Welcome to the RWE conference call. Markus Krebber, CEO of RWE AG, and Michael Müller, CFO of RWE AG, will inform you about the developments of the first half of fiscal 2025. I will now hand the call over to Thomas Denny. Please go ahead, sir. Thank you, George, and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for joining RWE's conference call on H1 2025. Our CEO, Markus Krebber, and our CFO, Michael Müller, will first guide you through our presentation, then we'll start our Q&A session. With this, over to you, Markus. Yeah, thank you, Thomas, and a warm welcome to everyone. Our robust portfolio led to a good financial performance in the first half of 2025, despite weak wind conditions in Europe and a low trading result. We are on track to deliver our full-year earnings guidance. Our construction program is progressing well, with around 11 gigawatts under construction, and more than 3 GW will begin commercial operation in the second half of this year. All our offshore construction projects are on schedule. The investment frameworks in our core markets are taking shape. In the U.K., the market design provides a stable environment for future investments. In Germany, we see a focused energy policy with higher priority for security of supply and industrial competitiveness. In the U.S., the Big Beautiful Bill has been signed into law. We are prepared to take advantage of the upcoming investment opportunities if our investment criteria are fulfilled. Our U.K. offshore pipeline puts us in a great position to take a selective approach for the upcoming AR7 auction. In Germany, we have an attractive development pipeline for new gas plants and batteries, which will enable us to benefit from the rising investment opportunities in flexible generation and security of supply. In the U.S., we have the potential to continue our build-out program in the next years. Our robust portfolio, in combination with our disciplined capital allocation, gives us high visibility on our earnings per share growth. On the back of our dividend growth and the running share buyback program, we will deliver an attractive shareholder return. Let's now get into the details and move to slide five. We have delivered a good financial performance in the first half of 2025, despite the headwinds of weak wind and low trading. Adjusted EBITDA stood at EUR 2.1 billion and adjusted net income at EUR 0.8 billion. Adjusted earnings per share stood at EUR 1.1, reaching 50% of the full-year guidance midpoint. When markets were dominated by geopolitical events and less by market fundamentals, our traders were cautious in position-taking. Hence, we see low earnings. In Q3, we have so far seen an increased performance in trading. We remain confident of delivering earnings within our guidance range for all segments. For the full year 2025, we confirm our adjusted EBITDA, adjusted net income, as well as adjusted EPS guidance. Our construction program is progressing well. As we speak, we have around 11 GW of capacity under construction, diversified across regions and technologies. Out of that, we will bring more than 3 GW to commercial operations in the second half of the year, mainly onshore wind, solar, and batteries. All our offshore projects are well on track. Sofia, our 1.4 GW project in the U.K., has reached a major construction milestone with a successful installation of the hundredth and final offshore monopile foundation in mid-July. Since March, we have installed 36 turbines, and we expect grid connections and first power later this year. Full commercial operations will be in 2026. At our Danish 1.4 GW, 1.1 GW offshore project, Thor, foundation and cable installation work are ongoing. So far, 49 of 72 foundations have been installed. Installation of turbines is expected to begin in 2026. Our 616 MW Northern Cluster A project in Germany has also reached a key milestone. We installed the first foundation in mid-July. As of now, four turbine foundations have been installed. Wind turbine installation is expected to start in 2026, with commercial operations beginning in early 2027. As part of our constant portfolio optimization, we closed the sell down of 49% of Thor and Nordseec luster to Norges Bank Investment Management in Q2 this year. In our OranjeWind offshore project in the Netherlands, we will start to install the foundations in summer 2026. For this project, we have joined forces with Total Energies in a 50/50 joint venture. In our core markets, visibility of investment frameworks has improved over recent months. In the U.K., we have clearly seen positive developments. Firstly, the retention of one price zone keeps a certain and stable landscape for future investments. Secondly, the updated AR7 auction rules are a signal of confidence and a strong commitment to the renewable energy strategy of the U.K. government. The decision to extend CFD periods from 15- 20 years de-risks the cash flow of projects further. The raised price cap and improved load factor assumptions for offshore are positive developments, too. Now, the size of the auction budget will be key, which is expected in autumn before bids are due. We have a strong U.K. offshore development pipeline that can participate. Nine eligible projects with a capacity of up to 7.5 GW offer us a broad range of options. This 7.5 GW still includes 100% share of the Norfolk cluster. As part of our offshore portfolio optimization, we will reduce our stake to 50%, and we will project finance these assets. With our versatile and mature offshore project pipeline, we are able to be selective, prudent, and flexible on timings. All investment decisions must fulfill our strict investment criteria, and we will continue to be very disciplined in the auctions, as we have proven over the last years. The German energy policy is focused on cost efficiency, security of supply, and industrial competitiveness. A key pillar to ensure security of supply is the auction of gas new builds. We expect the auction design to be published before the end of this year. That would mean the first assets could come online by the end of the decade. The second step, a technology neutral capacity mechanism, is planned. The new EU rules now give clear guidance for a fast-track approval process. The focus on cost efficiency and industrial competitiveness is a positive signal for the German industry, hence our customers. As part of the coalition agreement, the government is working on relief measures for the energy-intensive industry. The EUR 500 million infrastructure package the German government will put in place helps to support the overall economy. We are prepared to take advantage of the upcoming investment opportunities, again, if our investment criteria are fulfilled. Our attractive gas power plant pipeline is well developed, and we are ready to construct 3 GW of gas plants if we are successful in the auction. We have our respective supply chain largely secured and have already reservation agreements for 2.7 GW of gas turbines and engines. We have also been active on the development of additional battery opportunities. Batteries will continue to play a key role in the integrated power system with renewable energy and deliver attractive returns. In Germany, we currently have 400 MW of batteries in operations and 1 GW under construction. Additionally, we have around 2.5 GW of battery projects under development in Germany, which have a planned COD before the end of the decade. In the U.S., we have been maintaining our strict requirements for investments in the current market environment. We only bring projects to FID that have tax credits safe harbored, tariff risk mitigated, offtake secured, and all necessary permits in place. With the Big Beautiful Bill now being passed, we do see continued tax support for further build-outs. We are awaiting final clarity on tax credit eligibility, such as start-up construction and safe harbor provisions, as well as FEOC restrictions in the coming weeks. Our proactive procurement strategy has been helping to manage and limit tariff risk. The market environment remains positive as we see overall structural power demand growth in the U.S. This helps us to secure offtake for our projects ahead of FID. However, we will not compromise on the strict investment criteria and risk management requirements. Coming to the conclusions on page 10, we offer attractive earnings growth through 2030. Bottom line earnings will grow with a strong 18% EPS CAGR to 2027 and 13% to 2030. We target an annual dividend increase of 5%- 10% per annum, and we will execute on our existing share buyback program of EUR 1.5 billion, which runs until Q2 2026. With that, now over to Michael. Thank you, Markus, and also a good afternoon from my side to all of you. On the back of our robust portfolio, we have delivered a good financial performance in the first half of 2025, despite weak wind conditions in Europe and a low trading result. Adjusted group EBITDA stood at EUR 2.1 billion and adjusted net income at EUR 0.8 billion. Adjusted earnings per share were EUR 1.1. We confirm the guidance for the full year. Our EUR 1.5 billion share buyback program is making good progress, and the first EUR 500 million tranche has been completed. Shortly thereafter, we started with a second tranche. The full program will be completed by May 2026, as planned. So far, we have bought back 19 million shares at an average price of EUR 32. Only recently, our strong BBB+ rating from Fitch has been confirmed with a stable outlook. On the back of an expected higher share of contracted EBITDA and an increased share of power generation from Clean Technologies, Fitch has relaxed the leverage target. Our strong credit rating highlights the successful transformation of our business, the robust and resilient portfolio, and underlines our financial prudence. In June, we successfully returned to the hybrid bond market. We have issued a EUR 1 billion green hybrid bond in two tranches at attractive terms. Our bonds met with a high investor demand, with an order book that was oversubscribed by more than 10x. Let's now take a closer look at the H1 2025 financials. Despite weak wind conditions in Europe and low trading results, we have achieved solid earnings. In offshore wind, the adjusted EBITDA was EUR 643 million. Earnings were below last year due to wind conditions and lower hedge prices. Compared to the first quarter of last year, our offshore wind generation volume was down 23% due to lower wind speeds across our U.K. and German offshore wind portfolio. Onshore wind and solar recorded an EBITDA of EUR 830 million. This was driven by significant capacity additions, predominantly in the US, partly offset by weak wind conditions and lower hedge prices in Europe. Our U.S. capacity amounted to 11.2 GW at the end of H1 of this year, compared to 9.7 GW a year earlier. Adjusted EBITDA of flexible generation business was EUR 595 million. As expected, we have seen lower earnings in line with normalized prices. Our supply and trading business showed a low trading performance in H1 and stood at EUR 60 million. When markets were dominated by geopolitical events and less by market fundamentals, our traders were cautious in taking positions. Hence, we see lower earnings in H1. In Q3, we have seen so far an increased performance in trading. We remain confident to achieve earnings well within our guidance range. Our consolidation was EUR 55 million. In total, adjusted EBITDA came in at EUR 2.1 billion. The year-on-year adjusted financial result improved due to an increase of capitalized interest during construction. For adjusted tax, we applied the general tax rate of 20% for the RWE Group. Adjusted net income stood at EUR 775 million, resulting in an adjusted earnings per share of EUR 1.06. The adjusted operating cash flow was -EUR 390 million at the end of H1, driven by seasonal effects. Changes in provisions and non-cash items were driven by seasonal effects in the utilization of provisions. It also includes the cash flow from our phase-out technologies. Changes in operating working capital were marked by the purchase of CO2 emission rights in Q1, partly compensated by a decrease of inventories of gas in storage. For the first time, the hand-in of CO2 certificates is due in Q3 of this year instead of Q2. This leads to a seasonally higher working capital balance in H1. Net debt stood at EUR 15.5 billion. In the first half of 2025, we invested EUR 2.5 billion net in the growth of our offshore wind, onshore wind and solar, and flexible generation businesses. Gross investments were offset by disposal proceeds, in particular from the sell down of 49% of our 1.6 Nordseec luster project in Germany and our 1.1 GW Thor project in Denmark. Other changes in net financial debt amounted to EUR 700 million, mainly driven by timing effects from hedging and trading activities. At the end of the year, we expect net debt to be lower than at H1 and slightly below our 3x leverage target. For 2025, we confirm our outlook. Adjusted EBITDA is expected to be between EUR 4.55 billion-EUR 5.15 billion. Adjusted net income will range from EUR 1.3 billion-EUR 1.8 billion, and adjusted earnings per share between EUR 1.8 -EUR 2.5. The dividend target is EUR 1.2 per share for this year. Now, let me hand back to Thomas. Thank you, Michael. We'll now start the Q&A session. Operator, please begin. Thank you, Mr. Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask an audio question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. Please also ensure that your mute function is not activated in order to let your signal reach our equipment. That is star one for questions. Our first question today is coming from Peter Bisztyga of Bank of America. Please go ahead, your line is open, sir. Thank you. Thank you for taking my questions. Two, if I may. First one, I guess on your guidance and full-year outlook. I get sort of net income was 50% the full year in the first half, but actually the last couple of years, I think it was more like 75% or 80% that you did in the first half. Can you sort of help us bridge to how you think you get to the midpoint of your guidance for the full year in the second half, please? Then question on capital allocation. I guess kind of focused on allocation round seven. I think you've sort of mentioned you'll kind of look to sell down and project finance these projects. I guess that will reduce the burden of non-productive capital employed. We had Ernst describing it very much as a buyer's market at the moment. Press reports sort of suggest that their kind of efforts to sort of sell Palmer Three haven't exactly gone smoothly. I'm just wondering, how do you see this? Is there a risk that there's sort of not enough demand out there for you to be able to progress U.K. offshore without basically carrying more of that on balance sheet, please? Okay, Peter, thanks for the question. I start with the guidance. Indeed, the profile this year we expect to be slightly different, rather a 50/50 split between H1 and H2. The reason being clearly, if you recall, when we gave the guidance in February, we also saw poor wind conditions in the first month and considered that already in the guidance. Secondly, we have seen a low performance in trading and do expect a normalized performance of trading in the second half. As we already mentioned in the speeches, we actually also have seen so far in Q3 a good performance of the trading so that we're very confident to deliver in our guidance. Can I take the second one, Peter? On AR7 and Norfolk and farm down. We have already said at our two-year result when we presented our farm down strategy that for especially the big Norfolk projects, we want to get everything in sync. We will only take an FID and commit to additional capital commitments if we have a farm down, so an equity partner for 50% or two, and project finance. We will not front run. We will not go first and then find a buyer, but we synchronize the project so that everything comes together at the same time. You can assume that we are already in the market talking to potential buyers. I think if we have an attractive project, it also depends, of course, on the CFD price. It should not be a problem to get that done. Very clear. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you, Peter. Next question, George. Sorry, I just didn't know if it was fully completed. Thank you, sir. Our next question will be coming from Alberto Gandolfi of Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead, sir. Thank you for taking my two questions and good afternoon to you. The first one is on earnings. I've seen that the weakness in 2025 seems mostly from more recurring elements, load factors, trading. I guess my question is, if we see in the next year, 2026 and 2027, a normalization in load factors and trading, that's probably EUR 350 million up. First, I was going to ask you if this is, you think, correct, the headwinds you've seen this year so far. Secondly, can you help us mark to market financial expenses? You're guiding EUR 500 million this year, but you did just over EUR 50 million in H1, and you continue to invest. If work in progress remains to a degree elevated, does it mean that your EUR 500 million financial expenses estimates for this year should be much lower? Does it mean also that in 2027, your EUR 750 million estimate maybe is more like EUR 600 million? All I'm trying to say here is, without getting tangled in the numbers, if EBITDA normalizes and financial expenses remain lower, are we, are you basically implicitly telling us there is an upgrade in 2026 and 2027 for the bottom line? Very long, sorry. That's the first question. The second is, sorry, I'm getting there. The second question is, we are seeing some of your peers' share prices and businesses getting under heavy pressure. Any temptation in being a consolidator in the renewable industry in Europe? Yeah, Martin, let me start with the comments on the financials. I guess it's clearly a good summary that the effects you see in H1, namely clearly below average wind conditions and poor trading results, are one of the effects we've seen in H1, and there shouldn't be any read across for the years to come. Secondly, your observation on financial results is also in the right direction. Indeed, we are seeing some improvements on the financial results. Just to give you a few comments, you saw us placing a hybrid in a very high attractive environment. We delayed our U.S. bond issuance in April. There also have been some phasing effects, like early tax credits that kind of reduce the amount to be financed. There are clear effects that you focus on. Is there a read across to 2026, 2027? Look, financing costs very much depend on the investment program. We need to see how, indeed, as Markus referred to, investments are going, and that will also then determine the financing costs going forward. On your second question on consolidation, we have laid out a very clear capital allocation framework when we announced the share buyback. I can just reconfirm that big M&A company transactions are not part of the capital allocation plans which we currently have. That doesn't mean that we go for a project here or there, but it could make sense, but that's more organic development activity. No big M&A on the table. Thank you so much. Very clear. Thank you very much for your question, sir. We'll now move to Olly Jeffery, colleague from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Thanks very much. The two questions that I will have, please, are first of all, looking at the difference between your gross CapEx for H1 and your net CapEx. There seems to be a delta of around EUR 2.7 billion, of which EUR 1.4 billion is in connection to the pass-through by investment of Thor and Nordseecluster. What bridges the gap to the EUR 2.7 billion? The second question is just coming back to the financial cost that Alberto was asking about. There's kind of two ways that you could look at this. One is given your -EUR 50 million for the half year, once you strip out the dividend, that would imply the underlying for H1 ex-dividend was EUR 250 million, which could imply if you had that in H2, you could end up at around EUR 300 million for financial costs. Conversely, if you take the full-year guidance of EUR 500 million, where the underlying implied net interest cost is EUR 350 million, added to EUR 50 million from H1, that would land you at EUR 400 million. Is it that kind of order of magnitude where financial or lower of EUR 100 million or more that financial costs for the full year could end up below EUR 500 million? Thank you. Yeah, Olly, thanks for the question. Let's first start with the CapEx. A big driver is the sell down we've seen on Thor and Northern Cluster. The way accounting treats this, you also have the contributions from minorities to projects, like for example, Mustar on our Dogger Bank project, that also count as their investments and reduce the net cash investments. Further, there have also been some optimizations that kind of contribute to the number. Finally, on financial results, I think good analysis and, yeah, leading in the right direction. Thanks very much. Thank you, sir. Next question will be coming from Deepa Venkateswaran of Bernstein. Please go ahead. Thank you. My two questions, actually, I did want to stick on the financial costs, just more to understand if there were anything one-off that you see and how much this is extrapolatable to future years. If it were not EUR 500 million, but rather EUR 400 million or EUR 300 million, then just to see how much of a run rate is, was there anything one-off that's happening this year that doesn't flow through to next year? That's my first question. The second one is on the U.S. You're expecting the Treasury guidance next week. What are your expectations on how dramatically it might change? Could you also comment about any capacity you have already safe harbored in 2024, which is not going to be impacted by how this Treasury guidance comes out at? Thank you. Deepa, I take the first part. No, there's no one-off apart from obviously the Aon dividend that is part of the financial result in H1. The second question is on the US for next year. We're just saying, we should say that a sustainable level of financing costs is maybe lower than what you have expected at the beginning of the year? No, I mean, look, there are some effects, like for example, obviously the more attractive hybrid that is clearly impacting also later years. Obviously it's a question how FX rates would develop going forward. I mean, we currently see elevated U.S. dollars, so that's obviously reducing the financing costs, but that very much depends on that. There are also some timing effects that are more in this year's effect, like the U.S. dollar bond I talked about or some tax equity financing where we got cash earlier. Deepa, on U.S., given what we have experienced in the last months, I don't want to speculate. Our mindset is we take it when we know it and then we draw the conclusion. On safe harbor, the same. I could give you a number under the old assumption, but let's wait for the final rules and we will immediately communicate to you what we think is possible in terms of build-out. As I said previously, it's not only safe harbor. Probably that is not even the limiting factor. It's also mitigation of tariff risk, which is still volatile. If that is not under manageable, it would also delay investment. I think there is the optimism that given the significant power demand need that we get clarity on those aspects and then we are in a position to tell you exactly how we adjust our plans going forward. Thank you. Thank you for your questions, Deepa. We'll now move to Harry Wyburd of BNP Paribas Exane. Please go ahead. Hi, hi everyone. Hi, Markus. Hi, Michael. Two from me. First, it's another one on the U.S., but a point that you didn't touch on in your answer just now. What are you seeing on permitting in onshore, particularly onshore wind? Obviously, federal permitting has been tightened up. It's a bit of a difficult one to judge from a distance because it's very project specific. Do you expect any issues around permitting, whether you're crossing federal roads or lakes or et cetera, that could complicate your FIDs and so on over the next few years in addition to what's going on with safe harbor and tariffs? On the second one, obviously we've got going on in the press and politically the debate about power subsidies in Germany, or power cost subsidy or grid transmission subsidies and tax cuts. Could you help us just understand, as things stand at the moment, what share of demand or industrial demand is going to get these subsidies, i.e. people that don't already get them that will, and how material is that and how elastic do you think that demand is? What I'm getting at is, do you think that when these are enacted, it might actually start to lead to a recovery in sort of real-time power demand, which obviously has been pretty elusive so far and therefore has slightly diluted the overall argument on power demand growth in Germany and in Europe? Thank you. Harry, thanks for the questions. First, on the U.S., we have no development on federal lands. For projects on private lands, as you pointed rightly out, there are aspects here and there where you need a federal permit. For some others, you don't need it. We have no, let's say, negative experience so far, but what we have made clear is we will not take an FID without all permits being in place. If you need a federal one, you need a federal one. Of course, the teams are currently looking into the entire development pipeline to see where it's easier and where it's more difficult. I cannot give you firsthand experience because we have not taken an FID in wind so far this year, given our strict criteria on all the aspects I mentioned. Second, on Germany, it's difficult to exactly give you the amount of power which is consumed by those who now benefit from part of the relief measures which have been announced, like bridges for everybody, but lowering the taxes to the minimum permanently for the energy-intensive industry. They are also working on other compensation mechanisms. I would roughly say in total, it's probably around 20%-25% of the power demand, which is some way or the other positively affected by some effects. This is not the only driving factor of power demand. This is probably a prerequisite to give the energy-intensive industry confidence if they want to invest also in Germany. I think what is currently more of a driver is the muted industrial activity, especially in areas like metals, need for cars, and so on. If we see their positive development, then it's probably in the next coming years the more relevant factor. The long-term confidence on government support for the energy-intensive industry is more important for long-term investment. Okay, that's very useful. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Next question will be coming from Wanda Serwinowska of UBS. Please go ahead. Hi, Wanda Serwinowska, UBS. Two questions from me. The first one is on the AR7. Do you see the supply chain ready for AR7? How much commitment do you have from the supply chain? The second question is on the phase-out technologies cash flow. It's a negative this year. Michael, what should we expect in terms of the run rate of the cash flow, adjusted cash flow from the phase-out technologies over the next few years? Thank you. On AR7, I cannot talk for the industry. I can only confirm that when we enter into an auction, we have pre-agreements with supply chain that we know what the prices are when we trigger the project. We will not run into an auction without pre-agreements on pricing of the most relevant components. For what we're going to bid into it, supply chain is secured. Now, on the phase-out technologies, first of all, what is important is, and we already stated that in the last call, that clearly the operations of our assets are cash flow positive. Otherwise, we wouldn't operate them. Secondly, if you remember when we introduced the KPI, we said that over the tenure until 2030, the cash flow of the phase-out business should be neutral. Therefore, you have seen a very positive cash flow in 2024. This year is negative. As you know, we are already preparing the business for the phase-out. You should expect higher costs in the years to come, which will then come down, and therefore also the cash flow should improve. Basically, the profile of cash flow technologies is a strong one in 2024. The next one, two, three years, that's probably poorer, and then they are improving towards the end of the decade. Thank you. Thank you very much, ma'am. Next question will be coming from Piotr Dzieciolowski of Citi. Please go ahead. Hi, good afternoon, everybody. I have two questions. The first one is on the gas capacity auction coming in Germany. How big do you think the tender has to be, or what kind of shape does it have to take in order for you to have a profitable auction for you? There's quite a bit of supply. It looks like you have a secured 3 GW, but also some of your competitors talk openly that they secure the lower pricing. Just thinking, does it, like, if it comes at 5 GW, then do you think it could be a profitable tender, or would it have to be much bigger to create a bigger demand for this project? The second question I have is on your 2.5 GW battery pipeline. Can you talk a little bit about the timing, CapEx, and possible contribution of this pipeline? How quickly can you bring it? What did it cost you? What could be the contribution? Thank you. Yeah, Piotr, thanks for the question. On the gas capacity, the minister last time she went public on gas was she wants to reach an auction volume of above 10 GW. Coming back to what I said, for us bidding in the auction, since we have full flexibility on the supply chain, it's not important to reach the gigawatt, but to have a good investment. If the auction volume is lower, we probably do less in the beginning and later more. Given the need, and we also expect the security of supply assessment coming out pretty soon, the number tends to be higher than lower, what is needed to ensure security of supply in Germany in the current situation. My expectation is currently an auction volume before we get to a full-fledged capacity market, where of course you can also incentivize new builds long term, will be above 10 GW. I always said we never want to target a market share above 25%-30%. On the batteries, these projects are in advanced development, and that is the status where you typically also discuss with your suppliers and contractors. We have not taken FID, so I don't want to speculate. As I said, COD is potentially before 2030 for the entire 2.5 GW. The battery case, especially in Germany, looks very attractive, and you earn a lot in the first years. We're going to update on that when we have taken FID. Now coming back to the long-term earnings trajectory we have given, we need certain investments which are still not uncommitted to reach the 2030 EPS guidance if we want to do it with investments and not by additional share buybacks. Please, it's also not a new positive news that we have the 2.5 GW, but it's actually also needed to find good investment opportunities to deploy capital prudently. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you for your question, sir. Ladies and gentlemen, once again, if you have any questions or follow-up questions, please press star one at this time. We'll now go to Peter Crampton, calling from Barclays. Please go ahead, sir. Good afternoon. Peter Crampton here from Barclays. Two questions, if I may. The first one was just around the new German government we have and whether you've seen any encouraging signs of change, particularly relating to this EUR 500 billion infrastructure fund they're planning. Then whether that auction by year-end for new capacity, whether you feel is something where government realizes that returns have to be really good for the related commitments. On the second question, we now have the Big Beautiful Bill in the U.S. We obviously still need to hear around these German capacity auctions, but whether you feel you're getting more information allowing for that update on capital allocation early next year, whether there's some early thoughts on that. Thank you. Yeah, so let's start with the German government. This is a very, let's say, high-level question. I would say directionally, we are happy with the direction that they now strengthen the security of supply and industrial competitors with net and, of course, a more cost-efficient and synchronized build-out of renewables in sync with the grids. I think it's the right direction of travel. What I hear between the lines is that, of course, for those aspects where you need agreement with Brussels, like industrial power prices, but especially also the gas build-out, they are in almost daily, weekly discussions with the European Commission. This is for us also a black box, but I see lots of engagement there. I would say in order to, for the energy policy, tick the box, we, of course, other than the right direction, also want to see implementation after the summer break. Probably it's good in another 90 days to say whether it's good or not. So far, the direction of travel is right. Your second question was on the one big future capital allocation. I think, as I said, it's not only that we need clarity on the executive order. We also need to see how the tariff situation is evolving. I mean, I think it's too early to say that we have reached more or less a stable situation. You can also be surprised by changes every day. It will probably take some time before we feel confident to give you numbers on capital allocation. Before we said end of the year, early next year, I think that is still the right timeframe because that would also give us full visibility on the German capacity remuneration. Perfect. Very clear. Thank you. Thank you. What's your question, sir? We now have a follow-up question from Olly Jeffery of Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead, sir. We'll follow up from Olly Jeffery. Olly Jeffery, could you share your line is open? Thank you. Hello. Two follow-ups for me, please. One is on flexible generation. The midpoint of the guidance for that business is EUR 1.2 billion this year, and it's EUR 1.35 billion in 2027. You've done EUR 600 million thereabouts in H1. Given the increased volatility in intraday pricing that you're seeing and the opportunities to make money around that, do you think that there's a possibility of more exceeding the midpoint of the guidance this year rather than coming underneath it? Also, if you think that volatility is more sustainable than when you set the original 2027 guidance of EUR 1.35 billion, do you think there's now a bit more upside to that compared to when you first made it? The second question I have is just on AR7. It would seem to me that with your Ascension projects like Rampion South and Awmuir, you probably have some of the most cost-competitive projects that could bid into the auction. Would you agree with that statement? I'd start with FlexGen. I mean, look, that's too early to tell for the entire year because, you know, volatility is to some degree difficult to predict. Yet, what we always said is that we do expect markets to get tighter, and that is something where our flexible generation fleet and also our phase-out business are benefiting from. For example, what you see this summer is that, yes, you have very low prices during the day, but during the night, almost all units are running. That is indeed obviously something where those assets are benefiting from. What you also see so far in H1, there is this kind of offsetting effect. When you have lower winds in Europe, you do see upsides on the flexible generation side. That is a pattern we observe, and we also expect to go forward. I would say with respect to 2027, we feel comfortable with the guidance we've given so far. On AR7, Olly, let me put it that way. I mean, we are very happy with the pipelines we have. I don't want to speculate about relative competitiveness, but just make a comment. I think in offshore, it's still the right, it's still the time to be more on the conservative and cautious side, given that you talk about billions of investments. As we also have clearly said in this call, we are making good progress on our projects, and I think top priority is to keep it that way. Thank you. Thank you very much for your follow-up. Sorry, Olly. As we have no further questions at this time, I'd like to call back over to Thomas Denny for any additional or closing remarks. Thank you. Great. Thank you, everyone, for dialing in. Thank you, Markus and Michael, for the time today. Of course, the IR team is at your disposal for any further questions you might have for the rest of the day or in the coming days. For those of you that head out on vacation in the coming weeks until Labor Day, I wish you a great holiday and hope you are recharged and fresh. I'm sure we see plenty of you during the upcoming conferences and roadshows that we have scheduled from September onwards. Have a great day and see you soon. Bye-bye. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, that will conclude today's conference. Thank you for your attendance. We now disconnect. Have a good day and goodbye.