss. Firstly, I mean, we know that in Germany most likely we will see higher headline returns, at least in terms of the allowed ROE. Consequently, Belgium may be one of the lowest in terms of remuneration in Europe. Do you expect, I mean, you said discussions will start next year, but do you think given the history, there are high chances that actually Belgium will follow Germany, will follow other countries, and consequently will increase allowed returns in the next regulatory period? That would be the first one. How shall we look at this? The second one on funding, obviously equities on the side, hybrids were discussed, but I just wonder overall there will be big competition from transmission operators on debt funding. A lot of them want to and will issue corporate bonds in the future. I just wonder, how do you think the market will shape in terms of how broad or how deep the market is to fund transmission CapEx? Do you think it will have an impact on cost of funding and spreads? Do you think you will also need to tackle markets outside of Europe to fund your growth in the future? Thank you very much. Maybe starting with the funding. What is valid for the equity that we want to have a toolkit in place is valid for the debt side as well. As we entered last year with ETB into a loan under a European Investment Bank umbrella, as well as in Germany under KFW umbrella, that gives you a little bit of view that we are, of course, working on extension of our toolkit on the debt side either. These are already remarkable sizes, to be clear on that one. Even that being said, we do see two trends on the Eurobond market for the time being. That's on one end, the bond market is increasing in total volume. I think last year it was 10% compared to previous year. The stake of the utility is growing as well. That being said, we will not rely only on that one. Of course, looking in other countries, other currencies as well, knowing that there's no immediate pressure to enter into these markets, but we at least have a look at, prepare ourselves, discussing with the regulator how this will be treated. Of course, currency swaps and return rates are different. They are not familiar with. There's a kind of education which is being requested on that one. That's something we are working on to have flexibility. Of course, are a little bit confident that we are able to raise the means which we are needing. Some confirmation on that one. On the Belgian regulation, well, first of all, I would like to remind that the regulation is, of course, the guardian of the affordability of the energy transition, but also of the success of the energy transition. They are also sensible to the fact that the investments are higher than before and need to have an adequate return on equity. I also would like to remember that when we had the discussion in the last round of negotiation that led to the current ROE, we had also a significant improvement versus last time, reasonable, but significant considering also the macroeconomic environment we were operating in. We will have, of course, the discussion with our regulator, but you also see one of the advantages of Elia Group being present and being dependent on two regulators and not just being dependent on one, because we can also in an intelligent way make sure that we can compare the regulators and tell them what we get in the other country. Finally, you've seen in my speech earlier today that very often I talked about affordability and about cost consciousness and beating our budget than just meeting our budget. I think it's also our responsibility as a TSO to show that we are managing the investment correctly from a cost point of view and that these investments that we are managing well from a cost point of view are essential and necessary and therefore, given their size and their amount, needs to have the adequate return on equity. It's a discussion. We shall start as of early next year. That's why it's difficult to preempt on the conclusion. I think given that we are attentive on the costs, given that we have a history where the returns increased in the past, given the amount and the regulator is in charge of the transition as well as the affordability, and given that we have also two regulators to deal with and that we can compare the one to the other, we take this with a positive attitude. Thank you, Bartik, for your questions. Let's now head over to Thijs from ABN AMRO-ODDO. Thijs, go ahead. You're still on mute, Tess. Much better. Much better. Okay. First, congrats with the strong H1 results, of course. Most of my questions, of course, already answered, but I'm curious to hear when we can get a CapEx outlook for 2029 and for 2030, as well as the potential new equity requirements for those years. What is the planning there? Well, I think from the answers we gave to the other questions, you could see that we are navigating in a world that beyond the year 2028 still has a lot of uncertainty. It's positive uncertainty, but uncertainty. We are coming at the end. Just a question on the Belgian regulation, we had several questions about the German regulation. This is the basis of our remuneration. Of course, we need to be strong enough to be able to say at some point, we need to do this investment, but we need a certain level of regulated ROE to be able to do these investments. The discussions are going on, so very difficult to move on before we have more clarity on that. The good news is that we start the discussions in Belgium as of next year. The second one is that the Germans are clearly thinking about a new model. So we have to wait for that. Secondly, you know that in Germany, the four TSOs are looking at the development plan. We had also a series of questions about how we see that in a further future. We are, as Marco explained, rather certain that for the period 2024-2028, whatever the decision is taken at that level, it won't affect our CapEx plan. Beyond 2028, we believe that the CapEx plan will remain very strong, that the variation that will be brought will not change the world for Helia. But I think it's wise to have a better view of what will be the ambition of Germany in terms of further offshore and renewable transition before we start to have a discussion about what is our CapEx and what is the equity need that is derived for it. So that's why for the moment we stay on the current 2024-2028 period, and we will come with a period beyond as soon as we can give you a number that is solid enough, i.e., that these uncertainties are removed. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Now hand it over to Barclays, T emi. Do you still have some questions for us? Yes, I do. Thanks, Stephanie. Good morning, everyone. Congratulations on the strong results this morning. Two questions and one clarification from me, if I might. You noted delays on the foundation of the Princess Elisabeth Island due to the preparation taking longer than expected. Can I just confirm whether this isn't isolated to the energy island and your other projects are not likely to experience delays? That's the first one. The second one has got to do with the German regulation. Marco, you noted some of the parameters being more linked to market parameters. Apart from the cost of debt, what other parameters will be linked? It'll be helpful to have an idea of that. Maybe the clarification. Bernard, you noted the world is changing. There's a lot of uncertainty for the outlook. In the past, you've talked about discussions with regional neighbors on cost sharing being one of the things that help you get a view on the outlook. How have those discussions evolved over the last couple of months? Well, maybe on the delay and the last one. On the delay, the Princess Elisabeth Island is a specific project with a clear incentive from Europe, a subsidy for Europe, where there was a clear deadline that was in there. We've seen that we've started the work on the Vlissingen Yard later than foreseen. Despite the good weather, by the way, because we are progressing pretty well, we cannot be completely finished by June 26th, which was one of the conditions to get the full EC fund. Personally, I think that we should continue to have this EC fund, given that basically we are moving fast and we are not coming that far away from the deadline. Europe wants to push for an energy transition. But the rule is the rule. I think it's cautious that we reflect what is today in the subsidy we receive, the conditions, and we say we won't be ready by June 30th, fully completed. We take it pro rata, as we explained earlier. But this is, of course, a specific situation to that specific project. Every project has their specific dynamic that are different from the one to the other. But here, yes, it's an isolated issue on that one. It's a subsidy that is related to that specific project. That's on that question. On the collaboration, I think you relate to what we said, and it was shown also in the video of the work done by OTC. Twelve TSOs have joined efforts to develop a plan to make of the North Sea the electricity powerhouse of the future, which we believe is really important, that their collaboration is very, very important. But in that respect, we also see that the current cost allocation, which is always between two countries, comes to its limits. Because if we want to make for a region or for Europe a powerhouse on the North Sea, we need to build some interconnectors where for some countries that are basically long in renewables, the interest is less important than for some other countries that are shorter in renewables. If you apply just the rule between two countries as it is today, it doesn't work. That's why we are working and suggesting, because it's not up to us to decide with the other twelve TSOs on a methodology of cost allocation to make sure that these critical investments for a region happen. Despite the fact that the benefits for one country might be less than for another country, given that the benefits are important for the whole region. We want to propose that amongst others. That's why the Hamburg Summit next year is important. We want to propose that to the different governments during the different meetings leading up to the Hamburg Summit. Yeah, maybe on the determination of the factors. I understood you in a way that once the framework has been set at the beginning of next year, then there will be a follow-up from the BNetzA, which explicitly puts things in place which need to be applied in the framework. The question is then related to which are these things. To your named cost of debts, of course, there's still a question whether it's a reference rate, for instance, based on a rating or a more pass-through, so a real cost pass-through logic. That's, for instance, a discussion which needs to be taken in a framework. Once a decision has been made one or the other day, it could then be one of the ingredients. So if you go for a reference rate, then of course they will determine a kind of logic how to find that reference rate and put it in place for the first application in the next regular two periods. Return on equity is something which will be determined relatively late in the process. While the logic will then be a little bit derived at the beginning of next year so that everybody can already make the Maths to some degree, knowing that, of course, the big discussion will be all the time around the risk premium on that one. That is something we don't have visibility yet. So this will be something which will be determined at the later stage and connected to the incentives. A little bit similar, what is the basis for that one will be fixed just before the regulatory period is going to be started so that this can be something we can put into the grid fees. Of course, the assumption is that once the scheme has been put in place, we can, of course, make some computation what it will be about. Coming back on the cost sharing, cost allocation, I gave you the whole picture and the broad picture of OTC and the North Sea, but we are also concerned with some of our projects immediately. We talked about the Bornholm Island project, which is a very important project for us. You know that Bornholm is not in Germany. So it's a collaboration between Germany and Denmark. We are very, very happy that even if the recipe is not known yet, but the principle for Germany and Denmark to work together on a different cost allocation because there is a need that is different between Germany and Denmark is agreed. Now they will work on how do they allocate this cost, not only on the transmission, but also on the parks, because the generation parks are in Denmark, but will serve mainly also Germany. That's a typical example where we see the limits of the traditional cost allocation and where generally we are trying to support a more regional approach. On individual projects, we are happy. One that is very important for us, Bornholm, we are happy to see that the two governments have agreed to work on another formula to respect the needs, different needs of the two countries in presence. Thank you. Thank you for your questions. Let's now give the floor to Juan from Kepler Cheuvreux. Juan, please go ahead. Hi, thank you. Good morning, everyone. I have two follow-up questions, if I may. The first one is on German regulation. You signaled that probably returns will be kept or could go up under the new regulation. How do you see the affordability for consumers on this framework with greater assets coming in, higher returns being kept or increasing when we see that there's a big push for affordability in Germany currently? The second one is on Belgium. Because if I'm not mistaken, Q1, you were expecting 2.8% on the old load. Now I see that it's at 3.1%. But Yannick just signaled that actually interest rates have been going down since the beginning of the year. So I would like to see better what are you expecting here for the end of the year, that actually rates go up for the end of the year and how this could impact your return on equity and your guidance. These would be the two questions, maybe. Thanks. Yeah, okay. Maybe I take the first one and then you can take the second question. So on the regulation, I mean, it's all over Europe, the question on affordability. It's not specifically a German topic. So the reference we made is, of course, the determination of the 4% post-tax rate, which is currently put in place for all investments to be made prior to 2023. That's, of course, something which is rather low, taking the 5.6% or 5.5%, which we currently do see for all investment from 2024 onwards or commissioning in 2025. You do see there is already a difference, which the BNSR by itself has been seen as necessity to close. That's what my statement has referred to. On the affordability in connection to the return, I must admit that there's two sides of the coins, and that's, of course, understood. It's affordability for the consumer, right? There are big levers in the grid fees on that one too. On the other side, it's affordability for us as well, as we need to spend the money and raise the money to finance the CapEx. To give it a little bit of perspective, what the government is currently working on in Germany is a kind of, on one hand, reduction of the taxes on electricity consumption. Secondly, a kind of co-financing of the grid fees of the TSOs. A little bit similar mechanism, what they have applied during the energy crisis, where they financed a part of the revenue cap of the four German electricity TSOs via the state budget. A little bit a similar mechanism is something they are working on, which could reduce then the expense of the energy-intensive industry as well as of the consumer to some degree. That's a little bit a kind of transitional support for the industry, knowing that, of course, it's not easy then to go out at a certain stage. In particular, if we do see a ramp-up of the consumption, what is the underlying assumption that is going to happen one or the other day due to the decarbonization and further electrification. That then the relative burden is on an acceptable level. To bridge that period from now till then, that's something they envisage. However, taking the structure into account, it's still the case that the revenue caps of the four TSOs in Germany are consisting only of 25% infrastructure costs for the time being. Vast majority are system operating costs. The biggest buckets are redispatch costs, so curtailment on congestions. Of course, the assumption is that while increasing capacity, this congestion will go down to a certain degree, which gives a kind of counterbalance on the further cost increase. So that's a little bit the system and the argumentation which we are in. Therefore, to be it bluntly, the revenues itself are not heavily impacted by the returns. It's more the depreciation and the system operation costs, which plays a much bigger role there. That being said, we are mindful of that discussion that, of course, the bill needs to be affordable for everybody. For the rates, the comment that I made was linked to the question on the hybrids. There, what we have seen compared to the beginning of the year, we are following quite well on how hybrids are performing, we've seen there for the hybrids that Elia Group would issue, that there the coupon would have been reduced or will reduce. Currently, that would be in the area of 5%, where earlier this year, this was more around 5.5%. That's why I made this comment. Linked to Belgium, when we made the projections on the risk-free rate for Belgium, we used the projections which were made by the Federal Plan Office, which was initially 2.8% for the year 2025. As you've seen quite recently, the Federal Plan Office has revised that to 3.1%, which is also what we have used in the guidance and which is matching more or less exactly the average of the OLO over the first half of the year. We are quite comfortable knowing that we have already six months of risk-free rate, that that will be more or less where we end up, knowing, of course, that 10% variability in the risk-free rate will have an impact in Belgium of around EUR 2.5 million on the net results. 10 basis points. 10 basis points. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you very much. Thank you, Juan. Now, Mafalda from Goldman. Please go ahead, Mafalda. Yes, Tiffany, thank you very much for taking my questions. I think most of them have been answered already, but maybe a remaining one about some, there were some press articles recently with some comments from the German government about potentially having a look again whether some consolidation among the German TSOs would make sense. I mean, I appreciate this might be highly theoretical, but just to understand if this is an active discussion with you at this stage and even if not, what could be the potential impacts for Elia? Thank you. Well, no, I think, you know, the German government can also add up the math and see how much investment is needed if you add up the four TSOs together. What we hear and understand is that also there are huge other types of investments that are happening at the moment, especially in the defense and other areas. As you know, we've worked very, very well and closely with KfW in 50Hertz, and I think it's a very good partnership. So far, we understand, but never say never, but we understand that it doesn't seem the priority at the moment. Also because they are at least, and I talk for Elia Group and 50Hertz, I don't know what's happened at the others, but they are very happy about the collaboration, about the way we work together and their participation. In 50Hertz at the level where it is today. But there is no structural discussion on that topic. I don't think, but I'm not there, I don't think it's a hot topic at the moment. Thank you. Thank you, Mafalda. Then maybe Dirk from ING. Dirk, you still have some questions for us? Yes, good morning to you all. I have some questions left, maybe also on the Elisabeth Island. It doesn't sound like a huge delay, if I understood the comments correctly, but can you maybe confirm that the timing and start of electricity flows from the initial offshore wind projects is not at risk, as you can say, and maybe judge at this point? The other question on the Elisabeth Island is, can you share the storyline on these variation orders and the dispute you have there, maybe some background for us to get a view? And the second question I have is on the supply chain more generally. Also, has it affected the HVDC decision and the price inflation? Do you see that easing on the key components now that the U.S. has more or less stopped new developments and maybe some postponements here and there in Northern Europe? Do you see the supply chains easing a bit? Thanks. Maybe on the Princess Elisabeth Island timing, I maybe need to clarify or be sure about which timing we are talking about because there are many timings. The timing related to the European subsidy is a timing to the build of the island, which I think needed to happen by June 30, 2026. It's not by June 30, 2026 that we will have all the island connected and so on and so forth. I suppose that's clear to you. It's true that the island, and I'm talking under control of my colleague, but we are expecting that it's rather end of 2026 that we should have the island completed than June 2026. That's where the delay is limited, but the rule of the subsidy is the rule of the subsidy, and that's what we apply. In terms of the electrification and the commissioning of the first phase of the island, we are still in the timing we had foreseen. There is no reason to change that versus the last communication we had. But we are, of course, and that's a puzzle, dependent on different decisions. As you know, the very good news is that the Belgian government has decided to basically confirm the first 2.1 GW of electric generation in there. But you also know that they relaunch a tender for the very first park, which might have an impact. We'll have to see how things happen. It's out of our control there. We are fine on that. But these are uncertainties we've been dealing with along the project. That's why for the moment we keep the current deadline as they are. Basically we will see how it moves on with some factors that we don't control so well, which are, of course, the generation, which is not in our camp. On the dispute, I just wanted to be sure you could clarify the dispute you're talking about. If it is about the DC component and the difference, that's what you're referring to, which is not really a dispute because these costs were not engaged and were not even in our CapEx plan, but there was an analysis. Or are you referring to other topics? No, I think in the half-year report, there's a remark in the sidelines on the dispute, and I think it reads like a dispute with a contractor. You're talking to TM Edison, right? Well, listen, there, it's also the life of projects and contracts where you can have a situation where there might be a deviation or an expected deviation in realization of the contract. It's, I think, open and public that one of our suppliers for the island has introduced, has told us that they had difficulties to keep their budget and their timing. But we have also a contract. At this moment, we have discussions with them to understand how deep the problem is. But we also believe that it's important to respect the contract that we have in place. The discussions are ongoing, but it's difficult to bring new elements on that. Also, as you could see in the film, at least in terms of delay of the island, maybe helped by the good weather of the moment, but it's moving quite well given that we have already seven caissons out of the 23 in the sea. Let's see, but for the moment, no specific update that we can give on that one. Maybe to a word on supply chain in general, it remains tight, that's fair to say. In particular, as of course, the reason why we stick to our guidance on the CapEx plan is simply that we all booked that to a certain degree. That's been done all over Europe. There's quite a heavy pipeline on the supply chain, in particular on the elements you mentioned, like HVDC, leading up to the beginning of the 2030s. From then onwards, we do see some flexibility on the supplier side. That is, of course, helpful in putting all the upcoming projects into a certain order from the price perspective. There's another observation we do see. It's not going down for the time being, but the dynamics on the increase have been shrunken. There is a kind of more stable territory, which we are talking about, knowing that, of course, it's still volatile due to the simple fact that on one end, the exposure to transportation is still big. On raw material as well. There's a fluctuation on copper, on all this stuff, which you might know. That's still something to be handled. Of course, we are looking from a procurement side into that, whether we can protect ourselves in de-risking future orders on material already, whether we want to, whether we are able to, and of course, whether this is something the regulator has accepted as, of course, one or the other day, it could go the other way around as well. That's something we do not want to expose neither. Therefore, I would say there's a quite small optimism that we are coming into territory, which is more predictable in the future for any calls of equipment and material. Thank you. Thank you very much, Dirk. I think that we are now at the end of the Q&A. I believe we all had, all our analysts had the time to ask us questions. Thank you for that, for the interesting questions. If you have any follow-up questions, obviously, you know how to get in touch with me or the team. I will now hand it back to Marlene to wind up today's call. Thank you, Stéphanie. I would like to close this presentation with thanking some people, Yannick, Stéphanie, Bernard, and Marco. Thank you for being here with us and for your contributions. Thank also to our colleagues behind the scenes, Hélène, Marilyn, and Rigouarte. We would also like to thank the technical team behind the scenes. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us and enjoy your summer.