Good morning. Welcome to the Foresight Environmental Infrastructure Limited full year results investor presentation. Throughout this recorded meeting, investors will be in listen only mode. Questions can be submitted any time via the Q&A tab situated in the right-hand corner of your screen. Just simply type in your question and press send. The company may not be in a position to answer every question received during the meeting itself, however, can review all questions submitted and publish responses where appropriate to do so. Before we begin, we'd like to submit the following poll. I'd now like to hand you over to Charlie Wright, Investment Manager. Good morning, sir. Good morning. Thank you. Thank you to everyone for joining us today. For those who don't know me, I'm Charlie Wright, one of the Investment Managers to FGEN, and I'm joined today by Edward Mountney, my Co-Manager to the company. I've worked with FGEN since 2024, following close to 20 years across infrastructure and renewables investment and advisory. We'll keep the format familiar today. I'll begin with a short overview of FGEN's investment proposition and the progress made against our refocused strategy set out last year, and a performance review. Ed will then take you through the portfolio valuation and portfolio overview before concluding with our summary and outlook, which will include how we're thinking about our longer term strategy and the objective to continue delivering a progressive dividend alongside organic NAV growth. We'll then be happy to take some questions. The key message today is that FGEN continues to offer a differentiated environmental infrastructure proposition, a diversified operational portfolio generating resilient income alongside growth potential within the portfolio, and a diversified mandate that we think puts us in a really strong position to continue delivering value to shareholders. Moving first to FGEN's mission statement. At its simplest, FGEN is designed to deliver long-term predictable income and opportunities for capital growth from private environmental infrastructure. It remains an infrastructure-based proposition, so we continue to prioritize the characteristics that investors should expect from high-quality infrastructure assets, diversification, contracted revenues, inflation linkage, performance resilience, and the delivery of essential services. The way we do that is via investment into three pillars. The first is renewable energy generation, which remains the bedrock of the portfolio. That includes wind, solar, anaerobic digestion, biomass, energy from waste, and hydro. The important point for us is that even within this pillar, the portfolio is deliberately diversified across technologies, resource profiles, and revenue frameworks. We are not dependent on one generation source or one subsidy regime. The second pillar is other energy infrastructure. These are assets that support the energy transition, but do not necessarily generate power themselves, and that includes storage and cleaner transport, most notably CNG Fuels. The third pillar is sustainable resource management, which includes waste collection and processing, water management and controlled environment assets such as Rjukan and the Glasshouse. These pillars are not just thematic labels, they are how FGEN reduces exposure to any single risk factor, whether that is weather resource, power prices, subsidy regimes, feedstock risk, or a single customer market. That is a real differentiator versus funds the more narrowly exposed to power generation. This slide sets out that differentiation more directly. FGEN is not simply a conventional renewables fund. It is an environmental infrastructure company made up of projects, operating businesses, and growth assets diversified across energy generation, enabling infrastructure waste and sustainable industries. That matters because our revenue stack is different. Power prices obviously remain relevant, but they are not the only driver. The portfolio also has exposure to gas, multiple subsidy and certificate frameworks, fuel volumes, waste and water revenues, fish sales, and medicinal cannabis pricing, and that gives us more operational levers and less reliance on one market assumption. The same is true for risk. Diversification does not remove risk, but it changes the nature of it within the portfolio. We are diversified by technology, regulatory framework, counterparty, and end market, and that differentiates FGEN from single technology peers and supports the active management and capital allocation strategy that we are pursuing. Turning to progress against the refocus strategy, which we set out in June 2025. That was an important moment for the company. The board and investment managers set out a clearer approach focused on proactive management of the existing portfolio, a refocused investment strategy centered on environmental infrastructure, and continuation of the progressive dividend alongside delivery of capital growth. As you can see, the relative performance chart tracking FGEN against a peer group is encouraging. Obviously, we should not overstate a one-year share price chart, but we do think that the market and investors are beginning to recognize that FGEN is different from a core renewables fund. The operational portfolio continues to support the dividend, and the growth assets have made tangible progress, and that combination is what gives FGEN a route to organic value creation in a market where new equity issuance is not realistic. Now for our track record, FGEN has delivered uninterrupted dividend growth since IPO. The target dividend for FY 2027 is GBP 0.0804 per share, representing the 12th consecutive increase since IPO, subject of course to the usual caveat that it is a target and not a guarantee. That dividend has once again been well covered with div cover of 1.25 x in FY 2026 and guiding towards a similar level of cover for the year ahead, which we think puts us in a really strong position and speaks to the highly cash generative nature of the portfolio, particularly given the fact that nearly 20% of the portfolio, i.e., the growth assets, which we'll come onto, are not contributing to that div cover. At the same time, FGEN continues to display a comparatively high weighted average discount rate and low gearing, and those two points are important together. We are not using excessive leverage to manufacture returns. The portfolio is valued using a high return profile relative to many peers while maintaining balance sheet discipline. That combination, progressive dividends, covered income, low gearing, and embedded growth potential is what we want to be taken away from this opening section. Now I will move on to performance summary. We'll start with a snapshot of some of the highlights for the year ended 31st of March 2026, and the overall message is one of resilience and continued delivery against the strategy. NAV per share was GBP 1.052 compared with GBP 1.065 last year, and after taking account of the dividend, that translates into a positive NAV total return of 6.2% for the year, with annualized NAV total return since IPO now at 7.2%. Portfolio value was GBP 759 million, compared with GBP 766 million at March 2025, and net asset value was GBP 656 million. As I mentioned, dividend cover was 1.25 x, which is post-project debt amortization, and the board has increased the FY 2027 target dividend by 1% to GBP 0.0804 per share. Something we'll cover in more detail later, part of what has enabled that positive return has been the value accretive follow-on investments during the year, primarily across clean transport and our anaerobic digestion portfolio, which is evidence of that organic NAV progression that our portfolio can generate. At a headline level, we have positive NAV total return, a well-covered dividend, a further increase in the dividend target, value accretive follow-on investments, low gearing, and continued operational progress. This is on our approach to debt management. As I've said, the company continues to operate with a prudent balance sheet. Project-level gearing is around 16%, and overall gearing, including the RCF, remains below 30% on the final year-end basis, which continues to compare very favorably with the peer group and is a key part of our risk management approach. At the project level, all of the long-term project finance debt amortizes within subsidy lives with interest rates fully fixed. At a fund level, the RCF continues to provide flexibility, and we took the decision to extend the accordion facility up to GBP 165 million to provide greater headroom to ensure the company can continue to fund existing commitments and the continued development of the portfolio and value-enhancement opportunities within it. That was a prudent step, and we remain drawn well below that level. Gearing remains a source of liquidity and resilience rather than a way of manufacturing returns, and that discipline remains one of FGEN's advantages. Now looking at asset financial performance, actually looking at the cash flow coming out of the portfolio as opposed to the generation performance. Looking at project distributions, cash receipts were GBP 78.6 million, 2.9% below budget. On a reported basis, however, including expected contractual recoveries of around GBP 4.2 million, the portfolio is 2.3% ahead of budget. Renewable energy generation assets were GBP 66.7 million, 4.7% below budget, primarily reflecting lower weather resource, partly offset by strong AD and biomass performance. Other energy infrastructure was 25% ahead of budget, driven by battery storage, and sustainable resource management was also ahead, with wastewater and controlled environment assets performing well. The key point for us is diversification. Not every part of the portfolio will outperform in every period, but stronger performance in some areas can offset weaker conditions elsewhere. Now looking at generation performance. Within renewable energy, asset generation production was 1.2% below target, improving to 1.8% ahead after expected insurance and warranty recoveries. Wind generation improved year-on-year, although it remained below budget before compensation. Solar performed well, 1.6% ahead, supported by strong irradiation and continued PPA hedging. Crop-fed AD was a strong contributor at 11% ahead, supported by ramp-up at the pressure reduction system at the Vulcan site. Cramlington, our biomass facility, was affected by an outage overrun and boiler issues. Performance has improved following remediation. Our food waste AD output improved year-on-year. Further upgrades at the Riverside facility are planned for the current year. Energy from waste returned to service ahead of schedule and has exceeded target since restart. Overall, this is a solid operational result across the renewable energy portfolio. Turning to other energy infrastructure, the battery storage portfolio delivered resilient performance despite tougher market conditions and more competition across revenue streams. West Gourdie maintained strong availability. Sandwich completed commissioning and started trading in the fourth quarter, and we completed the disposal of Lunanhead with options for Clayfords still under review, although that is a very small part of the portfolio. CNG Fuels continues to show strong momentum. Fuel dispensed increased 19% year-on-year. FY 2026 EBITDA was GBP 14.2 million, more than double the prior year, and FY 2027 guidance is GBP 16 million-GBP 20 million. That growth is being supported by increasing volumes, attractive certificate margins, an agreement with Marks & Spencer for more than 300 bio-CNG trucks and construction of the 18th station. CNG is continuing to be a good example of the FGEN model in practice. Not a power-generating asset, but a platform of different value drivers linked to fleet decarbonization, fuel demand, biomethane sourcing, and certificates. Finally, on sustainable resource management, the assets here also performed well. ELWA performed strongly with landfill diversion and recycling well ahead of targets. Tay delivered reliable performance with no availability or performance deductions. The Glasshouse continued its ramp-up, with revenue and EBITDA ahead of budget. Production volumes increased significantly year-on-year. Sales were broadly in line with forecasts, and supply to eight of the 10 largest U.K. clinics is an important indicator of commercial traction. Rjukan commenced commercial harvesting in July 2025, and early operations have shown the facility's ability to deliver both good growth rates and harvest weights. It has also shown that for production to reach full target volumes, certain aspects of the facility require upgrades, primarily oxygen delivery, fish transportation, feeding systems, and wastewater treatment. Therefore, actions are underway to oversee the implementation of these upgrades, meaning a moderation in production volumes over the next couple of years ahead of full ramp-up. In general, across the growth assets as a whole, we remain very confident in their potential to deliver capital growth over the coming years, particularly given the positive progress at CNG and the Glasshouse, which have both been performing either in line with or ahead of budget over the last 12 months. Now on capital allocation. This slide will be familiar to those who have seen our Capital Markets Day content on our website, which is an event we hosted on the 12th of May, just last month. I would encourage you to have a look at those materials. There is a lot of information on the portfolio within that, particularly on the growth assets. This slide shows how FGEN's capital allocation has adapted to the market environment over the last few years. The top half shows sources of capital, and the bottom half shows uses. Looking back over the last five years to when new equity was last issued in FY 2022, we can see how capital allocation has had to evolve. Historically, FGEN was able to raise equity and deploy that into new investments. Today, the environment is different, the model has shifted towards cash generation, disciplined reinvestment, debt management, and shareholder returns. You can see that sources of capital are lower in FY 2026 than last year, that is primarily due to the roll-off of the legacy high power price fixes that supported recent periods following the Ukraine conflict. Importantly, financial performance was in line with budget, this reflects normalization rather than operational weakness. On uses of capital, dividends clearly are at the core of shareholder returns, whilst FY 2026 saw completion of our GBP 30 million share buyback program that ran across FY 2025 as well. As I've mentioned, we continue to invest selectively into the portfolio where returns are compelling. That has included further funding into CNG and in the AD portfolio, carbon capture and further build-out of the pressure reduction system for PRS2. Those investments deliver a weighted average return in the mid-teens, is a very effective use of capital. The key message is that FGEN is increasingly self-funded, balancing income, balance sheet discipline, and targeted investment to support long-term organic growth. With that, I will now hand you over to Ed, who will firstly take us through portfolio valuation. Right. Hi, everyone. Thanks, Charlie. As Charlie just mentioned, I'll take you through a handful of slides now on valuations, we'll do a bit more of an in-depth dive into the portfolio itself, some of our views on longer-term strategy and outlook as well. Before I get into all that, a quick recap on me. I'm Edward Mountney, Director at Foresight Group, one of the co-lead managers here on FGEN. I've been doing this role now for about four years, having previously held the role of head of valuations here. All in all, across both roles, I've been doing this since 2016, just a couple of years after IPO. First up here, we have the usual valuation bridge, which will be familiar to anyone who's joined these before. The key message here is one of resilience, continued resilience across the portfolio. Underlying value growth and active asset management offsetting a more challenging power price and regulatory backdrop. Portfolio valuation was GBP 759.1 million. That compares with GBP 765.7 last year. That is after allowing for GBP 19.8 million of follow-on investments, GBP 1.4 million of divestments, and GBP 78.6 million of cash distributions. After all of those, that gives us a rebased portfolio of GBP 705.5 million. Again, that rebased portfolio valuation, the portfolio delivered a 7.6% valuation uplift. That is an important figure because it shows underlying portfolio growth after taking into account the cash distributed out of the assets. Sorry, I can see the slides have just moved forwards without me touching anything, I am not quite sure what is going on there. If perhaps we could reset them to where they were, please. Thank you. Right. The largest positive driver in this bridge was the balance of portfolio return. That contributed GBP 58.1 million overall. That is principally the normal discount rate unwind, but also importantly reflects the tangible asset level value creation. In particular, there are a few items there. That includes the work to extend the lives of seven of FGEN's 11 anaerobic digestion assets. That added GBP 8.7 million or GBP 0.014 per share in NAV terms. Also a new gas injection hub and the contracts that are being signed there in our Vulcan AD facility. That added GBP 7.3 million. Those are really good examples of active asset management strategy that we have been talking about and emphasizing for some time at FGEN. That is extracting additional value from assets already in the portfolio. I will come back to the AD one specifically shortly because I think there is some interesting bits to pull out there. That positive performance was partly offset by weaker external assumptions. Forecast power and gas prices reduced portfolio value by GBP 12.2 million, and that includes the impact of two regulatory changes this year. That is the move from RPI to CPI indexation for the RO and FIT revenues in the portfolio, and also the expected removal of the Carbon Price Support mechanism from April 2028. Together, those changes reduced NAV by GBP 0.009 per share. There are also some asset-specific headwinds. We had lower Green Certificate assumptions reducing value this year and also extended downtime and additional CapEx requirements affected our biomass facility and one of our food waste ADs, all of which were previously discussed back at the half-year results, for anyone that joined that presentation. Macroeconomic assumptions were supportive. They added GBP 6.7 million, and that is largely driven by 2026 inflation continuing to sit above expectations set at the start of the year. Despite elevated gilt yields, it is worth noting that we have not made any general macro-driven changes to discount rates. We continue to see our rates sitting within the ranges seen by our external independent valuation reviewer. With the portfolio weighted average discount rate increasing 20 basis points to 9.9%, that simply reflects the balance of the portfolio moving slightly towards the higher returning assets with higher discount rates. What does that mean overall? Well, as Charlie said earlier, NAV per share moved to 105.2 pence. Along with the annual dividend, we delivered a positive NAV total return of 6.2% for the year. Turning to discount rates, as we've done for the past few years now, we've shown detail across technologies along with their respective asset gearing levels. That hopefully allows for simple comparison with other funds in the peer group that have differing debt structures. The only new thing here to note is that we've also included the weighted average discount rate applied to the growth assets. That's shown towards the bottom of the table on the right-hand side. That's CNG Fuels, the Glasshouse, and Rjukan. That weighted average there stands at 14.5%, clearly higher than the rest of the portfolio, and hopefully that gives some context around how those assets sit versus the rest of the portfolio. Beyond that, I won't dwell on the numbers here too much, but the message is that valuation discipline remains intact. Discount rates are reviewed regularly, benchmarked against market evidence, and subject to board approval and independently reviewed. On inflation, our 2026 RPI assumption has been increased to 4%, reflecting the near-term inflation backdrop that we have in the U.K. The global inflationary environment continues to be monitored very closely, but the long-term assumptions within our models remain conservative, particularly compared to gilt market implied inflation, which you can see in the comparison in the chart in the center of the screen. On the right-hand side, the slide makes that real return point versus a gilt a bit more clearly. Of the 10-year gilt yield, around 3.3% of that is inflation, leaving roughly 1.5% of real return above that inflation. Well, by comparison, FGEN's portfolio weighted average discount rate is around 7.5% above our average long-term inflation assumption. The implied real return from our portfolio is around five times higher than gilts. Obviously, that's not a guarantee of performance, but it's an important valuation point. We think our approach offers good potential for value upside, particularly given that the portfolio remains highly correlated with inflation. Well, I said earlier I'd come back to the AD, so we have a slide on what we've done with regards to the asset life extension because we think that's a good example of asset active management in practice. Today, our AD portfolio is valued at GBP 166 million. That represents just over 20% of FGEN's portfolio. Now, these assets process food waste, agricultural crops, residues, and manure to produce biomethane, a direct substitute for fossil natural gas that can be used in the existing gas grid as well as across things like heating, industry, transport, and flexible power generation. Historically, U.K. AD plants were typically valued to the end of their RHI and FIT subsidy periods, with no value attributed after that. That had been considered a prudent approach whilst the market awaited more clarity on post-subsidy revenue streams. What we've seen for some time now is that investors and operators of these assets no longer view high-quality biomethane infrastructure simply as subsidy-backed renewable energy projects. During the year, we engaged an independent biomethane specialist to undertake a portfolio-wide review of our assets, looking at things like feedstock security, asset condition, CapEx requirements, and long-term biomethane demand. That was backed by technical diligence, engineering reviews, and commercial modeling. The results were clearly supportive of our view that with the right technical planning, feedstock security, and commercial strategy, these assets can continue operating economically well beyond the subsidy period. With the demand outlook supported by the role biomethane can play in decarbonizing those hard-to-electrify sectors that I mentioned before, things like heavy transport, industrial heat, and dispatchable generation. As a result, we recognized GBP 8.7 million of incremental value, equivalent to 1.4 pence per share on NAV, and that was across the seven of our 11 AD investments where life extension case was strongest. This case study demonstrates exactly what we mean by proactive portfolio management, extending asset lives, diversifying future revenues, and reinforcing FGEN's ability to deliver organic NAV growth. Now we move on to a few slides with how we look at what's in the portfolio. The first one here returns to the three pillars that Charlie described earlier, from a portfolio construction perspective. As you've already heard, renewable energy generation, 71% of the portfolio, that remains the income bedrock. It includes the wind, solar, AD, biomass, energy from waste, and hydro, and it's backed by a range of incentives, including ROCs, RHI, and FITs, as well as contracted PPAs and some merchant exposure. This pillar gives FGEN established cash generation and strong inflation linkage, with the diversification across weather patterns, feedstocks, and power and gas pricing. In the middle, we've got other energy infrastructure at 11% of the portfolio. That includes energy storage and low carbon transport. That's important because it diversifies revenues away from power generation alone. Storage is exposed to merchant revenues and grid services. CNG provides a completely different kind of revenue stream linked to low carbon transport, biomethane sourcing, fuel dispensed, and renewable transport certificates. On the right-hand side, sustainable resource management at 18% of the portfolio. That includes our concession-based waste and wastewater assets and controlled environment investments. It provides further diversification across frameworks and end markets and includes a meaningful capital growth component through Rjukan and the Glasshouse. The portfolio is not just diversified by technology, it's diversified by revenue source, regulatory framework, customer base, and route to value creation. The portfolio analysis slide shows the same point about diversification, from a slightly different angle. Practically all of the portfolio is now operational, and construction exposure is less than 1%, which now really just represents the status of our CNG Fuels stations that were under construction at 31st of March, as they periodically pass through construction into operations and then replaced by new assets in construction. That's a material change compared with the position a few years ago, primarily due to the growth assets having now progressed through construction and are in their early operational ramp-up. Geographically, the portfolio remains U.K.-focused, with modest exposure to mainland Europe through Norway and Italy. The weighted average remaining asset life has increased from around 16 years to 18.5 years, with the AD life extension work demonstrating that there may be further value in extending assets beyond historic subsidy lives where the technical and market evidence supports it. It's worth noting here that our largest asset, Cramlington Biomass facility, is still held to the end of its subsidy period. It hasn't been extended. Top 10 assets illustrates the breadth of the portfolio. As before, no individual asset represents more than 10%, which gives us low exposure to single asset risk. Cramlington, like I mentioned a moment ago, that remains our largest asset, but the top 10 also includes solar, wind, AD, clean transport, waste management, and controlled environment assets. It's therefore a really good reflection of the wider environmental infrastructure mandate rather than a narrow renewables-only portfolio. Turning to revenue analysis. Firstly, the chart on the left shows how underlying revenues earned by our portfolio companies evolve over time, there's a few things to draw out here. As in previous iterations of this chart, you'll see some growth in merchant revenue streams over time. That reflects the progress of the growth assets and increasing revenue contribution expected as they move through their ramp-up. It's important, though, to emphasize the diversification within that merchant exposure. It's not simply merchant power. It's spread across power prices, also gas prices, and multiple certificate markets, including REGOs, RGGOs, and RTFCs, and non-energy revenue streams such as fish and medicinal cannabis pricing. We're not exposed to a single price shock in the way a power-only renewables portfolio might be. As we've said before, the growth assets ramp up and then turn into candidates for value realization. We would likely seek to exit and recycle proceeds into new investment. While the chart mechanically shows merchant revenues becoming a larger part of the revenue stack from 2030 onwards, the reality is much more dynamic, our strategy is to monitor realization potential from those assets, recycle proceeds into environmental infrastructure assets with the right balance of income growth and downside protection. Maintaining secured revenues at over 50% while also extending the life of the portfolio. The chart on the right shows that careful diversification doesn't mean compromising on our inflation linkage. Right now, we have 51% of underlying portfolio revenues on an NPV basis already having explicit inflation linkage, and that includes the growth assets in there. That remains an important part of the infrastructure proposition. You can see that chart on the right-hand side shows that inflation linkage comes through across all three of our investment pillars within the portfolio. On merchant power, specifically, the strategy remains unchanged. Downside protection combined with upside potential. We typically seek price fixes over a period of around six months out to three years the hedging approach is tailored by asset type. For instance, wind and solar generally have higher levels of fixed pricing because their output is intermittent. They're more likely to be generating at the same time everyone else is. With that increased supply, we see suppressed prices. Where a baseload asset like biomass or AD that generates evenly over the course of a day, regardless of weather resource, that retains the ability to capture higher intraday prices. For instance, when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. We tend to fix those out less. Overall, the portfolio still has high proportions of capacity fixed in the near term, particularly following the strong gas and power prices we saw from March. That's a trend we've continued to see after the year-end. We've continued to find attractive hedging opportunities since then. The table on the right tries to put those hedges into context, and you can see that when we factor in our other contracted revenues, that's things like the subsidies, the long-term contracts that we have, then some 67% of revenues have fixed prices for this year, with that proportion stepping down as we get further out into our hedging strategy. That gives us really good cash flow visibility across the portfolio and even under a severe downside scenario of GBP 40 per MWh and an equivalent reduction in gas prices, forecast three-year dividend cover remains very comfortable, and that's an important demonstration of revenue resilience. I mentioned earlier there were two regulatory changes during the course of the year, we thought it worthwhile including a slide summarizing the key regulatory developments affecting U.K. renewables and the wider energy transition. It's obviously been a turbulent year, regular political and regulatory announcements, but it's important to remember that the overall policy backdrop remains supportive. In the U.K., Clean Power 2030 continues to provide a clear direction of travel, and the decision not to proceed with zonal pricing removed a material uncertainty for asset owners. The politicized nature of announcements hasn't helped underlying market sentiment towards renewables. With the move from RPI to CPI indexation for RO and FIT assets being very closely followed by the expected removal of Carbon Price Support. Then we still have Fixed Price Certificates on watch for future RO reform. I said earlier that these changes had less than a GBP 0.01 impact on FGEN's NAV. That's a really good real-life illustration of why diversification is so important. We have exposure to U.K. subsidy regimes, but revenues are spread across power, gas, certificates, transport, waste, water, and controlled environment assets, reducing reliance on any single framework. If you think back to Charlie's slide towards the start of the presentation that showed our relative outperformance versus our peer group over the last 12 months, we think that it's these sorts of evidence points that reinforce the value of a diversified mandate and are a key driver for why investors are turning towards FGEN. The next couple of slides set out the company strategy over the short, medium, and long term. They develop on the themes presented at last month's Capital Markets Day. I'd encourage anyone, like Charlie did earlier, who'd like more information on the strategy to look at the website. There's a video of the CMD itself along with the accompanying slides. As we've previously said, our core objective is to deliver long-term organic NAV growth while maintaining the progressive dividend and making effective use of the capital already within the company. In the short term, that means maintaining the performance of the operational assets, as that's what underpins dividend cover today. In the medium term, the focus is on opportunistic divestment and capital recycling, where market conditions support a clear and compelling value case. Longer term, our ambition is to build a unique, scalable platform that can deliver both income and NAV growth through a self-sustaining model without reliance on equity fundraising. Our target is to deliver a minimum NAV total return of 8%-10% per annum over time. That's an ambition. It's not a guarantee, but the pathway is clear. Resilient cash generation, asset-level value creation, selective realizations, and disciplined reinvestment into attractive, value-accretive environmental infrastructure. Bringing that strategy more into the numbers, this slide is intended to show how this uniquely constructed portfolio is already supporting and will continue to support both income and growth over the longer term. The key point here is that FGEN's model is not dependent on new equity issuance to grow. The portfolio already generates meaningful cash flow. The dividend remains well covered and surplus cash, together with potential recycling from growth assets over time, gives us a route to reinvest organically. That's the self-sustaining model that we've been describing. On the screen, starting with the large purple shaded area, this shows the modeled distributable cash flow from the portfolio over the next decade. We expect cash generation to remain robust over that horizon, supported by the highly cash generative operational portfolio. That gives the company the capacity to continue supporting a progressive dividend while retaining flexibility for reinvestment. The green dashed dividend line across the middle, that shows the cash required to cover the FY 2027 target dividend of 8.04 pence per share. In FY 2026, the year just gone, div cover was 1.25 x, and the medium-term expectation remains around the 1.2x to 1.3x range. That's important because the income case is not reliant on the growth assets suddenly contributing material cash flow in the near term. The dividend is supported by the established operational portfolio. That's renewables, things like AD, biomass. It's also our concessions, storage, and our other yielding assets. Hopefully, first and foremost, this chart shows the strength of the cash flows that support our progressive dividend policy. On top of that, we've modeled an illustrative reinvestment scenario whereby we take the surplus cash that's forecast to be generated and reinvest it back into the portfolio. That's what the purple dotted line is intended to illustrate at the top of the page. It's not a forecast, but it's also not dependent on asset sales. Rather, it shows the potential effect of recycling cash back into core environmental infrastructure at disciplined returns. In other words, the portfolio can convert operational progress into cash flow, then into reinvestment capacity, and ultimately into NAV growth. The discipline point matters. In the current market, capital allocation is just as important as asset performance. We're not looking to grow for growth's sake. The priorities are to maintain strong dividend cover, manage gearing prudently, reinvest selectively where returns are accretive, and recycle capital where that creates better value for shareholders. That's consistent with how we've approached the portfolio over the last year, including those value accretive follow-on investments and continued balance sheet discipline. The message from this slide is quite straightforward. FGEN has an income base today with visible cash flows supporting a progressive dividend. It has growth already embedded in the portfolio, and it has a credible route to fund further growth organically. I'll close by bringing the discussion back to the company-level strategy and what the results demonstrate about FGEN's medium-term positioning. This has been a solid period for FGEN, striking the balance between income and growth. The operational portfolio has delivered strong cash distributions, supporting a covered dividend and a further increase in the FY 2027 dividend target to 8.04 pence per share. We delivered a NAV total return of 6.2% in the year, that's in a year that's partly characterized by a series of regulatory headwinds within core renewables. That's a testament to FGEN's portfolio and diversification strategy. Gearing remains low, and the balance sheet continues to be prudently managed. At the same time, we have continued to invest selectively into value accretive opportunities within the existing portfolio, as well as making further progress on those growth assets. Looking at the year ahead, our objective will revolve around those same priorities, stable income, balance sheet discipline, realizing the potential for growth. Longer term, the ambition is a unique and scalable platform, providing both income and NAV growth within that self-sustaining model. That consistently delivers a minimum 8%-10% NAV total return per annum. We remain confident in FGEN's unique proposition, whilst there are clearly persisting challenges in the broader sector, we're encouraged by recent momentum and are optimistic about the journey forward from here. With that, I'll pause, I think we've got time for some questions. Fantastic. Thank you very much indeed, Edward. Ladies and gentlemen, do please continue to submit your questions, just while the team take a few moments to review those questions submitted today, I'd like to remind you the recording of the presentation, along with a copy of the slides and the published Q&A, can be accessed via your investor dashboard. Charlie, Edward, as you can see, we've had a number of questions through from investors today, thank you all for submitting those. If I may just ask you to read out the question where appropriate to do so, give your response, I'll pick up from you at the end. Thanks. I'll get started as I've been looking through them as Ed has been speaking. The first question relates to those regulatory headwinds that we've seen over the last 12 months from U.K. government for renewable energy providers. The question being, does that regulatory risk, the political desire for lower energy bills, reforms of renewables, mean that there is greater risk attached with those sorts of assets in the future, and whether FGEN would look to materially adjust the portfolio to reduce that U.K. political risk? I think the first thing to say, and as Ed has covered, our diversification means that we have not been materially impacted by those regulatory headwinds, which have particularly been the case in wind and solar that we've seen over the last 12 months. That diversification will continue to set us well for any regulatory risk going forward, and that's both upside and downside. For example, biomethane is a large part of our portfolio, and we see increasing levels of support for that within U.K. government and also broader European regulatory developments as well. Regulatory risk can go both ways, and again, that comes to the core of our diversification. With respect to whether renewables are uninvestable, I don't think that's the case. Renewables continue to be a critical asset class for the U.K., both from an economic and an energy security perspective, as well as decarbonization. Whatever the political debate, the fact remains that the biggest driver of our structurally high power prices in the U.K. is the fact that natural gas acts as the price setter for all forms of generation. Those high-power prices we have really derives from that reliance on natural gas. I think whatever the political debate, the economic reality is that renewables will continue to be a very important asset class going forward. Having said that, we have already, as you can see from the FGEN portfolio, we started the evolution away from wind and solar quite some time ago. We haven't invested into any wind or solar assets since about 2017, whereas since that time we've invested into anaerobic digestion and biomass, the controlled environment, the clean transport assets. We have already evolved the revenue stack away from reliance on just wind and solar subsidies, and that diversification will continue in the future. I think we'll be well set to navigate any of those regulatory headwinds. The next question, what will be the impact of the company of a future Reform government who may discontinue all renewable-related subsidies? I think that is obviously a large unknown. I think what is very unlikely is for there to be a retrospective action taken against existing renewable assets. That would be a very drastic intervention from U.K. government that would impact investor sentiment, not just in renewables, but in a whole range of markets and sectors. I think that's unlikely. Clearly, there could be some risk to future subsidies, for example, within the Contracts for Difference program that U.K. government runs for new forms of renewable generation. For FGEN, again, we have a diversified mandate when it comes to reinvestment in the future. If we think that there is regulatory risk associated with new investments into wind and solar, then we have the flexibility to look at other attractive sectors elsewhere. Just to add to that, Charlie, as well, you can see Reform, as an opposition party with no track record of being in power, has an incentive to make certain bold statements around removal of subsidies, et cetera. I think there's a reason it does that. There's a reason that those things get talked about. As Charlie says, they would be very difficult to enact in practice. These are contracts that have been in place for a long period of time and have been through substantial legal challenge over the years that they were introduced. It is slightly different from the regulatory reforms that we have seen over the course of the last year, which are more tweaks to terms within contracts or side contracts, as opposed to substantially removing or rewriting contracts that have been in place. I think there is a differential there, and I think that as we get closer towards that eventual debate between Reform and Labour and the Conservatives and whoever else it might be around that table, I think I personally would expect to see them slightly tone down those comments and look for other areas to try to reduce energy prices, like Charlie says, as decoupling the gas and electricity price and those sorts of things. Just looking at the next question, I can see there's one on Cramlington. What were the issues that arose there, and are there any ongoing concerns? There was a thinning of the boiler wall within that facility that contributed towards some leaks. Those leaks have been resolved. There is a piece of equipment that I believe still needs to be installed, since those original resolutions have gone in, the facility is now back up and running in line with expectations. There's no ongoing concern that we've got there. That is a process-based operational facility and does occasionally have some downtime, but when it is performing, what we've seen is that Cramlington performs very well. It's a very solid contributor towards yield for us. Indeed, it's been, I think, our most successful asset since we've acquired it. I think it took something like three and a half years to pay back the original investment that we made, and it's got an IRR well into the 20% if not a bit higher now. Some short-term problems, operational issues that have been worked through, nothing ongoing that we're concerned about. Next, there's two questions that are both touching on dividend cover and growth assets and potential reinvestment. Just take the first one. Is 1.25x broadly the level that shareholders should expect going forward? Yes, that is what we are guiding to, about 1.2x to 1.3x certainly over the next period and looking longer term than that. As the question asks longer term, do we see scope for cover to improve as more of the development assets become fully operational? We hope that once assets are fully ramped up, that they will start contributing to that div cover as well. Related to that question, as the newer investments mature and begin generating cash, would your preference be to rebuild dividend cover or recycle that into new investments? I think as Ed covered towards the end, we're very comfortable with our current levels of div cover. Maintaining 1.2x to 1.3x over the coming years puts us in a very strong position. Additional cash that can be realized in the portfolio, we would like to put that into new investment to extend the life of the fund and to continue to deliver that progressive dividend alongside the potential for capital growth into the longer term. I can start with the next one, Charlie. There's a question here around the growth assets and specifically, are there KPIs or milestones that see the unwind of discount rates? I'm not 100% sure I'm going to get this correctly and if I don't, then please message back. I think what we're trying to see is how to measure performance at those sites. Obviously I talked about the fact that we had a higher discount rate that we apply for those assets. We value them at DCF, discounted cash flow. There is a mechanical unwind of the discount rate every six months or every three months rather, because we do quarterly valuations, that will come through in the valuations. There are a series of operational milestones and KPIs that we track separately to that. As Charlie put on screen earlier, we'll look at things like volumes of fuel dispensed, number of trucks that are going through the CNG stations. For Rjukan, we'll look at the volumes of trout that are produced each year and the sales prices of those fish. For the Glasshouse, similarly, we'll look at the volumes of flower that are going out and again, the prices of those flowers. There will be a series of operational KPIs that we monitor and that we report on. The mechanical unwinding of the discount rate will come through each valuation cycle. Would you like to take the next one and I can take the one on FGEN? Yeah, can do. What decision protocols are used to determine use of capital, i.e., updating existing assets, new investments versus buybacks? We had a GBP 30 million buyback program that we completed this year, that started over the course of the last financial year. I think what we have seen is that the impact of buybacks is unlikely to have a material movement on the share price. We have seen that buybacks can be quite a good way of limiting volatility day to day, but it hasn't resulted for us nor for any of the other funds within this space in a re-rating of their shares to get back to where everyone would like to be. Therefore, when we look at how to allocate funds, we consider what the return is from investing in our own portfolio. The IRR that we could get from buying our own shares versus that new investment or recycling of capital back into the portfolio. We have some very exciting opportunities that we've put money back into. Things like the Vulcan Pressure Reduction system that we talked about earlier, well into the double digits IRRs. From an investment perspective, they offer better returns than buybacks. It's absolutely something that we continue to monitor, but now that we're trading, I think at the narrowest discount within all our peer group, I suspect it's unlikely that we'll allocate material funds towards buybacks unless something changes within the market itself. In the case of where does that money go to in terms of new investment or recycling into existing assets, I think we would like to be going out and buying new assets and doing things within the portfolio. I think the reality is that actually we have a lot of really value accretive opportunities within the existing book. They are assets that we know well. They are lower risk because of our familiarity with them, and they're performing well. We tend to focus on enhancing value within those assets, looking for ways of improving operational resilience and extending the lives of those assets. I think once we've got further along that process, we'll seek to introduce new assets within the portfolio where we have the headroom and the capital in order to do so. There's a question on FEIP. As a reminder, that EUR 23.2 million investment into FEIP, that is an investment into a private infrastructure fund that is investing across a range of energy transition asset classes, including all the core sectors that we've covered here. Wind and solar, anaerobic digestion, other energy infrastructure. We are no longer making new investments into that fund because that fund is fully allocated and the rationale for the investment into FEIP is that it allows FGEN to further diversify its geographic and technology exposure given that it is a stake in a much larger fund. It is a value add fund, so it's primarily targeting investments at an early stage of investment, particularly development and construction stage. In terms of the returns realized from that investment to date, there's been a very small amount of yield, but that is not the main purpose for that investment. It is really about generating capital growth. We hold it at the valuation of that fund. There's been some incremental capital growth over the last few years within that investment. It is a closed-end fund, so it will form an exit over the next two to three years, and that is when we would look to realize the capital growth that we've been targeting from that part of the portfolio. On the next question, there's a query as to why only 1% dividend growth this year when we've been guiding towards higher dividend cover for the next few years. That's a good question. I think as part of any capital allocation strategy, obviously shareholder returns is a fundamental piece of that conversation. We do have that conversation around 1% or should it be something different to that. I think what we are seeing is that the share price has seen some positive momentum over the last few months, particularly over the last month and a half. We're right now offering a yield of about 9.5% on the current share price. I think what we would like to see is sustainable increases to the dividend going forwards. We do have to be mindful that if we're offering a 9.5% yield, do investors who are coming into the portfolio now, do they want more or do they want to see capital growth? Do they want to see extending the lives of the assets? What exactly is it that is the attraction for this particular vehicle? Typically, when we go out and we speak to investors, they will say that they are happy with the current level of the dividend. It's generally more than these companies were originally set up to offer some 12 to 15 years ago, depending on when it was launched, when they were launched. Actually, people wanting to see regular revenue at these levels, supported by further opportunities for capital growth and extending the lives of the assets. It's a balance. We'll look for ways that we can return money to shareholders, but in a sustainable way that also allows for growth into the portfolio. Is there a question on battery assets? What's the duration of the assets, and is there any intention to augment? We have two 50 MW one-hour batteries within the portfolio. One of those has been operational for some years now and is performing very well. It regularly sits in the top of the leaderboards from Modo Energy, who are one of the consultants that look at battery markets, that regularly sits in the sort of top one to three of performing batteries in Scotland. We're very happy with that. It's a good yielder of cash. The other is a facility in Wiltshire that has only recently become operational, so it's still going through the process of ramping up. Again, no reason why we shouldn't expect similar levels of performance from that. I think we have had conversations around what to do with those batteries. There is obviously a shift towards future batteries being of larger scale or larger duration. I think if that was the best investment opportunity that we had in front of us, it would absolutely be something that we'd consider. However, I think right now we have other things that we can invest in that offer enhanced returns. It is something that is available to us, but it's not something that we are prioritizing in the short to medium term. On the next question, does the exposure to currency exchange rate fluctuations relate to Norwegian kroner or other currencies? Our two European investments are Rjukan in Norway and ETA, which is our waste to energy plant in Italy. That is where the currency exchange rate fluctuations come from, primarily Rjukan as the larger asset. There's a question on whether renewable energy is actually cheaper than fossil fuels. Does that act as a foil against future possible subsidy change? I think there are different areas of debate within renewables that cover political, economic, social, energy security. I think any subsidy change will reflect all parts of that debate. Yes, it is true that the cost of production for renewable assets is currently lower than fossil fuel. However, I think there is also a recognition that increasing amounts of renewables on the grid change how that infrastructure needs to be designed. Moving from large centralized power stations to smaller, local generators such as wind and solar. There is a cost associated with ensuring that the grid is fit for purpose as well. I think it is a nuanced question. I think that final question on whether we would look to increase our international exposure to limit our U.K. political risk. I think we are a U.K.-focused fund. I think the majority of our investments will always be in the U.K. Any investments into Europe, there'd have to be a compelling case for us to do so. Foresight does have a much broader platform across Europe, we do have the expertise and the capability to expand more materially into Europe if we see the rationale for doing so. I think our chief mitigation to broader political risk is really diversification across different technologies and sectors as opposed to geographic diversification. Fantastic. Thank you. As always, you've answered every single question we've had come through, so thank you very much indeed for that. Of course, we'll publish all those questions and responses on the Investimi company platform. Just before redirecting investors to provide you with their feedback in order for you to understand their views and expectations, Charlie, may I just ask you just for a few closing comments, please? Thank you. Well, again, thank you very much to everyone for joining. We do appreciate it. I think the key takeaways for us, it's been a positive year for FGEN. We've had good performance. We've seen very strong recent momentum in the share price. We think looking forward, we have a clear strategy. We have comfortable div cover. We've got a good route to continue delivering that progressive dividend alongside the opportunity for capital growth and building FGEN into a fully self-sustainable model. As Ed concluded, we are positive from the journey forward from here. Fantastic. Charlie, Edward, thanks again for updating investors today. Could I please ask investors not to close this session? You should be automatically redirected to provide your feedback in order the team can better understand your views and expectations. This only take a few moments to complete, and it's greatly valued by the company. On behalf of the team of Foresight Environmental Infrastructure Limited, we'd like to thank you for attending today's presentation. That concludes today's.