Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for joining our earnings call on the first nine months of the year. Our CFO, Michael Müller, will walk you through the key items and conclude this session with Q&As. With this, I'll hand over to Michael. Yeah. Thanks, Thomas, and good afternoon also from my side. I hope you're all doing well. RWE have continued to perform well this year, and after nine months, reached an EBITDA of EUR 3.5 billion in the core business and EUR 4.1 billion in the RWE Group. For fiscal year 2022, we confirm our outlook. We have accelerated our green transformation by agreeing with the government to exit coal already in 2030. This created the basis for a 1.5-degree compliance pathway, as we reported early in October. While the year is deeply marked by the war in Ukraine and the resulting European energy crisis, we are doing our utmost to enhance energy security by a higher utilization of our generation portfolio and by extending operations. Following the agreement and decision taken by the German government, we are extending operation of 2.1 GW of lignite and 1.3 GW of nuclear capacity. In addition, we are helping to diversify the European gas supply by managing and investing into German LNG regasification capacities and importing LNG. As I have reported in earlier calls, we have taken immediate actions to mitigate risks from exposures to Russian counterparties, and since H1, our financial exposure is down to zero. We have also stepped up our growing green strategy. The acquisition of Con Edison Clean Energy Businesses, a leading US solar player, is a key strategic move. We have also strengthened our pipeline with the acquisition of a 3 GW solar pipeline in Poland, as well as the success in the New York Bight auction at the beginning of the year. Our build-out program is also doing well, with almost 5 gigawatts currently under construction. Before I come to the financial performance of the first nine months of the year, let me talk about the strategic moves we took to step up our growing green strategy. Early October, we reached agreement with the government to exit lignite power generation already in 2030. This marks a significant step up in our ambition to become carbon neutral. The exit is now 8 years earlier than originally planned. Last week, the cabinet approved the corresponding regulation. It is the basis for bringing us onto the 1.5 degree CO2 emission path, the ambition we set ourselves at the Capital Markets Day last year. For our employees in the affected regions, the accelerated coal exit has great implications. Therefore, we have agreed on a comprehensive set of measures to exit operations in a socially responsible way and to support structural economic changes in the affected regions. The coal exit must go hand in hand with significant investment into green and flexible power generation capacity. Both provide great opportunities for RWE to grow its core business. In the current European energy crisis, we are a strong partner, delivering a reliable performance with our generation fleet. We are also enhancing short-term energy security by extending existing nuclear and lignite generation capacities. In the middle of October, the German government decided to keep all three remaining nuclear power plants operating until the fifteenth of April 2023. Our 1.3-gigawatt power station, Emsland, is included in these plans. At the beginning of October, we brought back 900 MW of lignite capacity from the security reserve to the market. The closure date is shifted to March 2024, and the current ordinance of the German government allows operation until June 2023. A further 1.2 GW of lignite capacity, which was planned to be shut down at the end of the year as part of the previous coal exit, coal phase-out plan, will now operate until March 2024. Generation volumes from the extension will be sold in the wholesale market. However, earnings will most likely be subject to price caps. We expect more clarity on this issue in the coming weeks. We are also helping to diversify gas supply in Europe through investments in LNG infrastructure and LNG imports. Operations of a floating regasification and storage unit in Brunsbüttel, a so-called FSRU, are planned to be online at the end of this year. ADNOC and RWE have signed a supply agreement for the delivery of an LNG cargo to Brunsbüttel in late December. The cargo will be 137,000 cubic meters of LNG and will be the first LNG to be supplied to the German gas market via the floating terminal at Brunsbüttel. Besides floating regasification in Brunsbüttel, we have signed a shareholder agreement for a land-based terminal in Brunsbüttel with our partner, Gasunie and KfW. Operations are expected for the end of 2026. Moreover, we are planning our own green ammonia terminal next to it. Green ammonia is a liquefied hydrogen derivative that can make an important contribution to supplying Germany with green hydrogen. Beyond Brunsbüttel, we are preparing for FSRU operations in Lubmin in the German Baltic Sea. Our aim is to start operations at the end of next year, and we are looking at options to extend the capacity over time. On the supply side, we are engaging with partners to source and import energy from the US, Middle East, and Australia. For example, with the MOU of 3 BCM per annum with Sempra or the MOU with ADNOC, which we announced in October. On first of October, we announced the acquisition of Con Edison Clean Energy Businesses. This is a massive step up in our growing green strategy in the US. The US renewable market is growing strongly. With the introduction of the Inflation Reduction Act, the US offers an attractive, stable, and long-term investment framework for green projects. By adding a good 3 GW of mainly solar capacities to our U.S. portfolio, it almost doubles to more than 7 GW of operating assets. This makes us the sixth biggest solar player in the U.S. and the fourth biggest player in wind and solar. After closing, the operating assets from the transaction will contribute roughly $600 million to our EBITDA annually. Closing is expected in the H1 of next year. Strategically, clean energy businesses complement our portfolio very well, both in terms of geography and technology. We are also looking forward to welcoming around 500 talented and highly motivated professionals from CEV to our team. Jointly, we will accelerate our green growth in the U.S. An additional benefit of the transaction is the more than 7 GW development pipeline, of which we want to realize 500 MW and more per year. The transaction is fully funded through debt instruments and an equity measure via a mandatory convertible bond we signed with QIA. The EUR 2.4 billion investment by QIA will already positively impact net debt in the Q4 of this year. Let's now move on to page eight and our green build-out program. In the first nine months, we have commissioned 1.2 GW in total. 9.4 GW are currently on the way of being added to our green portfolio. This includes the 3.1 GW from the Con Edison Clean Energy Businesses acquisition in the US and 1.4 GW from flexible generation from the acquisition of Magnum. We expect the Magnum transaction to close in the next month. Great progress was made at our Kaskasi construction site in Germany. As of today, two-thirds of the total of 38 turbines are installed and producing power. If everything goes according to plan, the wind farm will be fully operational at the end of this year. Now let's move to the financial performance in the first nine months of this year. A strong operational performance, particularly from our growing generation portfolio and the Supply & Trading business, drove up earnings. Adjusted EBITDA of the core group stood at EUR 3.5 billion and the RWE Group at EUR 4.1 billion. In Offshore Wind, adjusted EBITDA increased to EUR 859 million. Year-on-year, earnings were higher due to capacity additions, including the full consolidation of Rampion for the full period. Furthermore, power prices and wind conditions were better than last year, even though wind conditions were behind the normal average. For the Onshore Wind/Solar division, adjusted EBITDA was EUR 649 million. This is significantly higher than last year, mainly due to the absence of the one-off effect from the Texas cold snap. New capacity additions, higher power prices, and better wind conditions also increased earnings. Adjusted EBITDA from the Hydro/Biomass/Gas division reached EUR 1.164 billion at the end of September. The flexible generation business was up year-over-year due to higher margins and stronger short-term asset optimization. An outage at the Dutch gas plant Claus C at the beginning of the year partially offset the increase. EBITDA at Supply & Trading stood at EUR 942 million at the end of the quarter. The result was made across all commodities and regions in a volatile market environment. The German Coal/Nuclear operation showed lower earnings year-over-year as a result of capacity closures. Adjusted EBITDA from coal and nuclear was EUR 633 million. Costs associated with the 0.9 GW of lignite capacity, which was brought back online from the security reserves, are included in the Q3 numbers. On the back of the strong operational performance, adjusted net income amounted to EUR 2.1 billion. Depreciation was as expected and consistent with our growing green investments. The year-on-year adjusted financial result is lower due to a higher interest rate environment and higher liquidity requirements in a volatile commodity market. It is in line with the guidance of around -EUR 450 million for the full year. For the adjusted tax, we applied a general tax rate of 15% for the RWE Group. Adjusted minority interest increased in line with higher earnings in the wind business. The adjusted operating cash flow was EUR 2.1 billion at the end of September, and reflects the impact on net debt from operating activities. The adjusted operating cash flow echoes the higher level of earnings. However, it was marked by a higher operating working capital, mainly driven by higher volumes and prices from gas and storage. As things stood at the end of September, we expect the effect to decrease by year-end. Net debt amounted to EUR 0.4 billion at the end of September. This development was mainly driven by our growing green program. In the first nine months of the year, we invested EUR 3.1 billion, including the payment for our share in the 3-GW seabed lease award at New York Bight. CapEx for the Kaskasi project gradually kicked in as construction progressed. This was also the case for the remainder of the 4.9 GW construction projects across Europe and the U.S. Our net position from variation margins from power generation hedging stood at minus EUR 2.2 billion. 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 high discount rates, pension provisions have decreased, partially offset by negative performance of plan assets. For the full year 2022, we confirm the outlook. Adjusted EBITDA for the group is expected to be between EUR 5 billion and EUR 5.5 billion, driven by earnings increase in our core business. Adjusted EBITDA is assumed to be between EUR 3.4 billion and EUR 3.9 billion. Adjusted net income is forecasted to range between EUR 2.1 billion and EUR 2.6 billion. We confirm our targets to pay a dividend of EUR 0.9 per share this year. Before I hand over to Thomas, let me say a big thank you to Susanne. As you may have not heard, Susanne is unfortunately leaving our team. Susanne will take over a role in the RWE generation business as Head of Gas Controlling and UK Finance Director. Susanne joined the team in 2018 and has worked with lots of you during that time, and I hope you also appreciated the collaboration as much as I did. With that, Susanne, a big thank you for all your contribution, and we really wish you all the best for your new role. With that, I hand over to Thomas. Thank you, Michael. Also thank you, Thomas. Thank you both. I also want to thank you folks on the phone every single day. It was my pleasure to work with you, and it was always great fun. I will miss that for sure. As Michael said, now it's my time to move on. I hope you will continue to follow the RWE story and the stock. I wish you all the best and a goodbye. Thank you, Susanne. And thank you, Michael, of course, for the introductory remarks. We're now happy to start with the Q&A process. Operator Caroline, please begin. Thank you. As a reminder, if you would like to ask a question or make a contribution on today's call, please press star one on your telephone keypad. We will take the first question from Robert Pulleyn from Morgan Stanley. The line is open now. Please go ahead. Yeah. Thank you very much. And congratulations, Susanne. Good luck in the new role. So, Michael, may I ask you again, following the Con Edison deal, and securing the desired solar, how does management now consider the relative preference for deploying capital, both geographically, and by power generation? To get the follow-up in, from the start, what would it take to increase capital allocation to European-based renewables? The second question, if I can just sweep it in, do you expect the rising cost of capital and debt to trigger a consolidation in renewable developers? What could be the implications for RWE of that change in competitive environment? Thank you very much. Yeah. Thanks, Rob, for the questions. I mean, I think one thing that is very clear from the current situation is that going forward, you want to have a balanced portfolio. So, if you look into the different geographies, you are facing different issues and also different impact on this interest rates and power prices. Therefore, our preference really is to have a well-balanced portfolio, both across technologies, geographies, but also offtakes. Therefore, I wouldn't say it's against something, but it's really pro a balanced portfolio. I mean, the impact on rising cost of capital, I mean, as I said, I guess in previous calls, what is important is that we assume that those increase both in inflation, but also in cost of capital will be reflected to some degree also in the top line, meaning either in CFDs or also what we currently see in wholesale prices. Therefore, indeed the situation has changed, but I still believe that we can realize the spread over WACC of 100-300 that we have communicated so far going forward. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, just to remind that the follow on there was what would it take to invest more in Europe, if you had a wish list, given there's many policymakers debating all sorts of things these days? Thank you. I think we already mentioned that in previous calls. We have a tremendous transition ahead of us, and that transition requires not only CapEx, which I think is easily to be made available, but really projects. I think it's more the question of regulators to improving the ability to develop projects. Therefore, we talk about availability of sites. We talk about accelerating permitting. You talk about procedures, how you can claim or object permits. These are the relevant topics, and if they pick up, I think that should enable additional momentum. I mean, like, you know, we always talk about the gross and the net number. Obviously, if there are more opportunities that would clearly then increase our net numbers. Given the current situation, I think we're also seeing more headroom to also increase the net numbers. It's really crucial what will happen in the next year around regulation. I think the GRAS has taken a good first step with the IRA, which clearly is a very attractive long-term program that provides a stable boundary condition for investments and is clearly helpful. Super. Thank you. I'll turn it over. Thank you, Rob. Next question, please. Thank you. We will take the next question from line Ahmed Farman from Jefferies. The line is open now. Please go ahead. Yes, hi. Thank you for taking my question. I was hoping if we can start by you providing us an update on, you know, what is being discussed in Germany and U.K. in terms of policy intervention and price cap in the power sector. And what is the timeline that you see and, you know, when can we get some clarity on these issues? That would be sort of very helpful. Secondly, I was hoping if you could sort of give some clarity and elaborate on your strategy within the LNG sector. Are you considering, you know, being an offtaker and signing sort of long-term sort of gas LNG uptake agreements and, you know, taking on that merchant risk? Are you sort of looking to invest in local infrastructure, either on a merchant or regulated basis? If you could just scope out for us what is the scale of ambition there, that would be very helpful. Thank you. Yeah. Ahmed, thanks for the question. I mean, on the regulation, it is difficult to judge when we will get clarity. I mean, both in Germany and U.K., discussions are ongoing. I think it currently seems as if Germany is closer than U.K., but let's see what actually happens. I mean, in the U.K. it's even not clear which direction they're going for windfall tax or for inframarginal cap. I think in Germany it's clear that they go for inframarginal caps. But even there, the devil is in the detail. While I think the overall concept, I think addresses our concerns, which is to make sure on the one hand side, you keep as much capacity in the market, and secondly, you also keep an investment framework that still enables people to invest going forward. It very much depends on the details, how it's exactly designed, and that is where we are currently also, via the associations, trying to shape that in a way, that is positive, for the economy. Meaning that it keeps capacity and also keeps a stable investment framework, which is ultimately required to drive that energy transition. To your second question on LNG, I mean, so the investments we currently do in the infrastructure, I would rather phrase that as good corporate citizenship. I mean, what we're doing here is we supported the German government in getting the FSRUs, and now we are supporting in building up the infrastructure because we have in-house expertise. It also comes along with investment, but that is clearly not the focus of our business model going forward. Around long-term offtakes, I mean, as I mentioned, we have an MOU with Sempra for longer term contracts, and we also have another longer-term contract already signed. But at the same time, you know, it's part of our trading business and especially as a CFO, I'm carefully looking at what are the risks we are taking with respect to LNG. I think for the time being in LNG compared to the big guys, we are rather a boutique player that is running pretty profitable in that arena, and that's actually also what I would like to keep going forward. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Ahmed. Next question, please. Thank you. We will take the next question from line, John Musk from RBC. The line is open now. Please go ahead. Yes. Hello, everyone. Two questions from me. Firstly, coming back just on the interventions or potential interventions, and in particular in Germany, can you just give a little bit more color, if possible, around the risk of clawbacks? So not just potentially caps on power prices going forward, but do you see any risk from clawbacks into past earnings from the higher power prices? And then secondly, on weather, and in particular, what's been relatively low wind resource this year, have you got a number you can provide for the impact from the weather year to date? Yeah. John, on the interventions, I mean, if you have followed at least the document that Reuters published, that doesn't contain clawbacks. The discussions we have seen is that the intervention would start on the first of October. Yeah. Let's see where it's really getting. I think that's still open. I mean, we clearly request on the one hand side not to come up with any clawbacks in order to maintain confidence of investors. Also secondly, we asked for a clear limitation of that intervention so that there must be a clear end date. Concerning wind resources, I mean, October has been, I would say on average, I think offshore was slightly more, onshore was slightly less, so nothing specific to comment here. For the year as a whole, I mean, obviously it has been better than for last year to date but still has been below our long-term average. I hope that answers your question, John. Next question, please. Thank you. We will take the next question from the line, Alberto Gandolfi from Goldman Sachs. The line is open now. Please go ahead. Yeah, good morning and thank you for taking my questions. Actually, afternoon and see you soon. Goodbye, Susanne. Congratulations. The first question is on renewables and a bit more specifically in the United States. You know, it's interesting to see that after so many years of corporates behaving quite similarly, now we start to have a little bit of a divergence. You know, I think things are happening, you know, in the credit market, in regulation. Yesterday, one of your key competitors, Iberdrola in renewables, announced basically a scale back of investments in U.S. renewables in a moment where you're actually acquiring an asset in U.S. renewables. Can I just say, you know, in light of recent developments, I'm talking about anything from one to six months, how comfortable are you with U.S. returns? Do you see PPAs beginning to adjust to higher CapEx cost inflation and higher funding costs? Are you still comfortable with the situation over there in terms of continuing to grow organically? The second question is a bit more on what I would call capital preservation. You have a very, very strong balance sheet. You know, even adjusting for margin calls, you are the renewable developer with the best capital structure out there, given the current credit context. So, credit to you on that. Do you think that you should just at the moment enjoy that position because of the uncertain credit conditions? Can you be a bit more countercyclical and actually use that balance sheet to start to invest a little bit more in renewables in a moment where some of the incumbents are pulling back and some of the smaller developers perhaps also have to scale down? Is it the moment actually to accelerate investments and capture greater returns, or is it the moment to be even more prudent? Thank you. Well, that, I mean, about the U.S., I'm not really concerned about returns in the U.S. I mean, clearly, we need to see where the development is going forward. At least, the investment cases I'm currently seeing, and we're about to take quite some additional FIDs for the remainder of the year. The insights I have into those, they all are having positive investment cases, meaning that they all meet our return requirements. That's indeed looking rather positive. As always, I think it's something to observe. Secondly, I think, the benefit of also of the Con Edison acquisition is that going forward, we are active not only in different technologies but also a very diverse portfolio of markets. Ranging from merchant markets, corporate PPA markets, but also utility PPA markets. I think that also will allow us going forward to diversify the approach, and even if temporary, some markets are not so attractive, then go into other ones. Your last question, as a good CFO, I would answer the question differently. I mean, for me, it's very important that we keep our investment discipline, especially in those times. If the current situation would open us opportunities for us, we clearly would go for that. I would say the benefit is, like you rightly pointed out, that in principle, we have the flexibility to act here. I think the Con Edison transaction also shows that if there's an attractive deal out, we take the opportunity to get that. At the same time, please be reassured, our top priority is keeping the rating and being profitable and meeting our return expectations. Very clear. Thank you, Michael. Thank you. Next question, please. Thank you. We will take the next question from line Vincent Ayral from J.P. Morgan. The line is open now. Please go ahead. Yeah, thank you for taking my question. Just coming back again, sorry about that, on the German power cap. The Reuters article seems to be indicating not only a very limited retrospective element, but fairly high levels of basically a cap, among other things on lignite. Could you give us a bit of color on what has been really decided? Is it reflective of talks you've been participating in? What are the numbers you've been seeing per technology? Would be quite interested in that. The second, we note that, yeah, it was a very good Q3 again, quite clearly. Yet you haven't moved your guidance. We understand there is a bit of uncertainty, but coming from point 1, 2022 should not have a massive risk from the government intervention in Germany. What are the reasons for not having upgraded your guidance here? Where is the caution coming from? Thank you. Yeah. Try to answer the question. I mean, the article you refer to is also an article we have seen and also the information we have received from the association that are currently looking into the document. But I mean, bear in mind, there isn't yet a proposal to the cabinet, and typically after cabinet, there needs to come to parliament. I would say it's still a long way to go until I would really comment on the exact numbers. Therefore, we remain careful. That's also the reason why, with respect to the guidance, we are very comfortable in keeping the current guidance. Because on the one hand side, there is substantial risk around the exact design of those caps or if you then go to the U.K., potentially Texas. Secondly, as we mentioned, we for the time being have higher volume of unhedged capacities because we have reduced our hedge ratio. Obviously, what you currently see is that spot markets are lower than forward markets, given the higher temperatures and then the sufficient gas supply in Europe. Therefore, there's not only the risk of our regulatory intervention, but also a price risk that led us to confirming the outlook. Thank you, Michael. Thank you. Next question, please. Thank you. We will take the next question from line Deepa Venkateswaran from Bernstein. The line is open now. Please go ahead. Thank you. One question that I had was on your variation margin position. Michael, if you could either give the data for 9 months or 3 months, whichever you want to, in terms of what was the overall outflow of variation margin and how much of that was for the liquid tenor. That's on the variation margin. The second question is also on the working capital that you've had, I think EUR 2 billion in the first 9 months because of gas storage. Do you generally expect this to unwind to a large extent by the end of the year? Or should we now think of this as maybe more structural because of the higher cost of gas, and you'll start filling it up as they get depleted? Just wanted to get a sense for that. Deepa, I take the simple question, and Thomas takes the more difficult one. I start with the working capital. First of all, the assumption is that most of that gas should be withdrawn in the course of this winter, meaning Q4 and Q1. Please bear in mind, as you know, the way how gas storage is optimized. It very much depends on temperatures and on price levels. What you currently see in the market is because gas prices are low because of warm winter. That leads to gas withdrawals being shifted to later months. Which is actually good for security of reserves, so that's positive. Markets are working here fine. Therefore, well, if I look at the current numbers, I would expect large volumes to be withdrawn by the end of Q1. Having said that, in the case that we have a warm winter, it could well be that the gas in storage is kept and for the next winter, and then it wouldn't happen. That's very much dependent on the actual price levels going forward. On variation margin, Deepa, you probably recall that H1, we announced a net position of variation margin of +EUR 80 million, so pretty negligible. Now the same number for variation margins from our hedging activities is -EUR 2.2 billion. Effectively, net debt has been increased by EUR 2.2 billion, or EUR 2.3 billion if you in the Q3 alone. How much was the liquid tenor change? Yeah, typically that unwinds over the next three years or so, mostly in the next year, probably. We, as you know, we hedge for three years out, so it should all unwind until 2025. You know that it's always very volatile position from quarter to quarter. Okay. Thank you. Next question, please. Thank you. We will take the next question from line, Peter Bisztyga from Bank of America. The line is open now. Please go ahead. Yeah, thanks for taking my question. Just wanted to ask whether there's been any discussions in the Netherlands about, you know, potential price caps or interventions that could impact your activities there. Also just wondering, you know, are there any current discussions either in the UK or in the Netherlands or doesn't seem so in Germany that could bring your gas-fired power plants or indeed actually your trading activities into the scope of any windfall taxes or clawbacks? Thank you. Yeah, Peter, thanks for the question. I mean, the whole idea of that inframarginal cap is that you don't intervene with the dispatch of the assets. That was actually the reason why they haven't included gas and coal into that mechanism. Yeah. Therefore, when you talk about the Netherlands, since we apart from the small stake in the nuclear power stations only have gas and coal generation, there are currently no relevant discussions ongoing for us. Yeah. I know you were saying that the UK is currently incredibly vague, but you know, any sense on, you know, a potential windfall tax? I mean, could that be a similar surcharge to what the energy companies are facing? Could that be on your entire power generation business, or is it, or discussions just focused on windfall tax on renewables? I mean, you know better than I that the political environment hasn't been very stable in the UK lately, so therefore, also the ideas around regulation have been in different directions, so it's really difficult to judge. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Peter. Next one, please. We will take the next question from line, Piotr Dzieciolowski from Citi. The line is open now. Please go ahead. Hi, yes. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for letting me ask two questions. Firstly, I wanted to ask you about your CO2 hedging and how that could be affected by the fact that you're bringing back some lignite capacity, then you also shorten the asset life of the other capacity. In a way, I'm specifically maybe asking about the CO2 hedge reserve, which is impacting the balance sheet. How shall we think about it over the next, you know, over medium term? Second question, I wanted to ask you about kind of a levelized cost for the offshore asset. At the trough of the market, we've seen the CFDs coming to kind of like GBP 40 in Europe. If I ask you today, where would you see a CFD for a standard project somewhere in Europe, where would that be given the, you know, the cost of capital, inflation, just as a reference, or as a bracket, if you could provide a helpful benchmark? Yes. Starting with the CO2 hedges, I mean, bear in mind, the strategic position that we had was only on the implicit position, so not on the full exposure. When it comes now to additional assets being brought online, we would need to hedge to sell and buy the spread, meaning for lignite, it would be selling power and buying the equivalent of CO2 for that generation. Therefore, what's currently happening does not have an impact or the other way around on the strategic position. I mean, on the LCOEs, that is really difficult to quantify, because it very much depends on the parameters you look at. I mean, take the UK, the CFD rates are, I think, related to 2018 or so rates and inflated, or inflation linked. Therefore, even if the numbers look low in the front years, given the inflation projection and also the duration of the asset, that value obviously goes up over time. The same is true for how long is the CFD? Is it for 15 years, is it for 20 years? How much merchant tail do you incorporate? Then it also very much depends on the regulation and design. Take the UK, you have to invest also into the grid connection and then sell it at a later stage. Then in some other geographies, you have to do include the grid, in others, you don't. I mean, I guess you can discuss with the IR teams some more numbers, but it's really difficult to just take a simple number as a benchmark. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. As a reminder, if you would like to ask a question or make a contribution on today's call, please press star one on your telephone keypad. We will take the next question from line, Sam Arie from UBS. The line is open now. Please go ahead. Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for the presentation and all the great info today. I want to try and ask a couple of questions. The first is on sort of gas and second on CO2, which we just touched on. On gas, I'm gonna apologize if you've said this somewhere already and I've missed it, but you've got a very useful slide talking about your LNG infrastructure activities. I just wanted to check. Have you given us much info about the kind of CapEx commitment there, the total quantum, the kind of framework that that has? Is it effectively regulated infrastructure investment? What kind of returns are you expecting? It would be great to have a little bit of a better understanding about, you know, all the activities on page six. The second point I want to ask on gas is, I mean, I tried this on NG earlier this morning, so I don't know whether you'll be able to answer, but it feels to me like consensus is that the Russian gas is gone, and then we've got to plan for a world with no Russian gas, which obviously is prudent and makes sense and supports investments like the ones on page six. But if you look ahead to 2026 when some of these come on, I mean, who knows whether there'd be some Russian gas coming. I just wondered if, let's say, you know, Europe was able to tolerate 10% of gas supply coming from Russia, so there was another 50 BCM of Russian gas coming back sometime between now and 2026. Can you just talk us through what you think that would mean for the market, for RWE, if any of your positions would be kind of undermined, by that development if it happened? Of course, it's just a scenario. Yeah. Maybe I'll let you have a go at that, and then if there's time, I'll come back on CO2. Okay, good. I mean, on the gas infrastructure, as I said, that's not our core business. It's more supporting the government. What you can assume is that if we invest, we have agreement with the government that the investment is then paid back with a, I would say, normal return that you would expect on those assets over the duration of the investment, and that we also get a management fee on top. I mean, the investment in the FSRU we're currently talking about is, let's say a mid-2-digit million EUR number. It's not substantial if you compare it to the overall investment plan. Second around this one, and that then goes to our LNG business. Obviously, those import terminals come with capacities, and those capacities can be booked, but also other players can book those capacities. We have booked some of the capacities and that then goes into our LNG trading book. I mean, as we usually do, we also then would hedge that against LNG volumes and say TTF prices. Yeah, that's part of the regular trading business that we do. I mean, on Russian gas in 2026, obviously that's a pure speculation. I mean, what I would foresee is yes, I mean I think I mentioned that previously. I always distinguish between three different time periods. I mean, in the short term, that has changed now in the recent weeks because of the high temperatures. In principle, you are seeing, in this winter very high prices. Also, part of that is just, uncertainty. Obviously, what you then see, say, in the next one or two years is prices driven, by essentially demand destruction. Then if you go into 2025, 2026, prices are set by LNG import prices, which are higher than Russian gas prices that have been price setting, in the former times. Even if you assume that Russian volumes would come back, my base case would still be that LNG will be to some degree, price setting in Germany. Therefore, as long as the volumes that potentially come are small, it doesn't impact prices to a large extent. Obviously, if there would be larger volumes, then prices could come down. As I said, I mean, I think we all have been surprised by the intervention and Putin's activities, so I wouldn't bet on the future with that respect. Oh, my goodness, no. I wasn't asking you to. Your answer is very helpful, actually. Just helps to think through, I mean, I guess how things, perspective of right now could maybe change over coming years. Yeah. Hey, listen, can I try my CO2 question just very briefly? Well, you can try it. it. Let's see whether we answer it then. Okay. I mean, I suppose the point is, I'm just a bit surprised we had all this focus across Europe on price caps and inframarginal and windfall taxes and so on. There doesn't seem to be much focus on the CO2 scheme, which as far as I can tell at current levels is quite expensive for the European power consumer and not making any difference in as much as at least in the power sector, it was kind of there to encourage you to run gas instead of coal, which is sort of the opposite of what we wanna do now. I'm surprised there isn't some kind of pressure from the utility industry to introduce like a CO2 cap or suspend the CO2 scheme or, you know, I know there was talk about releasing more permits from reserves, but I think that hasn't happened. I'm just really surprised that in all this talk about how to get bills down in a cost-of-living crisis, the CO2 scheme seems to be like untouchable. I just wondered, what's your perspective on that, and do you think there's any chance that we would see more changes on the way the CO2 scheme is run, at least in the short term? Yeah, I mean, on CO2, I think you have to distinguish between short term and longer term. Clearly in the short term, reducing CO2 prices would bring down power prices. That's clear. At the same time, I think if you take a step back, CO2 is probably one of the only real market tools that have worked properly to shift a generation from CO2 intense generation to lower carbon generation. Therefore, I mean, we support keeping that regime. By the way, if we talk about investment certainty for investments, I think it's also important that the CO2 regime stays because we, I mean, we all hedged relying on that regime. if you want to keep certainty for investors and if you want to keep the longer term, transition into low carbon technologies, I think you need to keep the CO2 regime in place, and therefore we are very supportive here. Great. Thank you, Sam. Thank you. Next question, please. Thank you. We will take the next question from line Martin Tessier from Stifel. The line is open now. Please go ahead. Yes, good morning. Thank you for the presentation. The first question from me is a follow-up question on the guidance for 2022. If we take the lower end of the guidance for all segments excluding Supply & Trading, and then derive an implied Q4 for these segments, then if we add it to the nine-month core EBITDA of EUR 3.5 billion, we end up already with a core EBITDA of EUR 4.4 billion. If we just add the EUR 900 million and EUR 40 million EBITDA from Supply & Trading over nine months, that would be almost EUR 5.4 billion core EBITDA for the full year. Could you elaborate a bit more on how you see the evolution of the Supply & Trading business in Q4? Because it seems to me that this is the segment where you are a bit cautious, and you just said basically that most of the gaps with withdrawals will be made in Q4. If gas prices are much lower this winter, we could indeed see negative summer/winter spreads, which will indeed impact the business. Any insight from you on this topic would be helpful. Second question is a very general and open question regarding cost inflation, especially in the U.S. According to you, what are the main dynamics and differences regarding cost inflation in the U.S. versus Europe? Many thanks. Yeah, Martin. I mean, first of all, on the outlook, I mean, I mentioned two topics where there's quite some degree of uncertainty. Just to reiterate those, that is, power prices because of unhedged margins, and secondly, the regular topic, when it starts and if it already starts in 2022, which provides some uncertainty, plus obviously gas. Therefore we are cautious here. I mean, on the Supply & Trading, you know, there's always some volatility on the business, and it depends on the opportunities if they arise. Therefore, we kind of took an average assumption for Supply & Trading going forward as an earnings contribution for the Q4, which I think is the right approach here. Talking about the topic you mentioned about gas storage, yes, that's right. At the same time, please bear in mind that given the current situation, there's quite some demand for liquidity. I think I mentioned that in the previous call. While we safely navigated that situation, we have reduced the hedging activities, and we also have a close eye on liquidity, especially towards year-end. Therefore, we are not necessarily engaging all the business opportunities that could be up in the market simply because in parallel to market opportunities, we are also managing liquidity here. Talking about the difference between renewables in the U.S. and Europe. I mean, in the end, it very much depends on the individual markets. I think the benefit of the U.S. is clearly, especially if you think about developing pipelines, that you have certainty around 10 years for the tax equity, which helps you to develop projects. Plus you have also different optionalities between PTC and ITC and you have also a special subsidy for batteries in place. Therefore, for example, solar in combination with battery, it's both included in the tax equity, indeed provides attractive incentives to invest. I think that is a clear differentiator between the two markets. Other than that, I mean, permitting in some parts of the U.S. is not an issue. The more you go into the, say, East Coast states, that also becomes an issue. That's pretty similar. As I said in the very beginning, for me, what is important is really to have a diversified portfolio so to play the options and then at the same time leverage the scale as a company via, I would say, attractive financing, but also procurement power you have and also knowledge you have in engineering and operations. Thank you, Martin. Next question, please. Thank you. We will take the next question from line Olly Jeffery from Deutsche Bank. The line is open now. Please go ahead. Thank you. Two questions for me, please. The first one is going back to the price caps. Now, I know you don't wanna be drawn on levels of price caps, that's understandable. My question here is that within the information that came out yesterday, it was talking about EUR 100/MWh plus surcharge for general renewables. The question I have is that, do you think when it comes to this being bottomed out, we will end up seeing different price caps for onshore wind, solar and hydro, or do you think you will see one cap for all of those technologies? Not a view on the level, but just a view on do you think there will be different ones for those different technologies? That's the first question. The second question is a follow-up on the Supply & Trading. I know you're going for normalized performance in Q4. That's your expectation. Just to have an understanding of how you see that business performing. So, you know, I know it does well within volatility, and I know it depends on your positioning, but generally speaking, it, without looking at the positioning, is there a good reason to think that business should perform as well when prices are going up, as going down, as long as there is volatility? Or does it depend, you know, directionally, are you more likely to be better placed when the market's going one way? Again, I know it depends on positioning, but broadly speaking, can we say when there's continued volatility, that division has an opportunity to carry on doing well, as it has done this year so far? Thank you. On price caps, I honestly don't know. I mean, our proposal is to keep it as simple as possible because, I mean, bear in mind, that all needs to be implemented at short notice, and already what we are currently seeing as proposals is pretty complex. Therefore, the more different price caps you introduce, the more difficult it becomes. At the same time, you never know what happens in politics and in governmental processes and parliamentary processes. Let's see what the result is. I mean, we will clearly push for simplicity. Therefore, we like the idea of having only one cap for renewables. On our side, as you rightly said, the key driver is volatility. It's not the direction, if it's up or down, because you could take long or short positions, and also that would change over time. It's indeed volatility, but at the same time, and I think that's what I mentioned, if there's too much volatility, that doesn't help either. Because on the one hand side, you know that then value at risk goes up, it becomes too expensive, and then traders reduce their positions. Secondly, in the current environment, volatility also comes with high liquidity needs and therefore, I think a good year you probably see when there is volatility and distortions in the market, but not too much. I know that's very generic, but it very much depends on the exact positions we're having. Yeah, of course. Thank you very much. Thank you, Olly. Next question, please. Thank you. We will take the next question from line, Wanda Serwinowska from Credit Suisse. The line is open now, please go ahead. Hi. Just one question from me on the 900 MW lignite capacity that was reactivated on the fifth of October, if I'm not mistaken. Would you be able to comment on the generation, because this one is exposed to the merchant power price, in my understanding. Should we expect any upside from that unit basically to be offset by higher reactivation costs in Q4 this year? Thanks a lot. Yeah. Wanda, first of all, about the 900 megawatt, I think we mentioned that in the last call, you should assume like an availability around 75%. We assume a lower availability given that these are older units that haven't operated for some time. Be more cautious here. Secondly, the way how it is designed is, I mean, we get all the costs reimbursed, so there is no downside risk attached to that. However, we also have to share half of the profits against the cost we are getting back. Therefore, you first need to earn the cost before you kind of get the upside. Therefore, it very much depends on higher power prices, but also then a potential price cap, which obviously limits the upside you can get from the assets. Is it fair to assume that in October, basically it was 75% in line with your expectations? No, we don't report. I mean, I guess you can look up the REMIT numbers, but we wouldn't report that here. At the same time, you can also see that October prices have been fairly low. Yeah, you can, you could do the math, take the average October numbers and then take it with a 75% and then the availability. They didn't all start on the first of October. Plus there, you also have to consider the costs that we have to bear. Difficult math. Thanks a lot. Thanks, Wanda. Next question, please. Thank you. We'll take the next question from line, Louis Boujard from ODDO BHF. The line is open now. Please go ahead. Yes. Hi, good afternoon. Thank you for taking my question. I have two. The first one, I would like to come back in the US regarding the investment here and more specifically on the solar panel. Suppose that you might get maybe better pricing if you can have a local partner here and better investment possibilities. Do you have and have you already secured domestically produced solar panel for your future development here? How more generally are you going to source your solar panels in these regions going forward? My second question was regarding the lignite capacity, but this time it's 1.2 GW. It was supposed to be closed on December 7, 2022, and then it has changed. I guess that it is likely that you did not, in your former hedging strategy, take into consideration this position open for the future. Could you confirm that here you might have maybe eventually a bit more room of maneuver for a hedging position to be taken in the current market situation? Thank you very much. Yeah. Let's start with the additional lignite volumes. Indeed, you are right. They haven't been considered so far and therefore haven't been hedged. They are open positions. Obviously before we move into hedging of those positions, you need to consider on the one hand side the liquidity need for hedging those and at the same time also look at the inframarginal cost or caps. In a situation where you get limited upside from those assets and hedging costs you quite some liquidity, it could well be that you decide not to hedge. That very much depends on the market price levels, but also on the exact design of the inframarginal cap once it's published. Around U.S. solar. Well, indeed, the solar topic is a very relevant one. We know from Con Edison that for their projects, they have already secured the solar panels for the near projects. I mean, medium term, you can assume that this is a topic we're clearly addressing and thinking about how you can secure a longer term contract. We also think about supply chain, what are the best purchasing strategies, how can you bundle volumes, can you potentially also bring capacities away from China? That is something we're looking at holistically. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Louis. Next question, please. Thank you. We will take the next question from line. Ian Mitchell from JPM. The line is open now. Please go ahead. Thank you. It's Ian Mitchell here. I'm afraid it's another question about price caps, but it should be a very quick one. One of the Reuters articles was saying that the price cap legislation was going to be presented to the German cabinet on November 18. The comments that you made earlier suggested that we might be further away from a resolution than that. Do you think that article was wrong and you would say there's no chance that we get this clarity on the legislation next week? If it's not next week, is there a risk that we're pushing all the way into 2023, for example? Thank you. Ian, I also read the eighteenth of November. I think that's pretty ambitious. Following the cabinet, it also goes into the parliament. I mean, I just compare that with UK. I mean, you saw that they also followed the path of an inframarginal cap, and then once they got to the details, found out how complex it is. I wouldn't rule out that it will take longer. Obviously from my point of view, I also would like to see clarity as quick as possible, but at the same time, it also needs to be a solid regulation, that we can live with. I mean, the worst thing would be that we have a regulation and nobody knows what it means. I can say the IR team also appreciates clarity rather sooner than later. Let's see. Back to the operator. Thank you, Ian. Thank you. Thank you. There's no further questions, so I will hand over back to your host to conclude today's conference. Great. Excellent. Well, thank you all. Thank you for the lots of questions. You know, as said, we hope that we have more clarity on price caps. Whatever happens in the coming weeks, you know that the IR team, without Susanne, is gonna be at your disposal anytime. Have a safe, great day and speak to you soon. Bye-bye.