Good morning, and welcome to the half year results call of Elia Group. I'm Stéphanie Luyten, Head of Investor Relations, M&A, and Financial Partnerships, and here with me are our Group CEO and CFO, Bernard Gustin, Marco Nix. Welcome, both. Good morning. Good morning. Before we start, please take a moment to read the disclaimer on screen. It contains the important information that we kindly ask you to review. As always, today's slides are available on our website, and the full script will also be published shortly after the live stream event ends. Bernard, if we take a step back from the numbers and look at the first half of the year, what are for you the most significant developments of Elia Group? Well, good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. I'm pleased to report that the first half of 2026 has been another period of solid execution for Elia Group. Across Belgium and Germany, our teams continue to deliver strong operation and financial performance, while advancing one of Europe's largest electricity infrastructure investment programs. What stands out to me is our ability to combine growth with discipline. We continued to invest at scale, strengthened our capital structure, made tangible progress on key infrastructure projects, and reinforced the foundations needed to support the energy transition and our long-term growth ambitions. These results reflect the commitment and expertise of our colleagues across the group who work every day to build the electricity system that Europe will need tomorrow. Before we discuss our financial and operational performance in more detail, it's worth taking a step back and looking at the broader context in which we operate. The world around us continues to evolve at fast pace. The energy landscape, technology, geopolitics, industrial demand, and societal expectations are all changing very rapidly. If we want to continue creating long-term value, we need to remain closely connected to those needs. Our role is not simply to build infrastructure. It is to understand where society is heading and ensure that the electricity system evolves with it. Increasingly, the energy transition is no longer viewed solely as a climate imperative. It has become a matter of competitiveness, energy, sovereignty, and resilience. Europe's dependence on imported fossil fuels has repeatedly exposed it to geopolitical shocks. This has driven up energy costs, weakened industrial competitiveness, and highlighted the importance of strengthening energy security. Of course, the energy crisis demonstrated the strategic value of electrification and renewable energy integration. Both can help reduce reliance on imported fuels and limit exposure to volatile global markets. Today, around 70% of E.U. electricity is already generated from homegrown, clean energy sources. Yet, the electrification of energy demand has remained stuck at 23% for more than a decade. Clearly, accelerating electrification across industry, transport, and buildings is essential. Recognizing this, the European Commission is assessing an indicative electrification target of 46% by 2040. This could reduce the E.U.'s fossil fuel import bill by EUR 260 billion a year. Achieving this ambition will require investment at scale, supported by stable and predictable market frameworks. Last month, European Union energy ministers reached agreement on a common negotiating position for the European Grid Package. While the legislative process is ongoing, its direction is significant. The package reinforces many of the principles that Elia Group has advocated for years: coordinated infrastructure planning, accelerated permitting procedure, stronger interconnections, and deeper cross-border cooperation. In short, Europe is increasingly recognizing that achieving its climate competitiveness and security of supply objectives requires not only renewable generation, but also the infrastructure capable of transporting clean electricity where it is needed. The message across Europe is becoming increasingly clear. The grid is not a consequence of the energy transition. The grid is a precondition for it, and that creates a substantial long-term opportunity for our group. At the same time, it would be misleading to suggest that the challenge is simply about building more infrastructure. The next phase of the energy transition is fundamentally about execution. Can we build the required infrastructure fast enough? Can permitting process keep pace with growing demand? Can supply chain deliver the required equipment? Can society support infrastructure development at the scale required? Can the necessary capital be mobilized? Can regulation provide sufficient predictability? These are not separated challenges, they are all dimensions of the same execution challenge. That's right. A supportive regulatory framework remains a critical enabler of our investment program. If we look first at Belgium, we have reached an important milestone at the end of June with the publication by the Belgian regulator of the final tariff methodology for the 2028, 2031 period. Overall, we see this as a constructive outcome. The regulator has clearly opted for stability and continuity, preserving the key strengths of the current framework and providing greater visibility through 2031. Importantly, the framework continues to offer strong incentives to deliver. In fact, the number of incentives increases from 16-18 with a stronger focus on efficient execution of our growing investment program. In particular, the new incentives encourage projects to be delivered on budget and support a timely reinforcement of the Belgian grid as electrification continues to accelerate. From a returns perspective, these incentives become even more meaningful and are expected to contribute around 2 percentage points to the return on equity. This ensures strong alignment between shareholder returns and a broad set of societal objectives, including efficient delivery of the critical infrastructure for society. Based on current assumptions and as highlighted on the slide, the framework supports an average post-tax regulatory return on equity of around 8%, including the fair remuneration component, incentives, and the unchanged MACH-Prämie. Overall, we believe this framework provides a good balance. It offers investors greater visibility while supporting the significant investments needed to strengthen Belgium's electricity systems for the years ahead. With an eye on Germany, the regulatory consultation process is still ongoing. BNetzA continues to engage with stakeholders ahead of the final framework determination expected later this year. While the process is still at draft stage, the proposals already provide greater visibility on a number of key principles. These include a harmonized framework for onshore and offshore activities, a unified return on equity across all assets, a cost-plus model with incentive mechanisms, and a standardized approach to capital remuneration and cost of debt. Importantly, the regulator has adopted a comprehensive consultation process, and we remain actively engaged in the dialogue. The final methodology is expected to be determined in autumn 2026, while the key financial parameters, including return on equity and cost of debts, are expected to be finalized during the year 2027, ahead of the start of the new regulatory period. At this stage, it remains too early to draw definite conclusions, but we are encouraged by the constructive stakeholder engagement and the recognition of the significant investment needs required to support Germany's energy transition. Let me now turn to a second challenge, which is procurement and supply chain resilience. The scale of infrastructure required across Europe is unprecedented. This puts increasing pressure on specialized equipment manufacturers, engineering resources, and critical supply chains. Over recent years, we've witnessed substantial cost inflation in key technologies, particularly in HVDC infrastructure and offshore equipment. The Princess Elisabeth Energy Island illustrates both the opportunity and the challenge. The strategic importance of the project remains unchanged. It will serve as the world's first artificial energy island and become a cornerstone of Belgium's future offshore energy system. At the same time, unprecedented increases in the cost of HVDC technology have required project optimization to ensure affordability while preserving the strategic objectives. Managing these supply chain realities has therefore become a strategic capability in its own right. At Elia Group, our scale increasingly provides an advantage. Our infrastructure program spans Belgium, Germany, the North Sea, and the Baltic Sea, allowing us to build long-term partnerships with suppliers and create visibility across the value chain. Example of this approach can be seen in recent contract award related to LanWin 6 or ongoing offshore development and the broader offshore collaboration initiatives in which we play a leading role. These projects contribute not only to the energy transition, but also to the development of Europe's industrial supply chain. LanWin 6 is indeed a project we are very proud of, in many ways, it is far more than an energy infrastructure project. It's one of the largest industrial programs currently being developed in Europe. At a time when the continent is seeking to strengthen its competitiveness and strategic autonomy, projects of this scale drive investment, stimulate innovation, and sustain entire industrial value chains By bringing together manufacturers, engineers, construction companies, and technology providers, LanWin 6 creates high-value economic activity and skilled employment. Recent contract awards linked to the project are expected to support the creation of up to 1,000 new jobs in the Rostock region, underlying its tangible economic impact across Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. At the same time, infrastructure that is needed for a climate-neutral future is being built. It's a powerful example of how the energy transition can also support an industrial renaissance in Europe. Building out the grid through projects of this scale is essential, because we are seeing a rapid increase in demand for grid access across both Belgium and Germany. When people hear the word congestion, they often assume the grid is simply too small. In reality, the picture is more complex. Many connection requests are submitted long before projects are really ready to move forward. As a result, requested capacity can significantly exceed the demand that will actually materialize. The challenge is therefore not to build more infrastructure. It's also to ensure that available capacity is allocated efficiently. Building the grid for every theoretical scenario would be neither affordable nor efficient. Instead, we need a clearer view of future demand and mechanisms that prioritize projects that are mature, credible, and deliver the greatest value for society. That's why regulators and system operators across Europe are moving away from a purely first come, first served approach. Greater emphasis is being placed on project maturity, smarter queue management, and more flexible connection arrangements. There, Germany is a very good example. While continuing its major grid expansion program, it introduced a maturity-based connection framework in 2026. Under this framework, projects are prioritized based on factors such as permitting progress, technical readiness, financial viability, and system value. Additional reforms are also being considered to better align new generation projects with grid development and reduce congestion cost. Ultimately, the objective is clear. Not simply to build more grid, but to ensure that scarce network capacity is used where it delivers the greatest benefit for consumers, the economy, and the energy transition. That is exactly why, in our view, robust long-term planning is becoming increasingly important. As Bernard highlighted, the challenge is not simply to build more infrastructure, but to ensure that investments are aligned with future system needs and deliver the greatest value for society. In both Germany and Belgium, these investment decisions are guided by formal grid development planning processes that translate future energy scenarios into concrete infrastructure requirements. Let us briefly look at where these planning processes currently stand. Starting with Germany, the current network development plan is built around three scenarios that reflect different assumptions on electrification, renewable development, and the role of hydrogen. What is encouraging is that all three scenarios point towards significant growth in electricity demand. The real debate is therefore no longer whether electrification will happen, but rather how quickly it will happen and how much demand will ultimately materialize. This is exactly what the current network development plan process is trying to address. The four German TSOs have completed a comprehensive scenario analysis and submitted a second draft of the plan to the regulator, BNetzA, earlier this year. The process attracted close to 1,000 stakeholder responses. These covered topics such as electrification, battery storage, hydrogen, flexible loads, and offshore development. Depending on the final scenario pathway, the plan currently points to total grid investments between EUR 365 billion and EUR 392 billion through 2045. We are currently in the public consultation phase, which remains open until the end of August. After that, BNetzA will take over the review process and move towards confirmation of the final network development plan. We expect much greater clarity on the preferred pathway and the resulting long-term investment needs during the second half of the year 2026 or early 2027. Turning now to Belgium, the Federal Development Plan is a key planning instrument for Belgium's energy transition. It is updated every four years and looks ahead over a 10-year horizon, providing a long-term view of the infrastructure required to support the country's evolving energy system. The new plan is being developed in a significantly more complex context than the previous edition, published in 2022. Alongside decarbonization objectives, questions around security of supply, affordability, industrial competitiveness, and energy sovereignty have become increasingly important in shaping energy policy choices. Against this backdrop, the plan seeks to define how Belgian electricity systems should evolve through a combination of electrification, low carbon generation, increased flexibility, and stronger market integration, all supported by a robust and resilient transmission network. The draft plan was submitted to the CREG at the end of June. Its official advice on the draft development plan is expected to be published in late August or early September. A public consultation will follow later this year before the plan is submitted to the Federal Ministry of Energy in 2027 and ultimately approved. The German and Belgian planning exercise point in the same direction. The energy transition is no longer only a climate story. It is increasingly about competitiveness, affordability, and energy security. That gives us the confidence that the infrastructure we are building today will remain highly relevant over the coming decades. Identifying the need for infrastructure is only part of the challenge. As Bernard highlighted earlier, the next phase of the energy transition is ultimately about execution. The key question is: can we deliver it on the ground? That is where we have made significant progress during the first half of the year. Let me start perhaps with the Princess Elisabeth Island. During the first six months of the year, we have completed the fabrication of all caissons and continued offshore installation activities. By the end of June, 19 of the 23 caissons have already been successfully installed offshore. This marks another important step in the construction of the world's first artificial energy island. We also continue to advance the island's electrical infrastructure with manufacturing of the AC modules and offshore cables progressing according to plan. Let's have a look. I'm always impressed by this video and shows that what we do is technology at its peak. Another major milestone was achieved on Ventilus. Following several years of preparation, the environmental permits were granted in April, allowing us to move from planning into execution, with construction work starting this summer. As a reminder, Ventilus will provide around 6 GW of transmission capacity through a new 380 kV corridor in West Flanders and will play a critical role in integrating additional offshore renewable energy into Belgium's electricity system. Beyond Ventilus, we continued to reinforce the backbone of the Belgian transmission grid. During the first half of the year, we commissioned the Massenhoven-Meerhout-Van Eyck 380 kV transmission line, started reinforcement works on the Gramme-Van Eyck corridor, and continued progress on the reinforcements between Mercator and Brugge. We also reached an important permitting milestone on the Lonny-Achêne-Gramme project. Following the granting of the urban planning permit in May, construction activities are expected to begin in 2027. In addition to strengthening the transmission backbone, we're also investing in to support a growing industrial demand and cross-border exchanges. Good progress continued on Baekeland, our new 380/150 kV substation in the Port of Ghent. Once operational, it will provide additional capacity to support industrial electrification in one of Belgium's most important economic regions. We also successfully commissioned the new Kallo-Mercator transmission circuit as part of the Brabo III project. This represents another important step in completing the 380 kV loop around the Port of Antwerp and further strengthening interconnection capacity with the Netherlands. Together, these projects demonstrate that Belgian energy transition is increasingly becoming visible through concrete infrastructure investments. Our execution challenge extends well beyond Belgium. Germany is currently delivering one of the most ambitious grid expansion programs in Europe with major developments both on onshore and offshore. Marco, can you walk us through some of the achievements of 50Hertz? Absolutely. 50Hertz continued to make substantial progress on a range of strategic projects. These projects are strengthening energy security, enabling the integration of renewable energy at scale, and laying the foundations for climate-neutral economy. Importantly, this progress was evident both onshore and offshore. An important milestone was reached with Ostwind 3, the grid connection project for the Windanker offshore wind farm. The offshore platform was successfully installed in the Baltic Sea around 40 km northeast of the island Rügen. Once operational, the platform will collect electricity from the 300 MW Windanker wind farm, transform it to 220 kV, and transmit it to the new Stilow substation onshore. This is an important step. Not only because Ostwind 3 is progressing towards completion, but also because this is the first offshore platform in the Baltic Sea for which 50Hertz is fully responsible for construction and operation. It therefore marks another step in the development of our offshore capabilities. It also demonstrates our ability to deliver complex infrastructure in challenging marine environments. At the same time, we continue to advance the next generation of offshore connections. For Ostwind 4, application documents were submitted for the remaining route sections. This means that all sections of the project are now undergoing approval. Ostwind 4 will be the first 2 GW HVDC offshore grid connection in the German Baltic Sea. Once completed, it will connect offshore wind generation northeast of Rügen to the transmission grid via the Stilow substation. This is a significant step up in scale compared with earlier Baltic Sea offshore connections and reflects the increasing maturity and ambition of Germany's offshore wind expansion. We also reached a major milestone in the North Sea. In June, 50Hertz awarded a EUR 1 billion contract for the construction of a 2 GW offshore converter system for the North Sea Connector 2 program. This is particularly important because for the very first time, offshore converter platforms of this new 2 GW standard will be built predominantly in Germany. North Sea Connector 2 comprises the offshore grid connection LanWin 6, as Bernard pointed out, and the DC link DC32 as part of the NordOstLink. Beyond the project itself, this is also an industrial milestone. It supports the development of offshore manufacturing capabilities in Germany. It also strengthens the European supply chain for critical energy infrastructure. As Bernard mentioned earlier, supply chain resilience is becoming a strategic capability in its own right. Projects like this show how grid investments can also contribute to industrial value creation, skilled employment, and technological expertise in Europe. Cross-border cooperation also remained a key theme for 50Hertz and therefore the group during the first half of the year. In January, Germany and Denmark reached an agreement on the Bornholm Energy Island project. This is a first of its kind hybrid offshore interconnector that will connect offshore wind generation in the Baltic Sea with both the Danish and the German electricity system. The project is expected to connect 3 GW of offshore wind capacity and will combine renewable integration with cross-border electricity exchange. Another example of this cross-border approach is the Baltic-German PowerLink. In February, Germany, Latvia, and Lithuania signed a joint declaration of intent to explore a new hybrid electricity connection in the Baltic Sea. The project would connect Germany with the Baltic countries through an approximately 600-km submarine cable and could integrate around 2 GW of offshore wind capacity. The transmission system operators involved have been tasked with developing a technical and economic implementation concept. A decision on the next steps is expected later this year. While still at an early stage, the project underlies the growing importance of the Baltic Sea as a strategic energy region and the role of interconnections in strengthening European security of supply. This is exactly what disciplined execution at scale means for us. It is not only about delivering individual projects, but about building the infrastructure, capabilities, and partnerships that Europe will need for a more electrified, resilient, and interconnected energy system. Alongside our focus on grid development, digitalization, and AI, we continue to place a strong emphasis on proactively securing the financial resources needed to deliver our investment program and to support our long-term growth ambitions. At the same time, we continue to assess opportunities where we can lever our expertise and partnerships in support of Europe's evolving energy infrastructure needs. This brings me to an important development that we announced this morning, our planned investment in project Tarchon, a subsea interconnector that will connect the U.K. and Germany through WindGrid, our grouped project developer. Tarchon is a 1.4 GW HVDC interconnector designed to facilitate cross-border electricity exchanges, strengthen security of supply, and support the integration of renewable energy across European markets. As a regulated transmission asset, it is progressing through the relevant regulatory approvals processes in both countries. What makes this opportunity particularly attractive for us is the partnership structure. CPP Investments will be the majority investor and provide most of the capital, while WindGrid will participate as a minority strategic partner with a 25% look-through stake. This allows us to contribute our transmission expertise while maintaining a disciplined approach to capital allocation. WindGrid's share of the project equity is expected to amount to approximately GBP 200 million over the construction period, which is expected to last until the mid-30s. The majority of the project funding is expected to come through project financing, resulting in a measured capital commitment for Elia Group within the context of our broader investment program. In addition to the financial discipline of the structure, the transaction further strengthens our partnership with CPP Investments, a long-term partner that shares our conviction in the critical role of transmission infrastructure in the energy transition. Bernard, perhaps you can elaborate how Tarchon fits within the overall strategy of Elia Group. Yes. Thank you, Stéphanie. From a group perspective, Tarchon is a very good example of how we can leverage the capabilities we've built over decades as a transmission system operator beyond our core regulated business in Belgium and Germany. While our primary focus remains the successful delivery of the unprecedented investment programs in our home markets, we also see selective opportunities to apply our expertise in developing, building, and operating transmission infrastructure in areas that are closely aligned with our core competencies, and Tarchon fits that framework particularly well. It is a regulated transmission asset. It supports European market integration and the energy transition, and it allows us to participate alongside a trusted long-term partner through a structure that preserves our financial flexibility. Importantly, this is not about pursuing growth for growth's sake. It's about being selective and investing in opportunities where we can create value through our expertise while maintaining a disciplined approach to risk and capital allocation. More broadly, the transaction illustrates our strategy of combining strong execution in our regulated business with targeted partnerships that allows us to support Europe's energy transition beyond our existing footprint. Together with CPP Investments, we are able to participate in attractive infrastructure opportunities while keeping our focus firmly on delivering the substantial investment programs that lie ahead in Belgium and Germany. This balanced approach enables us to create long-term value for all stakeholders while supporting the development of the infrastructure needed for a decarbonized European energy system. This also underlines the importance of maintaining a disciplined financial approach as we continue to execute on our investment program and pursue selected growth opportunities. Let me take you through the key financing transactions completed during the first half and how they support the group's financial position. We continue to execute our funding toolkit in a disciplined way. The key milestone was the issuance of a EUR 900 million hybrid bond. This provides attractive non-dilutive equity-like funding with 50% equity credit from Standard & Poor's and further strengthen our capital structure. In parallel, we reinforce our liquidity position by signing more than EUR 2 billion of revolving credit facilities across the group. This enhances financial flexibility and supports the delivery of our substantial investment program. We also continue to diversify our funding sources through additional debt financing initiatives, including an inaugural short-term note issuance at 50Hertz. At the same time, the group's strong liquidity position allows us to repay early the EUR 300 million term loan maturing in 2027. Overall, these transactions further de-risk our funding profile, support our credit metrics, and ensure we remain well-positioned to fund the next phase of our growth. If you look at the group's net debt position, net debt excluding EG increased by only EUR 8.5 billion- EUR 14.6 billion. This moderate increase reflects the strength of our funding profile. We continue to execute our investment program while maintaining balance sheet discipline. During the first half of the year, we invested around EUR 1.9 billion across Belgium and Germany. This was funded through a combination of operating cash flow, proceeds from the 2025 equity raise, and disciplined use of debt funding. Our financing profile remains robust with an average cost of debt of 3%. Furthermore, our debt portfolio is entirely fixed-rated, providing protection against interest rate volatility, while our BBB rating with stable outlook from S&P supports continued access to capital markets. Please note that the hybrid bonds are not reported as net debt, as they are accounted for in equity. Let me now take a moment to elaborate on some of the headline figures for the first half of the year. It was another period of solid execution for Elia Group. Across Belgium and Germany, we continued to deliver on our investment program while maintaining strong operational and financial performance. As I just mentioned, CapEx reached EUR 1.9 billion, reflecting continued progress across our infrastructure portfolio. While investment spending is naturally weighted towards the second half of the year, as it has constantly been the case in previous years, the underlying execution of our program remains on track. At the same time, net profit, Elia Group share increased to almost EUR 349 million. We also continue to strengthen our organization, welcoming more than 330 new colleagues during the first half of the year. We made further progress on our sustainability ambitions through our sustainability program, ActNow. Let us now take a more detailed look at the financials for the first half of the year. The adjusted profit for the period increased by 26% to almost EUR 411 million, reflecting strong performance across all segments. Belgium and Germany continued to benefit from asset growth and higher underlying returns, driven by increased interest rates, while the contribution from our International and Holding Activities also improved. Our third segment, previously referred to as the non-regulated and Nemo Link segment, has been renamed International and Holding Activities and will be presented as such going forward. Profit for the period amounted to almost EUR 420 million. This includes a EUR 9 million positive one-off item related to the fiscal year 2023, after Elia Group successfully challenged the discretionary tax treatment that had previously applied when combining the group contribution regime with the dividend received deduction regime for that year. After non-controlling interests and hybrid remuneration, including the newly issued hybrid, net profit attributable to Elia Group shareholders reached EUR 348.7 million. If we turn to the profit evolution in Belgium, adjusted net profit increased by 25.8% to EUR 163 million. The main driver was a higher fair remuneration, up by EUR 21 million. This reflects the continued growth of our asset base, the full-year benefit of the 1 billion equity injection completed last year, and higher regulated returns driven by the higher Belgian risk-free rate. We also saw a positive contribution from incentives, reflecting, again, another solid operational performance over the first half of the year. While the growing level of assets under construction led to higher capitalized borrowing costs. In addition, the regulatory review of the saldi 2025 resulted in lower rejections. All these positive effects were partially offset by the one-off tariff coverage of the costs linked to the capital increase that benefited last year results. Overall, the results demonstrate the continued strength of the Belgian regulatory framework and our stability and ability to translate sustained investment growth into earnings growth. Moving now to Germany. Adjusted profit for the period increased by almost 21% to EUR 250.8 million. This growth was mainly driven by the continued expansion of the regulated asset base with the execution of the investment program. In addition, the higher equity remuneration rate compared to last year provided further support to earnings. These positive drivers were partially offset by higher depreciation and operating expenses, both consistent with a business undergoing substantial growth. Financing costs also increased as additional debt was raised to support the investment program. This effect was partially mitigated by the capitalization of borrowing costs on assets under construction. Overall, the message remains unchanged. Continued investment and asset growth are translating into higher earnings and demonstrate the strength of the German growth platform. Finally, turning to our international and holding activities. The adjusted net loss improved significantly, decreasing by EUR 8.6 million to -EUR 3.2 million. The main driver was a stronger contribution from the holding segment, which improved by EUR 11.5 million. Following the hybrid issuance and the group's strong liquidity position, the EUR 300 million term loan maturing in 2027 was repaid early. This resulted in lower net financing costs, while the cost of the hybrids are accounted for in equity. The holding also benefited from a EUR 6.8 million tax deduction following last year's change in law with regard to group contribution, while operating costs increased further. The positive evolution was partially offset by higher project development expenses at WindGrid, reflecting continued work on future growth opportunities. Nemo Link continued to perform very strongly operationally, maintaining 100% availability while its financial contribution was marginally lower due to the regulatory cap mechanism and lower power price spreads. As a result, the adjusted profit for the period amounted to a small loss of EUR 3.2 million. Profit for the period, however, reached EUR 5.7 million, benefiting from a EUR 9 million positive one-off tax item linked to a successful claim on the FY 2023 tax declaration following changes in the Belgian tax law. Marco, let me now hand back over to you for the outlook for the remainder of the year. Thank you, Stéphanie. Following the solid first half-year performance, we are of course reiterating our full-year guidance and continue to expect the net profit Elia Group share to range between EUR 690 million and EUR 740 million. This guidance includes the hybrid costs. For Belgium, the higher OLO rates observed over recent months support our expectations to deliver adjusted net profit towards the upper end of the EUR 290 million- EUR 320 million guidance range. We also remain on track to invest around EUR 1.7 billion in the Belgium grid in 2026. In Germany, we expect adjusted net profit to range between EUR 585 million and EUR 625 million, based on a regulatory equity return base rate of 3%. Full year investments are now expected to amount to around EUR 4.8 billion compared to our previous outlook. As mentioned earlier, this reflects a modest reduction driven by project phasing effects, optimized payment schedules, and procurement efficiencies across several major offshore projects. Importantly, the underlying investment program and long-term growth trajectory remain unchanged. Finally, turning to our international and holding activities. We now expect this segment to contribute around breakeven to adjusted net profit in 2026, compared with our previous expectation of a loss between EUR 10 million and EUR 30 million. This improved outlook is mainly driven by lower holding financing costs and a stronger contribution from Nemo Link. Subject to continued availability, Nemo Link alone is expected to contribute around EUR 30 million this year. Before we conclude, I would like to say one last thing. We have talked today about investments, infrastructure, digitalization and growth. None of it happens without people. In particular, I would like to thank our colleagues in the field, the technicians, operators and project teams who are out there every day making sure the system runs safely and reliably while building the grid of tomorrow. With the exceptional temperature we are experiencing across Europe this week, that is not always an easy job. They continue to show up with professionalism, commitment, and a strong sense of responsibility. Electricity is one of those things people rarely think about when it works. It is simply there, and that is exactly how it should be. Behind that reliability are thousands of people working together across Belgium and Germany, often out of sight, but never without impact. That is why I am genuinely proud of what we achieved in the first half of this year. Not only the projects we deliver or the milestones we reach, but the way our teams continue to make things happen every single day. My sincere thanks to all our employees, partners and stakeholders. The month ahead will bring challenges, but also tremendous opportunities. If the first half of this year has shown us anything, is that we are stronger when we work together. Thank you. Thank you, Bernard. In the meantime, Yannick Dekoninck, Head of Corporate Finance, has joined us. As suggested, we can start now with our Q&A. Let us see, we have a first question coming from UBS. Hi, Wanda. Good morning. Hi. Good morning. Thanks a lot for the presentation. Three questions if I may. The first one is, Marco, on the 2026 CapEx, you trimmed by EUR 300 million for a number of reason. How much of EUR 300 million is moved into 2027, 2028? How much is basically gone because you deliver CapEx cheaper than you anticipated? Question number two is on the 50Hertz EBITDA in H1. It looks a bit low when I look historically because historically you were closer to 50%. If I take roughly EUR 700 million of H1 and compare it to consensus, I get closer to 40%. Can you please help us to understand what happened in H1? The last one is on the ongoing regulatory review in Germany. There haven't been any milestones since May, I think. Can you please comment on any talks with the regulator, any takeaways from the workshops that you attended since May? Where do you see the largest pushback from the regulator? Thanks a lot. Thanks, Wanda. It's already a long list of questions, but all of them valid. Maybe to the CapEx, it's indeed the fact that several reasons led us to the revision of the guidance. As a rule of thumb, I would name it like this, one fourth around of the reduction is affect a ing this year due to savings, and the other three fourths are more for the next years to come, not only pushed back into the next year or the year after. It was really in prticular in connection with the LanWin 6 announcement, a kind of rescheduling, which is being allocated over a longer term. It's not simply a shift from one year to the other. From that perspective, you potentially need to spread it a little bit over a longer period. Regarding the EBITDA at 50Hertz, it's indeed right that in the past we often saw higher result in the first half, compared to the second half due to the ramp-up of the operational costs, which play less and lesser role to be fair. On one hand, it's still a valid track, but we are prudent in the consideration of effects from commissioning. As we have a huge commissioning expected end of the year on the Ostwind 3 project, that's something which is not reflected in the current results, not proportionally, but will affect the year-end results once we are able to commission. Even though we are good on track and quite confident that we will reach it, the recognition of that effect, the so-called hockey stick effect, will happening once we are able to commissioning technically that asset. Last but not least, on regulatory side, it's indeed right that there's no official announcement between the last publication and the public consultation and the next step. We are in constant talks to the regulator, discussing several kind of designs, in particular on the WACC model. That's still work in progress. Like you can imagine, the kind of underlying rates, how it is being reflected in the WACC model, the cost of debt considerations, whether that's a rating consideration or not. These are elements which are up and running as we talk. One big item is still outstanding, and that was the discussion on incentives. There's likely that BNetzA will launch an official process in the course of the month of September, which is usually a public consultation. That will be, for our understanding, a next visible step then in that kind of discussion before a kind of fixing at year end of the framework is going to happen. Hopefully, that gives you a little bit more color on the three items. Thanks a lot. I see the next question is coming from Oddo Thijs. Good morning. We can't hear you, Thijs. You're on mute. Unmute. Now I can hear you. Go ahead. Good morning. It's Thijs Berkelder, ABN AMRO, Oddo BHF. A great performance in Belgium, thanks to the return of the project or the acceleration in the Energy Island project, probably. Coming back on Germany, can you further specify the delay in CapEx? You explain now it's primarily LanWin 6 related. Is not also Ostwind 3 related? Can you further clarify when you then exactly expect commissioning of Ostwind 3 to happen? Is this somewhere November, December, and that's the key reason why you are cautious in your recognition of the project in H1 already? Can you maybe give an update on your U.S. investments? What is happening there? What is the progress there? Thirdly, can you maybe give an update on what is expected from the second interconnector between Belgium and the U.K.? Okay, maybe I pick one first. It's indeed the fact that we can confirm that Ostwind 3 will be commissioned end of the year. You named November, December. We hope for to do it a little bit earlier to de-risk a little bit that midnight effect. That was the main reason not to consider it for the time being. Cable has been laid, connected, platform is installed, installation work is finished, commissioning testing is starting, and usually it takes six weeks, maybe more, depending on the findings there. From that perspective, we are prudent in that guidance at this stage, and in the consideration in the figures. Yes, the CapEx revision has mainly been caused by the question on LanWin 6 and the shift in the yards in LanWin 3 as well. As likely with the announcement on LanWin 6, we will go with the LanWin 3 projects to the yard in Rostock as well. That will be a shift from the Spanish yard to the German yards. There are some savings connected to that, on the other hand, some rescheduling as well. That was the main reason for this program, I would name it like this, caused by this program, which led us to the revision of the guidance on the CapEx numbers. Well, on the U.S., as you know, we are basically following three projects at the moment, plus continuing our activities over energyRe Giga. The two projects that are onshore are SOO Green and Clean Path New York, and there is one Offshore project, which is called Leading Light Wind. I think we continue to very closely monitor the development of these underlying projects. At the moment, at least on the two onshore projects, it's premature to provide an updated fair value assessment at this stage because not a lot has changed. As you know, in the U.S., there is a big issuance coming up with the midterm, we will see much clearer after that period. However, I was reading no later than yesterday in the Handelsblatt that the green energy is booming in the U.S. despite what we might think, because of course, the AI-related needs are very important, and of course, the quickest way to build up generation is via renewables. While we think that there is a clear federal government approach against the renewable, there are still a lot of developments happening on that side, which I think can be comforting. On Leading Light Wind, which is the Offshore project. As you know, it's a project that was subject to a potential reimbursement of the lease acquisition costs of that project. We have a rather small stake in that project, at the moment we are still trying to assess the consequence if this reimbursement process would happen. On the one hand, while we have to see what are the proceeds with it, knowing that we have a very small stake in there, energyRe has only 12.5%, and I remind you, we have 25% of energyRe. Secondly, you know that while there are negotiations with the federal state, there are also individual states that basically sue this process of reimbursement. I think it's too early to draw conclusions at the moment, as you can imagine, we are following that very closely. On the Princess Elisabeth Island, and the DC part, the Nautilus interconnector. What I think on our side, as we said, we've worked on a renewed design that allows to have substantial savings versus what we had initially planned, while keeping the main aspects of the project. Now we are, of course, waiting for, it must be part of the Federal Development Plan. We are waiting for the government and the regulator to confirm the project. I must say, I'm prudently but rather optimistic that the project will happen because it's a key project for Belgium energy strategy. As I commented during the video, I think as Europeans, we must be very proud that those type of project, Bornholm or Princess Elisabeth Island happen, because it's really high technology, it's the future of Europe. As Elia Group, we are very proud to be part of those two projects that are really flagship project for Europe. Thank you. Thank you, Thijs, for your questions. The following question is from Morgan Stanley. Arthur. Good morning, Arthur. Go ahead. Hello. Yes, thank you for taking my question. The first one is just on the net profit guidance for 2026. Obviously you've increased your divisional indication for the other division. You're indicating you will be in the upper end of the range in Belgium. I was just wondering, as a result of these two changes, why didn't you increase your guidance at the group level as well? Are there any negatives in other parts of the business that maybe I've been missing, or is it just that you're being conservative at this stage? That's the first question. The second one is just on Germany. Given you have less CapEx for the year, I imagine that can have a bit of an impact on your allowed revenues for the year. Here you didn't change the guidance on net profit in Germany, I was wondering if there was an offset in there on the positive side to offset that impact. Thank you very much. Maybe I start and then let Yannick to complement on that one. The profit for the shareholder, which we are guiding on, is including the cost of the hybrids, the better performance of the operating entities gives us some flexibility in approaching the market on the hybrid side. We took momentum to de-risk the funding while executing on our toolkit. What has some costs, but the headroom has been used to lock in favorable costs for the future on behalf of that year. From that perspective, we took the momentum with the higher range of profit to be achieved in operations, launched the hybrid issuance, which is now, of course, something we need to pay for. That is reflected in the profit, which is then left for the shareholders. That's maybe the comparison between both. On the German CapEx, we must admit that the EUR 200 million revision doesn't play a big role, to be honest, in the results itself. Usually you get remunerated only for half of that over the year, then 40% on that one with a rate of 6%. This few millions usually is something which has been offset by the higher underlying return rate at all. From that perspective, we are confident to stay within the guidance, as this is something which could be absorbed by the evolutions in the business itself. Thank you very much. Just as a quick follow-up on the first question, because you're referring to the cost of the hybrid, if I remember well, when you presented the guidance initially, you already had a bit of a delta between the sum of your divisional targets and the net profit for shareholders. I thought the cost of the hybrid was already, or at least some sort of financing measures was already included in the initial guidance. That's right, the timing was a different one, to be fair. As we were relatively cash long at the end of the year, so from a liquidity perspective, there was no need to approach the market. That was indeed a more opportunistic move in spring this year, as we saw quite still favorable conditions before the windows are going to close, and that's why we entered the market. As from a liquidity perspective and from a story perspective, something later the year. Would have been more economically being favorable in that regard. That's the mismatch you may refer to. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you, Arthur, the next question comes from ING. Dirk, good morning. You're still on mute, unfortunately, Dirk. Yes. Great. Can you hear me now? We can. Good. Good morning to all, thank you for the presentation. Following the previous question, if I add the different components on your updated guidance and also appreciating the comments on the hybrids, still I arrive at the higher end around EUR 740 million, any way I look at it. Maybe that requires some further clarification if I'm missing something in the composition of the guidance. Then the more recurring question, I think, is the midterm outlook for your CapEx now that the network development plans, there's becoming some more clarity in Germany, maybe also in Belgium. Being at a EUR 6.5 billion run rate on CapEx, as it is in the current plan, you're getting close to that, also in this year. Also for modeling purposes beyond 2028, what is a fair assumption going forward? I hope you can share some insights here. Maybe on your question on the guidance, it's true that if you count the three segments that you will end up higher, but you shouldn't remember to forget to take out the 20% that is linked to KfW, obviously. Yeah. You should take that out. Yeah. You have now the hybrid cost is around, on an annual basis, EUR 57 million. That's where you should come out in the guidance. Okay. Yeah. Thanks. Well, on the grid development plan, as we stated, it is still ongoing. There are a couple of legislative procedures, in particular in Germany, running, which set a scene for one or the other path, in particular with an eye on the big DC links, whether they are being executed via overhead line or fully underground cables, which play a significant role in the difference of the costs connected to that one. Of course, the offshore scenario to be chosen is one of the elements which are essential for building up our plans. That being said, we stated several times that the CapEx will not go down from that perspective. If you make the math on the previous plan or on the current plan, which is running 2024- 2028, with a total CapEx of EUR 31.6 billion, which we announced, then there are seven and a half left to be executed in next two years to come. Likely that this number will not be lower on the plan which we are announcing beginning of next year. From that perspective, we are not giving that clear guidance right on a new CapEx plan for the time being, as there are too many very significant unknown items outstanding. However, we can confirm that the group will further grow in the future. We hope to be able to announce something at the latest at the Q4 results next year. Oh, yeah. That would be very helpful. Thank you. We can go now to the next questions from Citi. Piotr, good morning. Hi, good morning, everybody. Piotr Dzieciolowski from Citi. I wanted to ask you about this smaller CapEx in Germany. Is it a one-off, or there is some really cross into the future periods? You said some of it is some cost savings on the CapEx level. Shall we extrapolate it into the future periods as well? On the grid development CapEx plan in the future periods, I wanted to ask you, do you see a scenario that the CapEx runs materially higher, accelerates from EUR 7.5 billion so that you would have to go back to the kind of equity you would have to rise equity or use more hybrids? The way I think about it, if the CapEx stays flat, the whole structure of Elia slowly starts to degear, kind of. If it survives 2028 and the CapEx stays flat, the incremental, the EUR 7.5 billion versus that kind of a growing base becomes smaller burden to finance. How do you think that playing out in beyond 2028? Yeah, we changed a little bit the concept in that regards. Of course, our intention is to lend on a certain run rate. As this has been mentioned already in one of the questions, whether this run rate will be slightly higher or lower, that depends of course on the regulation and the ability to finance that. There are some discussions still running in the regulatory system, whether there's a kind of cash consideration for the TSOs, which helps us then to fund more of the CapEx out of the cash flows. Like for instance, shortening depreciation periods. That's one of the debates which is running. It's not disclosed, but that could help to finance the plan. In general, we are more outspoken in that regards that of course, affordability is not only a subject of the consumer, it's a subject for ourselves as well. From that perspective, we want to build a comprehensive plan, which is considering all the constraints which we may have, and that's consisting on supplier markets, our own workforce, and our financing capabilities, knowing that, of course, there are requests to execute infrastructure in a certain way. What we are going to do is, for the time being with the plan which is outstanding, shaping a little bit the project which is already up and running, in terms of scheduling, in terms of payment milestones, on an annual basis to make sure that we are in certain boundaries. From that perspective, coming back to your first question, the savings you potentially will not see in the total envelope, as we likely will accelerate other payments to earlier stage to make sure that there's a balance which is de-stressing the entire profile long term. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, we can go to KBC. Wim, good morning. Hi, good morning. I hope you can hear me. We can. All right. Yes, I'll limit myself to questions on the Tarchon. I've got five small of them, very quick answer questions. I'll just pose them one by one, I suggest. First, Stéphanie, if I understood it well, you're going to invest GBP 200 million, and that's the total equity consideration. Correct. Over the period going till the mid 2030s. If I get it right, about 170 at the completion, and the rest at the end. Okay. Like I said, very small questions. Secondly, you obviously have a lot of experience negotiating with the U.K. regulator. Will this be something like a Nemo-style remuneration system? Yes, indeed. It's a regulated asset, as we said. It will be regulated on the one hand under a cap and floor for 50% of the project, and the other 50% will be operating under the German regulation, so a RAB remuneration. Okay, fine. On the final, let's say total CapEx, I think commissioning could be something like 2033. Can you give an idea what the total amount of CapEx spend will be so we can have an idea on the leverage or the eventual leverage? The estimated total CapEx spend would be below GBP 5 billion, I would say. It's more foreseen towards mid of the 30s, I would say. 35, yeah. Yeah. Okay, thanks. Fourth one on cross-selling, because obviously you have an equity stake, you have a lot of experience in building these interconnects. Is there maybe a profit opportunity for other divisions? I'm thinking on consulting-wise that you can realize on top of this project. Absolutely. The purpose of this project is first we see that in Europe, the North Sea developments are very important, and we certainly want to be part of it, but we want to be also very strict on our financing discipline. Here, it's really an opportunity for us to be part in a very exciting project, but next to a very strong financing partner, and where we focus on what we are good at. What we are good at is basically building operating transmission systems. That we will do, of course, by using the resources of WindGrid, but also, for example, the resources of EGI, which is our consulting arm. That we can really participate to the development of interconnectors in the North Sea while limiting our financing exposure and concentrating on what we are good at, which is basically the management of transmission infrastructure. It's also, as you mentioned, a way to have a Nemo type of regulation, and you know how Nemo contributes to our results, and we are very happy about that. It's also a way to diversify our source of revenues. Okay. Last question is really a bit maybe on the technical side, because obviously I noticed that you have the NordOstLink plan. Is there any timing link to the NordOstLink, and is that where it will connect into and that it follows on that project? In that regards, it's not the case. The Tarchon link will be connected to the grid of TenneT. From that perspective, there's no link to the NordOstLink. No. The technology is slightly different as we are talking about a 1.4 GW interconnector, while NordOstLink is being executed in a 2 GW standard. From that perspective, there's a difference in technology as well, but there's no direct connection. All right. Thanks a lot for taking my questions. Good luck. Thank you, Wim. Let's now go to the questions from Goldman Sachs. Mafalda, good morning. Morning, everyone. Thanks for taking my questions. I have two. The first one, I think Stéphanie, you mentioned you feel you would be in a position to give us a bit more detail on your plan beyond 2028 at the full year results, hopefully early 2027. Do you have any idea until what year could you be, are you thinking guiding us towards? The second question is, based on what you know today, what's the level of financial flexibility you think you will have at the end of your current plans, so at the end of 2028? What is the level of annual CapEx growth you think your balance sheet can cope with beyond that without compromising your leverage targets metrics? Thank you. On your first question, I believe once we have the clarity on the regulation, the grid development plans, we are looking then to roll forward our CapEx plan in line with the regulatory period. It will be 2027, 2031, most probably. However, we're still waiting to get all the final figures, et cetera, but that would be the aim. We would then do that most probably through a capital markets day as well. Yes. Then maybe for the financial questions, Marco? Yeah. That's honestly one of the reason that we are not guiding at this stage, as of course, the financial flexibility heavily depends on the visibility on the regulatory framework and the components included in there. Of course, what we are working on is the execution of the CapEx program as this is giving us a favor as well. Know a little bit better, even though it's exposed to external factors. From that perspective, we are not in a position today, really, to guide you on that kind of elements you ask for. As we said, the likelihood that the group is further grow is there. Of course, our intention is to land on a certain plateau, which is still affordable for the group. That means, of course, from the financial capabilities perspective as well as from the rating perspective and from the kind of growth which is appreciated and absorbable for the group. Thank you, Mafalda. The next question will be from Soc Gen Bartik. Please go ahead. Hello, good morning. This is Bartik Kubicki, Bernstein, Soc Gen. Apologies for lack of the camera, but it simply doesn't work. No worries. Three questions if you don't mind. Firstly, again, I will come back to the CapEx savings, but I will come back to the savings per se. Because I think Marco, you mentioned is one-fourth of this EUR 300 million is savings. What is going to happen to those savings? Is it something which is basically 100% shared with the customers, or are you incentivized by the regulator to actually have those savings, and you can keep some of them for yourself? That would be question number one. Question number two, when you presented the plan, not the plan, but you did a capital increase last year. You also mentioned the potential for disposing of some of the assets. If you can update us on that, and I would be more specifically interested in the Belgian entity, because I think you had to do some changes to the company laws in order to allow for a potential disposal. Okay. I'm not speculating here on anything, I just wonder where you are at this stage in terms of being ready for selling the assets. The third question is more like a curiosity, because obviously you are issuing hybrids. A lot of network companies are issuing hybrids to fund the growth. But you are putting the hybrids on the, let's say, holding company level, not on the OpCo company level. And I just wonder whether any discussions with the regulator, either in Belgium or in Germany, that they would remunerate you for hybrids sitting on the OpCo level, and then you would move hybrids into OpCo level. Consequently, this will mean probably higher allowed cost of let's call it debt. Thank you very much. Maybe starting with the easiest one. Indeed, the savings are fully passed through to the consumers. That's currently nothing which we can keep, even not partially. Might be a discussion in regards to any incentives putting in. On the other side, the framework so far is protecting us against cost increases. From that perspective, it's more than fair that this is given back at this stage to the consumer. That's a little bit the ambiguity where we are in, but we currently take note of magnitude, are more in favor to take the protection instead of the opportunities. As of course, we are talking about high scale CapEx numbers, and we are not always able to really generate savings. Where we do see the opportunity, we of course jumping on that one as our merit is, of course, generating new flexibility in using the means otherwise in investing into projects which are then up and running and hopefully sooner being commissioned. That's our intention that we are going to take a portfolio optimization. As I said, in the total CapEx number, you potentially will not see this amount over the period where we have given visibility on. Maybe starting from back on our toolkit. It's still valid, so all funding options which we have disclosed in 2025 are valid options. We are working on all of them, and one of the examples is, of course, the execution of the hybrid as a non-dilutive solution to raise equity-like instruments. That being said, discussion on issuance hybrids on an OpCo level is for the time being a tricky one. In principle, we could do that, but the likelihood that we are not able to charge the entire cost into the regulatory system is relatively big. There might be a change in the future on the German side, less on the Belgium side, as the embedded debt principle in Belgium is still in favor of the cheapest rates. Of course, straightforward senior bond is a cheaper instrument compared to a hybrid issuance. In Germany, that heavily depends on the final configuration of the WACC model. That could bring this instrument back on the table. There's a discussion on that one, whether this is a good thing to consider. Currently in the setup of the group, we do see more favor in doing that on a group level, also on a TopCo level, for two reasons. On one hand, we are not able with the ring-fencing which we have put in place to upstream the full equity credit then up to the entire group once we are issuing on an OpCo. Secondly, as you mentioned, there's currently no real scheme in place which ensures the coverage of the costs connected with the hybrid. That's for this regulatory period a little bit set in stone, whether the new regulation leads to a kind of change in our financial policy in that regards. That's a little bit the subject of the final setup of the regulation. That's maybe the third question connected to the second. As we said, disposal of an asset is something which we are not excluding currently due to the fact that the CapEx plan is back-loaded. There's no need to enter the market with that one. Of course, on one end, we have plenty of money. The capital structure is quite healthy. Rating has been confirmed. We have the time to consider the next step. We are working on all of the options, to be fair. Yes, for straightforward opening of a capital of the subsidiary in Belgium, adjustment of the electricity law is being needed to grant governance rights. Meanwhile, there are a couple of instruments in place which are not necessarily required. From that perspective, there is other complexity to be managed, but that opens a little bit the floor to other instruments which might consider at a certain point of time. No decision has been made. We are working on that one to have all the means available so that we have ample flexibility to choose once it is being needed, one or the other instruments to make sure that the funding is being solved in a proper and sufficient way. Perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next question comes from Kepler Cheuvreux. Juan, good morning. Hey. Hi. Good morning. Thank you for taking our question. Most of them have been already answered, but I was just to want to clarify this hybrid issue included on the guidance. At the beginning you said all options were included. Now you signaled that, okay, some of the parameters in Belgium and the holding costs have been on the upper side, but now you're including hybrids on 2026 guidance. Do you have any hybrids included on 2027, 2028 on your budget? That's what I would like to clarify for now. What will push you from a minority stake disposal over hybrids in this second, or all these financing options toolkit that you have available? Thank you. I think what we try to say on the guidance is that our current guidance that we initially put in the market includes actually all different kind of financing options. That's why we don't have to revise the guidance, because different scenarios were taken into account. As Marco explained, we went for the fact that we did a hybrid because the market was there very opportunistically, and hence, we don't need to adjust the guidance because we had that already, and different options were included, and hence, we can reconfirm the guidance. We haven't guided to 2027, 2028, if I'm not mistaken. That will be updated then with the year-end result of 2026 then for the year 2027. Our EPS guidance that we have guided at the Capital Markets Day, obviously that is still standing. If I may follow, in your EPS guidance for 2028, do you have any hybrids included for 2027, 2028? We have all different financing options included in that guidance. It works under different scenarios, the guidance we've given, because we have said that we will have an EPS growth that is double digits. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Juan. The next question will come from Deutsche Bank. Good morning, Oli. How are you? I'm doing well, thank you. I hope you guys are doing well as well. Thank you for taking my questions. Just a few here. The first one with regard to the CapEx being lower in Germany, I know that's taken up some of the call today, and you mentioned LanWin 6 being a primary driver of that. Do you have any other types of assets that you're bringing on in 2027 or 2028 where this same kind of pushing out of the CapEx potentially could occur? Are there any discussions happening on any of those other assets, or should we consider this just a one-off with LanWin 6? We've spoken about the grid development plan in Germany quite extensively, but just to reaffirm with your current understanding of how that's developing, that most of the changes there you expect to see in the back half of the 2030s rather than the front half of the 2030s. That's been the messaging previously, if I'm not mistaken. The last question, to the extent to which you can comment on this, which might not be a lot, but with regard to the WACC for the next regulatory period, and how that might be calculated with conversations that you've been having, any other thoughts you might have on the risk-free rate or the 40 basis points adder, thoughts how those conversations are evolving to what they might look like at all. Any crumbs you can give would be helpful. Yeah, I'll leave it there. Thank you. I'm not sure whether I catch your second question, but maybe I start with the first one. In regards to a CapEx program, which we have disclosed between 2024 and 2028, we reiterate that still the target to execute EUR 31.6 billion. We, of course, following a portfolio approach, which might lead to some reshuffling of payments from one year to the other to make sure that we are not de-stressing the year after, which we haven't disclosed yet. We make sure that there's a constant execution which is absorbable for the group. From that perspective, even there might be some bigger investment underway, which might trigger some rescheduling. We will do other rescheduling to make sure that this is being compensated or balanced to a certain degree. As we Meanwhile, have entered into main commitments for the project, which have an impact on the three years horizon, which have been left in terms of execution. The likelihood that there are others who are requiring that reshuffling is not that big. As I said, once it is happening, we will look into the schemes of the big projects running to make sure that there's a kind of compensation of that one to lend on the number which we have disclosed. I maybe take the third one, then we look how we are going to answer your second question. On WACC, it's still a little bit open, I would say. There are several streams being followed. Currently, likely that there will be a 40/60 split on equity and debts. That's rather sure. On the equity side, there's a big debate, what is the underlying risk-free rate? That's one. Second, what is the beta factor to consider as there are different kind of consultations in the scientific scene, which say it must be higher or lower. That's a debate which is running and that finally gives a number, which is likely higher than the number which is currently applicable for the existing assets. What is 4 percentage points post-tax? The question is how big the adder will looks like. That's one. The second, on the debt side, it's a little bit dissimilar of its kind, as of course, the first question is, will it be a scientific rate, which is a kind of benchmark, and if so, which kind of benchmark is being used? Is it 10-year, 20-year issuance of German industrial issuers or something different? Of course, the longer it is, the more favorable it is for us as we are long-term holding company, and we are striving for long-term financing. That's our argument, but of course, you can argue that, for instance, a 10-year reference is more liquid to absorb and that's why regulator is more in favor on that one compared to a longer term. These are debates which are running. There's an extreme that we are lending in a cost-plus mechanism, what I don't believe, but at least it's not fully off the table. From that perspective, it's really hard to predict what the final outcome will be. Of course, Bernard's ask on top of in favor to make a rating adjustment of that synthetic rate, which is something we appreciate, but wondering how this will be administrated as this will potentially not fully absorb from their perspective. There are a couple of instruments which might lead to different outcomes and maybe then later on to different kind of optimization or positioning. From that perspective, it's really hard to guide you on, but that gives a little bit the room of maneuver, which we are talking about for the time being. Of course, we appreciate then a kind of constant involvement on that one. To be fair, there's a little bit of back and forth sometimes in that debate. We are still cautiously optimistic that there will be a result which enables us to perform, at least as we have done in the past. That being said, there needs to be a couple of elements being fixed over the next month. Hopefully prior to the launch of the discussion of incentives, there will be a little bit more robust visibility on these kind of elements. Maybe coming back to your second question, Oli, can you repeat? Sorry, I didn't catch it neither. Sorry. I was just talking about the German grid development plan. What you said on this previously, if I remember this correctly, is that you mainly expect the impact to be in the second half of the 2030s. The first half of the 2030s, not necessarily too dissimilar to what we've seen previously. Is that still right, that where we expect to see changes is probably the back half of the 2030s? It will depend a little bit on which scenario will be chosen. You have scenario A, B, and C, and that will determine a little bit the profiling. As today, that scenario has not yet been chosen. For us, it's a bit hard to really communicate yet on where the higher peaks are going to be. To give you an example, if the government decides for a scenario which is consisting of lower offshore capacity, of course, likely that one project is being taken out of the portfolio, which otherwise would be directed to 50Hertz, and the timeline will be adjusted in that regard. If this is not going to happen, of course, we are relatively soon being forced to launch a tender, which is requiring payments once we are awarding a company to provide the cables and the offshore converter platform on that one. These kind of elements are really essential to make sure that we know the path, we know which kind of execution modus we are entering in to make sure that we can build up on that one, our maps and our plans in terms of execution and in terms of financing. Thank you. Just coming back to your WACC comment. Is the 40 basis points adder, is that still a live debate as to whether that could or could be included or not? Yeah. That's a fair question. At least we are keeping it alive. Currently, there's no discussion around that, to be fair. That's not being said, that's dead, but of course, as I said, there's a back and forth on that debate. Could be something which pops up again with the discussion on incentives, as this will be something which is likely more dedicated to the transmission system operators. From that perspective, I could technically understand a little bit the view on Bernard's are not to include it in the general debate on a return rate. However, that could be a way out in granting a higher return for the entire industry, where they do see maybe more need for companies like us, who are exposed to an extraordinary situation in terms of CapEx requests compared to the size of the company. As I said, it's not fully dead, but it's currently nothing which I do see in the papers there. Got it. Thanks very much. Thank you. I think we are at the end of today's live stream event. I think I want to say a big thank you to everybody that has contributed to today's presentation. Thank you, Bernard, Marco, Yannick. I wish you all a very nice day and see you soon. Thank you. Thank you very much.