Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Q1 figures 2026 conference call. I'm Lorenzo, the Chorus Call operator. I would like to remind you that all participants will be in listen-only mode, and the conference is being recorded. The presentation will be followed by a Q&A session. You can register for question at any time by pressing star and one on your telephone. For operator assistance, please press star and zero. The conference must not be recorded for publication or broadcast. At this time, it's my pleasure to hand over to Anja Siehler. Please go ahead. Thanks, Lorenzo, and a very warm welcome from the Nordex team in Hamburg. Thank you for joining the Q1 2026 results management call. As always, we ask you to take notice of our Safe Harbor statements. With me are our CEO, José Luis Blanco, and our CFO, Dr. Ilya Hartmann, who will lead you through the presentation. Afterwards, we will open the floor for your questions. Now I would like to hand over to José Luis. Please go ahead. Thank you very much for the introduction, Anja. As well, on behalf of the Management Board, I would like to welcome you to our first quarter results of 2026. Let's start with a recap of the first three months of the year. Overall, we are pleased to report that the first quarter of the year represents a positive start into the year for Nordex, generally in line with our expectations. We continue to execute well operationally, deliver further margin improvements, and enter the year with a strong financial position. We maintain a strong presence in our core European markets, with Europe representing 97% of the total project order intake. Germany remains our most important market, followed by Turkey and Sweden. Project order intake amounted to 1.9 GW, which is slightly down year-on-year, and this development needs to be seen in the context of a particularly strong comparison base in Q1 and Q4 of last year. More importantly, the underlying demand environment and pricing remains stable. Secondly, we continue to deliver solid operational performance across the businesses. The total revenue reached EUR 1.6 billion, 11% growth year-on-year. Project revenue accounted for 87% of total revenue, also growing by 11%, driven by consistent progress in execution and deliveries. Parallel, service revenue represented 14% of the total and grew as well 11% year-on-year. Thirdly, profitability improved further in the first quarter. We achieved an EBITDA margin of 8.2%, reaching levels above 8% already in first quarter. Fourthly, our cash position remains very solid. At the end of the first quarter, we reported a cash position of EUR 1.8 billion. Working capital continued to normalize, moving back to around -9%, which is consistent with the seasonality of our business. On the strategic side, we continue to see supportive market fundamentals, particularly in Europe and in Germany. Overall, the first quarter confirms that we are on track to deliver on our guidance for 2026. We have started the year with improved margins, continued revenue growth, a strong financial position, providing a solid foundation for the quarters ahead. With this, let's move a little bit more to next slide for details. First quarter of 2026 saw order intake in line with our expectations. In Q1 2026, turbine order intake total EUR 1.7 billion, corresponding to 1.9 GW. Orders were received from 13 different countries. Average selling price increased to EUR 0.91 million /MW compared to EUR 0.87 million/ MW in Q1 2025. This increase was driven by regional mix and project scope. From a regional perspective, Europe accounted for 97% of the order intake. As always, while we are not providing a specific guidance for the year, we remain comfortable in our order intake momentum for this year. Let's move to the next slide, the order book. Let me briefly comment on the development of our order book. At the end of the third quarter, our combined order book amounted to close to EUR 17 billion, reflecting continuing momentum in both segments. The turbine order book stood at EUR 10.5 billion, with most orders scheduled for installation in Europe, followed by North America, rest of the world, and Latin America. In the service segment, the order book increased to EUR 6 billion. By the end of the quarter, almost 14,000 turbines were covered by service agreements corresponding to an installed base of 49.4 GW. Overall, the order book development supports planning visibility and reflects the expansion of our installed base over the past years. Let's talk about the service business. Looking at the first three months of 2026, I can confirm that our service business continued to develop positively. Service revenue increased to EUR 218 million, and service sales represented around 14% of total group revenues. At the same time, service EBIT margin improved further to 19.2%. As we have mentioned before, the margin recovery service is not linear, but the underlying trend remains clear and steady. This development is suppossed by an expanding service order book, contract tenor, and continued discipline in execution. Operationally, fleet availability remained stable at around 97%, and the average tenor of the service contract increased to over 13 years, supporting visibility and stability in the service business. Overall, the first quarter development confirms the continued improvement in service margin, progressing towards our midterm EBITDA margin target of crossing 20%. Let's move to the next slide, our installation and production figures. Installations increased to 227 turbines across 14 countries, up 10% in megawatts year-on-year. Installations were mainly focused on Europe, followed by South Africa. At the same time, turbine production increased to 249 units compared to 209 in Q1 last year, largely tracking project scheduling and delivery requirements. Blade production remained stable in the quarter, despite temporary delays at one supplier facility in Turkey. Overall, operationally, the activity in the first quarter developed in line with our expectations, supporting executional readiness for the higher activity in the quarters ahead. Now I would like to hand over to Ilya for the financials. Thank you, Luis. Welcome also from my side. As usual, I will guide us through the financials in starting with the income statement. As mentioned by José Luis, in the first three months of this year, sales rose by around 11% to EUR 1.6 billion, up from EUR 1.4 billion in Q1 of 2025. This development was primarily driven by higher activity levels in both our project and service business. We again further strengthened our gross margins, reaching 29.4% in this first quarter, compared to 27.3% in the same period of last year. As a result, we generated an absolute EBITDA of EUR 89 million, which is higher substantially than the EUR 35 million in the first three months of 2025. This development translates to further EBITDA margin improvement from 5.5% to 8.2% year-on-year. On the back of this operating performance, we reported a net profit of EUR 54 million for the quarter, representing a substantial improvement versus the EUR 8 million in Q1 of last year. With this, we already move on to the balance sheet. Looking at the balance sheet, the overall structure remains on a comparable level when looking at year-end 2025. We ended the first quarter of 2026 with a cash position of EUR 1.8 billion, as already mentioned by José Luis as well. Then the working capital normalized from -12.4% end of the year to -9% end of this past quarter. Equity ratio improved and reached 19.4% at the end of the first quarter. Of course, this development is largely driven by a further increase in net profit. Now, together, let's have a look at the other balance sheet KPIs on the next slide. Net cash as a result reached EUR 1.5 billion at the end of the quarter and remaining at an arguably strong level in a quarter which is usually softer. Working capital ratio one more time at -9% or in total numbers, EUR 690 million at the end of the quarter, which is a reflection of the normalization in working capital usual for a Q1. With that, let's go to the cash flow and CapEx slide. Cash flow from operating activities before net working capital stood at EUR 175 million at the end of the quarter, and again reflecting the strong operational performance of the company. With the working capital normalizing, as I just said, cash flow from operating activities after working capital amounted to EUR -69 million at the end of the quarter, of course. As a result, we generated a negative free cash flow of EUR -98 million in the first quarter of this year. However, for the full year, we continue to expect a solid free cash flow generation. CapEx spendings amounted around EUR 27 million in that quarter, and this is pretty similar to the ones in the previous year. Our investment focus remained largely unchanged compared to last year, with investments primarily in blade, in the cell production, facilities and tooling for installations and transport. With that, I would like to hand it over back to José Luis for the guidance slide. Thank you very much, Ilya. Based on a healthy first quarter, I would like to confirm our guidance we set at the end of February, and that we expect profitable growth to accelerate in 2026. This is, of course, assuming no material disruption in the market due to recent geopolitics developments and market normalizing at some point during the first half of the year. Our guidance for 2026 is as follows. Sales between EUR 8.2 billion and EUR 9 billion, meaning a top line growth between 9%-18% year-on-year. EBITDA margin in the range of 8%-11%. We believe that midpoint plus is the most likely outcome as of today. Working capital ratio below -9%. CapEx approx EUR 200 million. Regarding free cash flow, as Ilya mentioned, we don't provide formal guidance. However, based on the building blocks we have shared, you can likely conclude that we are positioned to deliver another solid free cash flow year. With this, handing over to Anja to open for Q&A. Yeah. Thank you, gentlemen, for the presentation. Lorenzo, you can now please start with the Q&A. We will now begin the question- and- answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and one on their telephone. You will hear a tone to confirm that you have entered the queue. If you wish to remove yourself from the question queue, you may press star and two. Participants are requested to use only headsets while asking a question. Anyone who has a question may press star and one at this time. The first question comes from the line of Ajay Patel from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Good morning, and thank you very much for the presentation. I just got one or two questions, if I might. If we look at the quarterly performance, like the first quarter, despite being a relatively low revenue quarter, has delivered quite a sizable increase in margins. If you kind of extrapolate that into the rest of the year, it would imply a bit more than the midpoint statement that we just said over the course of the presentation. I was wondering to what degree you could maybe point to as to how the profile of margin will evolve over this year? Not giving a forecast, but just understanding why that if you have a relatively low revenue quarter this way, you've got a good margin, but then the future quarters should have sizable operational leverage, which should lead to quite substantial increase in those quarters too. If you could help us with the dynamics there, that'd be really helpful. The second question was more around just more policy than anything else. In March, there was a paper out which was on the EU Industrial Accelerator Act, and it had some restrictive EU origin requirements. I just wondered if you could just talk to that and how that may affect your portfolio for tool. Thank you. Yep. Let's do this together, Ilya. I think regarding the first quarter, as we always mention, a majority of the activity is always in the second half of the year, and this is a project business. The composition of the margin, you know, changes with the scope, with quality and quantity of your projects you are executing in your planning phase. Yes, you might get some general level indications, and this is why with the information we have as of today and with the disclaimers that these geopolitics get settled in the first quarter, in the first half of the year, we think we can do, you know, middle point plus. We see slightly more chances than risk to accept the midpoint. To go more into details, I don't know, Ilya, if you can provide more light. I'd say probably combining in one response hopefully too. To the profile, I think for calibrating, and I think we did that on the full year call. Yes, a step up in total and percentage numbers in the profitability, probably to a similar pattern, different absolute terms obviously than last year. That's how I would see the trajectory. Second important points on what it looks today and the actions José Luis has made, I would just make one addition. As you said, Ajay, it's a bit of a slow, weaker revenue-wise quarter. This is why service margin outweighs and outperforms a bit. I don't think you can necessarily extrapolate that first quarter to the rest. Yep. Regarding the industry, EU Industrial Acceleration Act, I think is a policy in the right direction. You know, our sector as everybody now understand is super critical for, you know, not only to fight climate change, but to deal with affordability, and we saw that in the auctions in Germany. To deal with a resilient energy market, to have energy sovereignty and to have technology sovereignty as the role that this sector plays to national security and critical infrastructure. What the EU Industrial Acceleration Act is somehow trying to address is to make sure that roadblocks are removed to unleash demand growth. A good example was a very successful case in Germany, so hopefully this Acceleration Act will provide some leeway as well for other countries to follow and somehow will put in value what our sector brings to governments and to society in terms of affordability, resilience, and autonomy. Great. Thank you very much. The next question comes from the line of Constantin Hesse from Jefferies. Please go ahead. Thank you very much for taking my questions. First of all, congrats on another really strong print. I've got three questions, please. The first one related to the Middle Eastern conflict. Now, I think last week you were in an article in Recharge, and this morning I spoke to Ilya as well, and it doesn't really seem that you guys are seeing much headwinds currently, either in terms of supply chain or inflation at the moment, at least in Q1, but Q2 doesn't really seem to be an issue there as well. I'm wondering, you know, you're obviously assuming that you can do midpoint plus if the situation ends in the first half. What exactly are you seeing in Q2 which would change that view if this conflict continues into the second half? That would be the first question. I mean, seen in a project business everything is about risk and chances. Of course this situation has had some impact that we were able to deal with the chances in other areas of the business. Regarding Q2, I would say all things being equal, you know, we should be able to deal with that as well. For us, the biggest concern is security of supply. If one thing is price of what you procure, this is quite volatile. There are certain cost factors that, you know, regardless what the price in the market, you know, versus we're contracted, so, you know, the high prices in the market might not hit you in your P&L although it might have some impact. The biggest concern is if the situation prolongs for long, we might start to see disruptions in supply, which will affect our ability to deliver. Then there is a knock-on effect that might impact more 2027 than 2026, which is inflation, that this will potentially bring to the markets where we operate. Not that much in 2026, potentially in 2027. Understood. Okay, question number two then on order intake for the remainder of the year. You know, you obviously made a statement in the presentation where you're confident about the sustainability of the trajectory of order intake. Assuming the U.S. does not happen this year, are there any markets in Europe which are, you know, other than, obviously, Germany having lower auctions compared to last year, are there any other markets that are potentially underperforming and would lead to a view where you would tell yourself that order intake could potentially be below last year? Or are basically all markets performing pretty well, and therefore we should expect probably flat orders, assuming no change in the U.S.? I would say with the typical disclaimer, Constantin, that we don't guide or restate. We see, I would say, all regions we are organized performing business as usual. Let's put it that way. Maybe some challenges in Nordex due to temporary low electricity prices, but materially speaking, this could be compensated by slightly more volume in other regions. I will, U.S. apart, consider the situation as stable. Great. Thank you so much. Last question. Now, this one is a little bit harder to answer, and I get it, but I just wanna get your view on this. If Germany really transitions to the EEG 2027 the way it currently is, meaning we would go into contracts for difference, redispatch, you wouldn't be awarded for that anymore if you're curtailed, so clearly the return environment is getting worse for the developer. I understand that Germany wants to auction 10 GW per annum until 2032, but I'm assuming that if the developer isn't getting a good return, we won't see the 10 GW. I'm trying to figure out, how do you think the market will evolve from the current feed-in tariff to the contracts for difference, what are you hearing from developers, you know, about keeping these volumes running at these higher levels, i.e. 10 GW? Would be great to get your view on this. Yes. No, our view and our strong advice to policymakers is to think well through the changes so the changes can be implemented in a way that volumes are not delayed. Because on the positive aspects, we saw the beauty of bringing permits to the market. Auctions were, you know, reducing prices quarter-on-quarter, contributing massively to one of the key concerns of all governments, which is affordability. We are part of the affordability. We are part of the resilience of the strategic autonomy. If you delay that's not good for Germany. I hope that this is taken into account. But you name it. I think the times that a system changed from model A to model B, there are gonna be adaptations needed that might or might not affect volumes. You know, we saw the opposite in a few years ago with when Germany implemented the overriding public interest, which accelerate the market. Hopefully this is taken into account by the policymakers and volumes are somehow stable. I mean, the redispatch discussion is a good one to have. You know, who carried that risk, the developer or the system? If you are aiming for Net Zero, you know, the path is clear, the end game is clear, so maybe it's not very smart to push that risk to the developers because it's gonna be more expensive for the system because they need to price it. So I think, hopefully they will take this into account, and hopefully this change doesn't compromise the speed of the energy transition, which, by the way, we are late in our in our overall targets across Europe and in Germany as well. Ilya. Well, I think I see it the same way. I think from those two points you mentioned, Constantin, in the legislative process, I'm not so concerned about that they would be touching volumes, the total volumes of the market. Could there be some outliers of people being unreasonable or some irrational behavior when bidding into the auctions? Yes, that can happen. Always happens. But by and large, it is what José Luis said. That's not a German discussion. I mean, go back to any given U.S. project. If you have a PPA where your offtaker takes it as produced, you offer price A. If the offtaker wants you to bear the curtailments and the risk of the uncertainty of the curtailments, you get a price of A plus X. The market should resolve that. The underlying question for policymakers is whether it's cheaper to bear that on the system directly or through indirect effects on bidding. I think on the total volume, that again, provided largely rational behavior, that shouldn't change. The same is true for the CfD mechanism. If until now you had an opener clause for to go to direct marketing, and you, let's say, don't get that in the future, well, you will have to bid initially your auction a bid with a different level. Pricing will basically adjust for whatever the legislator decides. Mm-hmm. We should not forget that this journey requires grid deployment and renewables deployment at a great scale. I encourage more policymakers to accelerate the grid deployment to deal with the curtailments than to decelerate the capacity deployment of wind onshore, which is gonna delay on all main KPIs, on Net Zero, on resilience, on affordability, on everything. Understood. Thank you so much. The next question comes from the line of Vivek Midha from Citi. Please go ahead. Thank you very much, everyone. Good afternoon. I have a couple of questions. I'll go one at a time, if I may. The first one is a follow-up around your comment around cost inflation potentially being more of a 2027 topic than 2026. I was wondering if you could give some color or commentary around where you see your pricing power. Customer returns are maybe a bit more squeezed than where they were post-COVID. We've seen the auction price in Germany fading, but then on the other hand, the surveying prices have spiked. We have, of course, still a pretty strong German market in volume terms and so on. I mean, how do you see how easy it'll be to push on higher prices given that cost inflation? Thank you. No, thank you for the question. I mean, I think it's Q1. What I can comment on in Q1 is that in Q1 we are happy with the quality of the intake. For the quarters ahead or for 2027, it's too early to comment on that. You name it. I think if oil is costing more, logistics might cost more, resins might cost more. Then the rest is what are the other levers? The other levers is what is the price, allowable price for the market, and this is supply and demand and competition. We will try to do our best to capture the best possible prices as it should be. It's efficiency gains that, you know, and productivity gains that we need to squeeze further to deal with this margin pressure that we might have, provided we cannot pass those cost increases directly to customers. That's clear. Thank you. My other question was just to follow up on the free cash flow. In general, completely agree that working capital to sales should generally improve from here seasonally, given this is Q1. The payables line does still stand out as quite a bit higher than where it was, say, six months or so ago. Is there anything we should bear in mind about how that particular line should develop? Should it stay at this sort of level for the coming quarters? Thank you. Thanks. I think this one I'll take all these. No, that's a good observation, Vivek. However, this is just the size of the business and how the manufacturing, the production, everything is lumped, so to speak. In general terms, and again, one more time without guiding anybody, I would repeat my statement from the full year call that we clearly expect a conversion rate more normal than last year, not that high, but a conversion rate of EBITDA to cash of around 50%. Thank you. Very clear. The next question comes from the line of Richard Dawson from Berenberg. Please go ahead. Good afternoon, and thank you for taking my questions. I've got two, please. Firstly, on services, there was another step up in service order intake this quarter to what looks to be a new record level. Is this a reflection of a better renewal rate than before, or is this more just a generally growing installed base within projects? That's my first question. The second one, more of a broader question on the industry. ASPs looked elevated this quarter. I appreciate there's some geographical scope in there on why it's a bit higher. I guess the main thing is it looks like pricing discipline has been pretty well maintained within Europe. What are your views on the industry competition? We've spoken about the re-entry of Gamesa into Europe, but what about some of the Indian OEMs that are looking to re-enter or to enter the European market? Thank you. Thank you, Richard, for the question. I would say services. I mean, we are steadily growing that business and improving profitability. You know, improvement doesn't happen overnight. It's a low pace of improvement. Let's put it that way. We do expect to continue, provided things keep working as they are working. We are super happy with the technology. I mean, the service business, of course, the main drivers is reliability on the technology and then efficiency that the growth brings and dealing with potential inflationary pressures we might have on people and on certain materials. We expect the journey to continue but steady pace. I think there is should not be expected. We always say high single-digit, low double-digit growth, whatever profitability that this growth might bring to the business. All things being equal. Regarding the industry and ASP, I mean, ASP is, as we always mention, an indicator, which is an indicator that doesn't reflect, in fact, the quality of the business and is driven mainly by, in this case, you know, I cannot disclose the quality of the order intake, but we are happy with the quality of the intake has not deteriorated. But the key contribution for the ASP is geography and product mix. Regarding how this could affect in the future with the newcomers. Hopefully the market will grow in the areas where we operate to accommodate the newcomers and long term or medium term. I think short term, the market is in execution focus. The volumes that were auctioned need to be contracted, needs to be executed. I don't see. I mean, with all disclaimers, and I might burn my fingers, but I don't see customers willing to change the way they operate until we process this big volume that was auctioned and that contracted. This might change long term, but so far we don't see it. That's clear. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Sebastian Growe from BNP Paribas. Please go ahead. Yeah. Good afternoon, everybody. Thanks for taking my questions. Three for me. The first one would be on mix, and we had the debate before around the gross profit margin of more than 29% in the first quarter. I was wondering if there were any one-time effects or if you would consider the regional mix in any particular way favorable. Maybe you could just quickly comment on that, and then I have two more. I think it's probably a notch to the high end, so I wouldn't expect that to be always recurring on that level. Again, one more time, smaller quarter, more service helps the profitability. I think the trajectory is clear, but it's probably for a single quarter, which I always would ask us not to look too much at quarters, so I wouldn't read too much into the number, but at least ballpark. No specific one-offs. No specific one-offs either way. Okay. That's good to hear. The next one on provisioning. There was around EUR 45 million the first quarter. I think it's not necessarily an outlier, but I just wanted to check in whether there's any change to what you had planned for. I think you had been guiding previously to 3%-4% or so. If you could just comment on that one, Ilya. Yeah. Good observation. Thank you, Sebastian. That gives me the chance to talk about that. Yes, for the quarter, a bit of a higher number, but very clearly we're not. So the gross additions were basically without back up at 4% when you talk about warranty provisions. We keep our basic message from the last quarters, especially the full-year call, somewhere between 3%-4%. Yes, you might expect that for the full year to go up to 4%, but not beyond that. All right. The last one, just on the volumes. I think over the last 12 months, you have assembled almost 9 GW of turbines, if I'm not mistaken. You did not provide the gigawatt number as part of your midterm target update. Can you talk about the ambition for the company when it comes to considering probably Europe being about 8 GW or so alone in 2026, and that is however before factoring in any contributions from Canada, from the U.S. or from Australia. I was just wondering if you feel comfortable in talking about volumes and where you wanna take this company over the next couple of years. That's a good question. I would say in times of instability, you need to invest a little bit in overcapacity to have room to maneuver as well as to accommodate the project scale of and so on. Yeah, the 9 GW, it might change from component to component because the timing and the project demand is slightly different and the overcapacity is slightly different per component to deal with different risk profiles. Yeah, we are ready to deliver in that ballpark, 9 GW-10 GW a year. Yes. When you say overcapacity on the one side, you're doing already as a run- rate about 9 GW. How much leeway would you then have? It depends a lot, Sebastian. In nacelles, substantial. In blades, less. It depends because you do a risk assessment of, you know, all different aspects that might impact the job business, import duties, taxes, so on and so forth. Future view of what Net Zero Industry might have for your business. In nacelles, we have, of course, way more than 10 GW a year. In blades, ballpark that number. Mm-hmm. Last one then quickly on the blade part, because apparently you were able to then also equalize or offset then what you've been missing in terms of turbid blades by external partners. How do you see the scope for then also getting better supplies going forward if need be? That's the intention to phase out low performance suppliers and to concentrate in internal factories and suppliers with better quality performance. Now the focus is to further growth in India, to ramp up in Turkey, and keep working with our Chinese suppliers in Morocco and in China. Okay. Thank you for that. The next question comes from the line of Colin Moody from Royal Bank of Canada. Please go ahead. Thank you for taking my questions. I have two, please, if I could. One on the central costs. I understand that, there's an investment need, to support your strong order intake, but it has continued to ramp sequentially for quite a few quarters. Could you help us understand or better estimate what the normalized level should be? Presumably, it should begin to flatten at some point. My second question, just a kind of macro question, on the U.S.. Just curious to see, you know, how your customers' conversations are going with your customers right now, you know, what the interest levels are and the hold-ups, especially as we approach that July 4th Safe Harbor deadline. Thank you. Sorry, Colin. We couldn't get the first question in full, I don't know even- I'm not sure. Colin, you asked about kind of a calibration of a run- rate for the investment, the CapEx part? No. Sorry. Apologies if the line is unclear. I was asking about the central cost line. It continues to ramp as it has done for several quarters. Can you help us understand the unallocated central costs? Uh. EUR 120 million of EBIT, what that should levelize and normalize at? The second question was just what you're seeing in the U.S.- Yeah. The second one we got. Just take the first again. The first one is basically still ramp-up activity driven increasing of the business. That goes back a bit to the conversation that Sebastian and José Luis just had in a different shape, which is about the capacity. I think if the business develops as good, but within the ballpark of what we're calibrating you, we should be getting close to a, at least by Q3, the latest Q4, by a run- rate. I don't think that the increase will be so steep going forward when you compare them, let's say, in the last 12-18 months. Not so much more, I would expect. Regarding U.S., I would say you need to understand that you know, we don't have the market position we have in Europe. In U.S., it's Vestas and GE. Nonetheless, we see substantial commercial activity. Most of this commercial activities is subject to certain federal permits that needs to happen to release those final investment decisions. From now to July, we see very much what the volume of the market would be for the foreseeable future. I must say that for us, we see a momentum which is not minor. Understood. Thank you very much. The next question comes from the line of Deepa Venkateswaran from Bernstein. Please go ahead. Hi. Thank you for taking my questions. I wanted to follow up on some of the topics we already discussed. The first one on inflation. You mentioned that this might be more of a topic for 2027. Given that you've locked in most of the ASPs for your 2027 production maybe last year or even in 2024, I was wondering whether there is any specific indexation to bunker fuel or rise in costs. I suppose, given you are producing a lot of your turbines in China and India, the cost of moving that to Europe, you know, should your customers be willing to bear that? That was my first question. The second question was a bit more on the German auctions. I think the recent auction price was also below at, I think, at EUR 55/ MWh roughly. It is now. I think the last time it was in these levels was probably in 2018 or so. Wanted to just check how you're thinking of pricing, because so far you and the rest of industry have maintained that discipline, but it seems like developers are maybe losing it a bit. What is your comments here? I think one of your smaller peers said that he was not willing to lower prices in Germany. Wanted to kind of get your take on this topic. Thank you. Let's go to the first one. Very much, our indexation policy, Ilya can elaborate more, but very much, we try to lock what is firm orders. The moment we lock an order, we try to lock the logistics and the towers to have certainty on the delivery. But we don't do forward. We are not long in hedging fuel for expected order intake. The future margins of the volumes that are unsold are gonna depend on what is the cost base at the moment we lock the order and the price we can get from the order, which is gonna be a typical competition against your competitors to win the order. This is what, you know, 2026, we are comfortable because three-quarters of the activity, all part is very much locked with contracts. One quarter of or one-third to one quarter of the activity still needs to be sold. Consequently, we will figure out what the margin of this expected order intake is for 2026, small portion, and for 2027, big portion. When we talk about German auctions and the pricing and adjusting or not adjusting, again, supply and demand. We will try to harvest the best market conditions possible, but we need a prerequisite. The project needs to be viable, with the wind, with the CapEx, with the land lease, with the finance, with expected return for the customer, and with healthy margins for us. We learned painfully in previous years how devastating can be for a sector doing irrational things. I hope that we can make a living all in the sector at the current auction prices. I don't know if you can elaborate a little, but it is. I think you nailed it. I think maybe the 2018 comparison with all due respect is a bit skewed because it was a different system on the subscribed auctions, but still the general trajectory or the direction of the question is totally understandable. Nonetheless, let's not forget that the auctions as they stand today still have an open upside to the electricity market. It is not an absolute data point where the auction lands, the developer, the ultimate owner, is still entitled with those tariffs to step in and out of a power marketing system in Germany. That might change with the CfDs. I think we had this conversation early on. Nonetheless, Luis, I think you summarized what we called in the full year call. Also, Germany will become a more normal market. It will have oversubscribed supply and demand auctions. Hence, the whole value chain in Germany that arguably was a bit healthier than in other markets with those set feed-in tariffs will normalize. Basically we will have a market with a very good volume, but on margins in comparable markets in Europe. It's a great market to be in. 200 projects. The capillarity you need to build to execute that is you don't build it overnight, you don't lose it overnight. Germany and Central Europe is the highest price for electricity in Europe for several reasons. You are in a market where electricity is paid more than in Baltics or Nordics or Iberian Peninsula, where there is a huge demand and where the company has amazing capabilities to deliver. Yes, you always want better auction prices, but I think we can do reasonable business with the current volumes and auction prices. Okay. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Sean McLoughlin from HSBC. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon. A question on service. You talked about crossing 20% in your comments. I'm just curious as to really what are the drivers and I guess blue sky, how far above 20% should we start thinking about? That's the first question. Yeah. Well, I mean, all things being equal, volume. For volume, you need to be patient. You know, if we keep growing 10% every seven years, we duplicate the business. The margin will not grow in that proportion. I mean, it's hitting an asymptote, because I mean, we cannot deliver better margins than the ones we sell. The ones we sell, you know, are. I think we cannot disclose them in that detail, but margins in services will. The growth rate, and you see it in the previous quarters, is slowing down as it should be. Thank you. Another question just on the service fleet, 'cause I'm just wondering if today, if you break down your fleet, how much of your fleet still are the older AWP turbines, and how much already is Delta? Just on the assumption that I suppose you're getting better margins on turbines you're selling today. I would say big majority is now Delta. On Delta4000 AWP, we are losing renewals, and the weight of the AWP fleet is decreasing by two factors because the overall is increasing, and we lose renewals. Over time, the AWP might be phasing out and be in a very small portion. Still we have a big fleet under service in Latin America, in Spain, in several countries, but the trend is lower AWP contribution over time. Understood. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Alex Jones from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Great. Thanks for taking my questions too, if I can, please. First, just to follow up on the EU Industrial Accelerator Act. As you currently understand the draft legislation, would that require any changes in your supply chain to move more into Europe or do you see the footprint currently as well-positioned? And then secondly, just on your customer discussions in Europe since the start of the Middle East conflict, has that changed at all the tone of those conversations with customers? You know, are they accelerating things due to movements in fossil fuel prices or any hesitation given sort of the inflation and interest rate environment that we're in? Thank you. That second is a typical dynamic. First, in that Industrial Acceleration Act, no changes for our supply chain. We were preparing for that and planning for that to have different options. We might bring some more towers from A to B, and we might produce a little bit more modules in country A or country B. Generally speaking, it's not a surprise to us because we were expecting that and planning for that. Because, you know, we always mention in the past that we didn't want to have all eggs in the same basket. Just planning for having optionalities for the future. That's regarding supply chain configurations. Regarding customer compensations, two-fold here. I think one is great. I mean, everywhere is a drama, no? For our sector, what has happened or what is happening in the Suez, in the Hormuz Strait is reinforcing the contribution and the importance to renewables, and especially wind onshore, to the resilience of the countries and to the affordability for consumers and hopefully accelerate electrification. It is true that in the past, you know, many countries were questioning a little bit that might need to consider backing gas or is gas the solution for Europe? All those things, I must say, are very much off the table, so which is only good for our business, because then policymakers focus on accelerating renewables, because it gives you a better country, a more resilient country, less exposed to volatility and so on. When you translate this to customer discussions, I would say the helicopter view is great, because your sector is needed and needs to be accelerated. In the short term, you need to deal with volatility, with costing, with pricing, with margins and so on with financing, getting the projects bankable and financed, and this might have some short-term impact. I think we should be able to manage that. I don't think this will affect dramatically our sector. You know, what I hear from customers is that a reasonable project in Europe, wind onshore with permits gets filled in almost every country. Of course, in Germany, the auctions oversubscribed, that's not totally true. But over time, you know, the sector is not lacking capital, and PPAs in certain markets are not adjusting. In others are adjusting to the new reality. It depends a lot market to market, but generally speaking, wind onshore is a good market to be. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of John Kim from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Okay. I wanted to focus in on the second half just a little bit. Quite a growth in nacelle production in Q1, blades flat. Given what you describe around kind of pricing, bunker fuel, resin, and outsourcing, can you give us any sense of kind of safety net backlog that you have in blade supply, and how we could think about kind of Q2 into Q3, given what happens or what we're seeing right now? I mean, nobody can really predict the end of a conflict, but if the Strait of Hormuz is not open, when will we start to see later deliveries or supply chain constraints in the second half numbers, and will it be blades? Thank you, John. I think I would say the activity in Q1 is mainly driven by high activity last year. We accelerate the build-up of the stock 'cause the company is a growing company and at least in our view it is expected to be a growing company in the foreseeable future. Strategically, we were anticipating inventory to be in a better position to deliver higher quantities over the quarters, mainly in Germany, and it was advisable to slow down a little bit in Q1. That was on purpose, but everything normal. Regarding, you know, the slight cost increases that we might have in place, but even considering that, you know, we are still committed to the mid-term plus in the guidance. We will figure out how to manage in other commodities. In parallel, we are ramping up blade production in Türkiye. In that same quarter of last year, that factory was producing blades. Then went into Chapter 11, and then we rescued the assets and are starting up as we speak to previous place. I'll say business as usual with the typical changes in the models to that are allocated to different factories. We are well equipped to deliver our projects without impacts. That affects blade production costs and fuel costs. Of course, if the situation deteriorates in the second half, and you don't have availability of components, I wouldn't say that projects even might survive without LDs and so on, but Percentage of Completion will be under pressure because if you don't produce, you don't recognize revenue and margin. Too early to say. The assumption is that the factories will work in second half. Understood. Follow-up question, if I may. If we isolate just to your project margins in Q1, very strong year-on-year delivery and expansion here, kind of 360 basis points. How would you characterize that? Is that better profitability on the project deliveries overall? Is there a strong mix effect from the nacelle production? And how should we think about that through maybe Q2, given your current outlook? I would say, Q1, I will categorize that in every project business, you have risk and chances, and risk didn't materialize and chances materialize. This might or might not be the case in the future quarters. Maybe some more balanced approach or maybe the trend continues, but too early to say. Okay. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of William Mackie from Kepler Cheuvreux. Please go ahead. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions. A couple, please. Firstly, going back to the discussion on gross margins or project margins, is there any way you can throw some more color on the differential between the project margins or gross margins you're achieving and the service gross margins, just so we get a sense of mix effects into the year? On that topic, would you describe your project margins sort of flying at target altitude, or is there scope for expansion around mix? That's my first questions. Let's do this together. I think Q1, as Ilya mentioned before, is listed as on an EBIT level as a contribution of services that the service business is expected to grow steadily in the quarters ahead of us. The contribution of service will decrease once the project business ramps in Q3 and Q4. You will have less service contribution to the overall profitability. The rest is portfolio, Ilya. I think the first part, and we understand William's question, but I think that is as specific as I would go on a public call on a split between the two. I think to the underlying or the other question that William is asking us about how you feel about the project margins, is that the target run rate you have? I think here what we were saying is, José Luis you correct me if I'm wrong, when we now sell the projects and go into execution, they absolutely are. Then it is a function of how we perform against the risk and changes and the contingencies we've baked into those. Last year, for example, we came out in November, some of you might remember that [a talk notification] that we were just doing substantially better. This is what we also said at the full year call when we gave the guidance. For this year, we are budgeting this in a very similar fashion. Whether this ultimately will be the target rate or the rate we're targeting, I think if everything goes well- Yeah or a bit better than planned, totally, if it goes much better, well, that's why we guide for a range towards the upside. If some risks, which we haven't seen so far materialize, it goes the other way. I think that is what I would say. It depends on the bandwidth of contingencies we're baking into our calculations. Thank you. The second question would be around technology or product mix going historically and going forward. I think you're in the phase of ramping up the N175. You know, a significant opportunity in the 6 MW category. When we look back on the success of the Delta4000 around the 4 MW and 5 MW platforms, you know, how should we think about the risk as you evolve onto the 6 MW platform? And specifically, is this something which has similar levels of profitability or better? Or, you know, how should we think about mix effect with regard to product development in the project business? That's a very good question, William. I think first, the N175 is one for the extension based on the same platform. We started N149/ 4.X/ 5.X/ 6.X, N163/ 5.X/ 6.X, now N175/ 6.X, and even N70/7.X. On the product, I consider this product one evolution, and my expectations is that the reliability of the product doesn't deteriorate. Contrary to what you could think in the previous upgrades of products, every new variant of Delta4000 was performing slightly better than the previous one. Which I have no reason to believe that N175 should be the other way around. That's from a reliability point of view. From a margin point of view, I would say this product makes projects viable and bankable at price levels that otherwise those projects were not bankable. Are we capturing the extra value in increasing profitability? The honest answer is maybe not. Maybe this is the project, the product that you need to make sure that we keep profitability slightly improving in a auction price market that is declining. This is part of the solution, why we think we can make money even with the auction prices in Germany dropping so substantially. Thank you. The last perhaps relates to one of your flagged risk issues around supply chain. If I recall, your turbine volume production stepped up 50% in China last year. I think it's about 40% of the volumes you booked. How would you frame the risk around supply chain from China? Going back to some of the earlier questions, about addressing the European localization content, do you have the capacity to ramp up if you need within Germany and Spain to flex or to balance between the two in value added around nacelle? We do. We clearly have the possibility to substantially double, if needed, our capacity in Europe. So far, we are keeping that possibility, and we're using that possibility, balancing cost and obligation for the Net Zero Industry Act auction, and eventually we're doing a little bit more in Europe than strictly required. We have possibility to do more, yes. Super. Thank you very much. You're very welcome. As a reminder, if you wish to register for a question, please press star and one on your telephone. Ladies and gentlemen, that was the last question. I would now like to turn the conference back over to José Luis Blanco for any closing remarks. Thank you very much, and let us close as always with a few takeaways from the first quarter. First, we have a positive start into the year with healthy order intake and continued confidence in the order intake trajectory across our core markets. Second, our focus remains on generating positive and sustainable free cash flow, supported by good visibility on margins and the continued recovery we see across the business throughout the year. Third, we confirm our guidance for 2026. Last, overall, the first quarter supports our view that we are setting a consistent path towards our upgraded mid-term EBITDA margin target of 10%-12%. Thank you very much, and wish you a great afternoon ahead.