Welcome to the RWE Conference Call. Markus Krebber, CEO of RWE AG, and Michael Müller, CFO of RWE AG, will inform you about the developments in the first half of fiscal 2022. I will now hand over to Thomas Denny. Thank you, Jess, and good afternoon, ladies, and gentlemen. Thank you for joining the RWE Investor and Analyst Conference Call. We are well aware that it's quite a busy day for you. Therefore, we'll keep it short and give you enough time for Q&A later. With me, as said, is our CEO, Markus Krebber, and our CFO, Michael Müller, for the report on the first six months of the year. Now, without further delay, over to you, Markus. Yeah. Thank you, Thomas, and good afternoon to all of you, and it's good talking to you again after our summer break. RWE has delivered a very good performance in the first half of this year while navigating the European energy crisis. Due to the strong operational performance of all our core business segments, our core EBITDA stood at EUR 2.4 billion at the end of June, and group EBITDA was EUR 2.9 billion. We demonstrated the robustness of our business model and eliminated our financial exposure to Russian counterparties entirely. Furthermore, RWE is actively ensuring and enhancing security of supply in Europe by increasing power generation as well as by actively diversifying the gas supply to Europe and, of course, by consistently pursuing our green growth program under our Growing Green strategy. We are right on track with our growth strategy. Our development pipeline is continuously evolving. We commissioned 1.2 GW of new green capacity in H1, and a further 4.8 GW is currently under construction. On the back of the strong performance of our core businesses, the outlook for 2022 has been raised to a group EBITDA of EUR 5 billion-EUR 5.5 billion and an adjusted net income of EUR 2.1 billion-EUR 2.6 billion. In the first six months of the year, all our core business segments flourished, driving the earnings for RWE Group. The German operations from coal and nuclear showed lower earnings year-on-year as expected. Our business model has proven to be robust and well-balanced, and our steady investments into green capacity are paying off. Our generation fleet recorded a high deployment and delivered a very strong operational performance. In a volatile market environment, the supply and trading business once again delivered an outstanding result. Moving on to page five on how we are navigating the current energy crisis. By the end of June, we had entirely removed our financial exposure to commodity deliveries from Russian counterparties. This means there's no further financial downside since all financial implications have been fully covered in H1 earnings. The German government has set up a scheme to redistribute the losses from the shortfall of Russian gas supplies to all gas consumers from October first onwards. We do support the scheme since it avoids the collapse of companies suffering incredible losses from Russian under deliveries and subsequent chain reactions which are difficult to control. RWE also suffered some losses in its gas business due to the shortfalls of contracted Russian deliveries. However, we have taken early steps to proactively manage our gas supply portfolio, and we are a financially robust company. We therefore want to show our social responsibility and share the burden. Hence, we do not intend to claim losses from the shortfall of Russian gas supplies. Moreover, I'd like to give you a final update on the coal write-off as a result of U.K. and European sanctions. After final settlement, the total amount written off in the non-operating result was EUR 750 million. Also, with respect to coal, there is no financial exposure with Russian counterparties left. Everything has been reflected in H1 earnings. With regards to our hedging activities, we are clearly taking a conservative approach and prioritize de-risking over earnings maximization. As such, we are, for example, avoiding commitments on electricity delivery obligations relating to the German gas fleet, and we have increased the internal buffer of unplanned unavailability of our fleet to avoid the risk of power buybacks in the current high price environment. For the avoidance of doubt, we do not expect any additional outages. This is just a precautious risk management measure. Finally, we continue to strictly monitor all counterparties. So far, we have not recorded meaningful losses from credit defaults. We are supporting the improvement of energy security in Europe. On the one hand, we contribute to higher utilization of our generation fleet. On the other hand, we will bring back additional generation capacity. At the request of the German government, we are preparing to bring back 900 MW of liquid capacity from the security reserve as of October 2022. In the Netherlands, our 1.6 GW Eemshaven biomass co-firing hard coal plant is back in full operations. This is a result of the Dutch government's lifting of restrictions from the Urgenda ruling at the end of June. We are also helping to diversify gas supply. This year, with more than 40 LNG cargoes, we have already provided four times as many deliveries to Europe than in the same period last year. Furthermore, we organized floating storage regasification units and will operate the FSRU in Brunsbüttel on behalf of the German government. Operations should start as early as the end of this year and require certain infrastructure investments. We are also engaged in further LNG import activities in the Baltic Sea in Germany. Besides floating regasification, we expect to take FID for the land-based terminal in Brunsbüttel in due course, together with our partners, Gasunie and KfW. Operations are expected to begin 2027, and the planning includes the terminal's preparedness for green molecules in the long term. On the import side, we signed an MOU with Sempra for an additional long-term LNG supply contract from the U.S. from 2027 onwards for 3 BCM annually. Finally, we are well on track in filling all our booked gas storages and meeting all fill level requirements. Let's move on to page seven and our core strategic agenda, our Growing Green strategy. We are making good progress with our investments in the expansion of green technologies. As we speak, we have 4.8 GW of green capacity under construction. In the first six months, we have in total commissioned 1.2 GW net. In offshore, we commissioned 500 MW of additional capacity in the U.K. For further growth, we entered the U.S. offshore market, securing a 3 GW seabed lease in the New York Bight auction together with our partner, National Grid. First turbine, first power. This is true for our Kaskasi construction site in Germany, where we celebrated its first power supply to the grid last week. If everything goes according to plan, the wind farm will start full operations at the end of the year. The onshore wind solar business has commissioned more than 600 MW in six months, and we have also seen capacity additions of 100 MW from batteries. The acquisition of the Magnum plant in the Netherlands will add another 1.4 GW to our green portfolio. Additional value comes with its potential for hydrogen applications. Thanks to its construction design, Magnum is already hydrogen-ready today. The plant can be made technically capable of co-firing up to 30% hydrogen. Moreover, there may also be the possibility of converting Magnum to use hydrogen as its sole fuel by the end of the decade. Speaking of which, we have started construction of our first electrolyzer, a 14 MW electrolyzer plant in Lingen, and I'm very confident that we will see more news flow in the near future. To summarize what is clear, RWE is leading the way to the green energy world while navigating the current energy crisis. We have proven the company's resilience by benefiting from a technologically and regionally diversified business portfolio. In addition, we have eliminated the entire financial exposure to Russian counterparties and from Russian commodity supplies. With a wide range of activities, we are significantly contributing to improving energy security in Europe. Be it with our generation portfolio by importing LNG and by setting up the infrastructure to import additional LNG directly to Germany. Of course, with our steady new investments into green technologies. For the green build-out, we expect more than EUR 5 billion of investments this year. With this, I hand over to Michael for the financial part of the presentation. Michael, please. Yeah, thanks, Markus, and also warm welcome from my side. A strong operational performance in H1 drove up earnings. Adjusted EBITDA for the core business stood at almost EUR 2.4 billion and the RWE Group at almost EUR 2.9 billion. The offshore wind Adjusted EBITDA increased to EUR 632 million. Year-on-year, earnings were higher due to capacity additions, including the Rampion full consolidation for the full period. Furthermore, wind conditions were better than last year and power prices for unhedged volumes higher. For the onshore wind and solar division, Adjusted EBITDA was significantly higher than last year, mainly due to the absence of a one-off effect. In Q1, we took a hit from the Texas cold snap, which was only partly offset by book gains. This year, Adjusted EBITDA was EUR 491 million. Higher power prices and new capacities and better wind conditions also drove earnings up. Adjusted EBITDA for the hydro, biomass, and gas division stood at EUR 755 million after six months of this year. The flexible generation business was up year-on-year due to stronger short-term asset optimization and higher margins. An outage at the Dutch gas plant, Claus C, has partially offset the increase. The plant was offline from the beginning of January until mid-April due to a steam turbine damage. RWE Supply & Trading reached an Adjusted EBITDA of EUR 545 million due to a very strong trading performance. Adjusted EBITDA from the coal nuclear division was EUR 501 million. Due to an intra-year timing effect and increased income from short-term asset optimization in the first half of the year, it has been particularly strong. Year-over-year, earnings from coal nuclear were lower as a result of capacity closures. On the back of the strong operational performance, adjusted net income amounted to roughly EUR 1.6 billion. Depreciation was as expected and in line with our Growing Green investments. The year-over-year adjusted financial result is lower due to a higher interest rate environment and higher liquidity requirements in volatile commodity markets. In Q2, we received the dividend payment from our 15% shareholding in E.ON. For adjusted tax, we applied the general tax rate of 15% for the RWE Group. Adjusted minority interest increased in line with the higher earnings in the wind business. The adjusted operating cash flow was EUR 2.8 billion at the end of H1 and reflects the impact on net debt from operating activities. Let me remind you, it is adjusted for special items and other effects that balance out over time. The higher adjusted operating cash flow echoes the higher level of earnings. Changes in operating working capital was positive at the end of June. The decrease from higher accounts receivable for power and LNG had a positive effect. Conversely, working capital increased from the filling of gas storages. This is temporarily offset by an increase of accounts payable from gas purchases. Net debt decreased to EUR 1.9 billion at the end of June. This was driven by a strong operating cash flow and a decrease in pension provisions due to higher discount rates. In the first half year, we invested EUR 2.1 billion. Net cash investments include the payment for our lease in the 3 GW seabed lease awarded at New York Bight. Our net position from variation margins from power generation hedging stood at EUR 80 million. This includes net variation margins from the sale of electricity, as well as the purchase of the respective fuels and CO2. In the context of higher discount rates, pension provisions have decreased and were only partially offset by a negative performance on plan assets. For the full year 2022, we confirm the outlook we gave at the end of July. Adjusted EBITDA for the group is expected to be between EUR 5 billion and EUR 5.5 billion, driven by the earnings increase in our core business. Adjusted EBIT is assumed to be between EUR 3.4 billion and EUR 3.9 billion. The adjusted financial result is now expected to be around -EUR 450 million for the full year. The higher interest rate environment and higher liquidity requirements stemming from volatility in commodity markets have caused this. This fits with the development we have seen in the first six months. Furthermore, higher gas prices will also require financing of higher gas inventories in storage facilities. In line with the earnings growth in our wind business, adjusted minorities are expected to be roughly -EUR 350 million. Adjusted net income is forecasted to range between EUR 2.1 billion and EUR 2.6 billion. We have delivered a very good performance in the first half of the year and have demonstrated the robustness of our business model. On the back of a strong operating cash flow, we expect more than EUR 5 billion investments this year. Almost 90% of our CapEx in the first half of the year were eligible under EU Taxonomy. Our investment discipline will stay a key driver to ensure value creation. Project IRR typically exceed base WACC by 100-300 basis points. Our growth is backed by a solid and strong investment grade rating. Just recently, Moody's has confirmed the current rating. We will keep our dividend target of EUR 0.9 per share for fiscal year 2022, which allows us to continue investing in the Growing Green. With this, let me hand you back to Thomas. Thank you, Michael. We'll now start with the Q&A process. Operator, please begin. Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad, and please ensure your line is unmuted locally as you'll be advised when to ask your question. The first question comes from the line of Vincent Ayral from JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Hi, good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for taking my question. A couple of questions. The first one is regarding the nuclear extension, which is highly discussed in Germany. Mr. Scholz made a comment again today. We believe it's highly likely, and like to get a bit more color on which reactors could be extended from your standpoint. Can we bring back the reactors that were closed earlier last year as well? On the ones which are still running today, how much of the fuel rods do you have left for the coming winter? Meaning, can they run through the winter as the reactor of E.ON, for example? We'd be quite interested in having some color there, and color as well on the framework for that. Would it be merchant, or would you be basically receiving some sort of capacity payment? That's the first question on the nuclear. The second is on political intervention. Bills are rising all over, all the way through Europe. RWE seems more sheltered than a number of other players from these risks. But we'd be quite keen to hear your views there, especially in the U.K., where we have a change of leadership and where you have some exposure, among other things, on the blocks, if I may say. Those would be the two questions, please. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Vincent, for the questions, which I can fully understand. Also, I mean, especially on all discussions you have with politicians, it's difficult to comment in public, and this call is public. So let me keep it brief. On the nuclear extension, I don't wanna engage in any kind of speculation what could be the political decision. You probably know that the German government has asked the TSO and together with the regulator to run a stress test. Another stress test results are due within the next couple of days. I think based on that, the government will take a decision what to do on the nuclear side. Please don't ask me what I think the outcome might be. I don't know. I don't have the basic information about the full overview of the stability of the grid and security of supply. The same actually is true on the windfall profit tax side. I think also that discussion is in the end a political one. I think the arguments are all on the table. Difficult to determine what is windfall and which sector is affected. I mean, you have also many sectors benefiting from different developments. In the end, we have to wait for the political decision and then we can communicate the consequences for us. I don't wanna engage in speculation what I think might happen. I fully understand all that. Could you, on the nuclear at least, be factual about what technically how you can help, basically? What is possible for you if you are asked to run reactors? Can you run them in Q1 next year on the existing rods? Are you technically able to bring back the older reactors which have been decommissioned at the end of last year? This is just technically what can you do if you're asked to help. I mean, technically, it also depends on the timeline. You have three elements. One is what could you make available if you simply run them also in the first few weeks of the next year, and then maybe how long you could run them with one reconfiguration of the nuclear core. The second is new fuel rods. And the third one is potentially also bringing back capacity, which has already been closed at, or has totally different lead times. All this information is made available on their request to the government. They have to take a decision, and I don't speculate further. Thank you, Vincent. Next question. Next question comes from the line of Peter Bisztyga from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Yeah. Good afternoon. Two questions from me. First one on your CCGTs. I understand that you've changed your future hedging strategy here, but I was hoping you could walk us through what the implications would be for those assets, particularly in Germany, in the event that the government had to trigger an emergency in Q4 this year. For example, have you unwound existing hedging on those assets, or could you still have power buyback risks on those if they were curtailed? And would there be downside risks to your kind of revised guidance, if those plants were unable to operate? That's my first question. The second one might just try and approach the windfall tax question from another angle, which is, you know, could you give us some insight as to what your justification is why you shouldn't be windfall taxed in the U.K. on your ROC or Renewables Obligation Certification power output? Because I think, you know, it's from my perspective, difficult to argue that you're not gonna be making a windfall on those older assets. So just interested to hear what justification you might be giving to the Business Secretary when you meet him this week. Thank you, Peter. It's a nice try to approach the same question from a different angle. I think all the arguments have been made. You wanna have a stable and firm investment environment and not scare potential investments because rules are changed retroactively. The question is, I mean, how do you determine what is a good and acceptable profit, and what is a bad profit, which should be taxed at a higher rate? I mean, if you have more profits, you're gonna be taxed on a higher profit that you pay more anyhow. I mean, what is the difference between providing energy to the public or to provide, let's say, online services which have recorded high growth rates and huge profits under the Corona situation while others have suffered? But let me leave it there. I don't wanna go any further. I think it's also all the arguments are in the public already in the discussions in the U.K., but also here in Germany, but it's now a political government question, and they have to take the decision, and then we deal with it. On the CCGTs and the hedging, you never wanna be in a situation where you are curtailed on the gas supply side, but you still have the power delivery obligation, and then you have to buy back in the market. That's why we have adjusted our hedging policy to avoid that situation in any circumstances. We have really reduced significantly the hedge ratios by p utting in higher buffers for unavailability, but not hedging our CCGTs in Germany at all. We don't expect I mean, the only financial implication you can expect is if power prices come down now, we would have made more profits hedging, so there is a foregone upside. We do not expect that we are in a position where we have to see buybacks at higher prices and that we have a downward trend in our guidance. We are here really with the guidance, but also with our hedging policy on the very conservative side. Okay. Just to be 100% clear, you're sort of comfortable that there's no exposure even in, you know, kind of Q4 this year on that front? Correct. Yes. Perfect. Thanks very much. Thank you, Peter. Next question, please. Next question comes from the line of Olly Jeffery from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Thank you, good morning and, or good afternoon rather. Two questions from me, please. The first one is just on the 900 MW lignite that could be coming back into operation in October. A couple of kind of points around that. First of all, what's your kind of base level expectation for how much you think that plant might run? You know, on my numbers, I could potentially see that running, you know, a couple of terawatt-hours. Is that how you see that? Then when you think about, you know, you look at the German Q4 power price, you know, it's up to kind of EUR 500/MWh. You know, you look at the short-run marginal cost of lignite with mainly carbon costs there. You can see how you can get to quite a large spread, that those lignite assets could get. I was just wondering, do you also see that potential upside? When thinking about the 2022 guidance, have you been quite conservative in how you thought about how much that lignite asset might run? That's the first question. Then the second question is, do you think that with, you know, some of the lignite assets potentially becoming more profitable, and the issue around 2030 around closing lignite, the current environment makes it more easy to have conversations with government about potentially taking over the lignite assets at some point? It'll be great to get your thoughts on both of those questions. Thank you. Okay. Olly, let me take the first question on the lignite. I mean, you know, the situation as follows. The government has put the law in place that basically allows the government to bring back the capacity, and the government has also communicated its intention to bring to allow us to operate the lignite power station starting October 1st. There hasn't been a formal order yet. For us, it's yet unclear how that exactly will be designed, and that also includes the question for how long will they allow us or order us to run them and under which condition that is. Therefore, we are very reluctant about taking any assumptions around this one. When you calculate the number for 2022, you always also have to bear in mind, I mean, the costs are covered by the government for providing that service, but the moment you run them, half of your income is accounted against the costs you incur. Therefore, the upside we see in 2022 is not so significant. That is also, when you talk about the guidance, we haven't included a significant upside there because we also don't expect that to be so large in the course of the year. I take the second question, Olly, but maybe let me also comment on the forward curve. I think calculating profits using the power forward curve is, I think, not wise. Why? I think the forward curve is distorted by very low liquidity. When you calculate the fundamentals, you should come out with much lower power prices. I think the moment the market goes back to normal, we also should expect a normalization there. Or when you actually deliver the power in the prompt, so the physical reality strikes, I think we see more reasonable prices. Because in the end, I mean, seeing a power prices which is significant more than a marginal, very low efficient gas plant plus CO2 emission prices is very difficult to justify. Other than we really expect an upend on gas-fired power generation and the market needs to clear with demand destruction. On the lignite discussion, yes, you can be assured that we have ongoing discussions with the German government on many things. I mean, security of supply, gas as well as power, bringing back units. We have also on the agenda the topic 2030 and everything which is around it. Please also understand that when you look at that from the priority point of view, the 2030 and foundation question is probably not top priority. Rest assured that we have it on the agenda, but at the current point in time, there is no news we can communicate. Thanks. That was That was all very helpful. Thank you, Olly. Next question, please. The next question comes from the line of Rob Pulleyn from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hey, thank you very much for taking the questions. Just two for me. The first one, if we can address this to Michael. The second quarter appears to have a large outflow in other changes in net debt if we look at the slide versus where it was in Q1. Could you talk to the drivers of that? I presume it's something to do with variation margin flow. And as an ancillary to this question, you previously have given the variation margin balance for your explicitly hedged period, and it would be great to have an update on that number. Thank you. The second question is not around nuclear. It is around gas storage and the KELAG business that you have. I just wondered how the storage filling was going at that facility, and I believe the one you have in the Czech Republic as well, and how is the carrying value of that gas, which is surely rising with the gas price accounted for? Thank you very much. Yeah. Rob, on the first question, I mean, I mentioned that the balance for the variation margin from our hedging activities is only EUR 80 million at the end of the first half. If you compare that against the year-end number of EUR 0.2 billion, we have seen an outflow on this one. Yeah. On the second question, Rob, I mean, our gas storage is currently filled more than 85% so far above the minimum threshold at this point in time. The Czech ones are even filled at a higher level, so we will reach the minimum level without problems ourselves. To the question of the value, please keep in mind that, I mean, gas storage business doesn't work, that you fill in gas, keep the position open, and you see where the price goes. The moment you inject, you typically sell on a forward curve and make a margin, and we account that mark to market. You always have the fair valuation of what we have as gas storage business at the end of every quarter. Please don't expect huge upside here from having unhedged gas in gas storages. Of course it is a huge burden, as Michael has said, on working capital because it carries a lot of liquidity needs. That's super helpful. Thank you. I will turn it over. Great. Thanks, Rob. Next one, please. The next question comes from the line of Martin Tessier from Stifel. Please go ahead. Yes. Hi, good afternoon, everyone. Only one question from me, regarding the German gas levy. You said that you will share the burden and not claim losses. Could you give us some color on or some magnitude on this financial impact? Thank you. Yeah, Martin, we cannot quantify the effect by now because it will depend on how much the Russians will supply from first of October onwards. Let me maybe explain the gas levy. You are entitled to compensation for the purchase against under-deliveries, Russian under-deliveries from the first of October. The levy says or the regulation says you can claim what you incur in losses on a daily basis, but if you have already covered the potential under-deliveries earlier, you can claim these losses. Since we have, as we have made clear already, covered all Russian supply under-deliveries of Russian supplies by the end of last quarter, we know what a potential maximum loss would be, but the actual loss will depend on the under-deliveries. Please understand that we at the current point in time do not want to communicate what a potential maximum loss is. It is a meaningful number, but it's also not a number which gives us a headache because we have not so many Russian supplies left. Let me reiterate that regardless what happens, even if they don't supply anything from 1st of October, we will not incur additional losses because we have fully reflected the negative effect already at the end of H1. Yeah. You could put it in other words, if there are deliveries from H2 onwards, this is actually a slight upside. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Martin. Next one, please. The next question comes from the line of Alberto Gandolfi from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my questions. I'm trying to ask a couple of questions about medium-term earnings. You know, your 2022 core guidance could well be implying nearly EUR 5 billion EBITDA, towards the upper end for the core business this year. You know, I appreciate that there's very strong profitability in hydro, biomass and supply and trading, but there's five years to go still to your 2027 guidance, which at the midpoint is about EUR 4 billion. I guess my question is, why haven't you suspended also the 2027 EBITDA guidance as well as the 2023? Maybe I can turn around the question, is it still a valid reference point or because of power prices, because of more megawatts, more winds, higher spreads? You know, again, who knows what happens by 2027, but if we freeze the world today and we assume a bit of normalization, isn't that guidance quite obsolete by now. The second question is still on numbers. In 2023 to 2025, if I'm not mistaken, you've been historically guiding for up to EUR 400 million, like EUR 300 million, EUR 400 million earnings cliff from renewable contracts that expire. Clearly the current forward curves, you know, I was trying to understand is there an upside. You know, not a cliff, but actually a markup if we assume no intervention clearly by the government. Maybe it would be very helpful, you could share with us what's the breakeven price. I believe it's about EUR 150, EUR 200, if I'm not mistaken. If prices are EUR 150-EUR 200, you have no earnings cliff. That'd be very helpful in case maybe there is a price gap down the line trying to understand. Because back to the 2027 point, I think your guidance is baking in clearly a much, much steeper cliff. Thank you so much. So, Alberto, it's Markus. I think we should ask the operator to give you always the right to ask the first question because then it's easier. You ask now question on 2027 already. That's a deal. Let me put it that way. I think taking the guidance of 2027 off the table because of market prices or the current market circumstances would not be wise. I mean, we should really expect also for the benefit of Europe overall that we see a full normalization by 2027. Of course, I mean, as we have indicated before, there is a lot of tailwind for renewables from all the programs. We are making good cash flows, so more than expected, so there is potentially more headroom for investment. If there is a reason to update the guidance 2027, it is because we changed our investment plans. For that, we cannot give you an update on a quarterly basis, so we will do that when we do our next full update with the capital markets day and revised investment plans. Maybe forgive us, also we are very busy with navigating through the current crisis. We haven't actually thought about it to also taking the guidance 2027 off the table. About talking about the German Staffelförderung, I mean, it just nicely fits to what Markus said. I mean, first of all, you're right. If you look at the subsidy scheme, the first step down is to EUR 159 /MWh, and then the second step takes the subsidies down to EUR 39/MWh. Clearly, if you could see current power prices, we would be well above and therefore there would be also upside. Like Markus said, our assumption for 2027 is still that there will be a normalization. We shouldn't assume current price levels to persist. Second, you also have to bear in mind, those price levels are capture prices, so you also need to deduct from the base load at some value to consider the capture price. In the short, yes. Probably in the next years to come, there is, if prices stay at that level, there is some upside, and the earnings cliff won't be as sharp as initially thought, in our guidances. In the longer run, we need to see, how prices develop. Then like Markus mentioned, our view is rather that there will be some kind of normalization in the medium long term. Thank you. Thank you, Alberto. Next question, please. The next question comes from the line of Deepa Venkateswaran from Bernstein. Please go ahead. Thank you. So my questions. Could you just update us on what your outright hedging for conventional as well as renewables is for the remainder of this year and the next couple of years? How that's probably changed from the beginning of the year. I think a couple of times, Markus, you've mentioned about normalization of power and gas prices. Could you maybe give us your best estimate on when this normalization occurs? 2023, 2024, 2025, 2027? Just curious to see how you're thinking about by when we should bake in normalization. Deepa, let me take the first one, and Markus can in the meantime, look into the crystal ball and come up with a number. On the hedging, I mean, we don't communicate precise numbers anymore. I mean, just roughly in renewables, you can assume like 80% hedge ratio because we always live with more conservatism with respect to renewables hedging, because obviously we have the volume risk and you want to avoid falling short if you don't have sufficient wind. And that is a hedge ratio we obviously have achieved for this year and already also for 2023. With respect to the conventional generation, I mean, you know that traditionally we always said if we enter into a year, we assume to be fully hedged. That is obviously not true anymore. As Markus mentioned, we have unwound the hedges and keep them open for our gas-fired assets in Germany. We have also deliberately included some more buffer for unavailability. Also, if we look at some markets, especially the U.K. and Netherlands, we see reduced liquidity. Therefore it is difficult to hedge all the positions further out. Without mentioning numbers, you can assume that especially in the prompt year, the exposure has reduced and also the outer year, our hedge ratio is lower than what you typically would have seen one or two years ago. Deepa, let me try to give you an answer which satisfies you. We have two major drivers of the current high price environment. One is a specific one on the power side, which is the situation of the French nuclears. To be very clear, I have no insight there. The moment we can expect that normalizes and maybe we go back to 75%-80% units being available, we definitely take this additional stress from the power sector. I mean, I don't know when that might happen. The other one is the gas supply from Russia in the context of the Ukrainian war. This has two time horizons. One is, if we would see a de-escalation of war, also resulting in, let's say, a de-escalation on the economic war front, so economic sanctions and counter sanctions, then we definitely will see a normalization. That is also very difficult to predict. If we take that out, what we cannot predict, the next step we need is Europe needs enough LNG import infrastructure to replace, at best, the entire, Russian gas supply, which currently I would put at another 60-70 BCM, import capacity into Europe. That will probably take until 2024-2025 to get that. The next bottleneck then is we have the infrastructure that will definitely take maybe, I don't know, 40% of gas prices, and we fall to global LNG prices. Then we have very tight global LNG prices. The third level is then when do we ramp up liquefaction capacity to export significantly more LNG to the global market? That would probably take, if you look at the big developments in Qatar and also the U.S., probably take until 2026, 2027. No. Thank you, Deepa. Next question, please. Next question comes from the line of Sam Arie from UBS. Please go ahead. Hi. Good afternoon, everybody. I have a bit of a crackly line, so can I check you can hear me okay? Yes, we can hear you. Okay, great. Thank you for the presentation. Congratulations on the results. I wanted to come back to this question that we sort of touched on earlier about high energy and power prices in the U.K. in particular, and what policymakers might be able to come up with to address this. I think you had questions earlier about windfall taxes and so on, although I know that that's controversial and sensitive and hard for you to comment on. Instead I wanted to ask about another potential solution, which we've had some discussion of, which would be, if the government were to come to the power market, if you like, and offer voluntary auctions for contracts for difference, for CFDs, but for existing assets in the same way as these are offered already for, you know, new build assets, including, the great offshore wind CFDs that you have and so on. Then in that case, I guess the idea would be that maybe some operators who have, you know, merchant or ROC-based assets would give up the higher prices they're getting from at the moment for those assets in exchange for a voluntary CFD at a much lower price. I suppose it would have to be lower than the CFD strike prices for new assets. In exchange, you know, you would get a contract that runs for 10-15 years and might be inflation proof and fundamentally more valuable still on an NPV basis, even though it's a lower price today. I don't know. I don't want to take too long trying to explain the idea, and there's many scenarios, but my question is: Do you think there is some kind of idea of a voluntary CFD for existing assets that could be a good solution for the situation we're in? Do you hear anything from the government that might be leading in this direction in the U.K. or frankly, anywhere else? And if such CFDs were on offer for existing assets, would you see yourselves interested as bidders? Would you bid in assets to that kind of contract structure if it was offered? Thank you. Yeah. Thanks, Sam. I have also heard about this idea, but when it's clear whether this comes and how it will look like, we're gonna take a decision what we do. I think it's just one of the potential measures the government might take. Maybe when your line is stable, maybe you call 11 Downing Street and work it out, and then we decide what we do. Yeah. I don't know who's gonna pick up the phone when I call that number. I've got to wait a few weeks. Listen, I suppose it's hard for you to comment. I understand that. I suppose what I'm getting at is, do you see on the horizon actually any ways to improve this current situation, which obviously needs some kind of action, but which would be positive for industry and that you could sort of support on a voluntary basis? Of course, if there isn't, then you're likely to get something on an involuntary basis. Just trying to figure out what's the territory for potential solutions that you would support. I think, I mean, let's distinguish. I mean, we have the discussion around windfall taxes, if you wanna call it that way, but then also the big discussion about market design, and market design short term and long term. The only comment I'd like to make is I think the approach the U.K. has taken with the very fundamental REMA process now with consultation of the industry is exactly the right thing to do. Because fiddling around with market design can have devastating effects if you don't oversee what are the final consequences. We are currently not in a market design crisis, we are in an energy crisis. I mean, the problem is we simply don't have enough gas and electricity. Of course, the social consequences needs to be dealt with, but I would definitely not rush into any solution here. No. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Sam. Next question, please. Next question comes from the line of Tancrède Fulop from Morningstar. Please go ahead. Hello, good afternoon. Thank you for taking my question. I have two. The first one is on the Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S., and if you could give us some color about the impact for you. Could you increase your especially the extension of the Production Tax Credit and the Investment Tax Credit, could that lead you to increase your renewable investments in the U.S.? And is there given your investments planned before the act, is there some upside to your 2027 guidance? This will be my first question. My second question, you mentioned that you hedged more than 80% of your overall production for 2022 and 2023. Could you maybe give us a directional indication regarding the profitability of your onshore wind and solar division? You materially raised the outlook for 2022. Can you expect a similar profit for 2023? Thank you. Yeah, thanks for the question. Let me take the first one. I mean, we see the Inflation Reduction Act clearly as positive because it gives a very stable incentivization framework for renewable build-out wind and solar, but also for the first time, a significant support for batteries and also hydrogen. That is very important that we have the stable environment now for up to 2030. Definitely positive. Of course, you still have competition in the industry around size around PPAs and so on. I would not go so far to take a straight link to our 2027 guidance. I mean, we have always assumed an environment for renewable investments, which would make investments viable. This is maybe now a bit more positive, but I cannot translate that straight into numbers. Thanks, Tancrède. The question concerning 2023 profitability, I mean, we have deliberately said that we don't update the guidance for 2023. I mean, we said it will be above what we have guided at the Capital Markets Day, but we haven't put out new numbers simply because the uncertainty we currently see is too high. I mean, we discussed, and you also brought that forward with the hedging. There are quite some positions that are open, unhedged. As Markus also said, on the one hand side, it is not clear how high price levels will be in the end. That will largely depend also on the development in Russia, in France, and so on. Secondly, we also see quite some overvaluation in current forward markets simply because there's limited liquidity. Assuming what will in the end then be the outcome is difficult, and that's why we said for the time being we don't communicate a guidance, and we'll do that at the right point in time. It will be above what we have communicated at the capital market day in November. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Next question, please, Amy. There are no further questions in the queue, so I'll hand the call back to your hosts for some closing remarks. Great. Thank you, Jess. Thank you all for dialing in. It has been a very quick and efficient call, and you know, as always, the IR team is at your disposal if there are any further questions which you have not asked during the call. Wish you all a great summer. For those who still have to go on vacation, enjoy your vacation, and talk to you later in Q3. Bye-bye. Thank you for joining today's call. You may now disconnect your lines.