Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. A warm welcome on this lovely spring day. A warm welcome to the Essen RWE Campus. I'm particularly pleased that so many of you really have found their way to come here. A warm welcome also to all those following us on their screens, and we are very happy that you have taken the time to join us at our annual press conference and the presentation of the results for fiscal 2023. Normally, I would give you some technical information, for example, to put your smartphones on mute, which is not helpful today, because some of you might have heard that in North Rhine-Westphalia, there will be a warning day. That means at 11:00 A.M., a few sirens will be heard, and your smartphones are going to give an alarm, even though they are put on mute. So please, don't be confused by that. We will continue as usual once you have deactivated your alarm. We will carry on. Nevertheless, a few organizational remarks for the benefit of those who follow us in the video conference. In the Q&A, a question, we will take questions both from this room and from the video conference, so please write into the chat that you have got a question. I will then call you up, and you will be able to pose your question live. You can also ask your questions in English, and the answers will also be provided in the English language. That's it as far as I'm concerned, and I'm particularly pleased that my colleagues, the CEO, Markus Krebber, our CFO, Michael Müller, and Katja van Doren, our Personnel and IT Board Member, are here. I would first of all like to give the floor to Markus Krebber. Well, good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Also, a warm welcome on my behalf. Welcome to our annual press conference on last year's business performance. Of course, I'm particularly pleased that so many of you also have come to visit us here on the RWE Campus. It's great to see you here. For us, the year 2023 was marked by very good earnings, by strong expansion of capacity, and a major reduction in carbon emissions. In other words, we are Growing Green. The name says it all. We closed the past financial year with adjusted net income of EUR 4.5 billion. Adjusted EBITDA amounted to EUR 8.4 billion. With the exception of the coal and nuclear segment, where we earned less than in the prior year, we were able to increase our earnings in all business areas. At the same time, we once again invested heavily in our green core business, more than EUR 11 billion last year. A look at the last three years shows that in total, we invested around EUR 20 billion in expanding our international core business. Our portfolio is growing constantly, both in size and in value. We currently have a capacity of about 35 GW, which is well-distributed across different technologies and also across our core markets. That makes us resilient when it comes to dealing with regional developments. Together with the approximately 3 GW of capacity we gained through the acquisition of Con Edison Clean Energy Businesses in the U.S., our portfolio grew by more than 6,300 MW in 2023, or to put it in even clearer terms, by 164 facilities of all sizes in 10 countries. Additional facilities with a capacity of more than 8,000 MW are currently under construction. So we are forging ahead rigorously with our green growth. As we presented at our Capital Markets Day at the end of November, we are increasing our investments once again, and we are stepping up the pace of expansion. Our growth is backed by our large, comprehensive project pipeline, which we further strengthened in 2023 by constantly securing sites and developing projects, but also through successes in key auctions in Germany, Europe, the U.S., and Japan, and through three large wind power projects off the British Coast, which we acquired from Vattenfall. Our total project pipeline now exceeds 100 GW. That we are continuing to make such good progress is also down to our employees. Our team grew even stronger during 2023, as we welcomed about 3,500 new colleagues to RWE. While we are growing sustainably, we are also decarbonizing our portfolio swiftly and in line with the 1.5-degree path. Reducing carbon emissions is an important criterion for success as we put our strategy into practice. In this regard, too, 2023 was a good year for RWE. We made huge progress. Last year, RWE reduced its carbon emissions from 83 million to about 60 million tons. That's a reduction of 27%. The situation is even clearer if you compare our carbon emissions with the figures from 2018, when RWE completely restructured its business. Since then, we have halved our carbon emissions.... And we will continue to rigorously follow this path. In little over two weeks, we will finally shut down the three lignite units in the Rhenish Mining Area that the German government brought out of standby during the energy crisis. As scheduled, we will also switch off the two 600 MW coal-fired units in Neurath, whose operation had been extended by law. A brief outlook for the current year: times are more challenging in the face of currently weak economic development. The reduced demand for energy has led to a significant drop in power prices. This is also having an impact on RWE. Nevertheless, we can confirm the guidance which we provided at the Capital Markets Day in November. This is despite the 30% drop in power prices since then. We therefore expect to close 2024 at the lower end of the earnings range. Now, let's look at the details. As always, my colleague, Michael Müller, will take over to do that. Ladies and gentlemen, a warm welcome from me, too. In 2023, the business performed extremely well. Adjusted EBITDA for the RWE group amounted to EUR 8.4 billion, clearly exceeding the guidance. Adjusted net income at EUR 4.5 billion also exceeded the outlook. Once again, this was predominantly due to a strong trading performance and high earnings from the commercial optimization of our international power plant portfolio. Other strong earnings drivers were our acquisition in the U.S. and the commissioning of new generation capacity based on renewables. We are also continuing to make good progress with our transformation. 35% of our electricity last year came from renewables, with power generation from gas in second place and power production from coal last. Our electricity production from renewables rose by 27% last year. We achieved strong growth in solar in particular. This was primarily due to our acquisition in the U.S., as a result of which RWE has become one of the leading companies in the field of renewables there as well. The strong growth in renewables is also reflected in our figures. About 92% of our earnings came from our renewables, hydro, biomass, gas, and supply and trading businesses. Now, let's take a look at the segments in detail. In the offshore wind segment, we achieved adjusted EBITDA of EUR 1.7 billion last year. Wind levels were much more favorable than in 2022, especially at our U.K. offshore sites. In addition, our new Kaskasi wind farm in the North Sea had all its turbines online throughout last year. In the onshore wind solar segment, we achieved adjusted EBITDA of EUR 1.2 billion in 2023. This was a good 50% higher than in the previous year and was due mainly to the first-time consolidation of business activities arising from the acquisition of Con Edison Clean Energy Businesses in the United States. The commissioning of new assets also had a positive impact. Last year, we built 14 new onshore wind farms, 15 ground-mounted solar plants, and nine storage facilities, including our largest battery storage system to date, with a capacity of 137 MW. This can discharge power into the grid over a four-hour period. The battery forms part of the fifth standard project in the United States, which also comprises a solar farm with a capacity of 150 MW. This was completed in September 2023. The direct combination of batteries and solar facilities enables us to optimize the timings of feed-ins to the local grid. In view of the rapid growth of wind and solar projects, large-scale battery storage systems such as these are becoming increasingly important for stabilization of the power grid. In the international hydro, biomass, gas business, adjusted EBITDA at EUR 3.2 billion was once again significantly higher than in the previous year. Due to the volatility of the market, we achieved high earnings from the commercial optimization of our power plant dispatch. Higher realized generation margins were another contributing factor. In 2023, supply and trading also posted an extraordinarily strong performance once again. Adjusted EBITDA at EUR 1.6 billion exceeded the already high figure recorded last year. In the German coal and nuclear energy business, by contrast, we earned less than in the previous year. Adjusted EBITDA amounted to EUR 705 million and was therefore below the forecast range. A key driver were lower margins from plants whose power production was not hedged. Prolonged outages for maintenance work also came to bear. In addition, our Emsland nuclear power station only contributed to earnings until it was shut down on the 15th of April, 2023. To continue pursuing our ambitious growth program, Growing Green, we need to have a robust financial and assets situation, and we have that. We can largely cover our financial needs from the cash flows from our operating activities. Furthermore, our good credit rating enables us to raise additional funds at attractive terms. At the beginning of January, we were thus able, once again, to issue a green bond of EUR 500 million. The two rating agencies, Moody's and Fitch, have reaffirmed our rating. The solidity of our financial position can also be determined by another indicator. Despite a high level of capital expenditure, our net debt, as at the reporting date at the end of 2023, at EUR 6.6 billion, remains on a moderate level. At the end of 2023, RWE's equity ratio was 31%. That's 10 percentage points higher than one year previously. These good key figures are all the more gratifying in view of our strong investment activity. In the past fiscal year, we invested a record amount of more than EUR 11 billion. A good half of this was spent on the acquisition of Con Edison Clean Energy Businesses. Further funds were spent on the acquisition of British solar developer JBM Solar, and the purchase of the Dutch gas-fired power station, Magnum, as well as the construction of new wind, solar, and battery projects. We will continue to invest massively in the energy transition. And now to the outlook. We expect adjusted EBITDA within a range of EUR 5.2 billion-EUR 5.8 billion, and for adjusted net income, we envisage EUR 1.9 billion-EUR 2.4 billion. As announced, we intend to pay a dividend of EUR 1 per share for 2023. The dividend for the current fiscal year is expected to be 10% higher, that is, EUR 1.10 per share. You will find further details on the outlook for our segments in our annual report. And with that, I'll hand you back to Markus. Well, ladies and gentlemen, before we launch our discussion, let's have a look at energy policy in Germany. Well, a lot's going on. This applies in particular to the pace of expansion of renewables, which has recently accelerated considerably. We've said that permits for new wind farms can be obtained within 12 months. That's a very positive development. Ramping up hydrogen economy still is a lot slower, but it's also heading in the right direction. Policy makers have, by now, defined the hydrogen core network, which makes it clear where hydrogen is to be available in the 2030s. It also took a long time to obtain a decision from the European Commission to approve IPCEI funding for our hydrogen projects in Gronau and Lingen. In Gronau, we want to build a storage facility for about 70 million cu m of hydrogen, and in Lingen, we're planning what's currently one of Europe's largest electrolyzers. A few weeks ago, Brussels cleared the way for federal and state funding, and now we're waiting for the final decisions in Germany. We're confident of receiving positive news soon. I also expressly welcome the key points from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs regarding a carbon management strategy. This is particularly of great importance to German industry on its way towards climate neutrality. This is why it is important that these key points provide a for carbon storage in the sea bed off German coasts and export to other countries. Like many other European countries, Germany should use CCS technology to decarbonize industrial production processes in particular. In addition to the positive developments, however, there are also areas of the energy transition where there are still problems. This relates to all three points of the energy policy triangle: security of supply, affordability, and climate protection. First, let's take a look at security of supply. The power plant strategies to deliver the right toolbox for this purpose. So far, we've only had the key points. Agreement with Brussels is still pending. The specifics are still outstanding, and time is really pressing now. Germany has a Herculean task ahead of it in order to maintain security of supply. We have to completely replace what has been the backbone of our security of supply until now, nuclear power and coal. But at least the key points presented in February are clearly heading in the right direction. It's good that the German government is not pursuing costly ideas, such as the construction of sprinter and hybrid power plants at a large scale. It's also good that there is no firm date for the conversion to hydrogen. That makes sense. None of us can see 10 or more years ahead into the future. The tenders for 10 GW of hydrogen-ready gas-fired power plants are a start. The first tenders must be completed during this year at the latest, so that the power plants are available to go into operation before the end of this decade. When designing the tender, it will be important to make sure that auction winners actually also go for building. It is well known that we wish to participate in the tenders. Likewise, the fact that we can imagine to construct power plants with a capacity of 3 GW by 2030. Well, the planning and approval process must be made substantially faster if hydrogen-ready power stations are to help replace old power plants. The LNG terminals and the acceleration of renewables provide a blueprint. It is good that the German government's key points expressly envision a swift pace. The announced introduction of a capacity mechanism is the right move to make in order to ensure an efficient security of supply in the long term. This is expected to be operational by 2028. We know from other countries how well-suited this instrument is to ensuring security of supply at reasonable prices.... Now let us turn to affordability. Well, the grid expansion, which is reflected in electricity costs via grid fees, has very different financial dimension than security of supply. To ensure that costs don't get out of hand, the grid expansion and the expansion of renewables must be synchronized much more closely, but the timing here still does not line up. This applies to the transmission networks when bottlenecks cause entire wind farms to be curtailed, but it also applies to distribution grids, too. For example, new wind and solar plants, which have been built and are ready to use, but can't be connected to the grid yet, or batteries which cannot contribute toward optimizing grid stability without grid connection. But the opposite view is also important when it comes to cost. Often, the grid connection costs for renewables-based plants in the regions are disproportionate to the energy contribution to the plants the plants provide. An economic perspective is needed to optimize this. Specifically imposed conditions are further cost drivers, and it's essential to look more deeply into these from a cost perspective. Underground cables, which are several times more expensive than overhead lines, are only the most prominent example. In a society that is becoming increasingly electrified, the total cost of electricity must not be allowed to become a social issue, otherwise acceptance for the energy transition will melt away. So let's put it in a nutshell: There must be a greater integration between expansion of renewables and grid expansion processes, and more emphasis must be placed on the economic perspective. Which brings me to the final aspect, climate protection. Here, one current development causes me a lot of concern. This relates to the European Emission Trading System, so-called ETS. This is the centerpiece of the European climate protection architecture. All experts agree that this price signal is the most efficient means of reducing emissions at the most effective points. In recent weeks, there has been a significant price decline for CO2 allowances. Since the beginning of this year alone, allowance prices have come down by 30%. One reason for the decline is the additional auctions brought forward by the European Commission to generate an additional EUR 20 billion in budget funds. Auctioning additional allowances has caused the price to fall, which means even more allowances need to be placed on the market in order to reach the EUR 20 billion. The result is a downward spiral that jeopardizes the European climate protection architecture. Our concern that this could affect the reliability of the ETS has, unfortunately, materialized. The EU ETS is by far the most important European tool for climate protection. It really has to work. Ladies and gentlemen, we could discuss many more aspects of the energy transition. Overall, I remain optimistic that policymakers, business, and society will be able to overcome the challenges presented by this necessary transformation. But in order to do that, we need regular reviews and adjustments. The goal is to have a sustainable industrial society. That's worth fighting for, to find the smartest way at the lowest cost and to gain the widest possible acceptance. At RWE, we're intensely involved in this process as discussion partners and as active players, and now we're looking forward to taking your questions. Thank you very much, Markus. I'm looking around, and I see a number of questions here. Let me start off with Mrs. Becker, followed by Mr. Steitz, Mr. Müller-Arnold. That will be the first round, and then we will continue with Mr. Schulte. Mrs. Becker, please. I've got two questions, actually. First of all, good morning. A technical question: Looking ahead at the core business, can you see what is the range expected for coal, for adjusted EBITDA? And then, Mr. Krebber, you mentioned the power plant strategy and the discussion with Brussels. Where are the issues? Could you maybe elaborate on that? Thank you. Okay, I'll start with the lignite results. At the Capital Markets Day, we already presented that in the future, the lignite business, which is a phase-out technology, will be controlled according to a cash flow with a range between EUR 300 million and EUR 600 million for the year. That's the guidance for the year. Okay, I can take on the next question. I cannot really see you, Mrs. Becker, but I assume you are still here. Okay. We don't really know where the issues are, but Brussels needs to give its consent to the tender of the 10 GW. At each capacity, markets need to be approved by Brussels. It's not a capacity market yet, but it needs to be approved by Brussels. Where they are at present in Brussels, I don't really know. It's up to the Federal German Government and the EU Commission to control that. But when you look at the election calendar, you will see that there will either be a soon an agreement very soon, or there will be delays. But it's only the relevant ministry that can decide on that. But you seem to think this, this is just of a technical nature, it has been written down, and the EU Commission just have to tick it off. But there will also be problems as far as the content are concerned, aren't there? But this is something that we cannot really assess. Otherwise, we would get out of the time frame. I do hope that the pre-agreement is such that it's just a formality that is lacking, because otherwise we would not be able to deal with that within just two to three months. Thank you very much, Markus. The next question was posed by Mr. Steitz. Actually, I've got three questions. I start with the first one, addressing you, Mr. Müller. I think I can deduct from what you said that the market expects to have a higher willingness to engage in share buybacks. Is that an admissible interpretation of your new wording? I mean, last year you opposed that, now it would be good, what is your present opinion on share buybacks? Second question to you, Mr. Krebber: Why do you stick to lignite? Could you maybe elaborate on the arguments in favor of that? Because, you removed it from the core business, and, you, we do not really find it there, but maybe can you explain why this is part of the RWE portfolio? And the third question: what about your appetite for M&A? Your colleague, Mr. Birnbaum, opposed major deals in Europe, pronounced himself against that. What's your point of view? Would you think that M&A is interesting for you? Thank you. Okay, let me start off, Mr. Steitz. As far as the background is concerned, in November, at our Capital Markets Day, we communicated our strategy with an investment program of EUR 55 million by 2030. Of course, we endorsed this investment program, and, as a result of the commodity environment, there have been changes, and the normalization of electricity prices has materialized faster than originally expected. So it's clear that, we have a critical assessment of investments. We need to make sure that investments will be profitable. When we look at our investments, investment pipeline, this is possible. So that's what we see, also with regard to the recent investments. Nevertheless, we said that in a changed environment, management constantly needs to engage in new assessments, and that's exactly the announcement that we are making. In the long run, looking at the electricity prices and the profitability of renewables, this has not changed, and that's why we have confirmed today that we will stick to our long-term growth targets, in particular, with relation to the earnings per share. Mr. Steitz, I try not to move because the microphone is moving with me. The lignite question, I think the background of your question is that some people say, "Why don't we remove lignite from the portfolio?" But the question doesn't come up from our point of view. We have a clear timeline to continue this business in a socially compatible way, to reduce CO2 emissions, to replace power plant capacity over time, so as to ensure security of supply. So the analysis cannot be contested, that in case of a possible divestment, there might be more investments into RWE or quicker investments. The analysis is correct, but you need to measure that with the realistic opportunities. We have a high sociopolitical responsibility vis-à-vis the employees and the regions. That's what politics know. You know about the legal situation. With lignite, when you have structural changes, you need to have the consent of politics. In other words, politicians can prevent everything we want to do, and that means that we can always act in full consultation with politics. And you know, the coalition agreement, the solution provided by politics would be a foundation solution, but in the present debate, that doesn't have any priority, obviously, because people think that RWE is a good owner and will implement that in a responsible manner. We do not reject the analysis, but we need to measure that against reality. We are talking about five and a half to six years now, when you look at the timeline, and any type of implementation would require many years. Now, with the agreement taken with the Federal and State Government, that takes account of all the interests of shareholders, of politicians, of the regions, and in particular, of the employees. I think that provides the absolutely right solution. And if that takes one year more, maybe, until additional investors buy the share, then we will wait for that. Now, the last question regarding M&A, we always said that for us, M&A constitutes the possibility to build up strategic positions which we do not have right now. When we look at our strategic core market, then with our core markets and our core technologies, we are leading. When you posed the question two years ago, we always pointed out that we want to act in solar. We also look beyond the ocean, and that's what we have done with the major acquisition. So there are no strategic regions in favor or reasons in favor of large-scale M&As. I wouldn't exclude smaller ones. I mean, we looked at that before Christmas in the U.K. But large-scale M&A is not on our agenda presently. Thank you very much, Markus. The next question was posed by Mr. Müller-Arnold. And let me just stress that once you've posed your questions, please switch off the microphone. That will prevent any technical problems. Now, Mr. Müller-Arnold. Then? Yeah. Mr. Krebber, I would have two questions. Carbon management strategy, you pointed out that CCS would be a technology, which should be used in industry, but an opening, for example, for gas-fired power plant, is envisaged. What do you think about it? Is it a good option for you, and would you consider that for RWE? Or would you say, no, a hydrogen-ready gas-fired power plants should be the own only option? Then you talked about the price decay in ETS. Do you derive from that that political intervention would be needed, and that would be a lower limit of prices? Well, a market system should work out without any price limit, because it's a volume-based system. But what I criticize is the lack of reliability. That is, for example, if politicians say, "We need money, and then let's go for an auction, auctioning of certificates and allowances," and this hits a weak phase, then the tool is dead. This is not the right tool to decarbonize. If you don't need a lower limit, and you can proceed along the path towards negotiating and auctioning the price, then this is fair enough. But if there is political intervention at any point, this destroys reliability and credibility. On the carbon management strategy, well, we all agree that CCS at the end of the day. I think cement is the most important aspect, and there's no other way to decarbonize other than CCS. I like it and also welcome a more open approach to this technology. If we say, "Okay, if in one location CCS is available for gas-fired power plants and makes sense, then we shouldn't exclude it," this aspect is okay. But at the end of the day, what will be implemented from a technological point of view will all depend on the costs and the infrastructure. If there's a hydrogen pipeline, hydrogen operation is easier. If I have CCS with a carbon pipeline nearby, then CCS is the better option. So to be open for different technologies is the right approach, because we don't know how things evolve. Okay, then there is Mr. Schulte and Mrs. Höning, and after that, I would take the first virtual question, that is, Mrs. Sorge and Mrs. Sluiters. Good morning. I have three questions, or two and a half questions, Mr. Krebber. The first aims at your skepticism, so in terms of the speed of energy transition. Uniper had Lewis. Lewis said, well, that or Energy had Reiche said two days ago that she expects a gap in electricity generation at the end of this decade, that is, there is not enough electricity going through the pipelines. And you said that there is not the infrastructure available, and will we be in the position to cope with this situation by 2030? And what is the major problem? Is it the problem of providing these, the infrastructure, or is it a different problem? And you were applying for a new gas-fired power plant. You said up to 3 MW, and you said, well, yes, you agreed to 3 MW, about 3 GW, but we should do more, otherwise we will not able to fulfill the energy transition by 2030. And the second question, a question whether this was also applicable to the power plant fleet, and that is, for example, to go through a scenario that we cannot phase out coal by 2030, but use coal-fired power plants in the next decade, too, and with CCS, for example, to create a climate-neutral way. Well, let me start with the second question. Yes, it's not a change. We wish to invest in the 3 GW in terms of gas-fired power plants, and can also expect more. But it all depends on the tenders, and it all depends on the acceleration of planning processes, whether we are in the position to build the full 3 GW by 2030. So there is no change. That was a slight misunderstanding. It does not mean up to 3 GW, but really up to 3 GW, and even more in the next decades, and not just in North Rhine-Westphalia, but also other locations, and we are ready for investing in more. Well... I do not wish to speculate about whether or not we are going to reach the goal in 2030, but of course, we need to do everything to accelerate the energy transition. Now, but that is coal phase out by 2030, let me take this up. It's a question of definition, really. That is, if this means we are going to dismantle all coal-fired power plants by 2030, I'm not really optimistic. Because it may well be that the government says, "No, we need them as reserves." That is, if the power plants are in reserve, is this a coal phase out, yes or no? This is a philosophical question, but the critical question is how much CO2 do they generate? And this will be reduced to a great extent, and if any CO2 is generated at all by the coal-fired power plants and CCS, let's answer this question the other way around. There is, of course, a lot of fixed cost investments into sequestration. If the power plants do not work and are not operational, then this investment does not make sense. And the proposal is to exclude coal-fired power plants and power plants, and we agree to that. For the power plant fleet here, at the end of the day, it's all a question of economic conditions and what is available in terms of infrastructure. Because you cannot beam over hydrogen, you need a hydrogen pipeline, and we cannot build everything ourselves. Thus, we need to wait and see how the hydrogen network and infrastructure will evolve. The more the higher the capacity utilization of the power plant, the more economical they can be operated, and then they can also be economic to use CCS. The gas-fired power plants are only envisaged as a reserve, and this is why we need a long-term strategy for renewables and hydrogen infrastructure. Mrs. Höning, two questions on coal phase out. Does... Did I get you correctly that by 2030, 30 coal-fired power plants are still required as reserve, and after that, two? Because we're not fast enough in energy transition, and but RWE will not operate these power plants, but who's going to be the operator, and how many employees would be affected? I mean, this will be decided in 2026. Revenue skimming, that is, how much of that could you benefit from in 2022 and 2023? Let me start with the coal question, then Michael can find out what the exact figures are. Well, they need not be operational, but they need to be in reserve because there's not sufficient gas-fired capacity available. Well, I expect that the hard coal-fired power plants will be in reserve, because it's a lot easier and a lot more cost-effective, because the logistics are a lot easier. And it's a government's decisions. We would continue to be owners, but since we do not decide on the operation, it's neither our economic risk nor the CO2 risk. And if the Federal Network Agency, for example, decides that hard coal-fired power plants are not to be ramped down, then it's their responsibilities. And the employees? Well, staff planning is envisaged for 2030. That is, we presume that 2030 is the end of the story, and we can generate new staff on the basis of early retirement and by external qualification. But the estimate is we're talking about 3 GW in reserve. We're talking about 100 employees or a bit more. On revenue skimming, we have applied for reimbursement, but the Federal Network Agency is still in the process of reviewing and they are reviewing this for 2022, and we're not commenting on the figures, so you will have to ask this question next year again. Okay, let's turn to the virtual space, that is Petra Sorge from Bloomberg. Thank you. We can't hear you. Yes. Okay, now we can hear you. Good morning. Good Good morning, everybody. Mr. Krebber, a nuclear question at the beginning. You define nuclear and coal as phasing out technologies and business, but you still have a share of 30% in EPZ in the Netherlands. Is nuclear for you in a flexible generation capacity? And whether there will be changes in the future? Are there phase-out scenarios for RWE? And in your report, you're coming in on the risk of elections, that is in Germany and the U.S. Okay, Trump really does not think very much of climate change. So where are the risks in this respect? The question you are saying in the analyst report, that your share in E.ON, that is the 50%, is used to cover the mining provisions for lignite. I didn't really get it. There was talk about EUR 1.9 billion in terms of receivables from the state, but I think that the amount was EUR 6 billion. So where does this figure come from, EUR 1.9 billion? Are you planning to sell your shares in E.ON, and what does that have to do with lignite? Well, EPZ, of course, the nuclear power plant is a base load power plant. We do not have any more base load in our business, and this is why we attribute it to the other business in the Netherlands. All the other figures refer to Germany, because here the decision has been taken to phase out coal and nuclear, but in the Netherlands, this decision has not been taken, so nuclear is not a phase-out technology. There were discussions on enhancing nuclear energy. It is part of our business in the Netherlands, and we are following the regulatory framework, so we continue this business. Then the impact on the U.S. elections. Well, I would not like to come in on any speculations in terms of the outcome of the elections. Well, the expansion of the renewables was not stopped under the first Trump administration. On the contrary, it was higher than in the first two years in the previous governments. And because there's a growth in electricity, a growth in renewables, and growth in electricity for data centers and AI, and this should be all decarbonized. There's an extreme demand in renewables, and the demand is so high in the U.S. that we cannot follow up. And many federal states which profit from the expansion of renewables, and where a lot of jobs depend on renewables, are those states which are governed by Republicans. So I think we need to take a very moderate view, a view at the domestic policy and energy policy. Now, the last question on the debt. The definition of our net debt is that there are net debts, and in addition, there is the obligation for recultivation in lignite. These are long-term obligations, so we group them separately. And in terms of the balance sheet, we set that off against the value of the participation in, of E.ON and the Federal German Government demand from the compromise to the tune of EUR 2.6 billion, which has just been confirmed. The EUR 2.6 billion are no longer EUR 2.6 billion, but EUR 1.9 billion. The EUR 2.6 billion have been approved by the EU Commission, and originally, the plan had been yearly out payments until the final phase-out by 2030. Now, with the approval, a payment has been... has taken place, and that's the reduction of the EUR 2.6 billion to EUR 1.9 billion remaining. May I add a question? Yes, of course. That refers to the first answer given to you by Mr. Krebber, the participation EPZ. You mentioned smaller modular reactors, which are one of the major hot topics in the nuclear industry. In case EPZ were interested in that, would RWE join them? Are you proactive in this area? Could you maybe elaborate on that? That's mere speculation, of course. It's a hot topic, as you said, quite rightly. Whether we succeed in getting modular reactors into a cost range that is attractive is not yet decided. We are in the middle of this development, and that depends very much on the regulatory framework, so at the present point in time, this question does not come up, and that's why we cannot answer it. Thank you very much, Markus. Then I would like to give the floor to Sabine Sluijters. Mrs. Sluijters, please go ahead with your question. The Netherlands. I have three questions for [audio distortion] Krebber. You managed to reduce the CO2 emissions of the power plant portfolio by 27%. I was wondering how. Was this due to, for instance, disinvestments? Then my second question is, RWE is an important player in the Netherlands. How did your assets in the Netherlands contribute to the reduction of the CO2 last year and maybe for the future, how important are they? And then my last question is about offshore wind. As you know, the tender for [audio distortion] is open, and I was wondering if RWE was planning to do a bid. Thank you. Question. The second I cannot answer now, but we probably can look it up, how much the reduction was in the Netherlands. I don't have the data at hand. In general, the reduction by 27% was, in the end, resulted in lower running hours of our conventional fleet. Of course, because we invest a lot also in replacing them with renewables. I mean, of course, so over time we can reduce the running hours, but also going forward, we will start closing more units. As I outlined in my speech, we're gonna close another more than 2.5 GW this year, and that will also contribute to further reduction. But one element of the -20%, in all fairness, is also because we have muted economic activity. So if you see higher demand and we are not fast enough with the renewable build-out, that, of course, would mean that we see higher emissions. But the trend overall is intact, and, I mean, we have now a CO2 reduction pathway, which is fully in line with the 1.5-degree target until 2030, and climate neutrality for RWE by 2040. On your last question, I have to say sorry, but we typically do not comment because it's a competitive process. Whether we are in or not, we only tell after we get the results. [Foreign language], Markus. Thank you very much, Markus. Now, before I give the opportunity to pose additional questions from the virtual room, let me first of all give the floor to Mr. Mark Steiner, Mr. Wittkop, and Mr. Wetzel from Die Welt. Mr. Mark Steiner, first of all. Well, good morning. I have one brief question to Mr. Krebber regarding the power plant strategy. You said that the design should be shaped in such a way that the winners of the auctions actually build the power plants. So my question is: do you see the danger that this is not going to happen? Or under which circumstances would this possibly happen, that the winner of an auction doesn't actually build? Well, let's look at another industry, the offshore industry. We experienced a situation where some competitors withdrew projects, which, of course, was detrimental to the energy transition and the decarbonization efforts. Fortunately, we didn't experience such a situation in Germany, but after the tenders in the offshore round, the question was, can you really be sure that you build? It's so expensive that you rather pay some penalties. As we urgently need the expansion, the hurdles, once you have participated in a tender and need to build, need to be so high that you do not opt out, that you do not decide not to build. When you look at the tender, you say, "Okay, I get the option for little money to build," or the hurdle is such a way to get out of this tender that when you participate in the tender, you know that you are going to build. So there are different tender designs, and there are different obligations for those who participate in the tender, otherwise they will have to pay an awful lot. And as we urgently need the capacities, we need to make sure that those who participate in a tender actually build and do not just see that as an option to build. Right, we are closing the 11:00 mark, so in case there is the alarm, you hear the alarm, we will continue as soon as you have switched your cell phones on mute. And that leads me to Mr. Witkop, followed by Daniel Wetzel. Well, thank you very much. You mentioned that the approval time has been reduced to 12 months. What about the comparison to the last years? How long did it take during the last years, and are we still in a position to reach the wind target envisaged by the Federal German Government for 2030, which would be a duplication of what we have presently? Well, the 12 months were an example, Mr. Witkop. Unfortunately, that doesn't apply for everybody. But we experienced twice in Schleswig-Holstein and in North Rhine-Westphalia, that approvals were given after 12 months, so that was really excellent. If we were so quick everywhere, then 2030 would not be in danger, I mean, if we were able to synchronize that with the grid expansion. But speculation whether we will target the or reach the targets of 2030 is futile. Let's work on making sure that the grid expansion happens as soon as possible, and then we see whether we reach our objectives. And if that happens two years later, well, that's not going to break our necks. Thank you very much. The next question by Mr. Wetzel. Well, Mr. Krebber, the EEC account has been overdrafted. Do you expect us to have a billions of indebtedness in the budget? Do we have to once again discuss the EEC, and do we have to discuss the the power? I cannot answer your first question. You would have to contact the economics and finance minister for that. I think it came to a surprise to all of us how quickly the power price was reduced, which is really good for Germany as an industrial location, and we never expected electricity prices to be that high in the long run. I just said that the normalization of the power prices has happened earlier than expected, and of course, as you quite rightly said, that leads to a situation where the wholesale price is not sufficient in order to net that off. So the question is whether you pay that out of the federal budget, that means the taxpayer pays it, or whether you put a levy on the electricity prices. I cannot answer that question, but I think those who are not freed from this levy would really see that as a considerable additional burden. Now, as far as the renewables are concerned, let me say that I always have a problem with the term subsidies, because the term subsidy is only correct when you have a certain market design in the back of your minds, namely, the energy-only market. When you do not have an energy- only market... I mean, we have two markets. You need the price for renewables power, and the other mar- you have the other market. When you have a CFD or a feed-in tariff in an auction, then this does not constitute a subsidy, and you see that offshore wind parks can continue to operate without a CFD, and we market many of our renewables with PPAs. So when it comes to renewables, you need to note that we are talking about a technology with additional with high seed investments and, over time, no costs. That means when you have the marginal cost systems, such as the energy-only market, it might happen that during the term you do not make any earnings, and of course, then, of course, you are hesitant when it comes to an add-on build. I mean, when the award is given to those who produce the power at the lowest price, then this doesn't constitute a subsidy. We have to talk about different market prices, and then we need to organize things differently. We are in the interim phase, which might last for half a decade or another decade, but at some point we will end up in a different market design. I have a question, but by Mr. Akoto here in this room, and then I will give the floor to Mr. Radovic and to Mrs. Malta. Well, you said that grid connection poses a problem, and we know that, and I'm asking myself, how much is RWE affected by that? How many plants are on standstill, and how long do you have to wait with ready-made plants for grid connection? That completely varies from one country to the next. When you have an offshore wind park in Germany and you got awarded the tender, then you have a guaranteed grid connection date, which is important, because otherwise you would wait so long until you have other guarantees for the grid connection. Other countries proceed differently. They say when the grid is not sufficient, it's up to those who set up the plant to provide for that. It's their problem. It's a system that we have in the United States, for example. In Europe, normally, the plants are only built once there is a guarantee for the grid connection. When there is a balancing or controlling, when the electricity cannot be transported, then you get a payment for that to compensate for that. But what I said before, that needs to be synchronized in a better way. That doesn't necessarily lead to a slowing down of the energy transition. There is already a slowing down of the energy transition when we do not have these grids. We have a slowdown, but when I build more slowly, then that doesn't mean that the energy transition is slowing down. It just saves money, because we will not invest into plants who cannot get the grid connection early. There are some examples where plants are connected with such a small electricity feed-in that it's too costly. So the two things have to be seen completely separately now. Thank you very much, Markus, and then I give the floor to Mr. Radovic in the virtual room. Mr. Radovic, your question, please. Hello, Mr. Krebber. Good morning. You said that RWE is not planning for larger scale M&A activities because you now are in a leading position. Recently, I think in January, the Manager Magazin wrote that you were interested in buying Ørsted in Denmark. That would have been a very large scale M&A, and despite a no of the Danish government, you are still interested in that, I could read. Could you say whether there have been any talks on that? Can you confirm that, and are you - do you continue to be interested in that? Because you are not, you do not have the leading position in offshore wind. So could you comment on that? So, somebody here in alarm. Okay. The alarm is sounding now. [Foreign language] So if, if you put your mobile phone to flight mode, then the alarm doesn't sound. Let's wait a second before answering your question. Perhaps we can close the windows. [Foreign language]. I think if all mobile phones are muted in this room, we can continue. Okay. [Foreign language]. Of course, we do not want to comment on rumors on the market. We do not comment, and I can only repeat what we said in January, that we are quite content with our offshore business. We presented our expansion plans at the Capital Markets Day and the projects we took over in the U.K. This is why there is no reason for us not to be content. So we are obtaining one of the leading positions, and not necessarily the first, but it's part of our core business. You know that the offshore industry is faced with major challenges. Of course, we have been in a position to manage all these challenges: supply chains, higher prices, inflation rate. And I think an integration more or less to the inside, it would be the wrong approach, but we will pursue the guidance which we presented at the Capital Market Days. Well, I've said everything I wanted to say. [Foreign language]. Okay, the alarm is over. Mrs. Judith Malter in the virtual space. Thank you very much. A general question on the business figures, because RWE is a major employer in Essen and in Germany as a whole, and I would like to know what the business development means for for the development of jobs. Katja? Yes, it's true, we're a major employer in Germany. On the whole, we are employing more than 20,000 staff as of the end of last year, and about 14,000-15,000 of those employees work in Germany. That is about 60%. And the job development, well, Markus already came in on that. In last year, we recruited an additional 3,500 staff, the majority in Germany, but also in the other 20 countries where we're active. Yes, in particular, in the field of renewables, we need more people, and in Germany there are still 300 vacant jobs. But on the other hand, in the field of coal and lignite and nuclear coal, of course, we are reducing the number of jobs. And 340 employees left last year. Thank you, Katja, for the figures on staff development. Mrs. Sorge has another question, and Mr. Wittkop. Okay, Mrs. Sorge, in the virtual space. Yeah, thank you. On solar energy, you mentioned yet that you would like to use domestic producers. You criticized the customs established in the U.S., but we are... but what, for example, Meyer Burger wants to decommission its operation in Germany, and the producers are very much under stress in Europe. So what do you do in order to support domestic producers, both in Germany and the U.S., or is it the Chinese panel which will win? Well, we need to differentiate, Mrs. Sorge, between different types of solar panels, and that is a ground installations and roof installations. The ground installation, we don't have any domestic suppliers for the time being. We say that if you look at the solar industry in Europe, that we establish really reasonable a reasonable tendering designs with some tax incentives and establish separate tendering funds so that the industry can be built over a certain period of time. If we, if you take the approach of customs and levies, then the solar panels would be significantly more expensive, which the user would have to pay, or slow down the grid expansion. That is, you need to be very, very composed in this respect. And the United States supports the industry. There is a clear trend towards building an American production, or in part in joint ventures, so with Asian companies. But the solar panels are so inexpensive coming from the Asian countries, that it is not worthwhile to also build a subsidized industry in the US either. Mr. Wittkop. I would like to ask a question in English. Outside of Germany would be interested to hear your opinion. European gas storage is still 60% full. You mentioned how surprisingly fast energy prices have fallen. Can we say the energy crisis is well and truly over, with or without Russian gas? It's a speculative question. I think we need to distinguish what is a normal scenario, where we are. I mean, currently we are probably even in an optimistic scenario, because we have, I mean, very mild winter, second time in a row, and so on. So I think in a normal scenario, the energy crisis is over. We have not fully replaced Russian gas. There's still relevant Russian gas in the European system. Everybody knows what's gonna be delivered via Ukraine every day into Southern Eastern Europe. So it still is something. There are relevant volumes, but we have replaced it by import capacity. Also, we have idle LNG import capacity across Europe. But an energy system cannot be, I mean, just in a normal scenario. It also needs to work in very adverse scenarios. So in N minus one scenarios, where we have either a problem with the Norwegian pipeline, or we have a problem with, I mean, the global LNG markets. And there, in these very pessimistic, adverse scenarios, we are not there. We still need significant more import capacity. I mean, there is a controversy about, do we actually need more LNG import capacity or not? In order to cope with also a very adverse scenario, I think we need it. Yeah, thank you very much. Are there any further questions here in the room? I don't see any. Then I would like to thank you for your attention, your interest, and for coming here. And I think we've managed the alarm fairly well. And if you have further questions, which you didn't raise during the press conference, please call me or my colleagues in the press department. We'll help you. And I thank you for your attention and wish you a nice day, and have a safe trip home. Thank you.