Good afternoon. This is the conference operator. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to EDF Q&A session for the full year 2023 results. As a reminder, all participants are in listen-only mode. After the presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. If you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Xavier Girre, Group CFO. Please go ahead, sir. Good afternoon, everybody. I'm very happy to be with you once again to share our 2023 results. Just a few words, and then I'll be ready with all the team for all your questions. 2023 is clearly an exceptional year, and the group has delivered a very good operational performance, with a significant increase of 41.4 TWh in nuclear generation in France, in the context of historically high price environment and no exceptional regulation. As a consequence, EBITDA reached EUR 39.9 billion, net income group share EUR 10 billion, and net financial debt reduced by more than EUR 10 billion to EUR 54.4 billion. The net financial debt to EBITDA ratio reached 1.36x, well below our target of less or equal to 2.5x. 2023 is as well an important year for the group, with the launch of a new commercial policy to anticipate the end of ARENH in 2026. Besides the new ambitions of reduction in carbon emissions, Moody's has validated EDF's trajectory as aligned with 1.5-degree scenario. The years to come will see the development of the group's strategy, with increasing level of investments and large projects to be conducted. Maintaining the level of the debt is a key target. We therefore fixed an ambition of a net financial debt to EBITDA ratio of less or equal to 2.5x, and an adjusted economic debt to adjusted EBITDA ratio of less or equal to 4x in 2026. In other words, we maintain, in the long run, the guidance that we gave for 2023. We are, and I am confident in the strength of the group to have a key role in the energy transition and to maintain, the soundness of our balance sheet. After these few words, the floor is yours, and we are happy to answer all your questions. This is the conference operator. We will now begin the question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question, may press star and one on their touchtone telephone. To remove yourself from the question queue, please press star and two. Please pick up the receiver when asking questions. Anyone who has a question may press star and one at this time. The first question is from Anthony Leonard with Atlantic Union. Please go ahead. Hi, this is Anthony Leonard from Atlantic Union. Thank you for the call. If I take your 2.5 maximum net leverage target, and looking at the current net financial debt of EUR 54 billion, given the performance has been so volatile, given the poor price movement, et cetera, if you could help us to bridge how you stay below that level, is it because you think that net financial debt can still decrease and maybe reach the former 2022's level, or that EBITDA will be sustainably higher? I mean, in 2024 it's probably much easier, but then 2025, 2026 is more uncertain. So if you could help us bridge that, that would be helpful. Sure. And thank you for this question. Clearly, I mean, this 2023 EBITDA level, around EUR 40 billion, is quite exceptional. So when you consider 2024 and the years to come, you have two key building blocks. One is the continuous trend of French nuclear generation improvement. We've reached 320 TWh in 2023. We target a range from 315-345 TWh for this year, 2024, excluding some of these three, which will be on top of that, with the same range, of course. In the same range, if you consider the middle of the range, so between 315 and 345, you can also add a few terawatt hours to get our full goal as regards nuclear generation in France, so in this range. For 2025, our goal is between 335 and 365, and same goal for 2026. The first building block is a continuous improvement of our nuclear generation in France, which is, of course, absolutely key, and we are very confident in our ability to reach this goal. This is, of course, a positive building block. Then you have a negative building block, which is linked to the current trends of the prices. When you consider forward prices for 2026, for example, currently the forward prices for 2026 is in the range of EUR 65 per MWh, more or less, of course, it changes every day. And for 2025, it's in the range of EUR 70 per MW. So this trend will have a negative impact on our, on our EBITDA for the years to come. So as a whole, of course, we do not give an EBITDA guidance because it's very volatile, as you can understand. But that's why we focus on this ratio, Net Financial Debt to EBITDA and net economic debt to adjusted EBITDA, in order to give the evidence and to reaffirm our commitment to maintain the soundness of our balance sheet. So these are the two, once more, building blocks for the years to come. In other words, you could anticipate a slight decrease of our EBITDA in the years to come, and that's why also we want to be quite cautious in the guidance that we give for 2026. But I insist also, I highlight the fact that we are today in a position to give again a midterm guidance that we couldn't give during the last few years. So it's, of course, a very positive move that we are doing today. Is it fair to assume that the new normal EBITDA in the medium term is higher than the level of EUR 18 billion in 2021, which was already good? I mean, not just for 2024, but with the power prices, EUR 160 or so, is it fair to assume that it's meaningfully higher, the new normal, if there is a normal? Well, I know it's very difficult to refer to normal level of EBITDA, but of course, you're right. I mean, in 2021, prices were significantly lower than even the current forward. So, of course, we'll see. But, in your calculations, you can take such an assumption. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. The next question is from Damien de Saint-Germain with Crédit Agricole. Please go ahead. Yes, good afternoon, everybody. So, first, for the stellar results. I have, actually, three questions. First one is on the regulation. So end of last year, we had kind of a first header, I mean, guidelines of what could be the regulation, post-ARENH. I have two questions on that front. First, if I read correctly, the guideline, there is, as such, no safety net should prices go on the downside. I perfectly understand the split in profits should prices go high, but what happens if prices go much lower than where they are today? For the first, you know, sub-question. The second sub-question, the regulation is, basically, what are the key next step to, let's say, settle the regulation, and translate this guideline into pure regulation, whether there are some hurdles to be met at the French level, and, at the European level as well? So that would be my first question. The second question would be on the capital structure, especially for the nuclear new build. I would like to understand, so you have said to the market that you would like to build, in the foreseeable future, one to 1.5 EPR reactor a year, which is pretty impressive. My question is basically, is there any, things you could share on how you would fund, those, nuclear new build, and what would be the role of the French state, in that respect? And finally, and that is related to that question, as well, on the cash flow side. So, my question would be, you have said basically that going forward, CapEx could amount to roughly EUR 25 billion a year. What is the trajectory to get to this EUR 25 billion? And do those EUR 25 billion include just the equity part of the nuclear new build, or also include the CapEx part or the debt part, I would say, of those nuclear new build? Thank you. Thank you very much. First, as regards regulation, just to give you a broad view on the principles of this future regulation that was described by the French state in November last year. Starting post-2025, so post-ARENH, the global goal is to set a kind of taxation. We will see what will be the basis for that. I mean, what will be the basis for this compensation for customers. But this will be based on the nuclear revenues generated by EDF. If they are higher than EUR 78.22, in this case, we will have to contribute by 50% in order to help the French government to compensate the customers in order to protect their global bill. And if our nuclear revenues in France are higher than EUR 110.22, we will have to contribute by 90%.... So this is the cornerstone of what's been described in November, meaning that you're absolutely right. There is no regulation of a specific fixed price to be set by the ARENH, so what you call a safety net. So no safety net, but there is of course a room for market, a room for offering contracts, midterm contracts, long-term contracts by EDF to our customers. And if prices and our revenues in the nuclear field in France go beyond the thresholds I've just described, we will have to contribute, so in order to maintain the bills of the customers at a reasonable level. So of course, the goal of this regulation, the macro goal, is to give visibility to customers, to give competitiveness also to them, and to support both competitiveness in the short term, but also in the mid and long term, via the capability of EDF to invest in the future needs, all needs for the energy transitions. Your second question in the same field, what are the key next steps? So first, it's very important, of course, to keep in mind that as regards our commercial policy, there is no specific regulation, no specific law or decree or anything to be taken. We are already offering both on the market and to customers some midterm contracts or also long-term partnership with what we call in French Contrat d'Allocation de Production Nucléaire. In order to give visibility to our customers and to propose to them to commit on the midterm or on the long term and of course with very competitive prices. What has to be dealt with by the law is the setting of this contribution by EDF to the bill of the customers. Once more, all that has to be designed, but of course, in order to push EDF or to ask EDF to make this specific contribution, you need a legal text. So this is what is currently being worked upon by the government, and which is expected to be adopted in the next month, maybe midyear, we'll see. I mean, this is currently being worked upon. Second question, as regards capital structure and nuclear financing. It's of course a key point for the years to come. So as we wrote on our slides, a key stake for us in 2024 is to optimize both the design, the costing, and the financing of these French new nuclear builds. Meaning, meaning that it's a process which is ongoing with very significant work upon design to finalize it, very significant work about updating the cost, specifying the different elements of this cost, and of course setting the right way of financing these new nuclear builds. What's very important as regards this future financing is that you understand very well that this represents massive assets to be financed. So it's very important to define how the financing will be organized during the building period. Meaning that, EDF will not bear 100% of these pre-financing during the construction period on its balance sheet. It's important also that there is contribution, contribution to this pre-financing. So this is also worked upon currently, of course, by EDF first, in close contact also with the French State. This will take some time, also some months, and we will have different occasions to come back on that in 2024. This maybe will be finalized in one year from now or at the end of 2024, we'll see, but not tomorrow morning. Your third question about cash flow trajectory, you're absolutely right. We referred to potential CapEx in the range of EUR 25 billion, which we consider consistent with the needs of the energy transition, and consistent with our capability. Because we, as we described also in our slides, want to be a key player, both in the decarbonized or low carbonized generation, meaning nuclear, meaning hydro, meaning wind, meaning solar. So low carbon generation, which of course is heavily demanding as regards CapEx. Secondly, we intend also to develop the networks, particular energies, of course, which has to be developed in consistency also with the energy transition and the development of renewable generation. We intend also to develop flexibility, and we intend to develop services to the customers, which sometimes also implies some CapExes. So that's why, as a whole, we consider that we may have to invest, and we may invest EUR 25 billion. Of course, after having checked that all these investments are absolutely consistent with our strategy, with our goals, also, both on financial KPIs and on CSR KPIs, of course. In 2023, we invested EUR 19.1 billion. This year, in 2024, we intend to be a bit higher than that, maybe around 23, we'll see in the course of the year. And so this is the road to 25. And this, as regards nuclear new build, includes the EDF part or the equity EDF would have to contribute. So of course, if it's on our balance sheet, this represents all that we will contribute, being equity or debt. But if we have co-financing, or if the French state, for example, contributes to the financing, this is not included in this EUR 25 billion. I think just to your three questions? Yeah, very clear. Thank you very much. As a reminder, if you wish to register for a question, please press star and one on your telephone. The next question is from James Barrett, with BNP Paribas. Please go ahead. Yeah, afternoon, everyone. Thanks for the call. I actually just wanted to follow up on that, that kind of CapEx point. And you probably won't be able to answer this, but I was trying to get a sort of sense of this, you know, if we're assuming CapEx this year of EUR 23 billion and maybe generation in the mid-range of your guidance, a sort of 330 area, are you able to give any sort of breakeven power price? I know there are a lot of moving parts, but I thought at least I'd try. And then perhaps maybe a simpler question that I'm just really interested in your kind of funding needs for 2024. Have you repaid the loans now that you got during the kind of Ukraine crisis, difficult year? Can you give any sort of sense of sort of funding needs, you know, both at the sort of senior and hybrid level for 2024? Thank you. Yeah, sure. So first, as regards to CapEx, I mean, I would say that the answer is more or less in your question, because in order to invest EUR 23 billion-25 billion per year, you need to generate at least EUR 30 billion-35 billion EBITDA. This is very clear, of course. So, I mean, it will depend, of course, also on the prices for the years to come. As we get 2024, we are almost 100% hedged, as usual, so we have a clear visibility about that, and about 2024. As regards 2025 and 2026, obviously, we are not fully hedged, so we have to keep some room for maneuver, we have to keep some room to adapt also the level of our CapExes. And so this will be, of course, specified in due course. But I think you got right the basic math. As regards our loans, we have not yet fully replaced the short-term loans that we did in 2022. We of course intend to go on doing that. We intend also to go on along the same lines as we did in 2023, a very active financing policy with some key principles. First, we always want to be very pragmatic, opportunistic, taking any opportunity on the market, first point. Second point, we want to go on diversifying our issuances. You've noticed that we've issued for EUR 8 billion senior and $1.5 billion hybrid in 2023, with a very significant diversification as we got currencies, maturity, et cetera, et cetera. We intend to do the same thing in 2024 and in the years to come. We intend also to maintain quite a long maturity. I highlighted that we have already increased our debt maturity to 11 years in 2023, from 9.4 in 2022. And which is, of course, very consistent with our balance sheet. So this is more or less our goals as regards the financing policy for this year, as regards the senior financing policy... Thank you. For any further questions, please press star and one on your telephone. The next question is from Andrew Moulder with CreditSights. Please go ahead. Right. Thank you. Yeah, yeah, thanks for the call, Xavier. Maybe I can just push you a little bit on Jame's question about issuance. You issued EUR 8 billion last year. Do you think you're gonna issue more or less this year? That's the first question. Second question, I just wanted to ask you on the post-ARENH regime. I mean, I remember a year or so ago, we were talking about CFDs and PPAs, but you didn't really mention that in the answer you gave earlier. So are those now not something that's under discussion, or was that what you were talking about when you mentioned long-term contracts? And if you do have these long-term contracts, would that be included in calculation of the sort of extra tax or whatever, that you need to pay back to the consumers in the market? I'm sorry, I just have two more questions for you. My next one, on the nuclear output. I was a little bit disappointed that your 2026 nuclear output is the same expectation for 2025. Is that just you being conservative? Because I think on the call earlier today, you did say you wanted to get back to 400. I mean, why isn't it higher in 2026 than it is in 2025? And my final question, you know, we've all seen the news about the cost increases at Hinkley Point. But I wanted to try to push you on what the IRR is of that project now. I mean, I remember you saying it was 9% when you started and then 7% later on. I mean, by my sort of back-of-the-envelope calculation, you're probably now down at about 5%. Is that reasonable calculation, or do you think I'm miles off the mark there, with 5% IRR on Hinkley Point? Thank you. Thank you very much. As regards our issuance policy for 2024, I mean, I think I will not be more specific, because we want also to keep our once more pragmatism and opportunism. But what's very important to us, once more, is to be a long-term issuer, to be a diversified issuer, to be a transparent issuer, and so to come to you on a regular basis in order to meet you, to answer all your questions, and to give you all the pieces of information you may need. But as we got specifically, when and how we intend to intervene on the market for this year, I will not be more specific today, today, but of course, more than happy in the, course of the year, to, to come back to you about that. As regards, the post-ARENH mechanism, you're absolutely right. There is no, no PPA, no contract for difference, no, set price, that is, or that has been, considered, in this post-ARENH, mechanism. Why is that? For, a key reason, which is that, if you consider a fixed price, or range, or a corridor, as we did some years ago, on existing assets, this would lead to very significant, not to say massive, remedies required by the European Commission. Meaning that this would provoke some very significant of synergies, some costs, which are not appropriate. So that's why it seems more appropriate to consider for existing assets what I've described, meaning exposure to the market, but we can via midterm and long-term contracts offer visibility, stability, competitiveness to our customers. And of course, this midterm and long-term contracts will also give to EDF, to our cash flows, also visibility. So this is exactly why we consider today that the best way to do on the basis of this existing nuclear fleet is to look for stability and competitiveness via contracts and not via regulation. As regards nuclear generation, you know, we are clearly in a period of very demanding industrial program. First, as regards 2024, and of course I will come to 2025 and 2026, but as regards 2024, we are still heavily engaged in the stress corrosion repair program. Everything has been well identified. The most sensitive reactors have been dealt with, 15 out of 16, and the last one will be repaired in the weeks to come. But nevertheless, I mean, some others need to be inspected, to be checked, and this is a significant industrial program as such. Then you have, of course, the Grand Carénage program, which is also a very demanding, in order to look for the extension of the life duration of our existing fleet. And you have, of course, also the 10th year visits. The Visite Décennale, for which we have also very stringent industrial program. So that's why, and this is, of course, analyzed in detail, reactor by reactor, for 2026. We consider, as of today, that the goal that we've given, so between 335 and 365, and it's quite a wide range, as you notice, certainly, is appropriate. And of course, we will do our best to increase, as quick as possible and as far as possible, the level of this nuclear generation. As we got 400 TWh you referred to, two things about that. First, we reached this level some years ago, in the early 2000, but also, in 2015, for example. What's been said is that in the mid to long term, with no specific date, we could come back to that kind of level, including Flamanville, but this is not for 2025, neither 2026. As regards HPC, I mean, I let you make your calculations. Of course, I mean, if we have written off a part of HPC, this means that the perspectives are below the expected work in the beginning. But of course, also, the perspective is that HPC generates positive cash flow once in operation, thanks, of course, also, the contract for difference. Mm-hmm. Can I follow up just on two points there? Of course. On that last point then, you said you've written down 20 points, and I saw that in the results. Does that mean that the written down value you now have has taken the IRR on the non-written down part back to 9%? Which is what you were originally targeting. And then just secondly, when you were talking about the CFDs and ARENH, you talked about the existing fleet. So can I just ask if that means that there is still the possibility you'll be able to negotiate CFDs or PPAs on the new nuclear builds that you're undertaking, and also on Flamanville? So, as regards HPC, I think I will not add any specific point about that. What I could add, nevertheless, is that, as you know, write-offs on tangible assets can be returned, in particular, if you have a change in the interest rates, for example. But this is something, of course, you have to keep in mind, because of course, as we all know, this is different for goodwill write-offs. As regards CFD, once more, as regards new nuclear build, so EPR2, in France, work is currently being done on design, on costing, and on financing. So you have, of course, at this stage, plenty of options. All these options, we analyze them, taking into consideration three types of goals. First, it's important, of course, that as a whole, it's competitive for the end customers. Second, it's very important that it's sustainable for, of course, our balance sheet. And third, it's also important that this does not lead to significant remedies required by the European Commission. And of course, first and foremost, it's key that the project, based on the proper design and based on the proper costing, first and foremost, it's key that this project be profitable and generate an appropriate return to this. So, today, I will not be specific on future regulation on new nuclear builds in France, because it's too early. Once more, plenty of options, plenty of work already done, still to be done, but too early to give these details today. And as we got Flamanville, Flamanville is integrated in the existing nuclear fleet in France, with no specific regulation, no specific financing, and no specific regulation. Thank you very much. The last question is from Vetsa Prithvi, with Bank of America. Please go ahead. Yes, thank you. I quickly had a question on the ARENH mechanism. I'm not sure if it was covered earlier. So, so I mean, like earlier, there was news though, that, you know, there's a low price of 70 EUR per MWh on the entire French nuclear output. Is that still the case, or has there been any change on that? ... Europe megawatt hours that has been reflected, or described, in press conferences, is only a reference to an average that was calculated at that time. Considering that when you make plenty of hypotheses, of course, showed that kind of average price between EUR 26 and EUR 40. As you've noticed, I mean, the forward prices went down very significantly in the last month. And so, today, for example, the average forwards, and the forward price for 2026, is already in the range of EUR 70, depending on the day, EUR 64, EUR 65, EUR 67, EUR 68, EUR 70. Okay. Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. But once more, this figure, 70 EUR per megawatt hour, is a description of an average potential price that was the result of different hypotheses on this long-term period between 2026 and 2040. What specific in what has been described in November is not the 70 EUR per megawatt hour. Is the fact that beyond two thresholds, meaning 78 EUR, 22 gram, 78 EUR, 22 per megawatt hour, as regards our nuclear revenue. Mm-hmm. Beyond EUR 110 per megawatt hour, as regards our nuclear revenue, there will be kind of taxation, once more, quote unquote, because once more, the legal, often not the legal, the framework has not yet been finalized. But we will have to contribute by 50% between EUR 78 per 2022. Yeah, yeah. By 90% between EUR 110-EUR 22. Yeah, but- These are the two figures that are very concrete, very specific, in what's been described- Mm-hmm ... in November. Okay. And is so there is no floor price set for the post-ARENH mechanism then? Sorry, I didn't get your point. I'm asking like if there is a floor price that will be decided for the nuclear output post-ARENH? Is that in discussions or that's not part of the discussions? No floor has been described or no floor has been referred to. Okay, okay. Yeah, that's helpful. Thank you. Mr. Girre, there are no more questions registered at this time. Okay. So I think time is over or so, so I mean, if there is no additional questions, I thank you very much for your time, for your questions, for your interest in EDF, and we will be, with the whole team, very happy to meet once again with you in the year to come. Bye-bye. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining. The conference is now over. You may disconnect.