Hello, and welcome to the Ørsted Investor Call. My name is Alex. I'll be coordinating the call today. If you'd like to ask a question at the end of the presentation, you can press star followed by one on your telephone keypad. If you'd like to remove your question, you may press star followed by two. I'll now hand it over to your host, Mads Nipper, CEO, to begin. Please go ahead. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining this call. Yesterday evening, we announced the anticipation of an impairment to part of our U.S. portfolio on the back of a pre-FID review of our near-term U.S. offshore development projects. As part of this review, we have assessed the aggregate adverse impacts relating to our supply chain developments, lack of favorable progress on our ITC guidance, and interest rates increasing. Let me walk you through each of the respective developments. On the supply chain challenges, we have seen several impacts by a handful of supplier delays materializing over the recent weeks, which relate to our Ocean Wind One, Sunrise, and Revolution Wind projects. As there is an inherent risk associated with our project schedules, we constantly monitor these risks across all our projects and ensure that we take the most impactful steps in mitigating those. In recent weeks, we have seen an increase in probability that some risks will materialize, leading us to reflect this in our business cases. Specifically, the adverse impacts relate to our foundation supplier for Ocean Wind 1, EEW, that is experiencing challenges in the production of foundations. This means that we now expect a COD early 2026 of Ocean Wind 1. For our northeastern projects, Sunrise Wind and Revolution Wind, the project's foundation supplier, Bladt, is also experiencing ramp-up and transportation challenges. Finally, we've seen an increasing likelihood of risks materializing around the timing of our Turritris vessel, as well as greater visibility on the costs to mitigate these. It remains our expectations that we will utilize the Turritris vessel for at least part of the installation of our northeastern projects. While working on several mitigating actions, we have concluded that there is a continuously increasing risk in these suppliers' ability to deliver on their commitments and contract schedules. This could create knock-on effects, requiring future remobilizations to finish installation, as well as potential delayed revenue, extra costs, and other business case implications. Our current assessment is that the impact from these developments can lead to impairments of up to DKK 5 billion. However, we continue to work on all mitigating actions that can reduce these impacts. In addition, our continued discussions with senior federal stakeholders about additional ITC qualifications for Ocean Wind 1 and Sunrise Wind are not progressing as we had previously expected. We continue to engage in discussions with federal stakeholders to qualify for additional tax credits beyond 30%. If these efforts prove unsuccessful, it could lead to impairments of up to DKK 6 billion. The level of a possible impairment will be decided based on a probability-weighted assessment of the likelihood of obtaining the additional ITCs. Finally, the U.S. long-dated interest rates have increased, which affect our U.S. offshore projects and certain onshore projects. If the interest rates remain at the current level by the end of third quarter, it will cause an impairment of approximately DKK 5 billion. The above factors cause deterioration of the business cases, which is, of course, very unsatisfactory. As we previously communicated, the near-term U.S. offshore wind development projects do not meet our value-creation target on a life-cycle basis. However, we maintain convinced, or we remain convinced that as additional investments that we will be deploying into the portfolio will be within our 150-300 basis point spread to WACC targets on a forward-looking basis. We will continue to mature the projects while working on all levers that can contribute to the value creation. Pending boundary conditions, such as tax credit clarity, and local permits, we will work towards a final investment decision for the projects, either by the end of the year or early next year. Let me be clear that we will continue to carefully assess all of our options related to our awarded U.S. projects, to ensure that we make the most financially responsible decisions. As we communicated earlier, we are willing to walk away from projects if we do not see value creation that meet our criteria. To ensure that we will not end up in a similar situation, we will ensure that we have significantly improved project visibility, which, among other, will be enabled by the development of our first wave of projects. This is already reflected in our approach towards the remainder of our U.S. awarded portfolio, where we have decided to reconfigure our Skipjack Wind and Ocean Wind 2 projects, as they currently do not meet our value-creation criteria. Similarly, our recent and future bids in the U.S. ensure that we can mitigate some of the risks that our awarded portfolio have encountered in terms of cost inflation, as this will be adjusted through inflation-adjusting mechanisms in the offtake price. Adjusted for the anticipated impairments, our average ROCE for the period 2023 through 2030 will remain around 14%. Other ambitions and financial targets remain unchanged. ...And with this, let's open up to questions for myself, our Group CFO, Daniel Lerup, and the CEO of our, of our region Americas, David Hardy. Operator, please. Thank you. As a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question, you can press star followed by one on your telephone keypad. If you'd like to remove your question, you may press star followed by two. Please ensure you're unmuted locally when asking your question. Our first question for today comes from Harry Wyburd of BNP Paribas. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hi, morning, everyone. Harry Wyburd from BNP. I'll stick to the usual, one question for this morning, many others. Can I just start by asking which of your CMD's financial targets for the long term, so up to 2030, remain valid, and which ones are effectively being modified by this announcement? And specifically, on the ROCE guidance, if I understand correctly, you reflected the write-down in lower capital employed. So presumably that implies a long-term EBIT downgrade, and I wondered if you could quantify that EBIT downgrade, and also help us understand whether it's just driven by the EBIT impact of lower ITC assumptions. Because I understand that the ITC is coming through EBIT, or whether there's something else implying another EBIT as well. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for the question, Harry. So it is only our long-term ROCE target that will be impacted by the impairment. As we also outlined in the company announcement, there is, of course, still uncertainty as to how that impairment will turn out, specifically very much due to the ITCs, where there's still uncertainty whether we'll get 30% or 40% on Ocean Wind One and Sunrise. So of course, the ROCE will depend on the size of the impairment. But are we in a scenario where, let's say we do not get the ITCs, so it's roughly $10 billion impairment that plays out, the long-term ROCE, so the average up until 2030, will be impacted by roughly 1 percentage point. So that's going from around 14 to 13. So we are still committed to delivering on those roughly 14% ROCE, however, adjusted for the amount of the impairment. And you are correct that the ITCs will be both to the EBITDA and EBIT. Okay, thank you. Sorry, just to clarify, so the 1% difference you mentioned, the 14%-13%, is that saying on the current level of capital employed pre-impairment, we're looking at a 14%-13% decline, and therefore, you could sort of apply that roughly to EBIT, as the delta? I understood that right? No, so it's basically just the impact of the impairment this year. The size of that impacting the average ROCE is roughly the one percentage point impact. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next question comes from Alberto Gandolfi from Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Thank you for taking my question. I'll also speak to the one rule. It's a question of two parts. What has changed in the past couple of months since the CMD? Why do you see now things worse than that you couldn't have seen back then? And, you know, at the CMD, you said those projects in the US are not particularly, well, do not create value. They're NPV neutral, are the things you used as a terminology. But you also said from now on, even the CapEx we have already spent, we better continue and go ahead because they have an NPV positive, if we look at what is left to spend. Now, given the picture you just painted on supply chain, on delays, on costs, on interest rates, I guess the question is, but if you don't mind, I would love you to touch on the points I made. Why don't you just walk away if things are getting worse? Why don't you just walk away if you don't get an incremental 10 percentage points? Your stock is not pricing in future growth. We continue to have negative news on the offshore industry. Why not play in a bit more hardball with the policymakers if you don't get the 10% ITC? So I guess the big question, why not walking away? Thank you. Yes, thank you, Alberto. Let me take sort of the two-in-one question. So what is it that actually has changed the CMD since the CMD? Because we actually said that there was sort of—there were known costs in our contract, which is actually still true. So the implications, the adverse implications we see are not... I mean, they are about the delays and the impacts of those delays. So essentially not something that was outstanding to negotiate in at the point of time where we had the CMD. And we are still in a situation where the forward-looking is still with for the portfolio within our 150-300 guiding range on a forward-looking basis. ... And this is where it's, yes, it is tempting to say, couldn't we just walk away? But as we already shared at the point of time of the CMD, the level of sunk costs just means that it is the financially rational decision to stay in these projects. While we clearly said it is with exception to the rule, these projects that are already suffered from significant delays from the previous administration in the US, we said they are going to be positive on a one-off within the guided range on a forward-looking basis, still the case. And even with the current assumptions of that, we mentioned in terms of potential impairments, that is still the case. But we are putting maximum pressure on the federal stakeholders to ensure that we get the support needed to avoid some of these impairments. So walking away would still not be the best and most responsible ways to for our shareholders' money. Thank you. Our next question comes from Deepa Venkateswaran of Bernstein. Deepa, your line is now open. Please go ahead. Thank you. I have a similar question on what's changed, which is on the negotiations with the federal agencies. So we know that at the CMD, there was a draft, and you were confident of moving it along in the right direction. So can you tell us what happened in the meantime in your negotiations? And secondly, I know you also separately applied for a PPA negotiation for Sunrise Wind in New York. Is there any assessment of how that's going? Is there any quantification of that that's included? I think not. If not, could you also highlight if you were not to get that, I think almost 27% or 29% escalation, then what's the additional impairment we could be looking at? Thank you. Hi, Deepa. Thanks for the question. This is David. Yes, just to follow up on your question, at the time of the CMD, we highlighted a handful of things that were in our assumptions. One was the path back in New Jersey, which thankfully we successfully achieved. The other one was the renegotiation with the State of New York for Sunrise, which you mentioned. I would say that process is still in motion. We're hoping to get resolution on that in October-November timeframe. But based on a lot of comments, the comment period is closed for feedback from stakeholders just this week. Based on those comments, it seems like we have a lot of support for getting some support there. So we include in our current assumptions a fairly high probability that we'll still be able to get that OREC adjustment on the Sunrise Wind project. Obviously, there's some risk that that could, might not happen, and then that would change our assessment. But as it stands today, we still feel very confident about that one. Then the part that maybe is hard to explain is at the time, we said that we assumed 40% ITC across our portfolio of those three projects, near-term projects. Right now, we have high confidence that Revolution will achieve 40%. For Sunrise and Ocean Wind 1, I guess there hasn't been a strong catalyst per se, that's giving us less doubt, but there's not enough progress to give us more confidence. As these supply chain issues, you know, became a catalyst for us wanting to be more transparent with you about challenges on our projects, we also took the opportunity to highlight the most recent interest rate changes and the lack of progress on the ITCs. But as Matt said, we are still exerting a lot of pressure. We're still highlighting to federal stakeholders and others the need for better guidance that supports these projects and the industry overall. I would say that just the lack of progress has caused us to slightly decrease our confidence in getting the ITCs, and we just showed the full range of in this company announcement. But, you know, it depends on how things play out over the next months, you know, if we actually take that impairment or not. So just a follow-up. So the $6 billion is the maximum for ITC. What you might end up taking will be a probability-weighted adjustment if you think that the... So is $6 billion the maximum, or is $6 billion what you're more likely to take? Yeah, it's a maximum. That is, if we do not get anything beyond the current 30% for Revolution and Ocean Wind deeper. So, if we get for one of them, it would be a lower number, and if we get for both, it would be significantly lower. Just one more comment. We're obviously trying, you know, to influence both the different options, the two different 10% adders, both energy communities and domestic content. So there's a parallel path to see if we can find a way to get at least 40% on all three of these projects. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Christian Johansson of SEB. Christian, your line is now open. Please go ahead. Yes, thank you. So just getting back to the renegotiation on the OREC with the State of New York. So as I recall it, you obviously did the impairment on Sunrise Wind earlier. So as I recall it, if you actually were able to get this renegotiation, you would have to reverse that impairment. So can you just talk through the potential financial implication if you get it, and if you don't, what will it trigger in terms of, yeah, reversals or impairments? Yeah, so this is an ongoing dialogue with the state of New York. So we can't be too specific on the numbers here. But we are in our impairment assessments, putting a probability-weighted assumptions into us making or getting an overage adjustment. So there's both an upside and a downside in the impairment on Sunrise, depending on how the final adjustment will be looked at. Okay. So, that makes sense. And then just second question here on Revolution Wind. Why are you so confident that you can get the 40% ITC for Revolution Wind, but not for the two others? Yeah, this is David again. The, remember, there's two different ways you can qualify for an extra 10%. One is Domestic Content, which as the current guidance is written, no short-term, near-term projects, ours or anyone else's, will qualify. That's why we are in discussion with the administrators and federal stakeholders to try to explain that, if they want to develop the offshore wind industry and the offshore wind supply chain, you can't put requirements that no one can meet. But the second way to qualify is through this concept called an Energy Community. And there's, you know, preliminary guidance around what the definition of an Energy Community is, and basically, Revolution Wind qualifies based on that preliminary definition. So we have, you know, high confidence that when the final definition of Energy Community comes out, if it's not significantly different than what it is today, we would, we would qualify. But we are trying to expand the definition of Energy Communities to potentially help other projects qualify. Understood, very clear. Thank you so much. Thank you. Our next question comes from Dominic Nash of Barclays. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Yes, good morning. Thank you very much. Question from me, how much invested capital do you have in the U.S., both before and after this write-down? Secondly, could you give us some sensitivity to changes in the interest rate on the write-down impairment level, please? Thank you. Yes, thank you for the question. So, we have invested roughly $4 billion into the, to the U.S. offshore portfolio, and then it is that base we will be making the impairment on. When it comes to interest rate sensitivity, what we are indicating now with the common announcement is that if rate stays at the current level, it will impact with roughly DKK 5 billion, and that is based on a roughly 50 basis points increase in U.S. rates, long-term rates, since the end of Q2. So I think that gives you an indication of the rate sensitivity. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next question comes from Lars Heindorff of Nordea. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Yes, morning. Thank you for taking my question, sir. It's regarding the delays and the supply chain. And just a question on, are there any dimensions to the foundation and also the supply vessel, are there any issues related to the turbine manufacturers? That's the first one. And secondly, also, which onshore projects is it that are affected by these delays as well? Thank you, Lars. I can take the first one. No, there are no issues relating to the server supplies. It is, by far the majority, the implication and the potential delay implications of the foundation manufacturers, and then the mitigation costs that we are now clear on of the delays in the installation vessel. With the onshore. Onshore. Yeah. So on the onshore side, it's spread across a number of assets, and it's only driven by the interest rate changes that we've seen. And it's a handful of onshore wind assets that are being impacted to the tune of roughly DKK 1 billion out of the DKK 5 billion that we indicated on the rate impact. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Ahmed Farman of Jefferies. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Yes, hi. Thank you for taking my call. Can I just actually come back to the longer-term EBIT targets? So could you just sort of talk us through again, how does the announcement now impacts the longer-term EBITDA 2027 and 2030 EBITDA targets? And give us some sensitivity, if you are unable to get the additional ITC credits, what would be the sensitivity around the longer-term EBITDA targets? Thank you. Yeah. So, our expectation is that despite the fact that you will potentially see a lower earnings in the EBITDA longer term from a lower assumptions on the ITCs, we will still be able to, you can say, capture that uncertainty within our guided EBITDA growth towards 2030. So the 13%-14% growth. Thank you. Our next question comes from Jenny Ping of Citi. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hi, thanks very much. So just to understand what we're expecting to see at the 3Q results. So effectively you're saying the supply chain issue, DKK 5 billion, that's pretty much going to be charged in 3Q. DKK 6 billion ITCs may be a bit lower, depending on how the negotiations goes, and then the further DKK 5 billion is also going to go through. Is that the correct understanding? Thank you. Yeah, what we put out is essentially the up to. And I think we have written up to DKK 5 billion on supply chain issues. And that is where, of course, we are mobilizing everything we can to mitigate and lower those impacts. But with our current knowledge, that is the maximum number that we're looking at. So we are flagging that up to range. In terms of interest rates, it's more mechanical. So if they stay at the current level, that's the rough impact of the DKK 5 billion. The biggest uncertainty and also where we are, where we will, with some likelihood end at a lower number, is on the ITC indications, where we're just flagging the range that we could get nothing in this time and have 0% outlook of that happening, when we come to end of Q3, then this could be up to $6 billion. But in reality, as we also write in the company announcement, this will be probability weighted, if we don't have an outcome on that, and therefore it is very likely that it will be different and lower number than that. That's how you should look at it. Okay. Just to follow up on rates, I guess, as you say, it's mechanical, and it presumably would work the other way. If we, for whatever reason, continue to see rates go up, there's risk of further impairments just on that basis. Yes, that's correctly understood, and for impairment, this is, we are using spot rates. So it's gonna be quarter to quarter for the assets that are impaired, you know, more mark-to-market approach on the interest rates. Would you be able to share some sort of sensitivity around the rates impact on how you test? Yeah. So what you are seeing, the pattern that we are talking about now on the rates, the DKK 5 billion, that is basically driven by the fact that we've seen long-dated US rates go up with 50 basis points since the end of Q2. So that gives you a good indication of the sensitivity that should rates go up with further 50 basis points, you will roughly be in that DKK 5 billion magnitude. If it goes 50 basis points down, we will be able to not take that DKK 5 billion down. Okay, that's really clear. Sorry, one last one. What bond yield are you using? Is it the 10-year or the 30-year? We don't want to specify specifically what yield we use because we think it's a sensitive topic, what we put into our WACC, which is of course a key driver going into auction and tenders. But it is a long-dated U.S. government yield that we assume with our risk-free interest rate. Thank you so much. Thank you. Our next question comes from Dan Togo of Carnegie. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Yes, thank you. Just a question on, what are the possibilities for you to recover any of this through your suppliers in the supply chain or through merchants elements when you finally to need through selling the power at a later stage? So, what are the possibilities of recover some of this at a later stage? Yeah. So, I wanna ensure that I understand the second part of your question. But, on the first part, we of course do have contracts-...that put us in place to get some compensation from suppliers. But that is typically something that is capped at around the contract value. And unfortunately, if there is a delay like we see right now, the knock-on implications on the total project economics are greater than that. And that's also why we will, of course, pursue those opportunities, but the total project impact are regrettably significantly greater than the liability that our suppliers would have. And if there was a second part of that question that I didn't answer, please repeat. Yeah, it was just if any of these offshore contracts or you can sell some power at a later stage, you know, through a merchant opportunity that could impact, so say, the project return. Is there a possibility there at some point? Okay. Yeah, I think that's what I said. That is already assumed to be the case then. So that would be, that would not be one of the, one of the, sort of, the big upsides. I think, because obviously right now, this is an unsatisfactory situation. So I think it is quite important also to mention that there are still upside levers, such as also, and David can elaborate, cheap loan opportunities from federal channels that we can still get at, that would mean project economics could improve. We are still in process with that. As mentioned on the ITCs, we have far from given that up, yet would give an upside to the level that we have right now. But on the overall sort of fundamental project economics, it would mainly be within mitigating the impact of the supply chain, plus the already ongoing negotiations on OREC and ITC, that would be the upside compared to the picture we have right now. Understood. Then just a small follow-up. Can you give us some sort of compass in whether this is contained to the U.S.? I mean, you are struggling with interest rates and supply chain, I guess, other places in the world. So, are we facing similar issues elsewhere in the portfolio? Now, the overall picture is that this is a U.S. issue. Of course, there are rate increases in other parts of the world, but we have, I mean, we are assessing those on an ongoing basis, but we are not at a level where this is something that leads us to impairments, unless something further happens towards the end of Q3. But it is primarily a U.S. issue. And for example, supply chain issues, there are always in offshore. There are supply chain challenges that we are generally very good at fighting, but the magnitude of what we're seeing in the U.S., because it's a completely new market, it is just significantly bigger than anywhere else. Understood. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Sam Arie from UBS. Sam, your line's now open. Please go ahead. Thanks very much. Good morning, everybody. Thanks for doing this call. I think I just wanted to ask, just putting together some of the earlier questions. I think you said you had about $4 billion invested in the US. I'm thinking about your sort of $16 billion impairment case, which looks like a little bit more than half of that value. My question is, could you talk to us about what, what could be the remaining downside case, I suppose, in the scenario where the supply chain issues get worse, you have further delays, et cetera, et cetera? How would that work out? Because on, on the one hand, you might think you have to write everything down. On the other hand, you might say, well, even if you walk away from these projects, you're still gonna have the possibility to do again in future under different terms, and so there would still be some value there. So can you just help us think through what is the worst-case scenario if things were to get worse from here? And I'm focusing on the US, probably not the rest of the world. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, obviously, you know, we wouldn't be having this call if we hadn't done a whole lot of work to really take our best guess at what we think is the actual situation that we're in. And within all these numbers, we still carry a lot of contingency. We've got probability weighting that could lead to both upside and downside, et cetera. And so I just think it's not super valuable for us to kind of speculate, like, how much worse it could be. You know, there's so many things that could go right, and there's obviously things that could continue to go wrong. So this is our best assessment of where things stand today. And we're working all the channels that we have, both on the project, you know, mitigation channels to try to, you know, minimize the downsides, not use all our contingencies, so that inherently creates an upside. And the levers Matt already spoke about around ITC price negotiation and other things. So I don't think we can give you more clarity on, you know, what how worse could it go. I think we've been clear that we will only, you know, move forward if we have positive forward-looking value creation, and we haven't taken FID on these projects yet. So as we continue through the next, you know, four-six months, in that, continuing to understand these risks better and mitigate them and control the upside potential that we can... And we'll just try to be as transparent as we can to our shareholders and analysts, et cetera. Okay. Listen, thank you for that, and I understand it's, it's difficult to sort of give me another scenario, but maybe I could just, just one quick follow-up. Could you just help us understand, in, in a scenario, which I think Alberto asked about earlier, where you, where you did decide at some point you just have to walk away from some of these projects. Directionally, are there additional sort of negative unwind costs that you would, that you would have to incur if you walked away from the project? Or would you see some sort of floor value that you would still retain in those potential projects, assuming if you walked away from the current contract, you might still be able to build them in future with other contracts? Yes. Again, as we look at the project and we take prudent business decisions, that's obviously one of the scenarios we look at every time, you know, what's the unwind cost? You know, what kind of recovery could we get in our termination costs? How could we reuse equipment? What commercial negotiations could we have with suppliers, et cetera? Is there inherent value that we could apply to a different off-take scenario, et cetera? So we really try to do a full thorough analysis of all the potential options for the project. And we really do look at all these different scenarios. As it stands today, we believe the best position or the best direction is to continue to invest in these projects. As you know, unfortunate as it is that we have to announce potential impairment, it still is the better choice than walking away today. Okay, understood. Just as a comment, but it still leaves me a bit unclear how far away we are in today's announcement from the walkaway value. But I guess what you're saying is, you can't disclose that. So I appreciate the comment that you did give, and thank you for that. Thank you. Our next question comes from Martin Tessier of Stifel. The line is now open. Please go ahead. Yes, sir. Thanks, good morning, and thank you for taking my question. Reading at the press release, cost inflation is not mentioned, but instead, you mentioned project delays due to a tight supply chain, higher interest rates, and unsuccessful discussions regarding, ITC. So I, I was just wondering if we could see further impairments in the short, medium term due to cost inflation. Because you already placed, two point five billion DKK, in, in February for, Sunrise Wind. But the announcement from this morning mentioned other projects where you have not placed any impairment regarding cost inflation yet. So, can we have more clarity on this, please? Thank you. Yes, happy to comment on that, Martin. There's a— As we already said in CMD, that the costs of our these projects in terms of the contracts, we have very high visibility to. And that also means that the likelihood of direct inflation-driven downside is low. Because this is where we have already... I mean, these are advanced projects. We have uncovered these issues as part of our pre-FID work, which is very thorough, and we have actually essentially confirmed that cost inflation picture as part of that work. And the impact we see here is by far the largest part of this, up to DKK 5 billion, is driven only by the knock-on implications of the delays. So we would say that the risk of inflation-driven future impairments or negative impact is low. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Klaus Kehl of Nykredit Credit. The line is open. Please go ahead. Yes, good morning. Related to this, impairment of DKK 5 billion, related to the rising interest rates. What happens with this impairment if, let's say, let's say that the interest rates stay at the current level, throughout this year, and then in 2024, let's just assume that interest rates drop 100 basis points. Will you then start to make reversal of the impairments, or is that, yeah, impossible from a accounting point of view? No, that's correct. So we will every time we do impairments base it on the updated spread at the point of impairment. And if we see rates go down, we will reverse the impairment if the totality of the project has a higher forward-looking value with that specific spot rate. Okay, so just to be clear, then you will be able to reverse any impairments if rates start to- We will be able to reverse, yes, if rates go down. Correctly, correctly understood. Okay, thank you. ... Thank you. Our final question for today is a follow-up question from Jenny Ping of Citi. Your line is now open, please go ahead. Hi. Thanks. Just on the interest rate point, I'm not sure I quite understand. I guess the other question related to it is, what about the rest of your asset book? Interest rates have gone up across the globe, so have you been looking at, and/or is there a risk of the rest of your asset book on this interest rate point? Thank you. Yeah, so basically, we need to do following accounting rules and assessment based on the spot interest rates. So we will be seeing that when a project has moved into impairment territory, it is going to be very sensitive to the development in the long-dated interest rates. And that means that headroom will be going out when the rates go up, and increase when the rates go down. And when you have impaired already a project due to the rates, then if the rates go down, we are able to reverse that impairment in our books. But that is the accounting standard. The impact for the rest of the asset book? So we have done the assessment of the rest of our assets, and there is no impairment outside of the U.S. But of course, as I said, when rates go up, the headroom will become smaller and smaller as we take a forward spot rate view on the impairment tests. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from David Paz of Wolfe Research. David, the line is now open. Please go ahead. Hi, thank you. Just had a clarifying question, and then a separate question. Is the EBITDA growth rate that you had for 2027 and 2030, are those intact? I think I heard you say yes, but then I also heard you say that they could be lower. Just can you clarify? Yes, they are intact. Yes, they are intact. Okay, thank you. And then just on the U.S. portfolio, in general, you said a billion is on the onshore, DKK 1 billion was on the onshore, on onshore projects. Did I hear that correct, correctly, and is that just related to the inflation, sorry, interest rate, potential impairment, or was that separate from the interest rate? Yes. Yes, that's correct. Driven by an interest rate increase, roughly DKK 1 billion spread across a handful of U.S. onshore projects. Got it. No incremental delays on the onshore businesses from your Q2? No, no, no. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Richard Alderman of BTIG. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hi, thanks for taking my question. I was just wondering, given the comments you said around the outlook for the balance sheet at the Capital Markets Day, if all of what you've said today comes towards a worst case scenario, we have higher rates, and possibly even a higher than DKK 16 billion impairment, does it change your view on the need for equity for the business in the next 2 or 3 years, in relation to what you said at the Capital Markets Day? No, no, it does not, Richard. We carefully assessed that, and it is still, even with these adverse impacts, a self-funded plan. Okay, thank you. One last question. Just in relation to the comments around rates and the onshore impairment of around DKK 1 billion, how do you think about that with the rest of your onshore business elsewhere in the world? Is there any further risk that we could see impairments there based on rate moves? The size of the onshore portfolio outside of the U.S. is at a level where it's not anything meaningful you should expect coming from that. But in principle, you could see an effect from rising interest rates also on the European onshore portfolio, but that would be to a very low amount. Thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from Peter Bisztyga from Bank of America. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning. Apologies, I missed the beginning of the call, so you've probably already answered this, but have you given an updated potential timeline for Sunrise Wind and Revolution Wind? Because you mentioned Ocean Wind is now 2026. And if you don't get the 40% ITC, I presume that means Sunrise Wind and Ocean Wind can't make FID. Is that correct? So just first clarification to stuff I might have missed. And then just very quickly going back to this sort of interest rate thing, are we now, given the volatility in U.S. rates, expected to see every quarter-... Write downs or write ups of your offshore portfolio value, or do is there a certain threshold beyond which you'll do it? So do we need to see a 50 basis point move, or literally now, is it every 10 or 15 basis points that we're gonna see these changes? Thank you. Yes. Yeah, so there's a high, high likelihood that you will, from quarter to quarter, see a swing on the impairment, depending on how big the changes are in the interest rate. But remember that this is a portfolio of projects that we are now looking at, so we might be moving in different directions every time we do the full impairment assessment. But in principle, it is very much a mechanical adjustment that we've been doing as long as the projects are in impairment territory, based on what the stock rate is at the specific quarter we're announcing. Yeah, this is David. I can take the first two questions. The first one, I understood it was the timeline for COD, for Revolution and Sunrise. It's our expectation that we can still maintain the current project schedules. As we talked about the Charybdis vessel and the monopiles all the way from Bladt could have an impact on both of those two projects. But as we see it today, it's more, we're basically on track from a project schedule standpoint. It's just creating increased costs to try to maintain the project schedule, and we're compressing some of our float and our execution schedule. And so we wouldn't necessarily change the timeline. Could be, you know, minor impacts which flow through from a time value of money of the start of revenue, but in general, not significant moves. Then, on FID, I think it's a really good question. You know, obviously, we take the FID decision when we take it. So going into those FID decisions, I think it will be, you know, what do the current business cases look like, especially in these cases from a forward IRR standpoint? You know, what do the risks look like, and all the other factors that we take when we take an FID. We haven't taken FID on these three projects yet, so that'll be still to come. But it's still our expectation, and we're still trying to achieve taking FID on these three projects by the end of this year or early next year, so. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Due to time, we'll take no further questions, so I'll hand back to Mads Nipper for any further remarks. Yes, and I just want to thank you for the questions, and in a challenging situation. But, thanks a lot for the dialogue, and have a safe day. Thank you for joining today's call. You may now disconnect your lines.