Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, and welcome to Ørsted's Capital Markets Day 2021. My name is Allan Bødskov Andersen, and I'm Head of Investor Relations. We really look forward to today, where we will present the next step in Ørsted's journey towards a world that runs entirely on green energy. I'm here with our Group CEO, Mads Nipper. Mads, what can the audience expect from us today? Well, you can expect, first and foremost, a full Ørsted executive team that really looks forward. We look forward to telling you about our opportunities, our ambitions, and our plans to realize it all. Of course, what that means for our targets going forward. Just a few housekeeping points from my side before we start. The slides are available for download, just click the button at the bottom of your screen. We will host a Q&A towards the end of the day, and instructions on how to pose a question will be visible on the screen during the breaks we have planned for today. Without further ado, let's kick it off. First presenter will be Mads, and Mads will be talking about how Ørsted will realize its full potential as a global green energy major. Let me provide you with an overview of the plan towards realizing our full potential as a global green energy major. Before we turn to Ørsted, let's take a look at the external world. We are seeing that carbon emissions and temperatures are rising at an alarming speed. We are also seeing that the consequences of climate change is not just for the future, it's happening as we speak today. The risks of some of the catastrophic consequences for the planet and for humanity increasing if we do not achieve the long-term targets and ambitions of the world for the one and a half degree scenario are simply catastrophic. That has led us at Ørsted to put up a vision of a world that runs entirely on green energy. You will notice that this is not a vision about Ørsted. This is not about a vision of a company and where we want to be. This is about a vision of a world that simply needs to run on green energy. Because production and use of energy is over 70% of total carbon emissions. If we don't together create such a world, we are not on a good path. We, of course, plan to use that vision to play our part, to do everything humanly possible that we as a company can inspire an entire world to support that journey. It is something that means a lot to everything that we do. Let's take a look at what is needed for the future in terms of the energy system. The energy system will be at the core of the decarbonization journey of the world, and at the core of the future energy system, as we envision it, will be a massive build-out of renewable energy. As a matter of fact, to hit the net zero ambition for 2050 for the world, we need a build-out of 27,000 GW of renewable capacity. As an example, on offshore wind in Europe alone, we would need 450 GW of offshore capacity. That's a massive build-out of capacity, but also of transmission that is needed to support it. We also need new innovative solutions, such as energy islands or other transnational projects, that will create interconnections between different markets, allowing for more efficient use of the energy that is produced. Not all sectors can decarbonize through electrification. There will be hard-to-abate sectors such as steel, heavy transport, and others that will need renewable hydrogen and green fuels to decarbonize. This is something that happens through the use of lots of the energy that is produced. This is something which will be a backbone, and as much as 12% of the total energy used by 2050 can come from green hydrogen and fuels. We do need a new and more resilient energy system to cope with as much as 90% renewable energy coming into the energy systems. That needs storage. It needs new digital solutions in order for this to be possible. Finally, we will have a new energy off-taker landscape. This is not just about regions or states, it's also about large corporate off-takers. Everybody needs to do what is necessary to decarbonize. For corporate off-takers, as an example, there will be a need for new solutions that don't necessarily exist today to support that journey. This means fantastic opportunities for companies like us in terms of the market growth. Just offshore alone will grow to an estimated 7x the current size within the next decade. We will still have Europe as the largest market. We will see massive growth also in the U.S. and Asia markets. Even for more mature technologies such as onshore wind and solar, and also our newest on storage solutions, even that will grow to 2.5x-3 x the current size. Across existing technologies, a massive build-out which will support decarbonization. Also new and emerging market like renewable hydrogen and green fuels. This is a market that largely doesn't exist today, but projections are that this could be at a size of 80-100 GW already by 2030. Across everything, there are huge opportunities, and the good thing is that this is being backed very tangibly by both ambitions and policy actions to make it happen. With the example of EU and U.S., we are seeing a new or confirmed target for decarbonization, also broken down to, for example, offshore capacity needed. Most importantly, this is backed by investment plans and policy frameworks that will enable that everybody, so policymakers, companies, and everybody can lean in and make this happen. We cannot do it without each other, without walking in tandem. Let's take a look at what that means for our aspirations at Ørsted. We have the not very modest ambition to become the world's leading green energy major. What do we mean with that? Well, it is clearly a cornerstone that we must become one of the largest green electricity producers. To back that, we will remain a global number one in offshore. That is our clear ambition. We also want to build a top 10 position in onshore. Finally, we want to be a global leader in the emerging renewable markets and green fuel market. We should not be doing build-out of capacity just for the sake of it. We need to, and have a clear ambition to remain one of the largest and most value-creating deployers of capital into the green transformation. Because that build-out and value creation needs to happen in tandem, both for us to be able to finance the build-out, but also because for the trust of our investors and other stakeholders, we need to ensure that we run a commercial company. With ambitions like that, we simply need the best talent. We have an ambition to become the world's leading talent platform, so we get the very best people, the very best team to support our journey. We have a clear ambition, not just to solidify and stay where we are in terms of sustainability leadership, because we have had the privilege already last year to be named the World's Most Sustainable Company across any industry, and three years in a row to be the World's Most Sustainable Energy Company. We don't rest on our laurels. We plan to continue to up our ambition to continue to be a role model for other companies to follow. On that note, it is also our aspiration to not only be a core contributor, but a catalyst for change towards a world that runs entirely on green energy. What does that mean? Well, it means we will constantly strive to do things that others either cannot or do not dare to do, in order to ensure that we inspire others to go towards the change that the world so desperately needs. If we take a look at what does that mean for our build-out ambitions. We do have an ambition to increase our installed capacity from the current 12 GW to approximately 50 GW by 2030. This is about 4x the current installed capacity. It is a massive increase compared to the 30-GW a mbition that was launched at our last Capital Markets Day back in 2018. With this ambition, we are also looking at a changed playing field or where we choose to play and grow. Looking at the right side of this slide, you will see that it is completely unchanged, that we have a clear stated ambition to stay a global leader in offshore, all regions. We also have an ambition in onshore now no longer as a new but a strong growth platform in the U.S. because we have proven over the past three years that we can have a massive and value-creating build-out, and we plan to continue to do that. At the same time, with the recent establishment of a growth platform in Europe, we do plan to have that global expansion. Last but not least, in renewable hydrogen and green fuels, we will have Europe as the core of our growth platform. That's where we're starting, but that's not where we're ending. We will start and lean into Europe, but with an ambition to span globally with what we do in that important field. Let's take a look at what are some of the strategic choices we have made to support this. In offshore, we are increasing our ambition from a 15-GW target by 2025 to an ambition of 30 GW by 2030. That means that we are accelerating our build-out in the back half of this decade to three GW a year. We will do that through expanding our footprint. We mentioned examples here with the Baltics, Nordics, East Asia, also other growth markets, because we have proven that we can open new markets effectively, and we have an intent to continue to do so. We will also take part and take a leading role in new innovative projects like the Danish Energy Islands. This is something that could be an absolute cornerstone of the energy systems of the future, and we want to play our leading role. We are also making a choice that we want a strong position in floating offshore wind. If we look at the long term, so especially beyond 2030, floating will become a massive potential. This is something that if we, even beyond that period, have a clear intent to be an undisputed leader in offshore, we also want to lean in and drive floating offshore wind. Turning towards onshore, we are also increasing our ambition there. As a matter of fact, we are increasing it a lot from an ambition of 5 GW by 2025 to 17.5 GW by 2030. A massive increase in ambition level. We will do that through continuing to accelerate our U.S. build-out that has proven that it is very scalable, but also to globalize our platform starting in Europe. On technologies, we are also making the choice to become a multi-technology player. We will, and we are seeing examples of that already in the U.S. market, we will combine different technologies. Onshore wind, solar PV, storage, maybe all three of them. This is something we believe will become a huge advantage, and by the way, needed for our customers and offtakers. To renewable hydrogen and green fuels. As already mentioned, our ambition is to build a global leadership position. The backbone of how we plan to materialize that and realize that is to execute on our already existing pipeline of projects in Europe, which sums up to well over 3 GW of capacity. That will give us not only the initial scale, but also invaluable learnings to be able to scale beyond the execution of those projects. Then we will also lean into selected renewable hydrogen and green fuels value chains together with some of our offtake partners. That means, in other words, that playing beyond renewable electricity generation and electrolysis is something we will selectively do. You might ask, why doesn't a company like Ørsted just stay with our current majority core business, namely offshore? Why should we sort of go into these new areas? Well, we believe that the choices we are making have very meaningful synergies and distinct competitive advantages. Starting with maybe the most obvious one, the procurement synergies from simply being a bigger procurer of renewable technologies. That's a very tangible financial ambition and something that we can materialize. Also, we are already today seeing that our customers demand multi-technology solutions. This is a way to be able to offer to any offtaker a much more integrated decarbonization solution by having those technologies at hand. Also through a global presence that will, through the areas where we already have our different technologies in play, we will enable that we can create stronger transnational solutions to our customers. By the way, if we are already present with one technology in one part of the world, market entry can be made a lot easier if we want to go in with other technologies as well. Very importantly, with our vision, we must see a decarbonization of the hard-to-abate sectors. There are synergies there into large-scale renewable generation simply is something that is so obvious for us to leverage through renewable hydrogen and green fuels. If we take a look at our financial targets, our target on operational earnings is still a double-digit growth in EBITDA from operating assets in onshore and offshore towards 2027. More specifically, around 12% is the average growth that we are looking at. If we turn towards the new projects, it's also clearly still our ambition to stay a value-creating developer. We plan to do that by having a target range between 150 - 300 basis points. Bear in mind that this is based on the toughest financial value criteria possible, namely with a fully loaded unlevered lifecycle IRR. If I then finish with sustainability, because on top of financial targets that are of course, vital for us to get the credibility and the ability to continue to invest, then sustainability is also very much at the core we do. We are reconfirming our targets of by 2025 to have a fully carbon neutral energy production, and by 2040 to be fully carbon neutral, including our Scope 3. Both of those will be based on science-based targets, so fully trustworthy and credible, which we believe, by the way, everybody should do. On top of confirming those targets, we are also taking the opportunity now to take a stand on biodiversity. As you saw in the very beginning of my presentation, the single biggest threat to biodiversity is climate change. On top of that contribution, by helping to decarbonize the world, we believe that with a massive build-out of renewable energy that is needed, we simply also want to ensure that that happens intact with nature. That is why no later than 2030, all our new projects must have a positive biodiversity impact. We will start taking actions way before that, but that is a deadline where we set ourselves and saying, "This is when that must happen. On top of that, we are also announcing as of now a ban on landfill for wind turbine blades. With these new ambitions, we plan to uphold a clear leadership on sustainability, of course, centered around decarbonization, but also much beyond that, which already today has led us to be a global leading sustainability player. With that, let me finish by taking you on a trip into the real world, more specifically to Taiwan, and even more specifically hosted by my great colleagues, Frida and Ulrik, who will show you some of the progress in a video of our Greater Changhua 1 and 2a construction that is happening despite very challenging circumstances driven by COVID-19, that is still progressing well and headed towards another on time, on budget delivery. We want to take you now straight to the front line of the execution of the Changhua 1 and 2a project. This is a project where we have taken us through all the spectrum. We have started in the development phase. We have the EPC phase, where engineering, procurement, and construction, and at the end, we will have the operation, which is also being done by Ørsted in this project. Let's start to show you the scale and the magnitude of our project and both the onshore and the offshore works that is ongoing. All this has translated to a lot of experience that's been shared, a lot of new jobs has been created, and the local supply chain has been built up. All this has contributed to the local economy. To execute the first utility-scale offshore wind farm in APAC, we blend Ørsted's world-class expertise with the experience and capabilities of our local suppliers and partners. On the supply chain side, we have pursued an overall strategy to have a global setup. We also have a local supplier in Taiwan to build and construct the substation. When we started the project some years ago, there was no pier site, but now the pier that had been constructed by the Taichung Port authorities, and we have successfully started to use it directly after completion. We are in the middle of manufacturing turbine towers and transporting them, but we've also reached a very significant milestone of installing the first offshore jacket. The offshore construction will be supported by a wide range of marine engineering, vessel supply, and the people from home and abroad. We estimate on the peak times we will have 25 vessels at sea, including five to 800 people working at sea. We are working with international and local suppliers. On the Greater Changhua 1 and 2a project, we are having 111 locally made towers for the turbine structures. In addition, the nacelles will be locally clicked here in Taichung Port at the nacelle clicking facility, which is the first of the kind outside of Europe. Despite the many challenges faced with executing in a new market and now with the COVID-19 situation, the project team has managed to keep the project on track, on time, and on budget. We are confident that we will deliver first power in the first half of 2022, and we will complete all offshore installation works by the end of 2022, as agreed at the FID date. This is proof of Ørsted's model and the 30 years of experience and the extreme talent team that we have executing this project. Some of our team members have been expatriated to Taiwan, or to other countries where we have fabrication ongoing, many are new colleagues that have joined the team, They have truly had steep learning curves, We're working together as a strong team. We are working in a market with very limited offshore wind experience, but by hard work, dedicated team, and the right approach, all the major permits are now in place. From the beginning of the project, we have had high focus on safety, and we are here and we are sharing our experience from the offshore wind industry with our new suppliers in the new markets. We do this in many ways. We have our team here on the ground at the facilities of our suppliers, working together and sharing our experience in order for them to meet our security requirements. In addition to creating jobs and building up manufacturing facilities, we also train people on the ground. That's because we build to operate, because we want to ensure that we have a solid and a skillful operational setup to operate our Changhua 1 and 2a wind farms. We send local technicians to operating assets in Europe to be all qualified. In fact, the first batch of local technicians have just been sent to the U.K. for an eight-month-long training course, and get the direct learning from an operating asset that they can bring back to operate our Greater Changhua 1 and 2a wind farms. Executing a global project with a global diversity in a new market requires a very strong project culture. We have created that in the Changhua project, and we have truly embraced the local cultures in the new markets, visiting the temples and participating in ceremonies before we start construction works or before we start any offshore works. Finally, we are happily opening many new facilities and factories together with our suppliers, and we are sharing in celebrations after the successes. In Taiwan, we have proven that we can scale up Ørsted EPC model, and we can truly execute successfully in a new market. With this, we are on our journey creating new energy together for a greater tomorrow from Taiwan. Thank you to Frida and Ulrik and the rest of the team in Taiwan for making that fantastic video for us here today. Taiwan is a destination very close to my heart. I've been there numerous times to prepare for our first green bond transactions into the local Taiwanese capital market, also allowing local Taiwanese investors to take part in the green transformation in Taiwan. Now, we will stay within the theme of offshore wind. I'll welcome here on our stage, Martin Neubert. Martin Neubert, you are Chief Commercial Officer and Deputy CEO here at Ørsted. I'd like to have you elaborating a little bit about how has your business evolved since 2018, where we had our last Capital Markets Day, and how we're going to realize our ambition of 30 GW of capacity by 2030. Thank you very much for the introduction, Allan. Let me start with three key messages that are really underpinning our new growth ambition for 2030. First, since our last Capital Markets Day in 2018, and I was also standing here in this room, we have built an even stronger platform for growth by regionalizing our business and by growing our asset portfolio by taking in multi-GW of secured and awarded contracts. Secondly, we have secured a substantiated industry-leading pipeline of very tangible development opportunities, which together with broader opportunities that we are working on, also in new markets, will give us great confidence that we can achieve our 30 GW ambition by 2030 without compromising on value creation. 30 GW ambition means also an accelerated build-out from 2 GW - 3 GW post-2025, and we have a unique in-house EPC and operations engine to actually scale and deliver on that task. Allan, allow me to double-click on each of these key messages, and let's start with looking into what has happened since the last CMD, and take a look at the market perspective. The global offshore wind market is at an accelerating growth and speed, going from 7 GW per year annual build-out from 2020- 2025 to more than 20 GW annual build-out between 2025 and 2030. It strongly illustrates how exponentially the green transitioning is happening. When we looked at the market forecast for 2030, three years ago, we were expecting around 100 GW, and now we see an increase of more than 75%, underlying the tremendous growth prospects for offshore wind, but also the importance that offshore wind plays in the global green transition. Let's zoom in on Ørsted. We have been in an excellent position over the last three years to really capitalize on that global growth by growing our asset portfolio from 12.8 GW- 17.3 GW of firm capacity. With firm capacity, I mean capacity we have installed, capacity we have under construction, and capacity that we have secured and where we have an awarded contract. 17.3 GW is absolutely industry-leading because it is larger by 10 GW or a factor of two and a half compared to our closest competitor, which just underlines our undisputable market leadership that we have in offshore wind. To the right-hand side here, you can see the details of how we have grown our asset portfolio and matured over the last three years. Starting with 4.5 GW of newly awarded contracts we have taken in through the large-scale wins we have seen in the U.S. with Sunrise Wind and Ocean Wind, but also through our market entry in Poland, where we have secured through a partnership with PGE, the Baltica 2 and 3 project. At the same time, we have been consolidating our leadership position in Taiwan by completing the construction of the island's first offshore wind farm, Formosa 1, together with our partners, and by taking the Greater Changhua 1 and 2a, not only into construction, but now also into offshore construction, as you have seen. In addition, we have taken into operation in time and in budget a number of European offshore wind projects. Among those, the world's largest offshore wind project, Hornsea 1. Our first offshore wind farm in the Netherlands, Borssele 1 and 2. You can see here how the 17.3 GW of firm capacity is distributing across our four regions, and you see it's an equal distribution among our mature offshore wind regions, being U.K. and Continental Europe. We also see an increasing sort of importance and scale of North America and Asia-Pacific that are the new offshore wind regions on the global offshore wind map. In addition to the 17 GW of firm capacity, we have been able to secure an industry-leading substantiated pipeline of development projects, which is 14 GW in total. Those projects are, for instance, in the U.K., our Hornsea 3 and Hornsea 4 project. Hornsea 3, we achieved an irrevocable consent a few months ago, allowing us to play with a large ticket into the next U.K. CFD auction. In Continental Europe, you see we don't have a substantiated pipeline because we have already converted the Baltica 2 and 3 projects into our firm capacity. In North America, our substantiated project is the 5 GW of lease rights that we own in the Northeast and in the Mid-Atlantic region. In Asia-Pacific, we have our development projects like Greater Changhua 3, or our greenfield activities in Korea and our Akita and Choshi projects we have just been bidding into Japan's first offshore wind round. Important to understand that the substantiated pipeline are projects where we have already secured a right, either through a lease, through a consent, through an EIA or we, like in Japan, are very close to submitting a bid together with a local partner. 14 GW of substantiated project rights, again, is industry-leading because it's more than double than what our closest competitors have under their development pipeline. In addition to the 14 GW, we actively work on a larger opportunity space of 38 GW of early-stage project development, which includes, for instance, in the U.K., the upcoming ScotWind tender. It includes our Race Bank expansion project, our Isle of Man project. In Continental Europe, it's of course, a large part related to centralized tenders. There we cannot achieve exclusivity until after an award has actually happened. That relates to markets like Denmark, Netherlands or Germany. In the U.S., this is related to new lease auctions, in the Northeast or in California. In Asia-Pacific, this relates to full-out development rights in, for instance, Vietnam, in Taiwan, Japan or Korea. This opportunity pipeline is something where we have less secured rights compared to the substantiated pipeline. It is something we are actively working and pursuing on, and important to say, these are all opportunities which we realistically believe we can take into construction and into completion within a decade from now. These are not projects widely going into the 2030s. Otherwise, this pipeline would be even bigger. We look at the totality of more than 50 GW of opportunities for Ørsted offshore wind. At the backdrop of the more than 50-GW pipeline I just explained, we have set a new ambition of 30 GW by 2030. It's an accelerated ambition because it means we're not only going to double our installation of offshore wind from 7.6-15 GW over the next four years, but we will double it again from 2025-2030, going from 15-30 GW. Our annual build-out will increase from two GW a year-three GW a year. With the firm capacity that we have of 17 GW, it means we need to secure a total of 12.7 GW in order to achieve our ambition of 30 GW. I am very confident that we are able to achieve this 12.7 GW, leveraging our vast experience and track record of converting pipeline opportunities into value-creating assets. There we have the 52 GW of opportunity rights, and I said, I'm very confident that we are able to mature and convert the vast majority of the 14 GW and at the same time, get our fair share of the 38-GW opportunity pipeline. You might ask, is 30-GW ambition actually ambitious enough? We think it is, and it strikes the right balance between accelerating our growth, retaining our market leadership on the one hand side, and at the same time continuously to be very focused on value creation. In terms of value creation, it's important to understand that we are, by oversizing our development pipeline, are able to create flexibility for us when it comes to, in an optimal way, develop and size and time our capacity in each of the regions. As you can also see from the slide, our share of the total market is going to go down, which allows us to be selective with the opportunity that we take into our pipeline and take forward to build out. We apply very stringent criteria when it comes to select projects. They obviously need to be financially value-creating within the framework that Mads and Marianne are explaining to you today. They also need to play to us the strengths. We are an organization with more than 3,000 employees dedicated to offshore wind development. For us, complexity is a strength. Complexity, whether on the regulatory side, on the technical side, on the commercial side. These projects need to fit in the scheme, and of course, we want to build at scale. Then we are really looking at, as you saw when I showed you the regions, a balanced portfolio across markets, across projects, across competencies. With all of that, we're going to be able to have not only a leading position by 2030, but all the way beyond. That's actually one of our key competitive strengths that we take a long-term perspective. For us, pipeline planning does not stop in 2030. We plan way forward into 2040. We like to enter markets early, at an early stage. Being really at the table in shaping market conditions, securing partnerships locally, working with regulators and local stakeholders, securing proprietary project rights. We all do this with a mentality of a total life cycle perspective. We firmly believe in we develop to bid, we bid to build, and we build to operate and own. A number of strategic examples I want to give you, where we have established an early position in markets and on specific projects with a view to create GW opportunities in the long run. Here to mention, I would like to say the two Danish energy islands is a good example of that. The regulator currently for these are islands to be established post-2030, but we are very active today, as I'm going to show you a bit later. Take the Baltic Sea region, where we have established a strong footprint already, both in Denmark and in Poland. We are expanding that into opportunities, for instance, in Poland, in Sweden or in the Baltic States, where we recently entered a partnership with Enefit. Take South Korea. We have a 1.6 GW development ongoing in the Incheon region. That is only a stepping stone as we see Korea as a core strategic market with many GW of growth opportunities for us, and we just entered last week an MoU with a large industrial player in Korea, namely POSCO. In Vietnam, we set ourselves up with a local organization and have since last year developed a greenfield project off the coast of Binh Thuan, which once developed, will hold more than 4 GW potential. Last but not least, floating offshore wind is an important scheme. We see clearly the prospects for floating offshore wind to become commercial at commercial scale towards the end of the decade, which means that we are preparing now for our first floating appearances, well, in the U.K., in the U.S., or in Asia-Pacific. Martin, just a few questions on the pipeline. Clearly, a lot of opportunities across our four regions. I don't see anything in Latin America, and I don't see anything in Australia. What's your thinking around those two continents? You are pretty right, and it goes back to the stringent prioritization of markets and projects that we have. We see these markets, not that they cannot develop and have offshore wind potential, but these markets have a massive amount of land-based renewable that can produce cheap electrons, green electrons. Therefore, we don't see the current potential in these markets to develop for us at scale new opportunities, while we prioritize the markets that I showed to you. Martin, another question we get really a lot in the investor relations team is around seabed leases and the auctions we have seen. Some of the other players in the industry have been willing to pay very high amounts to secure seabed rights. What's your thinking about our role in future seabed auctions? Yeah. Of course, new seabed auctions are also important for us. We're not going to shy away from new seabed auctions. The good thing is for us that we have already developed this stringent pipeline of opportunities that I mentioned. In order to deliver on our 30-GW ambition, we are not dependent upon now winning new seabed leases in a market currently where a lot of players trying to get a foot in the door. Of course, we will participate in new seabed auctions. It needs to make economically and financially sense for us, and we are not being pushed in a corner because we have what it takes in order to deliver on our ambition. Thank you for that, Martin. I'll let you continue with our competitive advantages. Of course, we want to build as many of our development projects, though not all. In order to do that, we need to secure offtake rights. Whether we deliver our green electrons to corporate customers, to states or to national governments, or to our own in-house renewable hydrogen projects. For us, it's important that we are cost competitive in what we are doing. We are able to do that purely because of our scale, our size, and the unique platform that we have developed in offshore wind, which comprises an impressive portfolio of assets of more than 40 projects across the different life cycle stages. More than 1,500 spinning turbines, so a large operating fleet. More than 3,000 dedicated, highly skilled employees that are spread across four regions. Already today, more than 50 markets and based around the world in more than 20 different office locations. The way we think about developing and constructing assets is to always sort of create cross-portfolio synergies. While it is to design an O&M hub, like in Grimsby in the U.K. East, which is going to be able to operate in the most effective way, a cluster of 8 GW of offshore wind projects, once we have built out the entire Hornsea zone. Whether we take our 3,000 MW of portfolio that we're going to build out in the U.S. towards the mid of the decade. We look at this as one construction train and one construction cluster. Whether it is we take technicians and construction workers and package managers that have worked on the Formosa 1 project and now are sort of bringing their experiences and best practice to fruit by working on the Greater Changhua 1 and 2a project. More obviously, we are procuring equipment but also services at scale. We are the number one customers for many of our suppliers, and we are leveraging that in order to achieve the lowest possible cost of electricity. With having constructed and operated offshore wind farms for more than 20 years, we have a huge lake of data that we are actively utilizing in the development and construction of our assets. Martin, I think this would be a good time just to double-click on the data and analytics. Load factor is a very crucial assumption that goes into our business cases. Having a very good estimate of load factor is very important to be sure we create long-term value from our investments. Ørsted operates the world's largest fleet of wind farms. Combined with unique radar technologies, we have access to unique data to model our load factor. I'd like to welcome Nicolai. Nicolai is one of our wind specialists, and he's part of a larger team here at Ørsted that models load factor, among other things. I hope you'll enjoy the next few minutes with Nicolai educating us on load factor modeling. The load factor is defined as the ratio between the load and the maximum load, which is given by the installed capacity. Normally, we're interested in the average load factor, but for the purposes of this deep dive, I will consider the instantaneous load factor to illustrate how it varies depending on conditions and how we model it. The load factor translates wind to value and is a crucial input to a business case. In Ørsted, we have leveraged our 30 years of operational experience with offshore wind farms to create proprietary models for load factor estimation. We have a high focus on this because accurate load factor estimation will de-risk our projects and create more certainty of value creation for our shareholders. The load factor depends on a number of elements. It increases both when the site mean wind speed increases and with larger turbines. Increasing the number of turbines in the same area decreases the load factor. This is because an increased number of turbines leads to larger losses from wakes and blockage effects. When developing a new site, we first measure the wind. To fully characterize the wind resources, we measure for two full years. For the purpose of illustration, I'm focusing in on a two-week period. From the measured wind speed and using the manufacturer's power curve, we can predict the power of a single isolated turbine at the site. A turbine produces more power with increasing wind speed, up to the point where it reaches its rated power. At higher wind speeds, the turbine gradually ramps down its power to protect its mechanical parts. With the power curve, we can convert a time series of measured wind speed into a time series of predicted load factor. The load factor dynamically ranges from zero in situations with little wind to one when the turbine is producing at its maximum power. The load factor for a wind farm will be lower than that of a single isolated turbine. This is due to the turbine interaction losses arising from the wake and blockage effects. Wakes are regions of lower wind speed extending behind each turbine. They arise as the turbines convert kinetic energy in the wind into electrical power. Using sophisticated radar technology, we can measure the complex dynamics of the wakes. These radars were originally designed by Texas Tech University for tracking hurricanes and tornadoes. They give us detailed insights Into the complex dynamics of the wakes. To make accurate predictions of the wind farm energy production, we need to translate these insights into sophisticated models. When we compare our wake modeling with the radar measurements under similar inflow conditions, it is clear that while the model does not capture the minute scale complex dynamics of the real flow, it does a very good job at capturing the average and essential features of the flow. Since the wind speed is lower in the wake than in the freestream flow, a turbine that is caught in the wake of an upstream neighbor will produce less power. Therefore, the load factor will depend on the wind direction. It is lowest when the wind direction is aligned with the turbine rows in the layout. Therefore, the wind farm's load factor depends not only on the wind speed and wind direction, but also on the turbine layout. In addition, the load factor depends on the surroundings of the wind farm. If there are other wind farms nearby, they will lead to additional wake losses. For illustration, we have looked at our Westermost Rough wind farm, which has a neighbor 15 km to the south. Even at this distance, the neighboring wind farm can cause wake losses of up to 30% in power on the leading row turbines. These wind farm wakes extend over very large distances. As the build-out of offshore wind continues and intensifies, understanding the wakes from neighboring wind farms become increasingly important. In our load factor estimates, we include both all existing and planned future wind farms within a 50-km radius in our calculations. The next topic I want to address is blockage. Returning to the radar measurements from before and zooming in on a single turbine, we can visualize the flow as seen from above. Despite the random fluctuations caused by the turbulence in the atmosphere, the wake is clearly visible as a tail of reduced wind speed extending behind the turbine. If we average the flow over half an hour, the turbulent fluctuations disappear, and we can identify also a region of lower wind speed extending in front of the turbine. This is called the blockage effect. It is caused by the slower-moving air in the wake, blocking the oncoming flow, slowing it down. The blockage effect is equivalent to the flow of highway traffic in case of an accident. As cars slow down to safely pass the congestion, it has a cascading effect on the approaching traffic, which can lead to a queue forming several kilometers ahead of the accident location. Combining the blockage effect from the individual turbines, our model generates a global blockage effect extending out in front of the entire wind farm. When this is combined with the wake model, we get a full picture of the turbine interaction losses. The global blockage effect has only been recognized as an important loss within the last three years. There's now a growing recognition in the wind industry that neglecting this loss represents a material bias in energy production estimates. While the loss still needs to be researched further, it is starting to be implemented across the industry. Ørsted installed the first offshore wind farm in the world, Vindeby, more than 30 years ago. Today, we are operating the world's largest offshore wind farm, Hornsea One, which produces enough electricity to power a million homes. With the world's largest offshore operating portfolio, which spans three continents, we have a unique data set that we can use in validation and calibration of our load factor estimation models. We apply sophisticated data mining techniques together with automation to compare the realized production with the model predictions. We do this continuously and systematically. The one-of-a-kind radar system and our ability as developer and operator to continuously monitor and improve the performance of our in-house load factor models enable us to deliver load factor estimates that are best in class. Thank you to Nicolai for those insights into load factor modeling. Martin, let's now continue with our competitive advantages. Could you elaborate on how our EPC model sets us apart from the industry and also how we are adapting to a changing market? Absolutely. Nicolai is one of 2,000 dedicated employees in our EPC organization. We have, as you can see here, an absolute outstanding track record in executing and constructing offshore wind projects. You see many here. We have a total of 7.6 GW of installed capacity. They have been delivered consistently and over many years in time and on budget. COVID-19 has been a huge challenge for global society. It also meant quite a bit of disruption in the global supply chain and in terms of logistics for us to bring technicians and construction workers across border. Despite of COVID-19, we have been able to deliver the Borssele I & II wind farm in the Netherlands. In a record speed with offshore installation done in only nine months, this despite the fact that Europe in spring last year was in entire lockdown. Another good example is the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, which we delivered as an EPC provider to our partner, Dominion Energy. For this project, all the components had to be imported from Europe and being installed despite a full lockdown in Virginia. This just demonstrates how our EPC engine is able to effectively deal with any unforeseens and risks and effectively mitigate it, all the things that can happen on a large-scale construction project. With our 30 GW ambition, as I mentioned before, it means we need to scale up and ramp up our annual build-up from 2 GW-3 GW per year from 2025 onwards. This is no simple task, but we have an outstanding EPC in-house organization with a lot of deep technical competencies that is able to scale and deliver on this task. There are many sort of good examples I could mention here, but let me just select a few. We have a unique in-house model to innovate and optimize wind farm design. An example for that is our foundations department in engineering that is able to design very cost-efficient, very complex foundation structures that are able to withstand typhoons and earthquakes as we find them as conditions in Asia-Pacific. Here we're able to leverage from our great experience we have collected in Taiwan. Another example is our work that we do together with a Scottish engineering startup called Pict, where we have actively invested in the company and now are developing and deploying a first-of-its-kind access system to turbines, which allow technicians not to climb up the ladders, as you saw in one of the videos before, but actually being hoisted up with a motion-compensated hoisting system that allows for a faster access for technicians from the boat to the turbine, but also a safer access, and it saves and prevents a lot of additional steel structures like the boat landing structures on the foundation. When it comes to our supplier engagement, we have over many, many years, been the first to deploy new turbine technology. A recent example is our engagement with GE, deploying and entering into a first commercial contract for the deployment of the 12-MW turbine on our Ocean Wind 1 project. We also procure equipment and services on the large frameworks agreements, really leveraging our strong buying power, which secures us not only components and services, but also sort of delivers us services at the lowest possible price, giving us a competitive advantage in terms of levelized cost of electricity. Last but not least, we from Ørsted have been incremental in terms of developing the supply chain in Europe, and we are leveraging our vast experience from that now in new markets. A good example here is what we just very recently announced that we, together with our partner Eversource Energy, are the first to enter into a charter agreement for the very first U.S. Jones Act vessel that is being currently built in a yard in Texas, and which we will deploy for our Northeast program, delivering on the 1.8 GW that we have earmarked to be delivered by 2025. Another example is the foundation factory that we are developing and building together with our Tier 1 foundation supplier in Paulsboro in New Jersey. In the last part of my presentation, I would like to talk about how Ørsted will continuously be a leader in the green global transition. We have pioneered offshore wind 30 years ago, over the last three decades, we have been a catalyst when it comes to innovation and really pushing the boundaries of our industry. This slide includes a number of Ørsted firsts, where we have really sort of been shaping the industry with what we have been doing. As an example, our bid into Borssele 1 and 2 in 2016 enabled the offshore wind industry to really get on par in terms of LCoE with fossil generation. We were the first submitting a zero subsidy bid in 2017 and again in 2018 in Germany. We have also, over two decades, built many of the world's first largest offshore wind farms at that time as we were scaling the projects from a few hundred MW into what is now with Hornsea 1, way above one GW. Entering new markets in the U.S. and in APAC, or taking the first final investment decision on our first electrolyzer project. The energy landscape is changing rapidly, and we see a strong shift and need to more integrated energy solutions. Therefore, we at Ørsted are very excited to continuously be part innovating the industry towards more integrated energy solutions, whether we talk about energy islands, whether we talk about integrated hydrogen, Power-to-X and offshore wind projects, or commercial floating offshore wind projects. Just to mention two examples, I already talked about our strong focus in developing and being part of the development of two of the world's first energy islands being set up in Denmark. One is the North Sea Energy Island, which is going to be an artificial island 80 km off the west coast of Denmark. The Danish energy regulator will run a tender for that in 2022. We are very well-positioned for that tender, having partnered up with Denmark's largest pension fund, ATP. The other one is on the other side of Denmark in the Baltic Sea, where we're going to utilize the existing island of Bornholm to establish an offshore wind hub, where we co-locate large-scale offshore wind with adjacent technology like renewable hydrogen or Power-to-X, and at the same time use that energy hub to connect multiple offshore wind markets that are surrounding, which saves a great amount of transmission interconnection costs. Another example is our SeaH2Land initiative at the Dutch-Belgium border. This is an initiative where we have a plan to develop one of the world's largest electrolyzers with 1 GW, being powered by 2 GW of offshore wind being developed in the Dutch-Belgium North Sea. Here we work with leading industry partners such as the Refinery of Zeeland or Yara or Dow and ArcelorMittal, that are all having large-scale operations in the area and are keen to decarbonize their operations by off-taking renewable hydrogen that is replacing existing fossil fuel hydrogen. This is one of the largest industrial clusters, and we are very excited with such an initiative to be part of that. These vast undertakings is obviously something we cannot do alone, and one of our key competitive strengths is that we have been working for decades with partners and customers of all kinds. We deploy a very flexible partnership model, whether that is with financial partners that we bring into our offshore wind assets when we farm down typically 50% of these assets. Here we have seen a large amount of investors repeatedly investing into our assets, whether it's Global Infrastructure Partners, CDPQ, PKA, AIP, but we have also been able to attract first of its kind investors into our assets, such as Norges Bank, who did their very first renewable investment together with us in Borssele 1 & 2. We also work with partners in the co-development of projects. Here to mention our partners in the U.S., Eversource Energy and PSEG, or in Japan, we work with TEPCO and with JWD in Europe or take Poland, where we work with PGE. Then back to the new energy systems, working with offtake partners from different sectors, helping them to decarbonize their operations is an important partnership topic for us in the future. Corporate PPAs have been a topic in the renewable energy space for many, many years. We have been instrumental in really sort of bringing corporate PPAs into the offshore wind space. I'm very glad to show you that we have 1.4 GW of offshore wind assets that are going to supply green electrons to large corporate off-takers. We have TSMC. This was our world's largest corporate PPA offtake, or we take Amazon and Covestro for our upcoming Borkum Riffgrund 3 project. We also leverage our corporate PPA capabilities for existing assets, such as we have done with Nestlé, Danfoss or Northumbrian Water across our European offshore wind asset fleet. You can see how much we differentiate to our peers already in that space. We are not just a partner to corporates. We are also a very strong partner to national and local governments when it comes to their decarbonization and sustainability agenda. As I mentioned, we are always eager to shape a new market, getting into a market early. We support local economic and skill development and contribute to job creation. We establish our self-strong local presence, again, here is something where we also leverage the very strong presence and history of our partners. We secure project wise with an ability to scale them fast, as I showed you before. Poland is a good example of what we have done. We already established a small team dedicated to offshore wind development back in 2018. This team worked with local policymakers, regulators, and stakeholders to shape the offshore wind framework that finally fell in place by end of last year. With our partnership with PGE, we are participating very actively in the build-out of the first 6 GW of offshore wind in Poland, namely with the Baltica 2 and 3 project, which is 40% of Poland's offshore wind target by 2030. Very focused being a decarbonization sustainability partner for national and local governments. Let me sum up my presentation by telling you that we have a unique platform for growth, and we have set an ambition of 30 GW installed by 2030, which will make us remain the indisputable leader in offshore wind. We have the offshore wind's largest concrete development pipeline with a high quality and diverse growth opportunities. Cost leadership is absolutely crucial in offshore wind, and we can secure that by providing scale and a very experienced offshore EPC and operations organization. As the energy landscape is developing, we will continuously be a catalyst for driving offshore wind innovation and new energy solutions, leveraging our strong partnership model. To say it in one sentence, we have the ambition and the ability to accelerate global offshore wind growth and continuously lead this industry forward. Thank you so much, Martin. With 17.3 GW firm capacity and another 52 GW of pipeline opportunities to work with, it's going to be a very busy decade for us. With all that capacity coming online, and with all the operations we already have, it's a good time to introduce our new Chief Operating Officer, Richard Hunter. Richard had his first day at Ørsted just yesterday, and joining Richard for a short conversation is our Chief HRO, Henriette Fenger Ellekrog. Henriette and Richard, please go ahead. Hello, I'm Henriette Fenger Ellekrog. I'm CHRO here at Ørsted. One of my key focus areas is to ensure that we have the very best diverse talent, and we recently hired such a talent, our new COO, Richard Hunter. Richard will head our newly established EPC and Operations organization, which is responsible for engineering, procurement, construction, and operations of our global offshore wind farms and our Danish combined heat and power plants. I'm joined here today by Richard in the U.K. Welcome, Richard. Hello, Henriette. It's great to be with you today. Richard, you're just two days into the job, so I won't ask you to give your perspectives on Ørsted, but I would be curious to understand why you think that you're such a perfect fit to the role. Thank you for that. Firstly, I would like to say how happy I am to be joining, and I'm really looking forward to the onboarding and getting to understand the company and the industry more. I, of course, will be inheriting a very strong EPC and operations organization, and I'll be relying upon them. At the same time, hopefully, I can bring some of my experience to bear as we move forward. In terms of that, my background, I have a strong technical foundation in engineering. I've been a project manager and a project director on large integrated engineering projects that involve complex civil engineering in challenging environments and bringing together mechanical and electrical systems with control systems and software to integrate, deliver, and commission into operation large engineering projects. I've also got a background in operations and maintenance, in some cases, in decades-long contracts, and what's needed in terms to ensure performance, to optimize, to ensure that we continue to drive costs without affecting safety and performance of the system. I've run a global business, which was supplying projects and products to more than 50 countries, utilizing the full value chain. A fairly international background. I've spent roughly half my career in Europe and half in Asia Pacific, and I've led organizations with a very diverse global spread of people. In addition to that, I think I have a commercial mindset as an executive leader and a focus on financials to ensure that we deliver the business performance that's required, but at the same time, to develop the relationships with customers, suppliers, stakeholders, and of course, most importantly, with the employees and the teams within our company. I'm very much looking forward to bringing some of that experience to bear in this new role and getting on with the job. When you and I interviewed, we obviously discussed what were the strengths of Ørsted and the future focus areas of Ørsted and the EPC and Operations organization. It would be interesting to know what made you make the decision to join Ørsted. I think firstly, the opportunity to join the leading global green energy major was a big thing. A company that's undergone a significant transformation already and has a clear ambition and mission within the sector to continue to grow and develop, not just within offshore wind, where we're leading already, but into other areas. That's a key one. Secondarily, together with the EPC and Operations team, I can see that the role and the organization has a key part to play in the business in the future in delivering the projects that we need to do on time and to cost, and ensuring the operations continue to innovate within the space so that we can continue to deliver value. I think thirdly, would be the culture of the company. I researched that a little bit before I entered the process. Through the process for the recruitment, with interactions with our CEO, Mads, with yourself, and with a number of the other executive team, I think I've got a clear understanding of the culture that you have and what you're seeking to promote, and it's something I want to be part of. I'm very much looking forward to joining you as part of the team. We're happy to have you on the team. To put your hire into a greater perspective, allow me to elaborate a little on that, because we are quite clear that if we are to realize this ambitious growth strategy, we need to have world-class experienced teams, and we need to be able to attract, retain, and develop the very best talent across in our industry. To do that, we'll leverage three things. One is our Danish heritage. We will work, even though we are truly global, with our Scandinavian leadership, meaning that we'll have low power distance, we'll bust the bureaucracy, because that is key to speed and progress. The second thing is what is also quite important and attractive to our talent is our clear sense of purpose and our vision, which guides everything that we do. Thirdly, and finally, the knowledge or the history that we've done this before. We've gone through large transformations through our passion, our perseverance, and our discipline. It's quite important to know that we've done this before. We're happy that you're joining the journey also now, Richard. I'm very happy to be part of it. Thank you. Now it's time for a break. When you come back, we'll welcome Declan to the stage to tell us more about our onshore growth strategy. [Break] Welcome back after the break. We will continue with our onshore business. Our onshore business has grown significantly faster than we anticipated back in 2018 when we entered the U.S. onshore market. We are a top five developer in the U.S., and we also recently acquired a European platform. I'd like to welcome our CEO of our onshore business, Declan Flanagan from Chicago. Welcome, Declan. Morning, Allan. Declan, I'd like to ask you, how did the business come to where it is today, and how do you see us fulfill the ambition of reaching 17.5 GW of capacity by 2030? Yes. It's been a period of huge growth since our last Capital Markets Day, which came just a month after the formation of the business unit. Since then, we've been executing on our announced plan of a 5-GW portfolio by 2025. I'm delighted to report we're on track to hit that target three years ahead of schedule, with a 4.7-GW portfolio of operating or in-construction projects by the end of this year. Three years into the business plan, we'll have made gross investments of some DKK 35 billion, creating a diverse portfolio of assets as measured by markets and technology. Now is a good time to revisit our ambition. As introduced earlier by Mads, our new target is for a 17.5-GW onshore business by the end of the decade. It's an ambitious but also realistic target. It'll involve a run rate of approximately 1.5 GW per annum, a pace of growth we have already achieved. It's a target backed by a development pipeline of over 10 GW. Plenty of inventory, if you will, for the required pace of growth. That's a quick snapshot of the business, Allan. Thank you, Declan. A question we get a lot is around value creation. Value creation between onshore Sorry, between wind and solar, but also between U.S. and Europe. Could you explain a little more our approach to capital allocation between technologies and markets? Our expansion into solar is obviously one of the more significant portfolio choices we have made in the business, and also our expansion into non-U.S. markets, as you mentioned. I'll cover the thinking behind those choices. Also, I'm going to cover our thinking around the role of M&A versus our own greenfield-driven growth. First, let's start with what our customers want. Our customers want solar. At our last Capital Markets Day, we announced our first large solar and storage project, the Permian Energy Center, in response to the opportunity to serve an existing wind customer. That pattern of customer behavior, buy wind first for price, then seek to fill out the portfolio with solar, is something we see more and more often. As a result, solar has made up 70% of recent corporate PPA demand in the U.S. That's a trend we expect to continue. Most importantly, we've shown we can create value in solar. With 1.4 GW of operating or in-construction solar projects, we've achieved a spread to our cost of capital of 150 - 250 basis points. Very much in the strike zone. I would note, and as Marianne will cover in more detail later, when we talk project returns, we mean fully loaded returns, accounting for G&A costs, project soft costs, et cetera. Simply put, our customers want solar. We create value supplying it to them. It's going to be a bigger part of the portfolio going forward. We forecast our current mix of 70% wind, 30% solar evolves to an approximately equal share of wind and solar in the 2030 portfolio of 17.5 GW. I'm going to go a layer deeper in the business now and explain via a project case study how being multi-technology, wind and solar, makes us a better and more efficient developer. The Helena Energy Center is a 518-MW wind solar hybrid currently under construction in South Texas, near the city of San Antonio. When Helena goes online next year, it will serve customers including Henkel and Target Corporation. In this business, access to transmission is often the scarce resource, and a 500-MW-plus interconnection point close to load is especially so. At this location, land use considerations and project footprint made a 500-MW wind farm unfeasible. Our development team was able to structure an optimized wind solar hybrid that use the available transmission capacity, but also produced a more balanced production profile and generated strong economies of scale. This hybrid approach is something you will see us do more often, both in terms of new build, but also in terms of infilling capacity at existing projects. For example, adding solar or storage to existing wind. On the storage front, we have learned a lot from a recently commissioned 40 MW-hour battery storage project at the Permian Energy Center. This solar storage capacity infill is an interesting value lever going forward. Now let's shift the thinking to markets and geography. When we announced our ambition for the onshore business in the last Capital Markets Day, we were very clear on the global ambitions for the business. With Europe and APAC scheduled to add up to 3x the capacity the U.S. will add by the end of the decade, the rationale is obvious. We've shown with our recent expansion into Europe we can create value in global markets, again, achieving spreads for our cost of capital very much in the strike zone. That being said, it's fair to say our recent entry in Ireland and the U.K. was at the lower end of our range, as one would expect with the entry price element of a platform deal like that. We're confident we can expand margins over time as we accelerate growth of the platform, as we did with Lincoln Clean Energy. We also feel that the highly contracted cash flows and simpler capital structures are a nice complement to our overall portfolio. All that being said, the U.S. will remain our core market and its combination of scale and overall risk-return mean it will attract the lion's share of investments during the plan period, and we forecast that the U.S. will make up 80% of the 2030 portfolio of 17.5 GW. Europe is another example of us being a good buyer and M&A being part of our growth plans. What makes us a good buyer? I'll focus on two things, our proprietary deal flow and our ability to move quite quickly when we find a deal that fits. On deal flow, we have a deep network in the U.S. and globally, and it means we see a lot of opportunities. The majority of what we've done in M&A has come from our proprietary network. As regards moving fast, our funding model, lack of reliance on project finance, and our ability to take and to manage merchant risk allow us to move fast where a deal is the right one for us and also create extra value. For example, by buying a project at late-stage development but without a PPA and securing a PPA later and enhancing the business case. In fact, just last week we announced a perfect example of that with a PPA with a group of municipal utilities in the Midwest U.S. served by one of our wind farms in that region. M&A can be in the future an important part of the growth plan, but our core competence is very much greenfield development, and that is where the majority of our projects to date have come from. What makes a good greenfield developer? As we like to say in the business, it takes a village to develop a power project. The core skill when it comes to development is what we call development ground game. That means managing and understanding all stakeholders, and especially our landowners. I've got a short video to show you, which is a great illustration of working with landowners on our projects. I can't tell you how many times we just got wiped out. We would lose a crop because of wind blowing. Now we're getting paid for the wind to blow. As far as the landowners, just having the income. It may be the difference of somebody staying in farming or not staying in farming. If they stay in farming, that's something they can pass down to their kids. Just the extra income is just positive. They may not be for everyone, but the company's easy to work with. The impact to the environment is very little, and I think farmers and ranchers are some of the best stewards of the land. We have to be, because they're not making any more. You can still farm around the windmills. You can still run cattle around the windmills. If it's in a government program, it doesn't affect that. Basically, it gives you some roads, which in our pastures we love because we can go check our cattle with new roads that go to the windmills that we didn't have before. Even the people that don't have turbines, like I say, they're getting a new school building. There's a lot of new school buildings that have happened after the turbines. I've tried to take care of what land we have. This seems like a pretty good way to generate electricity to me. It doesn't pollute. We're not damming any rivers. We're not burning coal. This sounds like a really good idea. Use the wind. That is a good video that I think also demonstrates how we strive to be good neighbors in the communities we operate in. Let's continue with the presentation, Declan. With the increased competition, how does that impact our ability to secure good offtake contracts? Yes, it's very much a business about contracted revenue. In our existing portfolio, we have 90% contracted revenue, and with over 10 years of remaining contract life. It's very much a portfolio approach to offtake with a range of customers from utility, financial, government-backed, and, of course, corporate offtake. Let me focus on corporate offtake for a moment. As you mentioned, Allan, it is a competitive market. Next to transmission that I mentioned earlier, good quality offtake is the scarce resource in this business. I'm particularly pleased with our track record in the corporate offtake market in recent years, where we've been able to both increase our average price and also increase the duration of our contracts. More importantly, we very much focus on continuous improvement in the contract terms and adding new improvements such as upside sharing mechanisms or downside mitigation. We now have what I feel is a more balanced share of risk between buyer and seller than perhaps was common in the corporate part of the market just a few years ago. That, of course, is a natural evolution of this new market, but also reflects the fact you have so many more corporate buyers at scale in the market than just a few years ago. Great progress on contracted cash flow, but managing the merchant component of the portfolio is also really important. Earlier in this year, we made an organizational change to bring the U.S. trading team within the Onshore business unit, and that's working really well. We have close coordination between teams working on long-term contracts and those trading in the real-time markets, and that makes us better at both. That change has worked out really well. Declan, we often hear the onshore market being described as a more commoditized market compared to, for example, our offshore business. How do we stay competitive and create value in a more commoditized onshore market? Well, I always like to start the competitive advantage question, Allan, with a nod to our track record to date, and the momentum we have built has shown we've got something going for it. As we look to execute the plan we're announcing today, I think of four pillars of our competitive advantage. Number one, greenfield development culture. This is a group and a business unit where the greenfield heritage is really strong, and that ability to take and to manage well-thought-out development risk is really important. Number two, our global scale makes us a preferred partner, whether it's equipment manufacturers, global corporate customers, or in the case of the U.S. market, with the largest tax equity investors. That global scale and being preferred partner is a big advantage. Number three, our funding model and our ability to take and to manage some level of merchant exposure allows us to take a portfolio approach to growing the business and to move with a pace that is better than a lot of our competitors. Finally, number four, our global employer brand. We've shown we can attract the best talent in the U.S. market as we've scaled the onshore business there, and we're starting to see that in Europe also. Of course, these four things become self-reinforcing. Focus and purpose attracts the best talent, which manages the risks, which creates growth momentum. As I begin my wrap-up here, Allan, I'm just going to focus on that word, momentum. We're entering a decade where the energy transition is just going to accelerate. We now have the momentum in the business unit to play a significant role in the onshore segment of that energy transition. The U.S. is going to remain our core focus. We will remain globally ambitious while always being patient. We have the greenfield development culture to ensure we can create value across the portfolio. We have the talent and the organization in place, both within the business unit and the integration with the capabilities of the broader organization. Whether it's U.S. tax equity, global corporate engagement, or business development opportunities in APAC, our onshore and offshore teams are working together every day. It's an ambitious plan, but we have the momentum to achieve it. Over to you, Allan. Thank you so much, Declan. It's certainly going to be a busy decade within our onshore business as well. We will now proceed with our program. The next topic will be renewable hydrogen and green fuels. We believe that renewable hydrogen and green fuels will be one of the cornerstones of the future energy system. I'd like to welcome Martin back to our stage, and let him explain more about Ørsted's approach to this exciting new market. Renewable hydrogen is a topic I feel personally very passionate about, and that's for two reasons. It's directly and strongly connected to our vision of creating a world that runs entirely on green energy. Does not mean that renewable hydrogen is the silver bullet when it comes to the global decarbonization, but it will no doubt play a significant role when it comes to decarbonize the hard-to-abate sectors, which will otherwise not achieve their net zero. Secondly, renewable hydrogen reminds me a lot where offshore wind was 12, 15 years ago. At that time, there was a clear proof of technical concept. Only a few projects had been built, and those were heavily relying on strong subsidy and government support. It was also unclear how fast and quickly the technology can scale, how quickly costs could come down, and also the entire regulatory framework was rather uncertain. Remember, that was the time when we at Ørsted made very bold moves in order to kickstart offshore wind as a new industry. What is very different to offshore wind in the old days is the global appetite for green hydrogen, which is already sort of significant and has exponentially increased over the last 18 months, with current forecasts expecting somewhere between 80 GW-100 GW of renewable electrolyzer capacity being installed by 2030. Our ambition at Ørsted is threefold. We want to continue our efforts, and with continue, I mean we have been engaging within the hydrogen space already for the last three years to become a global leader in renewable hydrogen and green fuels. We want to execute and expand our current pipeline, which is well above three GW already in close collaboration with our key offtake partners. We want to pursue global opportunities across all our growth platforms in the E.U., in the U.K., in the U.S., and in Asia-Pacific. Ørsted is very well-positioned, and we have a very strong starting point. We also see renewable hydrogen as a natural extension of our business model because we have a proven track record of scaling new renewable technologies. We have vast experience working together with policymakers in shaping the regulatory frameworks. We see significant synergies between renewable hydrogen and our large-scale fleet of renewable assets, especially in the interface between the wind farms, for instance, or the dispatch of the electrolyzer. Our assets are strategically located very close to industrial offtake centers. I talked as part of my offshore wind presentation already about our proven and flexible partnership approach, which is especially important here because in order to kickstart renewable hydrogen, we need to bring the supply and the demand side working hand in hand together. Our approach to renewable hydrogen is to focus on specific offtake sectors. Those are refineries and ammonia, because there we see in the very short- term a high demand to substitute fossil hydrogen with renewable hydrogen. We will focus on steel, because we are obviously a large steel offtaker ourselves, going into our foundation structures or also into the turbine towers. We will focus on heavy transport, which includes heavy road transport, shipping, and aviation. Our engagement approach is a very structured approach. We establish and mature concrete projects, and we like to go for projects which are not just small-scale one-offs, but actually projects which are strategic, which can be scaled, and which become gigawatt sizes in scale. We have an approach where we work in phases. We obviously want to build something and realize something quickly in order to replicate the learnings to apply once we go and scale up the technology. We are in close dialogue with regulators shaping the framework. For each of our projects, we have a dedicated and specific funding plan because there is a significant cost gap today between fossil hydrogen and renewable hydrogen. We also work closely with the OEMs across the different electrolyzer technologies. Let me just spend a minute in zooming in on where exactly is it we play in the value chain. Our idea is we are replicating our approach from offshore wind, which means we want to develop, build, operate, and own electrolyzers. We have no plans or intention to invest into a specific electrolyzer technology. However, as in offshore, we will work very closely in a partnership approach with the electrolyzer OEMs in order to improve the technology, scale the technology, and make the right choices for each of the specific projects we have. We will lean forward in selective parts of the renewable hydrogen offtake side, especially within green fuels. E-ammonia or e-methanol are two examples to mention here. We have no plans to go into the distribution of renewable hydrogen or green fuels, because this is where we rely on our partners and on our strong offtake partners to take care of that. This is a snapshot of our impressive development pipeline that we already have far more than 3,000 MW of projects. You can see these projects are across our different core markets in Europe. They are across the different offtake sectors I just explained. Most importantly, they are in partnership with absolute industry leaders in their respective sectors. It is GW-scale projects we have in the development, but I'm also very proud and happy to tell you that we are not just developing, we are actually already constructing. That is the H2RES project that you can see here on the slide, where we broke ground just three weeks ago here in Copenhagen. It's a 2-MW electrolyzer that will be constructed by the end of the year, fully commissioned in the start of 2022, delivering renewable hydrogen to fuel zero-emission taxis and buses driving in the Copenhagen area. It's also our very first stepping stone for the Green Fuels for Denmark project. That is a project where we work together with Danish blue chips like Maersk, SAS, Copenhagen Airport, DFDS, and DSV to realize a 1,300-MW electrolyzer vision by 2030. The project is dependent upon the realization of the Bornholm Energy Island, which is expected around 2030. Obviously, we need a lot of green electrons to fuel that project. Back to the point of that we like to phase things. We have tangible, much earlier short to midterm phases for this project. Phase I is a 10 MW electrolyzer to be established in 2023. Phase II is a 250 MW electrolyzer to be established in 2027. As I mentioned, renewable hydrogen relies on significant funding and government support because we have today a significant cost gap between fossil and renewable hydrogen. There are different funding pathways that are available for us. There are national funding pools, which we have already utilized, for instance, for the H2RES project in Denmark, but also for the Westküste 100 project in Germany. There are EU funding pools. We are active, for instance, in the first EU Innovation Round with the Lingen project, where we, together with bp, are in the process of applying for funds realizing the first phase of this project. There is a pan-European EU funding scheme called IPCEI, Important Projects of Common European Interest. I'm very happy to tell you that four of our projects here on the slide are actually in that round. It is the Green Fuel for Denmark project, which has been selected by the Danish government, now going into what is called an EU matchmaking process. We got great news end of last week that both the Westküste 100 project, but also the Lingen Refinery project, have been selected by the German government in a very rigid selection process to go into the EU matchmaking. We're also applying together with our partner, Yara, for the Sluiskil project into the IPCEI process. The important thing to understand is that once being successful in the IPCEI process, it not only opens up for more European funding, but it allows for additional and significant step up in national funding, which is why the IPCEI process is something we are very focused on. Last, let me say this is just a snapshot. We're obviously working on many more opportunities, and we're also expanding our opportunity pool into other areas outside Europe. One example I want to give is the MOU we established last week in Korea with an industrial Korean blue chip, POSCO, where we foresee to collaborate across offshore wind, but also renewable hydrogen. Korea is a super exciting market when it comes to renewable hydrogen because the country has a strategy to put 6 million fuel cell cars on the road, also to establish 15 GW of fuel cells for power generation. Allow me to double click on one of the projects I just showed you, maybe the Westküste 100 project. This is a project where we work with 10 partners. It is at the refinery of Heide in the very northern part of Germany. The project has, as I mentioned, received national funding for phase 1, which is a 30 MW electrolyzer, where we work together with our partners now to enable a final investment decision by the end of 2021. The 30 MW will allow the refinery to basically substitute all the fossil hydrogen it is using in its processes today with renewable hydrogen. That is not the end. There is a clear vision here, and ambition of all the partners to bring this project to a gigawatt scale. We talk about something between 700 MW- 2,100 MW as a next phase, allowing the production of green fuels. It's important to know that refinery Heide is the exclusive supplier of jet fuel for Hamburg Airport, one of the largest regional airports in Europe. We are very happy that we are part of this project, because it also brings together partners that can work in a very holistic way, related to all the processes, inputs, and outputs of the project. To just give you an example. The 700-MW plus project will be fueled by offshore wind from offshore wind farms in the German North Sea. The oxygen that is being produced as part of the electrolysis process will be used by a close by cement factory that is operated and owned by Holcim, significantly reducing their nitrogen oxide emissions. The CO2 produced at the cement factory is then being rechanneled into the refinery for the production of green fuels. Excess heat that is part of the process will be used by a close by business park. It just shows how holistically this project is being taken, and that's why it's one of the projects, one of the flagship projects the German government has selected for the IPCEI process. To sum up my presentation, Ørsted has the ambition to become a global leader in renewable hydrogen and green fuels. We have significant synergies with our large-scale renewable assets. Our approach is to establish, mature, and scale up the tangible projects, build upon our extensive experience in scaling up and costing out new technologies, and working together with our partners. Most important, what I want to leave you with is, we are not only very excited when it comes to renewable hydrogen and green fuels. We are not only well-positioned, but we are already heavily engaged in really kickstarting this important new industry. Thank you very much, Martin. Really exciting to hear about our renewable hydrogen and green fuels plans. Personally, I think this holds a huge potential to become the next leg in our transformation journey. Now, after Martin and Declan have taken you through our plans for offshore, onshore, and renewable hydrogen, allow me just to quickly take stock before we move on. We are looking at an energy system that is accelerating its green transformation. Really important that we see that happen, and fantastic to see that that materializes into massive growth opportunities for Ørsted. We have set the aspiration to become the world's leading green energy major. We are going to do that by balancing a very strong protection and acceleration of build-out within our core business of offshore, while also ambitiously following the growth opportunities in onshore and renewable hydrogen and other areas, innovative areas such as the energy islands. We believe we are really strongly positioned to materialize that potential, because we do have, in offshore, a clearly industry-leading pipeline that is both concrete and much larger than anybody else's. We have a cost and innovation leadership built over decades. Within onshore, we have a proven ability to scale profitably in our key markets. Within renewable hydrogen, we have a very tangible three plus pipeline of concrete projects lined up, and we have a globally leading sustainability position. All in all, we believe very strongly positioned. Talking about sustainability, I am joined here on stage by Jakob Askou Bøss, who is our Head of Corporate Strategy and Stakeholder Relations. Jakob, we have, as I believe everybody knows by now, we have transformed over the past decade from being one of Europe's most fossil fuel intensive utilities to now being come very far in the green transformation. Could you share where we are right now? Well, Mads, we've come a very long way in our transformation. Since 2006, we have reduced our CO2 emissions per kilowatt hour by 87%, and we are fully on track to become fully carbon neutral in our energy production and in our company by 2025. That will make Ørsted the first large energy company in the world to reach that target, all of which is approved by the science-based target as really supporting the 1.5 degree ambition. We have come a very long way. Obviously hugely important to proving to others that this is possible to do as well. What's the next frontier for us? Well, if you compare the shift from fossil fuel power generation to renewable power generation, we are taking out 99% of the life cycle emissions by shifting from coal-fired power production, which was our core business just a decade ago, and into producing one kilowatt hour based on offshore wind. That is, of course, the major step that we are taking in shifting the whole technology platform. The remaining part is predominantly in the supply chain, and that is really where we have our next focus. I guess for the entire industry and for many, many companies around the world, the key question is: how are we going to do that? Well, first of all, we've set a very ambitious target to say that by 2040, we want to be carbon neutral also in our Scope 3, so including in our supply chain. By 2032, we are going to take our emissions down by 50%. We have set very ambitious targets. The next thing we are doing is really to engage our suppliers and really bring them along on the journey. The first thing we've said to them is that by 2025, we want you to be running 100% on renewable energy. That is already today commercially available, so that is really doable for everybody to do within that timeframe. The next thing is, of course, the harder part, and that is to drive out the emissions from all the different components and parts of our supply chain. That is why we are working closely with our strategic suppliers to map their emissions baselines, and then based on that, to develop roadmaps for each of the components in our supply chain so that we make sure that we work jointly together in driving this huge innovative effort that it will require to bring ourselves and our supply chain fully to net zero by 2040. Now, with a strategy that is based exclusively on renewable energy and also having industry-leading ambitions for decarbonizing not only our own company but also our supply chain, have we then solved all sustainability challenges? Well, not quite, because what has happened over the past decade is really that we have been working hard to get renewable power down in price to a now cost-competitive level with fossil fuels. That means that over the coming decades, we're going to see a massive scaling of renewable energy in our quest to transform the global energy system to renewable energy and fight climate change. In that global scaling of renewable energy, it's going to be tremendously important that we also protect biodiversity. We are going to go out and harvest energy in nature, basically, and that requires that whenever we build renewable energy production, we do that in a way so that we really protect nature. That is why we are now, as you've said earlier today, announcing the target that by 2030 at the latest, all our new energy assets that we'll be commissioning will be net positive in their biodiversity impact. That is going to be the next big frontier for us in our sustainability journey. I just want to repeat how excited I am about that we are announcing that, because I think it's going to be a vital journey for us to prove that this is not something that's possible, but also absolutely necessary for the industry and something that will be a prerequisite for scaling the build-out of renewable energies we all know we need to do. Now, Jakob, you have for over 15 years been part of this journey as opposed to me. What do you think looking forward, what role do you think sustainability will play for us in our future journey? Well, to me, there's no question that our strategic focus for more than a decade on really being at the forefront of the sustainability journey has driven our commercial success. It has driven our fundamental transformation from a business firmly anchored in fossil fuels to now being a global leader in renewable energy. I'm 100% convinced that that is going to continue to be a competitive edge for Ørsted as we continue to reach for our strategic ambitions. It is going to be the right thing to do for the world as well, because we need to limit global warming and create a world where we can all thrive. Thanks a lot, Jakob. Allow me to also just repeat that I think it is so vitally important to continue to drive sustainability leadership for us, both to prove that this is the right thing to do. It's fundamentally right for businesses to play a role where we deliver growth sustainably, and also having been recognized for it as the world's most sustainable company last year and the most sustainable energy company three years in a row. I have no doubt that this is a major competitive differentiator and something that will give us also tangible advantages going forward as a company. Now, coming up next is Marianne talking about the financial parts of our plan. With my own long background in Ørsted finance, we now come to the topic that I've been in particular looking forward to, namely all the financial numbers. I'd like to welcome on our stage here, Marianne Wiinholt. You are our Group CFO. Welcome, Marianne. Thank you, Allan. Marianne, could you start by taking us through what has happened since 2018 into the funding of our growth ambitions towards 2030? I'll be happy to. First, I will start going back to the targets we set at the CMD in 2018. We are on track to deliver on all the targets, and what we will do going forward is that we will incorporate these targets into the new ones that we are sharing with you today. If you look at the growth, Mads earlier today announced the new ambition of 50 GW of capacity in 2030. With this ambition, we will step up the investment level significantly. We will go to an average annual investment level of DKK 30 billion in the old plan to now DKK 45 billion in the period up until 2027. This 50% increase in investments gives a total of DKK 350 billion in investment for the period from now until 2027. Of that, we estimate that 80% will go to offshore and hydrogen, remaining 20% to onshore. We will also facilitate further investments of around DKK 100 billion through our JVs and our EPC partnerships, bringing the total enabled investments into green growth to DKK 450 billion. If you look at how we will fund this DKK 450 billion, we will do that through four sources. First, a significant part will come from the operating cash flow that we generate. Secondly, we will issue more hybrid capital as the capital employed continue to increase, and we will also issue more senior debt. We will also have the DKK 100 billion from JVs and from EPC partnerships. That's the 25%. Lastly, we have incorporated here that we will farm down 50% of each of our offshore wind farms, not the ones where we already have JVs, but for all the rest. When we look at our key capital allocation priorities, they remain unchanged compared to what we said all the way back to the IPO in 2016. Those are that we are strongly committed to our BBB+ Baa1 rating. We honor our dividend commitment, and then we invest large amounts into the green growth. If you look at the rating threshold, we have lately seen that both S&P and Moody's have reduced their threshold, and they have done that because of our strong EPC track record, because of our higher degree of diversification and also our very stable earnings. This reduction has allowed us to reduce the FFO to net debt target we have from 30%-25%. This enables us to invest further into green growth. As I said, we are now relying on the partnership model to fund the growth. We have included a 50% farm down, as I said, on all the wind farms where we don't have JVs already. This is incorporated into the CAGR, the growth CAGR on the EBITDA and also return on capital employed. We see a strong interest in the farm downs that is lately been seen from the Borssele 1 and 2 and the Greater Changhua 1 farm down. We expect this to continue also going forward. We will also opportunistically pursue farm downs within onshore. However, we still see farm downs as something that gives us flexibility. We will decide on each farm down project by project. If we then look at our funding model, the funding models remains unchanged. It is a funding model where we rely on balance sheet financing. We do that to lower the financing cost. It also is a scalable and flexible model. To the left of the slide, we have shown the difference between our funding model and project finance. The big difference for us is that we, through our model, avoid issues with structural subordination, which could become an issue when we should defend our current rating. We also, as I said, see lower funding costs. In the developed market, we see a difference of around 100 basis points between project finance and our funding costs. In less developed markets, we see that this difference is even bigger. The model is very flexible and we can also act fast, which in many cases is of very high importance to us. I would also say that this is important for us through the fact that we can use debt as a risk management tool, which we do to a large extent, and I will come back to that later. If we then look at how our funding model impacts the risk to equity, I've here in the left part of the slide shown the difference between a single asset project finance project and the way we do it, where we have a large portfolio of assets supporting the debt. Here it clearly shows that the portfolio effects give a significantly lower cost of equity. If you then compare a project finance-leveraged project to our funding model and look at the equity IRR, we typically see that, of course, with higher leverage you get a higher IRR. If you look at the range, the risk, you see that you have a much bigger space of outcomes if you have a project finance model, and that we have lately seen in Texas, where the Arctic blast meant that several projects failed. The risk related to our equity is significantly lower than for project finance single projects. Marianne, this question about our funding model is also one we discuss a lot with our investors. With the balance sheet financing model we have, does that mean that we will never apply project finance under any circumstance? No. Not that we are doing it yet, but we might see circumstances where it is beneficial for us to use project finance. That could be in markets where the JV partner, for example, insists on us doing it, or whether that is in a way the market standard. We will not do it to a large extent, but you could see limited use of project finance. Marianne, we are now moving to a spread to WACC framework for our value creation, we do see in the industry quite some differences in how that is being defined. Could I ask you to elaborate on how we define our spread to WACC framework when it comes to value creation? I'd be happy to do that. Yes, as I see it, of course, this is one of the really key metrics we share with you today. What we say today is that we have a targeted range spread to WACC at the time of bid or FID, whatever comes first, and that spread is 150- 300 basis points. If I compare to a levered equity IRR, also including farm-down gains, which many peers are guiding on, and bridge that to our guidance, I will first start by deducting the leverage effect, and then we do not include any farm-down gains. It's also very important to emphasize that we include the full overhead cost. We also include the full life cycle development cost, and we also include purchase prices if we have acquired the project. This range of 150-300 basis points applies both to onshore and to offshore. Both actually are within exactly the same range. When you heard Declan earlier today, you heard him talk about quite some details on the spreads for different geographies, Europe versus U.S., and also technologies. While you did not hear Martin share a lot of granularity on that. The reason for that difference is that in onshore we typically don't participate in these competitive auctions while we do that in offshore, and therefore it is competitively sensitive to share that level of granularity. We might see projects where we go below this 150-300 basis points, and we might also see projects where we go above. The vast majority of the projects we expect will be within this range. We then compare the guidance we share with you today with the latest guidance on value creation, which is the 7%-8% IRR for this portfolio of seven projects, we actually see that it is exactly the same value creation. The spread on top of WACC is the same. What has changed is the WACC, which has been reduced due to the lower interest rates. I also think it's worthwhile to dig a little bit deeper into how we calculate our WACC, because I think this is a very robust way of doing it. We use a market-conformed CAPM model, but we differentiate between technologies, so that we don't have the same WACC, for example, for solar PV as we have for onshore wind. In certain less developed markets, we also add country risk. We have previously shared with you that we, for example, have done that for Taiwan. Then also we add a premium for merchant risk. If it is a fully merchant project, we add 250 basis points, and if it has less merchant risk, we then scale down that number of basis points. If I then move on to return on capital employed, we have today updated our guidance here to 11%-12% for the period 2020-2027, versus the old guidance of 10% for the period up to 2025. There are two differences I would like to emphasize. First, we now include partnership gains. We also did that in the 10%, we had very limited partnership gains in that because it was basically only Changhua where we assumed a farm down. You should also take into account that this significant step up in the investment level gives a lot of capital employed that does not yield any return in a period of time. That, of course, has a negative impact on return on capital employed. We look into a very solid growth. We have today shared a 12% estimated increase in EBITDA from onshore and offshore operating assets in the period from 2020- 2027. This average of around 12% gives an EBITDA estimate of DKK 35 billion-DKK 40 billion in 2027. We see that we have quite a lot of certainty around this EBITDA amount as 85% of the earnings will come from assets that either are already in operation, under construction or from the awarded pipeline. It's also worth emphasizing that we have included these farm down in both the ROCE and the CAGR. To a slide we shared for the first time at the Capital Markets Day in 2018. This slide illustrates the high visibility we have on the future earnings. Here we have listed all our projects in offshore, both the ones in operations, the one under construction, and also the awarded projects. When we take all these projects and we capacity weight it, then we get to a number of 15 years of remaining subsidies. This is exactly the same amount that we had at the last CMD. We also have the same amount when it comes to regulated share of earnings, regulated and contracted. That is now extended to 2027, and it remains around 90%. Marianne, I think this would be a good time to dig a little deeper into our financial risk management. We have seen interest rate increases, we've seen inflation increases, and we've also seen commodity prices, in particular steel price increases quite significantly. We do get a lot of questions on how Ørsted is exposed to these risk factors. Could I ask you to elaborate a little on that? I'd love to do that, Allan. This is a subject that is very close to my heart. I think we have world-leading competencies within risk management, and I will try to share some of the details on how we are exposed to inflation risk, the interest rate risk, the currency risk, and also, as Allan alluded to, the steel price. This is the more mid to long-term part of the risk management. We have the other part of the risk management, which is the hedging of our commodity price exposures and also our currency, where we use the staircase model. Starting with the inflation risk, I would just show a small illustrative example here where we in 2021 invest DKK 100, and we get the return in 2022, and the return is 5%. In the first example to the left, we don't have an inflation index, while in the second on the right, we have an inflation index. If inflation turns out to be 5%, we will, in real terms, get a return of zero in the example with no inflation index, and we will get the 5% if we have the inflation index. If I dig into how we are exposed to inflation risk, what we have done here is that we have taken a 10-year period from 2021 - 2030. We have included all our operating assets, all our assets under construction, and all our awarded projects. Those represent the 100% in this example, or not example because this is real numbers. Out of this 100%, 55% is inflation index, and that comes from the U.K. ROCs, from the CFD contracts, both in U.K. and also in Poland. The way we think about this inflation index revenue is that we see this as something we allocate to our shareholders so that the shareholders in a way buy into an equity which is inflation-adjusted. We have a small portion of merchant, we are left with 35% of fixed nominal exposure. This exposure comes from the subsidies that we have in Continental Europe, U.S., and also in Taiwan. What we try to do here is to mitigate this inflation exposure, which I'll show on the next slide here, where we mitigate it through debt and hybrids, also derivatives. In our way of thinking, we pass this inflation risk on to the debt holders. The remaining net inflation risk we have is very limited. If you look at how are we exposed to increasing interest rates, as we have such a high share of inflation index contracts, and we have also hedged a big portion of the fixed nominal, we see that we are very well protected. Here we have shown the correlation between the inflation and the interest rates, you can see that there is a very strong correlation up until the financial crisis, where you saw that correlation broke. We have actually benefited a lot from this situation since the financial crisis. Assuming that this correlation is reestablished long- term, which we believe it will, we will be very well protected also going forward. If you look at how we use debt to hedge our currency exposure, then we try to match the debt that we have and expect to issue up until 2025 with the exposure we have through the FFO. Here you can see that we have a very strong alignment, and this gives us significant, more stable earnings from these hedges. Then last, I will go through our exposure to steel. We get, as Allan said, a lot of questions around that. First, in a way, how big is this steel exposure really? For us, out of our total CapEx of 100%, the steel share is in the magnitude of 4%-7%. We manage this risk, and for example, for the U.S. portfolio, we locked in 70% of this exposure, and we did that a year ago, before the steel prices started to increase. We also made a change in the price formula in our contracts, so that we now have a steel price exposure, which is possible to hedge in a liquid market. As always, we continuously work to reduce the level of steel into our construction projects. If I should sum up on this deep dive into our risk management, I would say that we are very well positioned when it comes to inflation risk, both due to the high share of inflation index contract and also the way we have hedged it. We are not very exposed to increasing interest rates, again, driven by exactly the same facts. We see a very high degree of alignment between our FFO and our debt when it comes to currency mix, giving more stable earnings. Lastly, the steel exposure is something we handle actively, and we have a quite limited exposure to that. Thank you very much, Marianne. I actually think it's quite remarkable that at the end of the day, only 15% of our revenues the next 10 years are exposed to inflation. I agree on that. I think many will be surprised by that. I agree. Marianne, are there any final messages you would like to leave us with today? Yes, I would like to summarize the new guidance that we have shared with the audience today. If I go back to where Mads started today, we have a very ambitious plan, 50 GW of capacity in 2030. That's the ambition. We will step up the investment level significantly to DKK 350 billion for the period up until 2027. We will invest this money into highly value-creating projects. We today guide on the spread to WACC of 150-300 basis points. We will see a very strong growth in the period up until 2027, where we estimate an approximately 12% average annual growth, giving an EBITDA in 2027 of DKK 35 billion-DKK 40 billion. We will do this with a very solid ROCE, an average of 11%-12% for the period up until 2027. An ambitious plan. It's a plan we really feel good about. It's solid, and it is a plan that will deliver a lot of value. Thank you very much, Marianne. We will now have a small break, and when we come back, there are two items left. We will have Mads wrapping up what you have heard today, and then we will go into our Q&A section. In five minutes, we will start with that. Grab a cup of coffee, prepare your questions, and I'll see you in five minutes. [Break] Welcome back from the break, allow me now to make the final wrap-up of the day. Ørsted find ourselves in a very strong and attractive market. Just consider, we are an undisputed market leader in an offshore market that is destined to grow to about 7x the current size in a decade. We have a very strong position in an onshore market, which will continue to grow probably with a pace of 2.5x- 3x. Then we also have a very strong position in a renewable hydrogen and green market that is destined for very strong growth and a core part of the energy system of the future. We have now told you about our opportunities, about our ambitions, and about our plans for those areas. Let me spend this last section talking to you about why we feel very confident that our plans and ambitions are realistic. If we start with offshore. We have a clearly industry-leading pipeline of opportunities. We have proprietary seabed rights. We have a global development organization. We have very strong growth opportunities that is substantiated and concrete. We are a clear cost leader in offshore as well. We have decades of experience. We have a truly global EPC and operations organization. We have more than 25 wind farms in operation, and we have an unparalleled track record of actually executing on time and on budget. We are also an innovation leader, and we have proven that over many years. We also have a commitment to continue to innovate through integrated energy solutions, energy islands, and also now in floating offshore. Within onshore, we've proven with our track record of creating value-creating growth in the U.S. market, with a very strong growth pipeline, both in the U.S. but also now in the European market, that this is something which is scalable, which gives us confidence that that's a journey we can continue. If we take a look at the hydrogen market, renewable hydrogen and green fuels, we already have a very strong, well over 3 GW pipeline of concrete and tangible projects that we will materialize over the next decade. That will not only give us scale, but it will also give us invaluable learnings that we can take on into a continued scale in growth, first in Europe, but also with very attractive opportunities in the rest of the world. If you look at our financial value creation, we have clearly industry-leading risk management. We've also confirmed a target of continuing double-digit growth in operating profit. We have a strong balance sheet financing model. We have low cost of capital, and we've also reconfirmed our around 90% regulated and contracted share of income. Our leading and also continuing to strive for strong partnerships with every stakeholder from governments to corporates to finance partners, and in principle, every stakeholder in the ecosystem of continuing to transform the energy system, is something where we are very confident that we can take our rich experience into the future. Last but not least, our clearly leading sustainability position globally. As mentioned a few times, we have been named the most sustainable energy company three years in a row. With an unparalleled track record in both decarbonization and other sustainability dimensions, we are confident that this is something that we can not only continue to leverage but accelerate as a competitive differentiation going into the future as well. With the totality of these things, we are very confident that our immodest ambition to be the world's leading green energy major is not just wishful thinking. It is something we can actually make happen. With that, we really look forward to the Q&A, and we will see you in a minute for just that. Welcome to the Q&A. We will start right away. First question comes from Deepa from Bernstein. Deepa, please go ahead. Thank you so much for taking my question. I have three questions I hope I can ask all three. Firstly, on CAPEX, the DKK 450 versus the DKK 350 billion, can you just help explain? Should I look at the DKK 350 as roughly equivalent to the old DKK 200, which was gross? Maybe if you can just talk about the gross versus net on the CAPEX. Secondly, on the returns spread guidance of 150 basis points-300 basis points, you highlighted that you are making a number of adjustments which some other peers don't. Just for us to adjust, could you maybe explain how many basis points is from the last adjustment, which is the overhead allocation and so on? How many basis points is that? The last question is, again, on the return. In the 150-300 basis points, is this weighted by your CapEx, or how should we think about offshore within that? Obviously some of the numbers from the U.S. offshore wind were higher than this range even. How should we think about offshore within this range? I don't know whether you make a difference between developed and emerging markets or something. Just some sense of where offshore should be in that range. Thank you. Thank you, Deepa. Marianne, I believe you should start this one off. Yes. Thank you, Deepa, for the question. Yes, on the first one, the DKK 350 billion is comparable to the DKK 200 billion we announced at the last Capital Markets Day. The DKK 100 million that we highlight is the CapEx that is funded by the JV partners or the EPC partners we take in through the partnerships. That's enabled CapEx, you can say. You ask about the spread for offshore. That was the last question. You asked also about the components that are different in our way of looking at our spread. I think first and foremost, this is unlevered. Secondly, we are not including our farm-down gains, it is fully loaded, meaning that it's with corporate overhead development expenses. Just to give you sort of an indication of the basis points that you're asking for, Deepa, this is if you take our corporate overheads and our development expenses sort of at a rough average with variations, that would be at the range of around 100 basis points, that part alone, just to give you an indication. Marianne, feel free to supplement me, for the offshore, we don't comment specifically on offshore within that range. It is, as Marianne explained, it's a targeted range, and that is where we target by far the majority of our new projects within that range. For competitive reasons, we don't comment more specifically on where we would find the offshore within that spread. I think it is quite important to emphasize that the range for offshore and onshore is actually not different. It is exactly the same range. Thank you, Deepa. Our next question comes from Rob from Morgan Stanley. Rob, please go ahead. Hi. Thank you very much and congratulations on the vision. May I use my question just to try and resolve some of the confusion out there around the underlying EBITDA guide for 2027? To that end, may we request either the quantum of asset rotation gain in the 2027 guidance, some framework about how we should think about those asset rotation gains, or alternatively, could you provide 2027 EBITDA, assuming 100% ownership on these new projects, which I think is really what consensus is probably baking in. Thank you very much. Thank you, Rob. Marianne? Yes. I will try to give some color on that. On the CAGR that we are announcing today, I think it is also important to emphasize that the 20% that we shared at the last Capital Markets Day, that started in 2007. 2017, sorry. If you have the same 2017 as the starting year and go all the way to 2027, the CAGR would be 16% and not the 12% we announced today. If we do not include the farm-downs, then the CAGR with the starting point we announced today would have been 16%. I guess you can calculate it yourself. It is a very important difference between the CAGR with the farm-downs and without the farm-downs. On the partnership gains, that is not something that we are sharing. As we also said, we would be quite flexible around when we farm down, and that will of course also impact the farm-down gains. No specific guidance on that today. Of course, the CAGR is completely excluding the partnership gains as we always do. Thank you, Rob. Our next questions come from the web, and it's from Tancrede from Morningstar. How do you see the offshore wind competitive landscape evolving? Do you think consolidation will happen, and would you play a part in it? Mads? Yeah, I can give a brief perspective on that. Of course, it's super difficult to predict exactly how it'll evolve. It is a very attractive market that attracts a lot of new players as well. It is definitely an opportunity there could be consolidation happening, and we can't rule out that we would take part of that either. Yes, we foresee it to be a dynamic market. Maybe, Martin, if you have any supplementary comments. Yeah, maybe just to say, we have been active in the past, when it comes to market consolidation in a market like the U.S., for instance, where we in 2018 acquired Deepwater Wind, acquired them as a platform, fully integrated them, the team, but also the asset portfolio. When you look at Europe, many of the projects we are developing and building today, we have acquired and therefore sort of folded on to our existing platform. M&A activities in the space is very familiar to us in offshore wind, and we certainly going to expect that going forward. All right. Our next question comes from Kristian from Danske Bank. Kristian, please go ahead. Thank you, Allan Bødskov Andersen. Two questions for me, please. First one is on the value creation spread. You say this is consistent with what you communicated three years ago, although that if we do reflect on the past three years, I would claim that competition has intensified. Can you elaborate on how you're able to keep an unchanged value creation spread despite the increasing competition? My second question is on floating wind. Your commitment to floating wind seems to have changed clearly from what you communicate today. What has made you become more positive on this? Given that you are not a first mover here, how are you planning to catch up with the players who have been looking into floating wind with a higher commitment for a longer period? Thank you, K ristian. Mads, will you kick us off? Yes, I certainly will. I think the second question probably for Martin. On the spread for offshore, as Martin said in his presentation today, we do have a very strong pipeline If you add up in total, the 12.7 GW that we still need to fill to get to the 30 GW ambition by 2030, that is to be taken from a substantiated pipeline of 14 GW and 38 GW of further opportunity pipeline realistic for 2030. That totality, the size and substance of that pipeline, is exactly what allows us to be selective on where we actually lean into projects that are still value-creating. If we were forced to take everything that we had to, it would be difficult because it is a fact that competitive intensity is increasing, but it is a radically growing market. As mentioned, the key reason is because we are choosing deliberately to continue to be selected to uphold our financial discipline despite the market competition tightening. Martin maybe comments on floating. Absolutely. On the floating offshore wind side, we have been following the space very closely. As we have consistently communicated, we have been part of what's happening through external industry bodies, like the Carbon Trust Floating Offshore Wind Working Group or the WindEurope Floating Offshore Wind Working Group. Now we can see sort of that in certain of our core markets with deep water conditions, such as, for instance, in Scotland or in the U.S. or in Japan or Korea, all markets where we are very active in developing bottom-fixed offshore wind project. We see that floating offshore wind has a prospect in terms of being a complementary technology, reaching deeper waters, and therefore sort of expanding the footprint of offshore wind. Obviously, it's still very early days when it comes to the technologies. We have sort of said we are not investing into an R&D or early-stage demonstration project, but with the prospect over the next 10 years that we see floating offshore wind can be commercialized and our strong track record of having innovated, costed out, and industrialized bottom-fixed, we bring a lot of capabilities that we can bring to core here. Then I mentioned it in my presentation, we obviously have a very flexible partnership approach. Where there are certain capabilities that we don't possess, we will obviously sort of find the right partners for those. We want to be part of the commercialization of floating offshore wind. It's not about early-stage R&D or early-stage proof of concepts, but we want to sort of be a part of the commercialization because we see clearly the prospects towards the end of the decade. Thank you to Kristian. The next question comes from Casper from ABG. Casper, please go ahead. Thanks a lot, Allan. First of all, congrats on a super well-executed day. Very cool setup. I'm sure that there'll be even more questions about the WACC, but so I'll go in another direction. I don't think you have mentioned bioenergy at any point of today. Should we read anything into that? If we shouldn't, how do you see that fitting into Ørsted going forward? Mads? Yeah, I can certainly add a perspective to that. It is not sort of a business that we are aggressively expanding. This is a Danish business. Obviously, it's a very healthy run business. It's with the conversion plan fully to a sustainable biomass by 2023 as well. A very sort of sustainable business, fully supporting our ambition. It is a value-creating business. We've seen that also this year, and it is one that we will continue to operate. It's one that will remain part of our Ørsted family, but it's not at sort of the very core of our strategic expansion. That's why the reason why we are not spending a lot of focus on it during the capital markets day today. Thank you to Casper. Next question is on the mail from Alberto from Goldman Sachs, and he asks, "How much of the projects under construction or already secured substantiated projects have procurement on a fixed cost basis, and what is the% of procurements that is exposed to rising steel raw materials? Can you quantify what you accounted in your CapEx from this, and what that will do to your returns?" Marianne, Martin? Yeah. Perhaps I should start on the more specific part around the steel. I showed today that out of a typical CapEx project within offshore, it is quite a limited exposure to the steel price, 47% I show. Also, we have secured, through fixed pricing, a significant part of that, and we are also actively hedging that exposure. It is not something we see as a big exposure to us now. On the portfolio, obviously the projects in construction, we typically procure and fix all the contracts. 90% of the CapEx is fixed once we reach an FID. For our construction project, the contracts are all procured. For our pipeline projects, we are working towards an FID for our German portfolio, for instance, where we are in procurement activities right now. We expect an FID towards the end of the year. We are already sort of there to get towards the 80%, 90% fixing of the contracts that we have. In the U.S., there's obviously some time to go towards an FID. On the other hand, we have been very early here securing procurement, for instance, on the turbines, as you know, from our Northeast portfolio with Siemens Gamesa and for the Ocean Wind portfolio with GE on the turbines side, for instance. For those contracts, it's a varying part of those projects where we stand with the procurement. The ones least mature to that extent are the ones that we just lately added to our awarded capacity, and that is the Polish projects Baltica 2 and 3. Okay. Next question comes from Jenny from Citi. Jenny, please go ahead. Hi, thanks. I have one question, may sneak a second one in. Just on the CapEx, if I look at the incremental CapEx per megawatt basis, it doesn't seem to be that different to your 2018 CMD guidance of 13.5 DKK per megawatts. Is that all just because of the additional inflation cost that's coming through, or have you actually built bigger turbines and efficiency gains in that number? Clearly, this is until 2030. If I may sneak a second quick one, what is the net GW number that you're targeting? Thank you, Jenny Ping. Marianne Wiinholt? Yes. On these CapEx, yes, you are right. We are probably not very far from what we guided last time. That is very much driven by the fact that we now build in more expensive areas. For example, in Asia, Taiwan is a good example, where we need to have more solid foundations due to the typhoon risk. Also in the new markets that we enter, in a way, we will have higher CapEx for a while until the supply chain matures. It is a mixed effect, you can say. In the old 13.5, in a way, it was mature markets with Germany and the Netherlands. On the net capacity, it's not a number we are sharing with you today, but as we have either partners or we are farming down in most of the assets, in a way, it is a bit more than 50%. Thank you to Jenny. Our next question comes from Mark from Credit Suisse. Mark, please go ahead. Thank you very much for taking my questions, or my question. Sorry, one question. The 15 GW target in 2025 that you set at the last Capital Markets Day, can you talk a bit about that in light of the 3 GW of capacity on the U.S. East Coast? When can we expect FID on that 3 GW of capacity and also full commissioning? Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Martin. Happy to answer that question. We obviously are very much on track delivering on that 15 GW by 2025, which includes the 3 GW portfolio. We have seen, especially over the last couple of months, a huge amount of momentum when it comes to the federal permitting part, where we have seen some roadblocks over the last two years. We received for our Northeast portfolio for the South Fork Wind, we received the draft EIA, we received our NOIs for Revolution Wind and for Ocean Wind. We plan to commission South Fork Wind by 2023, Revolution Wind and Sunrise Wind by 2025, the same for Ocean Wind. Very much commissioning towards the middle of the decade, 2025. South Fork Wind is a bit earlier in 2023. An FID, obviously depending exact on the permitting timeline, but for the Northeast portfolio, it's going to be around end of 2022, early 2023. For South Fork, it's obviously with commissioning 2023, 1.5 years early. Thank you to Mark. Next question is from Marianne. I was curious about how we should think about the cost of equity, given your exposure across multiple geographies and technologies. When you talk about the 150 to 300 basis point spread, is that at the corporate level or at the country level? Marianne. When we look at the spread to WACC, we use a local currency WACC, so it is at the country level. In a way, it's not that it necessarily makes a big difference, but we use the approach that we use a country-specific WACC in local currency. Okay. Our next question is from Peter from Bank of America. Peter, please go ahead. Yeah. Good afternoon, and thanks for taking my question. Can you talk about what you need to see on the policy support side for green hydrogen to make your large-scale projects commercially viable? I guess the question is the grant funding that you talked about sufficient by itself, or do you need something on top of that in terms of contracts for difference or feed-in tariffs or PPAs? Thank you. Thank you, Peter. Martin? Obviously the funding is a very central part, as I just explained in my presentation, because we need the funding and the government support in order to close that gap, which we cannot yet do as long as the technology is not really scaled into the GW and matured. Of course, the funding support can come in different ways. It can be through CapEx grants, OpEx grants. We also encourage that the demand is obviously incentivized, because we need to work both on supply and the demand side here in parallel. There's also, when you look at renewable hydrogen, especially in some of the markets, we see very heavy grid charges, tax levies, et cetera, where we need to establish a level playing field. That's a huge regulatory task to make sure that renewable hydrogen is not disadvantaged compared to fossil fuel hydrogen, which is not subject to the same levies and grid charges, et cetera. If I can just add, Martin, I think in general, we don't see sort of a one-size-fits-all way to support it. It is exactly saying there needs to be the grants combined with some kind of support, either on the offtake side or general to make it competitive. We all know that what's going to drive competitiveness as a technology towards the end of the decade is the scale In order to get the scale, we need to get that going. We think, and we are really happy to see the progress, not least in Europe now with the IPCEI process as Martin referenced, and that is starting to gain traction. We hear about the tax credits in the U.S. I think we don't point to one way of doing it, but it is something where it really is critical and somewhat urgent, not only for a company like us, but overall for the technology to get scale. We see that momentum picking up as we speak, and there are many ways of doing it. Thank you to Peter. Our next question is also from the mail, comes from Alex Craig from Leading Alpha Consultation. You have provided guidance in the past on expected CapEx per megawatt for your offshore investments in Europe and the U.S. How is CapEx per megawatt expected to develop as you accelerate project development offshore in the second half of the 2020s? What are the most important drivers of further progress in this area, which is surely necessary given the necessary evolution of offtake prices? I guess it's Marianne or Martin. Yeah. We will see that the cost of electricity will continue to decline, and that's also something that we have built into the forecast. It is very much driven by the fact that we still expect to get the larger turbines. It's of course not the same steep curve that we have seen historically. We have seen that the BNEF, they have an estimate, and they expect, I think it's 23% decline over the next period. That's well in line in a way with also our expectations. Thank you. Next question comes from Dan from Carnegie. Dan, please go ahead. Yeah, thank you for taking my question here. Maybe some elaboration on hydrogen. You're looking into a pipeline of these plus 3 GW as it is right now. Let's say if we have a Capital Markets Day again in 2024, 2025, how big a pipeline would you be looking into there just to get a feeling of where you see the market and your ambitions? Maybe also a little on your risk perception. What kind of return requirement do you have on these hydrogen project stacks? Martin, will you kick us off? Happy to. Obviously, as I showed on the side, there is an expectation in terms of the market growing to an 80-100 GW installed electrolyzer market. We see with the EU having a target of 40 GW in many of the leading sort of EU countries within the space, backing that up by commitments. No doubt, we clearly expect our 3.5 GW pipeline will grow. It is growing actually almost every week and months now. No doubt. In terms of the return target, that's too early to say because we are at a very, very early stage. We are building basically just the first business cases. We also need to see sort of what is the funding regime we can tap into. I'm not able to give a target out there. What is very clear is we obviously reflect our relevant cost of capital given all the maturity of the technology in our capital costs. That I can say. I would clearly make a statement that we expect that pipeline to be significantly bigger when we meet again, whether in a year or in two years time. Thank you for that. Our next question is also from the mail. In U.S. onshore, what is your expectations in terms of tax credits or even direct incentives going forward? Is there risk to your 17.5 GW ambition if the current scheme isn't prolonged? Declan, will you answer that one? Sure. Well, the first thing I'd say is that the plan we're announcing here today is based on current legislation, not anticipating any extension to or change to the mechanism around the tax credits. It assumes the current glide path for wind and solar, which sees the credits fall off at 2025. That being said, there are a couple of vehicles right now, legislative vehicles looking to both extend wind and solar tax credits, and also a lot of talk on a direct pay, a move to a direct pay for the tax credit as distinct from it being a redeemable tax credit. Any combination of that could further accelerate the market, would be a positive. We're also very focused on tax credits expanding to cover things like battery storage and transmission, both of which would accelerate the growth of the market. The plan we're announcing assumes existing law and existing schedule of expiry of the tax credits. Thank you. Another written question. Can you please clarify if your 2027 EBITDA includes capital gains from divestments? I don't think this was fully clear. Marianne. Yeah. I think I answered it in the beginning, but no, it does not include any capital gains. It is the EBITDA from the operating wind farms and solar PV, both offshore and onshore. All good. Next question comes from Elchin from Bloomberg. Elchin, please go ahead. Hi there. Can you hear me okay, yeah? Yes, we can. Fantastic. I have a question on your 30 GW offshore wind target by 2030. If my calculations are correct, you've got. Oh. Oh, I think we lost Elchin there. Hello? Elchin, can you hear us? Yeah. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear again. Yeah, perfect. Could you please repeat your question? Yeah. My question is on your 2030 offshore wind target, 30 GW. If you add your firm capacity and most of your substantiated pipelines, you already get to more than 30 GW, 2030. The question is there opportunity to increase that further, or is it too conservative target, or you think we should be sticking with that for now? Thank you, Elchin. Mads? Yes. Thanks a lot. It is a target that we have obviously spent a lot of time zooming in on what's the exact right level. You're right, there could be even more opportunity, but as I briefly alluded to before, when we evaluate the totality of the pipeline and given also the market conditions, we believe that we are striking the right balance while continuing to up our ambition, being very aggressive, solidifying our position as an undisputed leader in offshore, while still creating meaningful value from our projects. Really striking the balance between expansion and between continuing to create value. I would just remind, Martin said it, but it is an important reminder to say that in the back half of this decade, we are actually upping our build-out ambitions by 50%, so from 2 GW-3 GW. That's not a small thing. We will be accelerating already, and we do believe it is still an ambitious target, but it's also one that allows us to continue to create value. Good. Our next question comes from John Musk, RBC. It's a written question. You highlighted some sensitivities to interest rates. What are your farm down assumptions, and how are these impacted by increasing interest rates and more supply of projects that can be farmed down? Marianne? Yes, a couple of reflections on that. The first one, where we are already planning to farm down is Hornsea 2, which is, of course, a big one. There we have an inflation index contract, which, as I talked about previously, protects us to some extent against increasing interest rates. That we don't see as an issue. We also do that we try to match our fixed nominal contracts with fixed nominal debt, and then if we see increasing interest rates, we have that fixed nominal debt, and we will be able to unwind that and then, in a way, gain the part that we would not get from the partner. Also with a large interest and our risk management policy, in a way, we feel that we are on the safe side. Just one additional comment also, if we see increasing interest rates, we will also bid in based on a higher WACC going forward. In a way, this risk only applies for the ones where we have not yet farmed down, and we have already bid at a low interest rate level. Thank you. Another written question from Ahmed from Jefferies. Could you expand on your strategy or plans around floating wind opportunity? It hasn't been extensively covered in the presentation. Is it not an area of huge focus currently? If so, why? Martin? I just highlighted here that floating offshore wind for us is something we have been closely following, without actively investing, because the technology is still at an early R&D proof of concept phase, you can say. We absolutely see the prospects for floating offshore wind becoming complementary very much towards bottom fixed. In core markets, we are already active, whether it's the U.K., especially with Scotland, whether it is the U.S., with California, whether it is Korea or Japan, where we are very active. Therefore, we are engaging now, and as we see, the technology has absolutely the prospect for commercialization, where we bring a huge amount of experience and track record in innovating, costing out, and industrializing bottom fixed, which we think we can bring to bear here. If I can add, Martin. I think it is important to underline that even though we have, exactly like Martin says, gone from observing to now engaging, it does not mean that our experience from primarily bottom fixed is not highly relevant. Because these large-scale EPC projects, like Martin says, the cost out, engaging with partners, because right now there are multiple technologies, and of course, we would want to engage with relevant partners in this as well, but we can bring a lot to those partnerships. By combining what we have through decades of experience in large scale EPC, bottom fixed, and both the operations and the constructions and engineering of that, combined with a more specialized partner, this is something that we believe does not put us behind in any way compared to the maturity of the technology. We are very confident that the ambition of a leading position or of a strong position in this market is something which is very doable, despite the fact that we have primarily observed through both ourselves and through our organizations so far. All right. Next question is also from the mail. You previously mentioned a U.S. solar PV fleet farm down. How is that progressing, and how does that impact your guidance metrics you provided? Declan? Yes, we launched a farm down of some of our solar projects back this year, and it's been very well received with a lot of investor interest. Now, a couple of the projects in that portfolio are in Texas, and obviously in February we had the extreme weather event in Texas, which caused a lot of electricity market impacts, obviously, and then subsequent to that, potential for legislative intervention in the market. I would note that's largely now passed, in our view, satisfactorily. That created a little bit of uncertainty in the market, which caused a little bit of hesitancy in the investor universe. We're always very patient when it comes to any transaction, a farm down, no different. We're not in a hurry to consummate a transaction when there's a little uncertainty in the market. It's possible that we let that slip into 2022, which wouldn't have a meaningful impact on any of our guidance. All right. Next question is also from the mail. It's Sam from UBS. You mentioned the Danish energy islands projects a few times, which could be very significant. I'm just wondering, how have you thought about those in your new targets today? I think one of them is a DKK 200 billion investment end-to-end, so quite big and lumpy, and just wondering if maybe we should think about the energy islands as a separate opportunity on top of the core GW and capex guidance, or on the other hand, if you need to secure at least some role in the energy islands to hit the new guidance you've given today. I can take that off, Allan, I think a couple of really important perspectives. When this is referenced as up to DKK 200 billion in CapEx, this is for the total thing. This is for the island, what's on the island, and for the up to 10 GW of wind around it. What we are talking about leaning into now is the island itself. You might ask, "Why be part of building an island?" Well, it's because we actually believe that the full process of actually sort of being deeply experienced and get learning through being engaged in that project will give us invaluable strategic learning for potential later scaling. That project that we are now planning to bid in with, together with our partner, ATP, is only a fraction of the DKK 200 billion. This is really important to saying this, it's not about that scale. Bear in mind also the commissioning of both the Bornholm and the North Sea energy islands is primarily or probably post-2030, it actually does not significantly impact our guidance in any way in this guidance period. Thank you to Sam for that question. Our next question comes from Aymeric from JPMorgan, also a written question. On hydrogen, when do you expect these projects to contribute to the P&L, if you can quantify this at this stage? Martin? That is, again, too early to say. It's early-stage development projects. Obviously, we have the one construction project, being H2RES. However, that's a very small and tiny project. We expect sort of the first ones, as I mentioned, the first phases, like for the Westküste 100 project, to become operational towards 2025. As it is very early stage also for us forming a view on the business case, the whole regulatory regime, how we sort of going to fund these projects is too early. We have not included anything in the guidance, and it's too early, sort of, to talk about that. Okay. Next question also from the mail. Will wind turbine installation vessel availability or other parts of supply chain be a bottleneck for offshore wind deployment as the industry scales up? Mads, will you- Yeah, I can give that a first shot, and Martin can supplement. Generally, this is, again, as we referenced, this is a market that grows substantially. Every part of the supply chain will need to gear up with it. We have actually seen an impressive agility in the supply chain to be able to follow, and we don't sit with this ability that there's going to be definite supply chain bottlenecks in either installation vessels or in other parts of it. Can that happen as we significantly scale up to hit the almost 170 GW by 2030? Certainly, it can, and the way that we address that is to really ensure that we have framework agreements, to have early commitments, to ensure that we also help our supply chain partners to build our further capacity. I think the example of us helping some of our Tier 1 suppliers to do open new capacity in new markets like the U.S. with our partner, EEW, to open in Paulsboro, New Jersey, is an example of that, where we actually enable the supply chain to help to gear up. There are multiple ways to mitigate that, it is an industry challenge, it is one that we need to take seriously, we feel very comfortable that we as a developer, together with our supply chain partners of all kinds, can be able to navigate that. Thank you. The next question is from Brad from Southpoint. Corporate PPAs. With carbon prices on the rise and spot power prices in Europe above some previously subsidized auctions, do you see that market shifting from a sealed bid, hyper-competitive environment towards a market where your scale and expertise makes you the preferred counterparty for major corporate PPAs? In such an environment, would you expect IRRs to expand beyond the competitive IRRs you have laid out through 2027 today? Martin? I can certainly talk to the corporate PPA market in Europe, where we have been very active in terms of our new assets, like Borkum Riffgrund 3, which is our first zero-subsidy project. As I mentioned, we plan for an FID later in 2021. Here we have been very active in the corporate PPA market, entering into fixed-price corporate PPAs, among others, with Amazon or Covestro for that specific project. We certainly see a large and increasing demand from corporates when it comes to, for them, in the long- term, procure sustainable power, adapt sustainable electricity demand through corporate PPAs, always with a view, of course, they want to be part of additionality, basically funding and securing a project that adds in the renewable energy space. We clearly see a rising demand. That, of course, shifts also the way and the need for subsidy regimes or support regimes, as we have seen, like with CFDs. We have seen large chemical players, like BASF or Covestro being out, really with formulating their strong demand for corporate PPA offtake. There is a clear sort of change in the landscape here that we are seeing. It is not only in Europe. We have done the world’s largest corporate PPA in Taiwan with our Greater Changhua 2b and 4 project. The full output of that project will go to TSMC, one of the largest semiconductor foundries in the world, securing their decarbonization journey and targets they have set themselves. Our next question comes from John from Waverton. You say that government support development of regulatory frameworks and demand-side incentives, taxes, et cetera, are urgent. Please expand on this. What is meant by urgent? Is there a timeline by which funding has to be forthcoming? What would be the consequence of appropriate regimes being delayed or not becoming available? I guess this is also in the context of hydrogen. It is, and I believe I used the expression of urgent. It was not in relation to our pipeline of projects that they would be obsolete or not relevant or not doable if it doesn't happen very short-term. Just let me make that very clear. It was that, for example, through industry initiatives like the Green Hydrogen Catapult, where we are an active partner in that, there's a clear target of getting to a competitive level with gray hydrogen towards the end of the decade, by 2030, to get to this approximately $2 price tag. When I was referencing the urgency of the policy framework, it was in relation to that. It was more in the context of a decarbonization journey that needs to happen in the context of our net zero plan for the world. Nothing that is critical for any of our nine pilot projects, just to make that very clear. Very good. Next question comes from Dominic Nash from Barclays. Developing new offshore projects going forward, will Ørsted increasingly use JV structures, in particular local partners, or do you see hitting the 30-GW target by developing 100% owned projects with subsequent sell-down or through net contributions? Martin, I guess it's you. Yes. Happy to answer that question. It's obviously a combination. We have quite a successful track record in going into new markets where we haven't done business before and teaming up with strong local partners, whether it's in the U.S., whether it is now in Japan, whether it is in Poland with PGE, for instance, the largest energy company in Poland, with, of course, a huge track record in the energy landscape in Poland. Whenever we enter sort of new markets, partnership is a way for us to secure that we, from day one, ensure a strong local presence and the local know-how, which our partners have built up over many decades. At the same time, we are growing our portfolio in mature markets where we're very well-established, like for instance, in the U.K., like for instance, in Germany, in of course, our home market, or in the Netherlands. These are markets where we can very well develop a project 100% on our own and then seek a partner to bring in post-FID or post-construction. It's going to be a mix. In Taiwan, you have seen that we've teamed up for the island's first offshore wind farm, namely the Formosa 1 project, leveraged those learnings through the development and now also through the construction. Here we developed the Changhua projects on our own and farmed down then post-construction start. It's got to be a mix of different models we can apply. Thank you to Dominic Nash for that question. We are now coming to the last question for today. It's from Sophie from Exane BNP Paribas. A lot of other utilities already have exposure on all renewable technologies, offshore, onshore solar, and they actually also have hydro and gas-fired generation, so they can offer integrated offerings to countries and corporates and can structure PPAs and take merchant risk. With what you have announced today, it seems to me like you are sacrificing a big part of your leadership gap in offshore wind as your market share drops from 30% to an incremental market share of 15% in order to catch up to other utilities on other technologies. Could you help us understand a bit better what is Ørsted's competitive advantage from this point on compared to other players that have been doing onshore and solar and batteries for years? Also what makes 17.5 GW of onshore capacity by 2030 the right number? Yeah, I can certainly kick that off. I think it's very important to highlight first and foremost, that there is not a sacrifice or compromise in relation to the very core of our strategy of being a leader in offshore wind. We are not building this up to say, first and foremost, we want to be an integrated energy solutions player and how much is left for offshore. It's the other way around. Offshore is at the center stage and core of our strategic journey, and this 30-GW ambition has been the very first thing that we said, this is what we believe is right, creating value. We have seen that the value-creating opportunities in onshore, led by Declan and the team in the U.S., it's very value-creating. It's scalable, and it's something we actually believe not only strategically but also financially is very meaningful for us on the journey. We are not trying to catch up with somebody who has a lead, but actually we are seeing that the shaping corporate market means that especially across technologies such as offshore, onshore wind, solar storage, and then also to come, hydrogen and green fuels, that will be something where we can offer very competitive solutions to those corporate partners. We believe that we are actually hitting the sweet spot here with really staying a clear leader in offshore and not with a sacrifice in anything we otherwise want to do, while significantly strengthening ourselves in cross technology, including being a leader in an emerging market, which we believe will be a cornerstone in the energy system of the future. This was our last question. This brings us to the end of the CMD. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to the IR team. Thank you so much for being with us today. We really appreciate your time and also a big thank you for great questions that keeps us on our toes. Thank you for now and have a great day.