Thank you for holding. Welcome to ENGIE's first quarter two thousand twenty-three results presentation. For your information, this call is being recorded. It will take place in a listen-only mode, and you will have the opportunity to ask questions after the presentation. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star one on their touchtone telephone. To remove yourself from the question queue, please press star two. We kindly ask to pick up the receiver when asking questions. Anyone who has a question may press star one at this time. I will now hand you over to Miss Delphine Deshayes, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. It's my pleasure to welcome you to ENGIE's Q1 conference call. Shortly, Catherine and Pierre-François will present our first quarter performance, following which we will open the lines to Q&A. With my polite request of limiting your questions to one or two only, please. With that, over to Catherine. Thank you, Delphine, good morning, everyone. Very pleased to present another very good performance for ENGIE. We have indeed made a strong start to the year with continuous momentum on financial and operational delivery. The action that we have previously taken to build a simpler, more industrial ENGIE to capitalize on our integrated model are delivering results, and they are also allowing us to capture market opportunities. We have continued to move at pace with our strategic plan, particularly with the expansion of our renewables platforms, where at the end of March, 5.5 GW were under construction, allowing us to maintain a sharp focus on our target to add 4 GW on average to 2025, and to contribute to a faster energy transition in alignment with our strategy. I will come back to Belgium later. Turning now to our operational and strategic progress. The performance over the first quarter positions us well to indeed deliver good results in 2023. EBIT excluding nuclear grew organically 29% year-over-year to EUR 3.8 billion. It was driven by higher contribution from GEMS but also renewables. Cash flow generation was also up EUR 3.8 billion alongside growth in EBITDA and supported by working capital improvement. We've maintained a strong balance sheet, high liquidity as well. During the quarter, we successfully issued a triple tranche green bond for a total amount of EUR 2.75 billion, supporting the development of sustainable finance. In light of this strong Q1 performance, we now expect Net recurring income Group share to be in the upper end of the range of our guidance for the full year. It is each GBU that is driving operational progress at pace. It is also our integrated model that once again demonstrated its ability to leverage on favorable market conditions. On renewables, I will share more details about our leading platform in the next slide, but can already tell you that we continue to grow our install capacity, adding 13 wind, seven solar projects in various places, including Peru and France. GEMS benefited from a lower risk environment as well as a robust performance of all of its activities. We saw continuing demand from customers for risk management and also captured value through the flexibility of our portfolio. In networks, we keep contributing to the security of supply of Europe with gas storage levels in France at 30% at the end of March, and as of May third, it was at 43%, which is to be compared to 33% at the same time last year. Our infrastructure play a critical role, and that was indeed confirmed by the recent report published by the CRE, the French regulator, which is confirming the need for transport and distribution gas networks by 2050. Alongside focusing on the near term, we are also working on the future of renewable gases. We are unlocking the potential of biomethane with now more than nine terawatt-hours per year of production capacity, which is connected to our networks in France. Internationally, in Brazil, we have commissioned 100 of Gralha Azul and Novo Estado power transmission lines, and this is supporting access to electricity in the country. Our FlexGen business is crucial to balance the intermittency from renewables and to support the resiliency of the power system. To this end, we have more than 1 GW of battery storage system under construction in the U.S., in Chile, in Australia. Energy Solutions is continuing its efforts to build a stronger asset-based platform for long-term growth. We have a large pool of opportunities. The revenue backlog increased since the beginning of the year, and we saw multiple important wins, such as the extension of our DHC in Barcelona, which includes the construction of a new cold production plant. Also several wins in district heating in France, where we are market leaders, including the construction and the operation for 25 years of a new network in Toulouse and three large contracts extension in other cities. These wins are on the back of a buoyant market, which is anticipated to grow by nearly 7% per year until 2030, and that offers great opportunities to densify, to expand, but also to develop new assets. We've also won a new concession of more than 4,000 EV charging points in France with B&B HOTELS. Quick word on retail, where, as announced last autumn, we have launched initiatives to help customers reduce their energy consumption, especially on days of high demand. This campaign was a success, where we had 200,000 customers being rewarded a bonus for their energy savings. Finally, we are preparing for the end of gas-regulated offers in France, which is going on as planned, which will be going on as planned by the end of June 2023. Clearly an excellent start to the year with strong operational progress across the board. A testimony to the high level of commitment of our team in the execution of our strategic plan. Quick focus now on our leading renewable platform, which operates all major technologies in key growth markets, and that we keep expanding, leveraging our industrial expertise and our competency. In terms of progress, we are securing our future operating asset base with 5.5 GW under construction at the end of March. That represents 71 projects that our teams are working on day in, day out. This includes flagship projects such as Gulf of Suez Two in Egypt and Moray West in Scotland. We are industrializing execution with an average delay of less than two months and cost overrun of less than 4% for projects in execution, which is well within our projects' contingencies. We kept growing our pipeline with the acquisition of 3.5 GW of solar and battery storage projects at different stages of development in the U.S., offering a unique opportunity to diversify our portfolio by securing interconnection positions in new markets. Ocean Winds made strides in its offshore program, reaching the final investment decision for 2 French projects of 500 MW each. By leveraging our integrated model, we commercialized renewables through GEMS and signed nearly 500 MW of green corporate PPAs, the majority of which has a maturity longer than 5 years. This reinforces our position among the leaders in this market, supporting our customers in their decarbonization efforts. Overall, on renewables, I'm very proud of what the teams are achieving. We are well on track to add 4 GW on average per year to 2025, 6 GW on average from 2026 onwards, to reach our target of 50 GW of installed capacity, renewable capacity by 2025 and then 80 MW by 2030. Before handing over to Pierre-François, let me share a quick update on our nuclear discussions in Belgium with regards to the extension of 2 units. We have come much closer to an agreement around a few key points, such as the legal structure, which will be co-owned by the Belgian state and ENGIE, the business model of the extension with a balanced risk allocation, the joint development agreement, the framework for the transfer of all waste liabilities and associated security package. Despite these progresses, some important parameters of the deal still need to be discussed, such as a clear allocation of risk and associated risk premium. We keep working very actively with the Belgian government to address the remaining issues with the aim to have an agreement signed by the end of June. Should this objective not be met, given the operational and industrial complexity of this extension project, a restart in November 2026 would not be reasonably achievable anymore. Now over to Pierre-François. Thank you very much, Catherine, good morning to all. Indeed, a strong start for 2023, which is supported by a seamless execution on the growth and performance agendas. Also, of course, by the strength of our integrated model in continued favorable energy market conditions. EBITDA and EBIT, excluding nuclear, grew respectively by 23% and 30% to respectively EUR 4.8 billion and EUR 3.8 billion. We also generated a high level of cash flow, further reducing our financial debt and improving further our credit ratios. We are confirming our 2023 guidance, albeit we expect our Net recurring income Group share to be in the upper end of the range. If we get a little bit closer to the numbers, you see that EBIT is up eighty-fifty million EUR, which is a 29% uplift organic growth. There is a slight positive from FX and scope, including the Eolia acquisition last year, and helped by the Brazilian real and the US dollar against EUR for FX. Renewables reported more than 30% organic growth. It is benefiting from better hydro volumes in Portugal and in France. You remember last year was tough. Also, higher prices in Europe, mainly for French hydro, and again, the contribution of the capacity that has been commissioned over the last 12 months. Networks decreased by EUR 59 million. Three key drivers on the negative side, the biggest one being in France, with lower distributed gas volumes, mainly linked to energy sobriety this winter, which means lower consumption, and also another mild winter. Second driver was lower transported gas volumes in Germany. Finally, we had also to face higher energy costs in operating our facilities. Part of this was actually mitigated by tariff increases that we got in Germany and in Romania. On top of that, EBIT in Latin America increased as our operations there are growing, as Catherine mentioned, and also increased thanks to good indexation provisions. Lastly, our storage activities in the U.K. and Germany have performed well, benefiting from the current favorable environment. Energy Solutions is up EUR 21 million, with good operational performance and positive contribution from goals. It includes the negative impact of strikes in France in district heating and the net negative effect of energy prices in Europe. It might be worth to mention that EVBox, which was previously reported in this GBU, has been reclassified into the other segment due to a change in the management reporting line. As you know, this EVBox business is not core for ENGIE and will be monetized when all conditions will be fulfilled. FlexGen is slightly up EUR 12 million. We have captured some higher spreads in Europe compared to Q1 2022, but ancillaries have declined from a very high basis. In Chile, the situation has started to improve with the recovery of our energy margins, thanks to the normalization of market conditions and reduction of our short position. Retail is down by EUR 217 million compared to Q1 2022. You may remember that last year, in the first quarter, the warm temperatures in Europe led us to a long gas position that we were able to monetize in a market with very good conditions. This year, we are again overhedged due to mild winter. This time we sold our position with a loss given the lower prices of gas. Last but not least, others is up EUR 948 million, fully driven by an exceptional outperformance on all GEMS activities again. I will of course detail this figure in the next slide. Just a quick word on nuclear. EBIT is down EUR 194 million to EUR 389 million. The positive effect of higher capture prices over the period was actually more than offset by the inframarginal rent cap and the specific nuclear tax. We also produced lower volumes despite higher availability of our plants, as we have closed two units in the past nine months. As you also know, our depreciation increased by about EUR 100 million for the quarter. This is a result of the 2022 triennial review of the provision that led us to recognize at the end of last year a dismantling asset which is depreciated over the remaining lifetime of the plants. The last word before we move to GEMS. Just to know that all businesses are delivering on plan. Sounds a bit boring maybe, but it goes with still with impressive growth in renewables, successful turnarounds in some parts of Energy Solutions, significant transformation in FlexGen, market adjustment in retail and also at the same time embedding a performance plan in a continued improvement culture. This quarter again, ENGIE's teams have done a stunning job. Let me now share a bit more colors on how GEMS posted this plus EUR 988 million year-on-year improvement to achieve EUR 1.6 billion EBIT in one quarter. This impressive year-on-year variation is largely driven by a very different risk environment. First, in the first quarter last year, we had to take a specific provision considering the risk of physical gas disruption due to the high level of uncertainties related to gas form contracts. You remember they stopped later in the year at summer. Of course, this provision did not repeat in Q1 2023, it does explain about half of the year-on-year improvement. Second item on the risk side, the better market visibility with significant normalization of key market parameters has also allowed for improved valuation of some assets and liabilities and led to the reversal of some technical reserves. Now if we look at the operation of the period in this first quarter 2023, GEMS is delivering a very strong performance. Why is that? First, the results are supported by transactions that were contracted in 2022 at good and sometimes very good conditions, which now materialize at delivery date, namely during this first quarter, and are boosting our sales contribution in particular. Also, you can see in the table on the right hand on the slide, that market conditions remain positive for GEMS, albeit less buoyant of course than last year. Energy management activities in Europe are still performing strongly, both on asset optimization and client risk management, although less than in peak times last year. Compared to Q1 2023, GEMS' contribution for the next quarter is of course expected to gradually decrease due to the combination of the non-replicable impacts, as well as a high contribution from transactions locked in 2022, which is expected to normalize in the future as these transactions are lapsing. To remind you of what I said back in February 2023, the long-term expectation is that GEMS should deliver a hardcore EBIT of around EUR 1 billion, with potential upside coming on top of this in supportive market conditions, as it is obviously the case this Q1. Moving to cash flow, it's great to see that the strong EBIT results are actually turning this quarter into improved cash generation. Good to see that the operating cash flow is up EUR 0.6 billion, which is broadly in line with the growth of EBITDA. On the working cap, change in working cap requirements, you remember here we are comparing variation of working cap to variation of working cap, a strong improvement of EUR +3.1 billion, thanks to the overall decrease of commodity prices. There is a first positive impact from gas storage activities, which is EUR 1.2+ billion. This positive variation is driven by the high price of the withdrawn volumes, despite lower volumes withdrawn during the same period. Energy in the metal variation is slightly negative for the quarter. We have faced, to be very candid, some billing delays this quarter as we had to implement numerous and somewhat unstable schemes of governmental measures and tariff shields, for which we continuously have to adapt our IT tools, and we expect, of course, to catch up in the next months. Margin costs are also benefiting from the decrease in commodity prices and overall market volatility, as well as strong management of our liquidity risk attached to the margin cost. It's a EUR 1.8+ billion quarter-over-quarter. You remember last year, it was a user fund of EUR 0.4 and this year it is in cash-in of EUR 1.4. Lastly, we had a net positive effect on supply tariff shields for + EUR 0.5 billion, with a significant cash in from public authorities, especially in France, compared to last year. This is just that the schemes are now up and running, and the cost of carry is decreasing big time compared to last year. Peering through the year, the key element when you think on cash flows is the cash out that we expect on the 2022 nuclear taxes. Cash out, which is in Q3 for the inframarginal rent cap and in Q4 for the G2. Let me remind you that this represents an increase of more than EUR 1.1 billion. In addition to our strong EBITDA growth, as the cash generation is strong, the net financial debt and the net economic debt are going down. Our net financial debt is decreasing by EUR 1.4 billion as our cash flow generation was higher than CapEx and nuclear phase out costs combined. Our economic net debt decreased by EUR 1.8 billion, broadly in line with our net financial debt. On the back of these elements, our leverage ratios are further improving with an impressive 2.5 economic net debt to EBITDA ratio on LTM at March end. Coming to the guidance, in the context of decreasing volatility and energy prices with numerous uncertainties in the macro environment, we have decided to keep our guidance for 2023 unchanged. With the very strong performance of GEMS during this first quarter and an overall strong beginning of the year, we expect our Net recurring income Group share to land in the upper end of the EUR 3.4 billion-EUR 4 billion range, with an EBIT excluding nuclear at the top end of the indicative range of EUR 6.6 billion-EUR 7.6 billion. You've seen in the preview materials that we have, we are entering this year with slightly higher outright volumes open. Our hedging ratio for the current year is 82% versus 86% at the end of Q1 2022. It is even more the case for our European CCGTs fleet, for which we have much less locked position for the balance of year 2023 that we had at the end of Q1 2022 for the balance of year. In this context of uncertain environments and falling prices, and given our open position, we prefer to keep a prudent approach. We are of course committed to a strong investment-grade credit rating, continue to target a ratio below or equal to 4 x economic net debt to EBITDA over the long term. Our dividend policy remains the same, notably with a 65%-75% payout ratio based on net recurring income Group share. With that, I hand over back to Catherine for the conclusion. Thank you very much, Pierre-François Riolacci. To conclude, two key messages. We delivered a very strong first quarter, both financially and operationally, and that positions us well for the rest of the year. The second point is to remind everyone that we didn't achieve these results by chance. Our strategy to build a simpler, more industrial energy to accelerate the energy transition, well, this strategy is working. We are delivering at pace, notably with the expansion of our renewable platform. Thank you very much for listening, and we will now turn for the Q&A. Thank you. Thank you. 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 to receive when asking questions. Anyone who has a question may press star and one at this time. The first question is from Ajay Patel with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Good morning, and firstly, thank you for the presentation, and congratulations on the results. I have two questions, if I may. Firstly, just on the guidance. When I look at the guidance, it's 5% decline in EBIT X nuclear for full year 2023, but over Q1 is a 30% rise. If you look into the statement, you say that GEMS good performance in Q1, but also that subsequent quarters will expect a gradual decrease. This all seems to imply an element of conservatism in this guidance. I just wanted to have an understanding of the negatives or the timing effects that occur over the course of the year that may make that less conservative or just give us a more round picture. The second question, if I may, you gave a guidance on inframarginal tax. I think it was EUR 1.2 billion-EUR 1.5 billion at the end of last year. What would that range now be taking into account the commodity environment that you've moved to, which is now end of March? Thanks a lot. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ajay. Yes, there is definitely some conservatism in the guidance for the reason that I tried to convey, which is that we still have a open position when prices, as you know, have been declining compared to the initial price pattern that we had, which was based on end of December. There are indeed some timing effect with GEMS, which is about EUR 100 million, which is coming as a positive in Q1, which is expected to reverse later in the year. That's not a huge amount. It's also very clear that we expect the contribution from GEMS to step down over the next quarters, as we have some one-off which are helping us in terms of comb base. Yes, there is some conservatism. It will take a lot to take the guidance at the low end, that's for sure. We are very open that we are targeting the top end when it comes to EBIT excluding nuc. Let's keep the fingers crossed that things keep on that way and that give us upside. You had another question on. The guidance on the inframarginal tax. Yes. I think it was EUR 1.2 billion-EUR 1.5 billion. Yeah. I wondered what that would be taking into account that your assumptions on commodities have moved to a lower number. Yeah by the end of March. Given on the, based on the new price scenario, I mean, we expect the overall inframarginal taxes to come let's say, just below EUR 1 billion. Can I just have one follow-up question? Apologies. Just on GEM in principle, just to help us understand, it was a great environment last year. Clearly, you have physical contracts and assets that you can take advantage and lock in some of those profits. Is it just fair to assume that that is largely secured in 2023, that it's unlikely to have more of a continuance in 2024 and 2025? Not completely, because on some parts of the business, the average duration of this transaction is more a couple of years. So, we would expect to see some spillover impact in 2024. All right. Thank you very much. Cheers. The next question is from Arthur Sitbon with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hello. Thank you for taking my question. The first one is on the GEMS division. At, in March, you were guiding the EBIT to be down between EUR 300 million and EUR 900 million, down here in 2023. I was wondering if this guidance from this particular division is still something up to date or if you would expect something a bit more positive now. My second question is on the Belgian nuclear life extension discussions. I was wondering because I understand that one of the topics of discussion is the potential risk premium to be paid on a cap on waste management provisions. I was wondering if this risk premium would be in the shape of just higher provisions to be funded in the future or could that have to be funded immediately by ENGIE, so moving around cash into dedicated assets already this year or next year, but pretty soon? More broadly speaking, I was wondering what defines for you a good deal? Is it as simple as just having a deal that overall is not NPV negative? Thank you very much. It takes maybe the first part on the numbers, and I will leave to Catherine what is a good deal. On the EBIT guidance on James Brand, yeah, clearly, the reason why we are pushing the guidance at the top end is of course the other performance of GEMS that we have achieved in Q1. I think your question is spot on. Yes, you need to adjust, and we are here talking about midpoint to top it. We are talking about EUR 500 million. I think that's only fair that you adjust and this is indeed the other performance that we have achieved in Q1. That's I hope it answers your question. On the nuc, just a technical point, which is about the risk premium. I'm not sure that, at the end of the day, it boils down to kind of a premium, might not be exactly the way everyone is thinking about it. Yes, if we were to transfer the liabilities, there is a scenario where we would be funding upfront together with the transfer of liabilities, we would be transferring assets. That would happen not this year, but that would happen at the closing of the transaction, which is more in 2024. Maybe Catherine, a couple of comments. Yeah. Maybe just to give a bit more color on the Belgium discussion. While I've pointed out the fact that, you know, we made some quite good progress on the discussion around quite a few items, we are still working on what we like to call the unknowns. What that means is that we're trying to clarify and decrease the uncertainty around particularly future handling of waste. We're talking about a very long time period, so that explains why these matters are both complex and to a certain extent still quite uncertain. The discussions are taking a little bit longer than what we expected. I think this is true from both parties. What we're really trying to make sure we get is a proper risk allocation which corresponds and match the transfer of liability. This is where we are spending a lot of time, actually, with the counterparty to make sure that we have a fair risk allocation and that the risk premium that ENGIE will pay is adequate in matching this risk allocation. A bit difficult. This is what would be a good deal for us, but also for our counterparty. It's a balanced deal with amounts that match this amount of risk that would be left on both sides. Maybe the other point on Belgium, I want to really reiterate that time is of the essence because as you know, the Salamandre project is indeed operationally and industrially complex, which is why, you know, we have pointed out the need to meet the 30th of June timeline as a very important milestone. Thank you. The next question is from Vincent Ayral with JPMorgan. Please go ahead. Yes. Good morning and congratulations for these results. I'd like to come back on the nuclear tax and on the nuclear life extension negotiations again. First, the nuclear tax, I think I raised that a full year. They seemed to be based on forward curve in the past, so potentially you had overpaid and you were basically double taxed on all that. Do you have an estimate of how much it could be? Is it part of the negotiation? Will you be refunded for this element? I understand this would be basically against EU laws. The Commission was extremely clear on this bit. What are the other non-cash elements which are part of the discussion? Example, the EUR 1.3 billion, the extra cost on waste management, which you said you would take legal action to recover. It would be quite interesting to get some color on these. When we're looking at the deal on potential deal on the license extensions, it seems that you pretty much agreed on the vast majority of the provision amounts. Could we have some estimates or some sort of level of what is being looked at? Importantly, will we have actually a material increase versus the 18.5 total provisions at the end of December, knowing that these included to start with some buffer from the CPN, it being discount rates or things like that? Second, that when you do a life extension, the provisions mechanically decrease. It would be quite interesting to know where we're standing on this, if you could give some color. Thank you. Thank you, Vincent. Let me maybe share a couple of comments on the interesting discussion that we have with the Belgian government on everything but the negotiation, which is indeed related to a couple of points that you are mentioning. On the nuc tax, it's not as much a double taxation, it's more that the tax basis which is used in the inframarginal rent cap is based on the forward and the theoretical notional portfolio of hedging. That's actually pretty different from reality. Especially when you have a year which is as troubled as 2022, of course, you cannot enter into the hedging transaction that you are used to because the market is not there and the liquidity is not there, which mean that you create a difference between the notional portfolio and the actual portfolio of hedging. Therefore, you create an uncertainty and potentially a significant disconnection between the capture price and the reference price for the tax calculation, which is therefore a difference in the tax basis versus your actual profit. That could turn into EUR a few hundreds given the market condition. We don't know yet, of course, but it could turn into EUR a few hundreds of million that could come. For us, it's clearly, if we are taxed and taxed at a very high rate on profit that we have not actually captured, we believe that this is not okay. What is not okay is that there is a possibility for taxpayers in Belgium to overturn this notional hedging, except for nuc. We do not believe that this exception for nuc is acceptable under the law. Clearly, we would be contesting and pushing back on this approach of the tax calculation. A few hundreds are at stake. There is another point, which is indeed that we believe that the authorities have been late in publishing the acceptance criteria on waste, which means that we have been stuck with some waste that we have to manage. There is an extra cost which is incurred on that basis that we estimate at EUR 1.3 billion. To really get this criteria up and running, we have indeed started to move on claiming compensation for this EUR 1.3 billion of extra cost that I point to, and we'll keep pushing. Of course, in the deal, we may get the criteria defined, but still this cost has been incurred in the past. That's something that we of course need to discuss. Last but not least, we are indeed not completely aligned with the provisions, the estimate made by CPN at year-end, and we have introduced a requirement for revision that was sent in February, of course, complying with delays, with imposed dates. Now we are waiting for the feedback of the CPN, which is, as we know, working on it. That gives you some colors on the side discussion that we have, of course, with the government in full compliance with the law. Just to come back on the last point. CPN normally its responsibility would be to be an objective party on the provisions. It seems they've taken the step to take a buffer ahead of a negotiation with the government regarding provisions. The way you describe it is as if it was the requirement for correction was separate from the ongoing negotiation. Isn't it like part of the negotiation? Look, we're not honestly gonna comment obviously on the ins and outs of the negotiation. CPN is an independent authority. They emitted their advice in December. We have come back with some suggestion on some key parameters to establish these provisions and some proposed adjustment. Let's see what they respond, but they are independent and so let's not mix everything. Vincent, I'm sure you will understand that it's really difficult for us to comment more on the innings of the negotiation. No, absolutely. Thank you. I will just do a follow-up question on, not on the negotiation themselves, but coming back on the question which was asked previously, the funding of any potential top-up to the current provisions, you know, the risk premium. What type of order of magnitude we will be talking, how should we approach that as we don't have a number at the moment, but in terms of potential impact on the credit metrics and how to look at it? That would be... Any color, and if you cannot necessarily fully quantify, we understand, would be useful. Thank you. The order of magnitude is adequate to ENGIE. We are not going to enter into any transaction that would damage our credit metrics. Of course, it is something that is that we look at and that would be adequate with ENGIE capabilities. Thank you. Bye-bye. The next question is from James Brand with Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Good morning. Well done on the good results. I had three questions if that's okay. Firstly, on the net debt, it was obviously a very good print, and you saw the working capital improvement that you highlighted. I was wondering whether you had any expectations for full year net financial debt that you were willing to share. Also on the net debt, I think at the end of last year, you'd highlighted that there was around a EUR 5 billion working capital increase due to high commodity prices. Maybe you could put the working capital improvement in Q1 in perspective of that, how much of that has reversed? Then, I'll keep it to two questions 'cause that's kind of a two-parter. I won't ask the 3rd. The second question is, you've got this expectation for GEMS in the medium term of EUR 1 billion of profitability. I was wondering whether you could just share like a rough split of where that's coming from between different activities, whether it's energy management or optimization of the generation fleet. I know it's a very complex business, the answer to that question may just be, "No, that's not possible." Just trying to understand, in the medium term when some of these exceptional gains from trading, kind of end, what's actually driving the profitability of that business. Thank you very much. Thank you. You know that we tried not to multiply the different guidance KPIs. I think that's important that we stick to some consistency. But we'd be happy to help you and to work out some cash flow numbers. You know, where we are open about the CFFO that has to be north of EUR 10 billion. You know, you know our growth CapEx, you know our maintenance CapEx, you know the funding to Synatom. I know the IR team will be very happy to take you through, and if you want to check some numbers, we can help you. You are coming with a very, very key point, which is how much of this working cap, EUR 5 billion, that we have locked in the business is going to come through. It's not that easy because as I mentioned, it depends of course on the price. But here, definitely in Q1, we had some of it. When you see that on the gas storage we improve, EUR 1.2 billion, it's clear that about half of the cash that was stuck in our gas storage has come out due to this price variation. You can see now that it is coming out. There is more from customers that we expect to recover. There is a bit of inertia in this coming through as there was at the beginning and started in 2021. It took a while to pile up. Now we expect it to come down in the next quarter. Yes, out of the EUR 5 billion, we see the first significant items coming through, which is, I think, very good from a perspective. Then on GEMS, I really understand that you're all a bit struggling with, okay, where do we stand compared to the run rate. Maybe just to try to help you, we have indeed, we have indicated that GEMS is a business that should deliver EUR 1 billion in normalized environment as a kind of hardcore EBIT. Today, we have three main drivers of outperformance which are coming on top of that. The first one is that we have some release of provisions. You remember that we had hectic conditions in 2022 in terms of prices, in terms of bid ask, in terms of volatility. In this kind of market, you have to build technical reserves to protect your fair value and assessment. It's part of it. When the market normalize and you release some of this position and that helped in Q1, indeed, through this normalization. There is definitely we are getting down and closer to a normal level, but there is of course some to come that will come through when the market fully normalize. That's the first level, the first handle of outperformance. The second point is a backlog of the deals that I mentioned. There's a transaction which had been booked. Here again, you should expect that this would stem down. Bearing in mind that indeed on part of the business, we talk about average two years, but of course for some other part of the business, it is shorter than that. It's not overall, of course, two years. That's the second key driver. The current trading. It's fair to say that the current trading in GEMS is good. Here I'm talking about the business and not the trading operation. I'm talking about really how things are going. You remember last year we were very open that there was a flight to quality and due to the credit issues and the access to capacity, clearly, a lot of customers were coming to us and a few key players. This is still true. It means that our volumes are good, market share is good, and we of course have a better position in terms of price making. With current market parameters which are not as good as they were last year, but still good compared to 2021 and this market conditions in terms of players, we are still in a good shape, which means that we are still entering in transaction, which are good transaction and even transaction that will last for a while. Definitely it will take a bit of time for GEMS contribution to normalize, which is of course good news. If you may remember that in February, we were quite adamant that the normalization will take years and it is clearly the case that we see today a bit better than what we expected. Hope it helps. That's very helpful. 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 Peter Bisztyga with Bank of America. Please go ahead. Good morning. It's Peter Bisztyga here. Thanks for taking my questions. First one, just going back to these Belgian nuclear negotiations. At full year results, you mentioned that you expect a lower risk premium than the one that we saw in Germany a few years ago. From your discussions with the Belgian authorities, can you confirm that you're still confident in that view? Also, Pierre-François, you mentioned the risk premium might not be how everyone is thinking about it, and I was just wondering whether maybe you could elaborate on what you meant by that statement. My second question, just on your guidance. You've updated your commodity price assumptions to reflect end March 2023 prices. Did that update actually have any impact at all on your expectations for this year, given hedging and price caps? Given the open position that you have, would you see any negative impact if you were to mark to market today? Thank you. Maybe, I would just comment on to clarify what I meant with risk premium and how do you look at it, and I will leave Catherine, of course, for the complement. Maybe starting with the guidance. Yes, indeed, when we use the end of March assumption against the end of December, we had some negative price impact. Actually, remember not to a max extent because we were also very clear in February that we had a kind of amortizer with the inframarginal taxes. Of course, when the top end of the prices is coming down, we are shaving off profit, but we are also shaving off inframarginal tax. The impact was not that high as we explained. That's what happened. Yes, there has been a downward effect of prices to a limited extent, given what I just mentioned. If we were to mark the market today, that would not be, yeah, that's immaterial. As I see the number put in front of me, that would be immaterial. I think that still we have open position, but we have some buffers. Of course there is always a risk. You remember that if we have open position, it means that the risk and an opportunity by design. That's also a part of our thinking. That's the point on the guidance. No significant impact of mark to market today. On you, just to clarify what I meant, you can think, you know, each country is different, and you can think in premium. You can also think that scenarios can be different, and that is a set of assumption that you use when you are provisioning can be different from the set of scenarios that you use when you are discussing how to transfer the liability. Therefore, you're not anymore really in terms of premium, but you're more in terms of risk and scenario. I think Catherine was very clear that that's one of the key topic we need to agree, the unknown, the clarification of risk, and that was what I refer to. I'm sure you will make a calculation and work out the premium, but that's another story. That's a calculation. To answer and to complete the question, so the work is really around completely going into the details, clarifying the risk allocation, making sure we understand in a great level of details the type of fees that will be taken on us or staying on our side, going on the other side, and then making sure that the, what so-called premium matches this amount of risk. This is ongoing, very difficult to commit more, Peter, but, let's see how it goes. Okay. Thanks very much. The next question is from Meike Becker with HSBC. Please go ahead. Good morning, everyone, thank you for taking my questions. This is Meike Becker from HSBC. I have three, I'll make it quick. On your renewables business, could you give you an update on the profitability you see? What do you see in the PPA market? How are prices developing? How is the farm down market developing? I believe you are guiding for a spread of 200 basis points over the WACC. Has this expanded with maybe cross-price elasticity, fossil fuels being more expensive, or do you fear the cost pressure from the rising CapEx and inflation environment? That would be really helpful if you give us an update on, I think, the profitability side of the renewables growth. My second question is around your district heating and cooling comment in France with the 7% growth in the market. Could you just give us an update here on that segment? Is this in line with your expectations? Is it even going better than your expectations? What are your plans outside of France? Are you thinking about growing outside of France? The last question is some of your peers are rethinking their complexity and also their risk exposure to emerging markets, namely Latin America, I would say. You have also been on a long and very successful journey of redefining yourself. Are you thinking in similar terms, or are you happy with your exposure to emerging markets and complexity? Thank you. Okay, thank you. Maybe I will start with the renewables. Indeed, we have not changed our IRR targets. I think we've shown you back in our market update actually how indeed in line with our IRR targets, all of our renewable projects are so very comfortable with maintaining our IRR targets, albeit in a market that is indeed quite dynamic both on the revenue side, so that's the question that you asked on the PPA side, but also on the cost side, where we are obviously experiencing some inflationary movements with some of our suppliers. On both sides, we are managing them really well in such a way that we are protecting our targets. Few words on the PPA market. You know, what has happened last year has actually forced customers to look at PPAs, not just as a decarbonation solution, but also as a solution to their security of supply concern that obviously became very acute last year. We see the PPA market in general being buoyant. Also diversification in terms of the type of customers that are looking for PPAs. You know, it used to be a very high tier one type of companies, very specific. It was very much driven by tech, notably. Now what we are seeing is that PPA demand is expanding to a lot of different sectors, different industries, different company sizes. We are also seeing a diversification in terms of PPA length, for example, you know, the duration of PPA is also changing. That is honestly playing to Engie's strengths because it really favors companies that are managing portfolios of power, and this is what Engie does, you know, particularly with GEM. This is all really playing in a background and helping us for sure. This is really one of the key driver of the protection of the profitability of our renewable developments. The second key pillar is obviously execution. You know, very pleased with the way the company has been managing and focusing on execution, which frankly, when we used to be more in the flipping asset mode, the execution was maybe not as central to our strategy. Now it is, and the teams are doing a great job. We're really managing construction with controlling costs as much as we can, as well as we can. There is good execution there. Then obviously working with our suppliers on the cost pressure because we are also obviously now of a different size. We are organized to manage procurement in a very different way. We are able also to secure and to make, you know, volume deals with our suppliers, et cetera. Sorry, it's a bit of a long answer, but I would say these are really key levers for us to protect the renewable profitability. I would further add the selectivity angle. You know, selectivity is a bit of a common thread when you think about our capital allocation. We are also very happy to lose auctions or to lose deals when we feel that we are not gonna be delivering our returns. We are selective and of course also on the geographical side. Just probably enough on the first questions. The second question, which was on the district heating, indeed, you know, there is a huge momentum. There is a, what something which is called, Fonds Chaleur. It's like a heating fund, dedicated to the development of low carbon heating solution in France. The opportunities is massive. We are very strong. We are number one in terms of volume generated. Obviously we are right now focusing not just on capturing those opportunities, but also in making sure that we are industrializing our offer. A new EVP here is really working hard on that to make sure that we can cope with a number of opportunities in a way that is good for customers, but also really good for ENGIE. The only thing I would say on those opportunities, you have to keep in mind that they tend to be quite long cycles, so, you know, the development time is quite long. What's really important is we make sure that we are able to turn those commercial opportunities into concrete projects and to shorten the time to realization. Outside of France, we are obviously present in quite a few countries, but we are not looking at going in countries where we are not present. You know, the country selectivity is also a very important part of ENGIE's framework right now. You know, there are countries like, for example, Spain, when we have interesting projects, obviously Germany is another place. We also have a stronghold presence in Singapore, where we are actually developing ongoing projects as we speak. Maybe last point, complexity exposure to Latin America. To be honest, we've been ENGIE in Latin America, particularly in Brazil now for 25 years. We are Brazilian in Brazil, and we really like our exposure to this market. We have incredible renewable exposure. We've announced, you know, Brazil as our first net zero country by 2030. We feel we can manage this exposure very well and that it's a very nice balance to obviously our European exposure as well. I'll stop here. Thank you very much. The next question is from Louis Boujard with ODDO. Please go ahead. Yes, good morning. Thank you for taking my question. Maybe two quick on my side. The first one with regards to 2023 and with the Flexible Generation business. I appreciate that you mentioned that with the outright project current market price does not hit that much your expectation. At the same time, I think that you mentioned during the conversation phase that CCGT were not that much hedged for this year, and the two are still quite open. My question would be, you expected EUR 200 million more or less of negative deviation in the Flexible Generation business in 2023 compared to 2022. Is it still the case now, or don't you think that eventually evolution of the spark spread could be, could put some pressure on this expectation on this business line? My second question is just regarding the DBSO and the farm down strategy with the rising interest rate environment. What do you see here? I think that you posted very limited DBSO for this quarter. What do you see here in terms of a forecast? Do you think that it remains a fair strategy to finance the future growth in renewable at this stage with rising interest environment, or is it changed at all? Thank you very much. Maybe on the first one, no, we have not changed significantly our expectation for FlexGen because indeed there is some pressure on the price side compared to beginning of the year. We have also some good news especially I mentioned the recovery in Chile which is a bit quicker than expected. We have some positive in there. Overall, yes, there is an exposure on price which is precisely the reason we don't want to rush changing anything. For FlexGen, very close to our initial expectation with again, a slight negative on prices but some positive in operation. DBSO is, you know, it's not part of a strategy or financial strategy as you know, and it's not a significant contribution. This quarter it was nothing, so there was no DBSO proceeds in or profit, sorry, in the EBIT contribution this quarter on renewables. It is limited. However, it is of course part of a strategy to come with partners when it comes to invest, and that has not changed. Strategy wise, no, no change. But in terms of EBIT contribution, it would be modest in 2023. There will be some capital gain based on that, but to a limited extent. Okay. Thank you very much. This is the end of the Q&A session. Thank you very much for attending this call. If you have any further questions, now do not hesitate to contact the investor relations department. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes this conference call. ENGIE, thanks to you for your participation. You may now disconnect.