Good morning, everyone, welcome to the 2026 AGM of National Grid. I'm Paula Reynolds, Chair of the Board, and since we have a quorum present, I now declare the meeting open. Thank you all for joining us today, here at King's High School in Warwick. It's a new venue for us, which we've chosen principally because it's close to our Warwick campus, which is just down the road, and which is the home of our U.K. electricity transmission business, and also our National Grid Ventures business. The venue, for those of you who've been with us in the past, you'll note that this is a bit smaller than ones we've used previously, which I think is more appropriately sized to the number of shareholders who do wish to be with us in person rather than online. We thank those of you who travel to be with us and those of you who are actually listening to this meeting online. One of the things about being here in Warwick is that this gives us an opportunity for our employees to join us in person and also for our Board to visit some of our various operations. Just this morning, the Board members have just been to a briefing around our cybersecurity, which obviously is something that's very much top of mind in this day and age. As set out in the notice of the meeting, the AGM is being held in a hybrid format, shareholders have the option to participate in person or online, and we'll cover details on how everyone can participate momentarily. First, I want to introduce you to our Board members who are an extremely hardworking group of individuals. First, I want to start with our CEO, who is here on stage. Zoë Yujnovich joined us last year as the CEO designate, she was in the shareholder audience last year while our prior CEO, John Pettigrew, fielded your questions. Zoë officially took up the role last November 17th, and with several months of advanced preparation, she didn't miss a beat at the time of the transition. I would say it was a pleasure to be the Board Chair when I watched two marvelous executives work so cooperatively on that handoff. It's a great pleasure to have her on stage with us today in her official capacity, and I think you'll quickly understand why she was selected by the Board as our next CEO. Also joined by our longstanding CFO, Andy Agg, and Julian Baddeley, who you might remember from previous years as our Group Company Secretary. Now I want to go to the Directors who are seated up front. I'm going to ask them to stand and turn so you can see them as I introduce each one. First, Jacqui Ferguson, Ian Livingston, our Senior Independent Director. Iain Mackay, our Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee. Earl Shipp, Chair of our Safety and Operations Committee, which is a reformulated committee because of the nature of the amount of construction that we're doing. Tony Wood, who is Chair of a new committee called our Responsible Business Committee, because of all the challenges of sustainability, media, and reputation that we have to manage every day. Martha Wyrsch, Chair of our people and Remuneration Committee, and again, a bit of a renamed committee, which is very much on top of talent and our people. Unfortunately, we have one director who was not able to be with us, Anne Robinson, due to some unforeseen and unfortunate circumstances. She sends her apologies. There is a director who will be standing down because he's not sought a re-election by shareholders this year, and that's Jonathan Silver. Jonathan has served for seven years as a board member, a very creative thinker who brought really unique perspectives to the board, and he's standing down because of other commitments, and obviously we wish him well in his endeavors, which are very much in the energy space. Onto the order of business. I'm going to pass the podium to Zoë, who'll share a brief overview about the business in the last 12 months. Zoë, Andy, and I will take your questions, specifically on the resolutions or matters pertaining to the business. If there are pre-registered questions, actually, there are a couple, we'll alternate those with live questions so that we get all questions and make sure we get all themes. Please note, if you have any specific questions about your shareholding, those should go to Equiniti, because they're here present at the meeting to handle any individual matters. With that, I'll turn to Zoë for her update on strategy and performance. Thank you, Paula. Good morning to those of you joining here in Warwick and for those of you who are also joining us online. I'm really pleased to be speaking to you today, my first AGM as the National Grid Chief Executive, and to provide you with an update of our company's performance over the past year. As Chief Executive, my ambition is really clear: to build on National Grid's strong foundations, strengthen our execution, and position the company for sustained long-term success as a best-in-class business. To help us to deliver on that ambition, we've introduced a clear strategic framework. It's not a change in strategy. Our purpose, priorities, and growth opportunity remain the same. What this framework does is it sharpens how we execute and how we hold ourselves accountable for delivery. Brilliant Basics are about leading on performance through consistent delivery, covering asset reliability, capital efficiency, customer centricity, and functional excellence. The Big Shifts are about recognizing how our markets and our stakeholder expectations are changing, and how we must step up to respond to this challenge. We're concentrating on three key areas here. People, Leadership, and Performance, External Positioning and Policy Advocacy, and Technology and Innovation. Disciplined Growth is about building on delivery credibility to create long-term value and support the energy systems of the future. National Grid is a company with a very clear purpose. We bring energy to power possibilities. Every day, millions of people and businesses depend on the networks we own and operate. They depend on us to connect new sources of energy that are needed for the future. Our role goes beyond delivering energy. The availability of reliable energy influences where businesses can invest, where industries can expand, and where jobs are created. By expanding and modernizing our network, we help create the conditions for economic growth and prosperity in the communities that we serve. Our role is to get the most out of our networks today and invest to enhance reliability and support the changing energy mix, like the connections of renewables, to make sure our networks can meet the evolving needs of our customers. The responsibility that we carry is significant. Delivering well requires operational excellence, prudent investment, and financial discipline. This year, we delivered a strong performance, investing a record GBP 11.6 billion in our networks and other energy infrastructure. That's 20% higher than last year, growing our asset base by 10.9%. Underlying operating profit has increased to GBP 5.7 billion, with earnings per share up by 8% at constant currency, in line with our guidance. We increased our dividend by 3.8%, in line with U.K. CPIH inflation. This performance shows that we are delivering today while investing in a stronger future. Since becoming Chief Executive last autumn, I spent a great deal of time across both our U.K. and our U.S. operations. I've also spent time with regulators, governments, customers, suppliers, and investors. These conversations have reinforced my confidence in our foundations and the scale of the opportunity ahead, while reminding me that sustained success depends upon a relentless focus on continuous improvement. In the U.K., over the next five years, we expect to connect up to 35 GW of new generation to our transmission network. We also expect to connect 19 GW of new demand. That includes demand from homes, businesses, transport, data centers, and industrial customers. These are large numbers, but put simply, the U.K. needs more network capacity. National Grid has a central role in delivering it. Our task is not just to build new infrastructure, but to get more from the assets we already have, using technology and innovation to unlock capacity as efficiently as possible. In the U.S., we serve customers in New York and New England, where continued investment is essential to maintain safe, reliable, and resilient networks. Demand is also growing, supported by economic development and manufacturing, electrification, and data centers. As power demand continues to evolve, we're also exploring new ways to support large energy users with reliable and integrated solutions. That's why National Grid Ventures recently agreed to invest $1.75 billion for a 35% stake in Joulent, forming a strategic partnership focused on serving this growing market demand. Our gas networks continue to play an important role in resilience and affordability, particularly at times of peak demand. Across both the U.K. and the U.S., the same broad themes apply, including reliability, affordability, energy security, and economic growth. Our job is to balance these needs responsibly, delivering consistently, continuing to transform the business, and investing for the future. How we do this is just as important. Our values are not separate from the strategy. They're how we deliver it. We continue to do the right thing, find a better way, and make it happen. Everything we do starts with safety. On leadership and performance, we're sharpening accountabilities and making sure objectives are clear from the group level through to individual teams. A company of our scale needs clarity, discipline, and a strong performance mindset. On technology and innovation, we're changing the way we build, run, and operate our networks. By standardizing designs and working at scale with our supply chain to using digital platforms to improve productivity, we're reducing cost and complexity. At the same time, data automation and AI are helping us unlock more capacity, get ahead of risks, and deliver a better service for customers every day. On external positioning and policy advocacy, we'll continue to engage constructively with governments, regulators, and other stakeholders. The energy transition requires investment, but it also requires frameworks that support affordability, resilience, and timely delivery. Energy affordability is at the heart of discussions on both sides of the Atlantic. It matters deeply to households and businesses. Network investment has a cost, but done well, it reduces costs over time by connecting lower-cost generation, reducing congestion, improving reliability, and avoiding more expensive solutions later. In the U.K., we will be engaging with the new administration on this and other topics. Given the strength of our role and impact, we are well-placed to support the government's ambitions. Now, let me briefly bring our delivery to life by covering our five-year plans. In March, we set out our updated five-year financial framework. We plan to invest at least GBP 70 billion over the next five years, the largest capital investment program in our history. We have strong visibility over this program. Around two-thirds of the GBP 70 billion investment is already covered by regulatory agreements, with delivery mechanisms secured for around three-quarters of it, giving us confidence whilst recognizing the scale of the delivery ahead. This investment is not just about energy infrastructure. It supports jobs, skills, and economic growth with around 6,000 new jobs in the U.K. over the next five years, including around 2,000 graduates and apprentices. There are also wider benefits through our contractors, suppliers, and the communities in which we operate. Delivery is the key to turning this opportunity into value. We have a strong track record, but we're not complacent. We are continuing to strengthen project assurance, improve supply chain coordination, standardize designs where it makes sense, and use technology to help plan and manage delivery more effectively. We're also investing in better customer service for our customers. Innovation is a core part of how we deliver that. Through National Grid Partners, we invest in technologies that can improve efficiency, unlock capacity, and support faster connections. Let me now turn to our financial resilience. National Grid's investment case is built on visible growth and a resilient business model with predictable cash flows from regulated assets and frameworks that support efficient investment and appropriate returns. That does not mean there's no risk. We operate in complex environments, and we must manage factors like inflation, supply chain pressures, interest rates, alongside operational challenges. But our business model is designed to be resilient. In the U.K., inflation-protected returns across our regulated asset base provides a natural hedge. In the U.S., a high proportion of our supply chain is domestically sourced, which reduces exposure to some global pricing pressures. We also manage financing and currency exposure carefully. Cash generated from continuing operations was at GBP 7.9 billion last year, up 15% compared with the prior year at constant currency, supported by operational performance across our regulated businesses. Net debt increased to GBP 44.2 billion at constant currency, reflecting the scale of our capital investment program and partly offset by proceeds from disposals. Our balance sheet remains an important part of how we create long-term value. We're committed to maintaining a strong overall investment-grade credit rating. We also retain flexibility in how we fund the business, including through debt markets and other funding options where appropriate. For shareholders, the financial framework is clear. Over the next five years, we expect asset growth of around 10% per year, underlying earnings per share growth CAGR of 8%-10% per year, and continued growth in the dividend per share in line with CPIH inflation. For the current financial year, we expect capital investment to grow by around 10% to nearly GBP 13 billion. We expect underlying earnings per share growth of 13%-15% from our 2025 - 2026 baseline. These are ambitious commitments, and delivery will require discipline, but they're underpinned by strong visibility, the critical infrastructure nature of our assets, and the central role that networks play in the energy system. Let me close now with three key messages. First, National Grid has delivered strong results and has strong foundations. Second, we are sharpening how we operate, innovate, and deliver so that we're ready for a rapidly changing world. Third, the growth opportunity ahead is clear and significant, and we're investing with discipline to capture it. I'm excited to be leading National Grid at this important time. I'm also grateful to our 33,000 colleagues, their commitment and expertise, and dedication. Thank you for your continued support as shareholders of National Grid. As I hand back to Paula, I'd like to share a short film showing how we're delivering innovation at scale and building the energy system the U.K. needs for the future. Let's take a look. Thank you, Zoë. Hope you enjoy that little picture of some of the technology that is, in the end, going to profoundly change the nature of our business. The notice of meeting, which includes an explanation of each resolution being proposed today, was published on June 3rd. For those joining online, the notice of meeting is available under a Documents tab on the Lumi platform in case you want to refer to it during this meeting. Resolutions 1 through 17 inclusive are proposed as ordinary resolutions, and 18 - 22 inclusive are proposed as special resolutions. The board is unanimously in favor of each resolution proposed and recommends you vote in favor of all of the resolutions. We trust you've all had an opportunity to read it, and with your permission, we're going to take that notice as read. A poll will be taken on all resolutions. Each ordinary shareholder is entitled to one vote for each ordinary share registered in his or her name, and each proxyholder or individual representing a corporate shareholder is entitled to one vote for each ordinary share which he or she represents. For shareholders attending in person, you can use your paper poll card to vote. I had a lovely talk with one shareholder beforehand saying I might just ask if anybody's using the polling card because nobody was using the polling card. I could skip all of the explanation of how to use the card, but in fact, this gentleman had picked up a polling card because he had reregistered his shares. For those of you who are not using it, you're going to have to bear with me because we are legally required to do this. Anyone who was present was given a poll card at registration. It details the resolutions, and I've appointed Equiniti, which they tell me I can call EQ for simplicity, which is the company's registrar, to act as the scrutineers. I'm going to pass the program over to Julian to take us through the voting process and how to ask questions. Thank you, Paula, and good morning, everyone. As indicated by the chair, voting today will be by a poll. If you are attending in person, please complete your poll card clearly marking your votes and place it in one of the ballot boxes as you leave. If you need any assistance, the Equiniti team is available at the shareholder inquiries desk in the foyer. If you are attending online, you can vote using the electronic system on the Lumi platform. The full list of resolutions will appear on your screen with For, Against, and Withheld options. Once you've made your selection, a Vote Received message will appear. You can return to the list of resolutions at any time by clicking on the Voting icon. If you've already submitted a proxy form and do not wish to change your vote, no further action is needed. However, if you would like to change your vote, please resubmit it using either the poll form or the Lumi platform. In either case, please ensure you cast a vote for every resolution. If you need any further guidance on how to cast your vote via the platform, please refer to the instructions on the homepage or the user guide available on the Documents tab. May I remind you that a vote withheld is not a vote in law and will therefore not be counted. The poll will remain open for 15 minutes following the conclusion of the meeting. I'll now move on to the process for asking questions. For shareholders attending online, you can submit questions in relation to the business of the meeting through the Lumi platform. Click the messaging icon and type your question in the chat box at the top of the screen. Press the send button on the right-hand side to submit. We will try to group questions by topic and alternate between questions in the room and any registered online so that we can answer as many of your questions as possible today. If you're attending in person and have pre-registered your question, an usher will bring a microphone to you at the appropriate time. If you haven't registered a question but still wish to ask one, simply raise your hand and a representative will assist you. To ensure we cover as many topics as possible, please keep your questions concise and relevant to the business of the meeting. When speaking, kindly state your name and whether you're attending as a shareholder, proxy, or corporate representative. Please direct all questions to Paula in the first instance. If you have other general questions about the company, not related to the business of the meeting, I will ask you to kindly hold those questions until after the meeting business has formally adjourned. If you are participating online, you have general questions unrelated to the meeting, we will reply to those questions by email after the meeting closes. Great. Thank you, Julian. The poll is now open for voting, and we're going to move on to the Q&A of today's agenda. Julian will help us coordinate this, because he's got some pre-registered and questions coming in online. If you'll forgive me, I'm going to go sit down, because I think what we're really trying to do is have a good conversation, and I don't really need to stand here in direct traffic, I don't think so. Thank you, Paula. Starting with a pre-submitted question from Alan Mundey. There are two questions here. We'll start with the first. Given the arrival of a new Labor prime minister who has championed more public ownership of essential services, will you change the way you work with the government as a crucial part of the U.K.'s infrastructure? Maybe I'll start that and turn it to you, Zoë. I think Zoë captured it, actually, in her prepared remarks of, we work with every government, we work with every regulator, and the fact that there's a change in government that's pending here in the U.K., we'll work with the new government as well, as we have to try to be as close as is appropriately possible. Zoë, your thoughts? Yeah, I think I'd just echo that, of course, we will continue to work closely with government, along with other stakeholders and regulators. It's a core part of our business and something for which we deeply value. I think the one thing I would say, however, is what we understand as the Prime Minister's policies emerge, is that we actually have a lot in common on the trajectory that we are seeing. We can see the need for a broader resilience to the energy network that requires different sources of supply to be connected. We also see a critical importance to drive the economic growth engine behind the U.K. and, of course, also in the U.S., but focusing on the administration here. How can we continue to ensure that energy policy helps to inform economic opportunity? I think the grid has a substantial role to play there. The other thing I would say is, of course, National Grid is, in essence, across many parts of the U.K. I think we have a real opportunity to really lean into every postcode, finding ways to prosper under the investment program that we're delivering and how we can deliver that energy resilience. We look forward to continuing to work closely as the new government's policies are formed. The second part of Mr. Mundey's question, there are two parts, and Mr. Mundey's in the audience. Thank you for being here. Given the concerns of people around the world about the threats of global warming, in your U.S. operations, can you lobby Secretary Wright on our behalf, who has rolled back measures to combat climate change and has criticized the U.K.'s commitment to net zero targets? The additional point made today, can National Grid lobby the U.S. Secretary of State on his policies as he has reversed sensible environmental policies? Maybe I'll start with that one since I'm the American on the stage here. I think the first thing is, we have to be respectful in our various jurisdictions on the policies that are prevailing in those jurisdictions. In the U.S., we do have a country at the national level, and even at the state levels, that takes a different view on, in particular, the use of natural gas for energy generation. It's interesting because this afternoon in our board meeting, we have some data on what's the composition of our rates in our U.S. jurisdictions, and that goes to the issue of what the generation sources are on the electric side and also our sources of natural gas on the gas side. The fact is, we operate in regions that are heavily dependent on natural gas for both heating and power generation. We have a bit of a delicate balance here. While on the one hand, I think all of us hope for a more verdant world where we are taking steps to do our part around climate change. We also have to be sensitive to the fact that we operate in places where the alternatives to, for example, fossil fuels, are less obvious. Zoë does meet with Secretary Wright from time to time. I don't think you've met with the U.S. Secretary of State, and probably given his other responsibilities right now, you might not be high on his agenda of meetings he would take. I'd like to think that we do try to be extremely thoughtful in the way we approach the fact that we do want to be responsible stewards of the environment, but that we also have to be respectful of the differences in the business between the two countries in which we operate. With that, if you want to The only thing I would add is, of course, our regulated business in the U.S. is predominantly regulated by the states. Whilst we do, of course, have interactions at the federal level across some of our interconnectors, the majority of our conversations on regulated approaches is in the state of Massachusetts and New York. I think you'll also see the governors of those respective states have shifted to what's called an all-of-the-above strategy, which I think echoes Paula's comments around the criticality of understanding how to balance affordability in the regions with the security of supply and the sustainability objectives. That is indeed a trilemma, as we describe it, in constantly iterating for the optimum outcome. We move to a question in the room from Mercy Ross. Thank you for your question. We've been asked to pose this to the panel. National Grid is involved in the Philippines. What capacity is National Grid involved in this country? Ms. Ross explained that her family is suffering in that jurisdiction. We need to justify questions to her family. Yeah. It's actually my understanding that there is a registered company in the Philippines, which is called National Grid Philippines. It is of no connection to National Grid that we are here representing. I'm sorry to hear that your family is suffering. Unfortunately, it is not part of our company accountability. It is a separate company entity. Now we move to a question from the floor, from Mr. James Hewitt. Good morning. I've already spoken to the Chief Executive about the first question. I've got two. The risk of drone attacks is critical to national infrastructure, and of course, to our company's infrastructure, transmission lines, and transformer substations. The threat seems to be increasing. Does the company plan to respond to this? Because it jeopardizes the capital value of our company's assets and the related flow of revenues. If so, how? Zoë, I know you've met with government on this very issue, I'll just turn that to you. Thank you, Mr. Hewitt, for the question. I think right now, I can certainly share that we are not complacent in any way with respect to both the physical and cyber risks that are exposed to our assets. Paula mentioned that our board has been this morning to our cybersecurity center. Under the principal risk that you see in our annual report under physical and cybersecurity, any threats, including things like drone attacks, are embraced under that holistic risk. We regularly do coordinate with intergovernmental agencies to understand intel. We have a number of barriers in which we engage in to make sure that the health of our system is very strong, and we regularly also conduct crisis exercises, where we role-play in the event that some of these attacks happen, how we would go about responding to ensure the resilience around emergency planning. Super question. We don't at all remain complacent. Lots of work to continue because it is, of course, an evolving threat landscape. Indeed. Second question, partly covered as well, about data centers and Joulent. Yeah. In the announcement of the recent investment in Joulent, our company mentions its aim to connect more than 5 GW of data center demand over the next five years, both in the U.S.A. and the U.K. How is this compatible with the climate emergency? By how much would that demand increase electricity prices, worsen fuel poverty, and jeopardize the shift from fossil fuel towards electricity as a direct source of energy? The third one, does our company plan to indemnify itself against complicity in harms which both this and those who use data centers may cause? Wow, there are a lot of questions in that, Mr. Hewitt. Apologies. Maybe we'll parse it out a little bit. Sure. One of the overlays that exists around this question of data centers is the tension between growth, prosperity, and the needs of an advanced society. These data centers are, at the end of the day, they're for all of us and our progressed way of life through advanced computing. The fact that all of these data centers are not going to end up being fueled by renewables. It is an area of great consideration on the part of all the parties. You do see the great technology companies that always said they would try to be 100% renewables, recognizing that the speed of advanced computing requires data centers and that renewables are not the only answer. Back to Zoë's comment that she made with respect to our U.S. governors, there is much more of an all-of-the-above type of consideration going on. Nobody wants to see renewables not used in this environment, nor do we expect that it can all be done with renewables. I'm going to take a little bit of a detour, then I'm going to ask Zoë to go and maybe add to some of the specifics here. One of the challenges that we have in operating these grids today is the fact that we have high aspirations in all the jurisdictions to try to be as close to 100% renewable as we can be. When we're talking about renewables, nuclear is very far down the road still in terms of new nuclear, even in this country as we have nuclear coming on. We really are dependent. When we talk about renewables, it's wind, solar, and then batteries to store some of the patterning. What we really see as we look at these grids is even though we have many hours of the year where we can rely much more on renewables, we can't rely on them 24 hours a day. The fact is, the data centers tend to be more 24 hours a day because we compute 24 hours a day. Now, in that video, you saw a thing called Emerald AI, and Emerald AI is a tool to use with data centers to try to figure out how to optimize their demand so that they can take advantage of this patterning that reduces cost to everybody by exploiting the use of what is available at certain times of day. What we see is even as the grid struggles in the aggregate around renewables versus non-renewables, there are tools coming into effect to try to mitigate some of that. We are great believers as a company in the fact that actually computing will help us find some of the answers to this. I think to Zoë's point is, we don't live in a perfect world, and we do see the necessity of advanced computing in the U.K. and the U.S. We are free societies, and a lot of our issues around security are tied up in our ability to have advanced computing. We believe in it from that perspective. We believe in it from the perspective of ultimately job growth and prosperity in our economies. What we believe is that technology will be part of the mitigant of the complexity that comes from the fact that we don't live in a perfect world and we can't simply rely on 100% renewables. Thank you. Zoë? I think that was really well explained. I think the only thing maybe to add to your second part of your question around who pays, that PPA with Microsoft has been configured as an islanded configuration, which essentially means 100% of the infrastructure costs associated with that generation is paid for by the offtaker. It is not transferred across the broader rate base, therefore, there is not an impact to the rate base related to affordability. In fact, over time, they will be connected into the grid, that will enable more resilience for the broader rate base for which those investments weren't paid for by the rate base. It can offer some opportunity for resilience over time. I think the other thing to say, which I think Paula has mentioned really well, is there's a lot of opportunities that come with AI as well as risks. I think we're seeking to try and find that right balance as we understand how the world evolves so quickly. Mainly finally, I'd say that there's a criticality around pace and delivery here. The opportunity to deliver something quickly that enables the data centers to get up and running is what provides that compute power and energy that enables us to deliver all of those technology optimizations back to the grid. A super question. Thank you very much, Mr. Hewitt. Thank you. Next, we have two linked pre-submitted questions from Ian Crowther. Number one is, how many times in the last year in the U.K. have National Grid been fined for working without a permit? Secondly, how much of those fines cost National Grid? I'm going to pass that one directly to you, Zoë. As it turns out, I'm pretty sure Andy would like this one. Andy, yes. We'll get Andy's- Hey voice in there. No, thank you, Mr. Ian Crowther. This question, I think, relates to our electricity distribution business in the U.K., which is the main business where we're out working in the streets in this country, and therefore, subject to sort of these fixed penalty notices. The reality is, yes, we do experience this a number of times through the year. The vast majority of those times, probably more than 90% of the occasions, is when we're responding to emergencies or to faults on the network, where ultimately it's just more of a timing thing that our crews need to get out as quickly as possible, and sometimes that happens before the permits are made available and official to us. Financially, it's a very small exposure for us, so it's not significant in terms of our results. What I would say, of course, is that as an organization, we will continue to look to be as compliant as possible. If there are areas we can continue to improve the permitting process so that we can reduce the number, we will continue to do that. Okay, now we go to the room to Mr. Adrian Berry. Please, mate, please. Good morning. Adrian Berry. I live here in Warwickshire and out in the countryside, and we have lots of farmer friends. Many of these farmers have non-productive land and lots of barn areas where they can fit solar panels. Some of them have tried to do this but have been told that they are too far from a connection point to be able to be connected. The question is, what technology is being developed to allow this sort of moderate size solar farm to be connected in, because you multiply that by a couple of 100 farmers, and suddenly you've got a lot of capacity coming online. Thank you. Thank you. You want to go ahead? Yeah, I can have the first go. Thank you very much, Mr. Berry. A great question, and certainly it's on our minds as we look through the discussions on our ED3, which is the next update to our distribution rate case. There's a lot of conversations around how we can navigate solar, both at the residential level, but also I think as you get into that kind of small to medium scale. It's an opportunity that we embrace because we see that flexibility that comes onto the grid as being a way to which we can optimize and perhaps reduce the overall capital investment. As you point out, it still does require some infrastructure to be built to enable the connections to come forward. The way we manage connections is very much in consultation with both Ofgem and the government. We ensure that the connection queue is very visible, and then we go through a process, supported by NESO as the primary connection arbiter, that makes a decision on the pace for which each connection then comes to life. I think the pace of connection is always something that we're working to improve, but that is something that's done via NESO in consultation with government and with the regulator. If I might add one comment. One of the things that is going on within the context of this case, ED3 is the issue of what's the trade-off between enabling individual customers to either have more electrified end uses or send generation into the grid, versus the need of the distribution grid to be upgraded for all customers for all time. That's a very difficult trade-off because to go from maybe your example of somebody trying to sell power into the grid, you could generalize that to anybody who also wants to take more power off of the grid because they're creating an electrified end use. The connection queue issue in some ways is the same. You have to figure out if there's enough capacity in the distribution system to accept that. The fact is, the distribution system was never designed for that. It was designed at lower voltages for homes and businesses that use far less power than in fact, most homes and businesses are using today. Part of what government is looking at in concert with all of the distribution companies is this issue of how much capital should be allocated to beefing up the whole system versus how much should be devoted to individual connections. Can't speak to your local area. I mean, Zoë would certainly be glad to get with you afterwards to hear a little bit more in detail. It's farmers and it's solar and it's customers and EVs and heat pumps all saying, "Individually, this would be a good thing for me," but the system has, at some point, have to be upgraded to be making this available, not just for next year or the year after, but for decades to come. I think that could be unfortunate in your area if, in fact, you're precluded at the moment. There is a larger landscape here across the country that the distribution systems, the lower voltage systems, were not designed for what the future is. We do have to grip that in terms of our planning and the approach that's taken. Thank you, Paula. We have a final submitted question in the meeting, then I think there are two other questions from the room. If you could raise your hands, and we can make sure a microphone is with you. From Christopher Vermont, National Grid has been harshly criticized, including by the Inspectorate, for failing to consult meaningfully on the Norwich to Tilbury transmission project. Is the board curious in such circumstances? What steps does the board take to ensure consultation is not just performative? Will the board independently engage with communities that say the National Grid executive is not serious about going beyond the statutory minimum? I guess I will take that one since it's really about the board's engagement. The board has been very engaged about engagement, I will say. I think it manifests itself in several ways. First of all, we're not impervious to the criticisms that can be leveled against the company at times of consultation. There is, in parts of the country, there is really an antipathy towards seeing infrastructure built in areas. We're very aware of that. Actually, the board sees daily clippings, so we see what the temperament of the public is at all times. Of course, as an active board, as I said, this is a hardworking board, questions are asked periodically of exactly what's going on with consultations. We have tracking mechanisms on how they're going. Even at that's still a step removed. The board has done trips out with the team in strategic investments led by our head of that organization. We've gone out into the field. We've met with customers. We've met with the people that we have doing engagement, and we've gripped what the controversies can be. We are very aware. Now, I will say this issue of whether consultation is, I mean, performative, to use the term, is we do two layers of consultation. We do a non-statutory process, and that's where a lot of community input is gathered before we even come up with defining route options. That's not required, per se. It's the statutory one that's the one that ultimately leads to the permitting process. We take a first stab at it to see if we can get the kind of community engagement and support. The second thing that we do that is perhaps not unique to us, but it is, in a sense, highly unusual across the industry, is we do use automated tools. We use 3D modeling where we can actually show anyone who's going to be affected or any member of the public what the placement of our infrastructure is going to look like, including from their living room window. In other words, the tool is that good. When we show this to people, I think it does end up building more understanding of the fact that we are trying to exercise a standard of care here that is not the utility just barreling through, but in fact, really trying to customize a solution within the constraints of engineering to try to make the placement as benign as possible. I will go on to say that there are parts of the country that have hosted infrastructure for very long periods of time, and there has been a broad understanding in these communities about the fact that this infrastructure is in service of the entire country. We realize that when we come into new areas that have not hosted infrastructure, that there is more sensitivity, and there's not the same acceptance and understanding. We try to come in with empathy to how it feels when you are being asked for the first time to have our infrastructure come through your area. I think we have satisfied ourselves as a board in meeting with our people and meeting with individual stakeholders that the standard of care that we are exhibiting is appropriate to what is otherwise quite a great national initiative. The fact that all of our permitting that we've submitted so far that has been through the process has been granted, I think speaks to the fact that government has satisfied itself that we've met not only the statutory requirements, but in fact, that we have met the requirements in terms of what society expects of us in terms of quality engagement. Obviously, I think I feel rather strongly about the fact that as a board, we have really leaned in on this issue. Zoë, do you have anything to add? No, I think you've done that very well. Thank you. Okay. Okay, three final questions. Mr. Perry first, then we'll go to Peter Tory, then there's a final question in the room. Mr. Perry. Thank you. My name's Rodney Perry. I'm a small shareholder, it follows on really from your answer to the last question is that I'm really rather critical of National Grid being so far behind the curve in connecting up these offshore wind farms. We are all paying for that in our bills in that the developers of wind farm have got a tremendous lead time. They have to get a license. They have to buy the equipment. They have to get it installed in offshore, very difficult locations. Yet in that time, you still haven't got a grid connection for them. You would obviously say it's the planning problems, but this is not unknown in this country. We live in an area of HS2 here. They took years to get planning consent, and they did it in time. You have to start early on planning consents because you'll know you're going to get a problem. This is not something that comes out of the blue, but you seem to be very much behind the curve on this. We're paying for it by the developers having their wind farms ready, and they can't switch them on because you've got no connection, and we're having to pay for them to have the farm ready and not in use. I'd like to try a reframe with you, Mr. Perry, on this one because, your characterization is very much the characterization in general media. This is an opportunity, I think, for us to maybe try to expand the record of what's really going on here, and I would love for you to be an ambassador for our story when I'm done answering this question. I will give Zoë a chance, but it has been a bit of a source of frustration to the board that the narrative is we must be behind. The planning for offshore wind started well into the previous decade. By 2012, 2013, we were already planning what the grid would need to look like in order to accept offshore wind. Now, at the time we started that planning, the numbers associated with offshore wind were significantly lower than the ambition that the country has today. Everything we started planning in 2013, 2014, 2015 was probably not fit for purpose. At that time, there was not that much wind, and the regulator had concerns that we would be effectively overbuilding or prematurely building a lot of that infrastructure. We started to submit proposals 2016, 2017, and there was a reluctance on the part of the regulator to approve those. We knew that we had to wait. At the same time, we did start a lot of the engagement around route selection as early as that period of time. Finally, as we came into the 2020/2021 period, it was well recognized that this could be the very problem that you've described, a mismatch between how much developers would have developed and be ready versus how much the grid could accept. We entered into an agreement with the Ofgem for an accelerated strategic investment program, and that's what is, in fact, proceeding today, and much of the GBP 70 billion that was described by Zoë is part of that program. Starting really five, six years ago, much of that permitting started. Yes, we were structurally going to be a bit behind because the regulator said that's going to be okay. Something else intervened, which was government doubled down on its commitment to how much offshore wind it would acquire. Of course, it holds auction rounds every year. These auction rounds became larger, which would accommodate larger wind farms, larger projects, and projects that would also involve us and the Scots in terms of trying to create an overall infrastructure. As a practical matter, you had something else going on, which was government said more. What we were designing and starting was not going to be sufficient and more had to be designed. We live in an, I have to say it again, we live in an imperfect world. Which is, we are accelerated to try to meet a 2030 deadline that government has imposed. Everything will probably not deliver in that period. Government also made a decision that said, if your farm can begin to produce, you can send into a grid on an as-available basis. You might not have firm capacity. This idea that there are wind farms that could spin and they're not getting into the grid is a little bit of a false narrative, because, in fact, they can deliver, they just can't deliver all the time because the system gets congested. Part of what is going on with our program now is the relieving of these congestion costs. Yes, we pay a little bit for congestion now, but over the course of this multi-year period, that congestion is all being relieved. I think if we all had perfect foresight in 2013 as to what would happen, we would not have these circumstances today. I think it's harsh to suggest that we are behind when we have exercised, I think, an extraordinary amount of due diligence against a changing appetite of the country to have more of the resource. I think per the earlier conversation, yes, it's true, we're very well aware of permitting, but the total scope of what we've had to build and where it had to be built has definitely evolved over time as the sheer amount of wind and the location of the wind has taken place. Last point I would make is government has decided that in the future it's going to have a spatial plan, so that it designates where you can develop relative to where the infrastructure is, rather than you get to go anywhere and the infrastructure has to meet you. In the back half of this decade, I think we will not have a repeat performance of what appears to be the case. I just want to assure you, this company has bent over backwards to plan well in advance, but there has been a shifting picture about what we would have to connect. Thank you. Nope, I think that's very well explained. Thank you. Thank you, Paula. That last point you made was something that I was going to ask, is what influence do you have on the position of these loads? I know you've got congestion in various parts of the network. What authority do you have to suggest that these big data centers are built nearer the point of generation rather than in the middle of the cities where there is a lot of demand already? What influence on government do you have over this? Yeah. Well, we've submitted a map to the government, which is showing where data centers could best be located, where we have infrastructure already. As you would expect, it's not in the cities. It's much more around, for example, former power plant sites that have been decommissioned, where the transmission infrastructure is still in place. We have urged government that to the extent that they want to expedite some of these connections, these locations would be better. I'd like to think that we are influencers of that, but obviously not our decision to make. The only thing to add, I think, Mr. Perry, is we've got four AI growth zones in our jurisdictions. These are areas that we've been able to identify has capacity to sort of Paula's comments. We've been working with government related to that, and now we're working with the suppliers of data centers to actually enable or to facilitate the growth in those locations for faster connections. We've had many examples. We shared one, I think, on the video of how we see that actually accelerating the opportunity for that connection. We see that as really beneficial, because the data center capacity that's connected also helps us to reduce bill pressures and enables an affordability opportunity as well. It's a win-win. We just move to our two final questions in the room. The first is from Mr. Tory. If you could just raise your hand. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, board, my fellow shareholders. Peter Tory from Hendon. If anybody doesn't know where Hendon is, shame on you. Individual shareholder from the outset. I've listened to the conversations going on here, it's interesting. First of all, thank you for the venue. I came on the bus, the coach, from Victoria Coach Station at 7:00 A.M. this morning, thinking getting off at Parkway, I'm in the middle of nowhere. I've used my initiative, because I've got gray hair. I found my way here by jogging, plodding, walking, taxi drive. A bus gave me a lift halfway here, somebody else told me how to get here. I know how to get back into Warwick, apparently, to see is to believe. Couple of comments on what's been said. Excuse me. Yes. Interesting venue. Much more convenient in London, of course, living in London. You never please all the people all the time. Like I've never seen "Coronation Street," I've never seen "EastEnders," and I've never had a credit card in my life, and I filled in the poll by using a pen and paper. I've still got eyes, and I've still got a brain. Let me get to my point. Something was mentioned earlier about the future and planning. A marvelous film made in 1977, Ms. Paula, you will know this person, the younger ones haven't got a clue what I'm talking about. It was with Edward G. Robinson and Charlton Heston, and it's made in 1970-something, and it's in the future, 2023. It's called "Soylent Green," S-O-Y-L-E-N-T. Please write this down. There's no electric- Yeah. We'll just swap. Somebody's going to give you a swap. Let's just swap. Am I back? I'm back on the air. You're back on, yep. It's okay. Yeah. I never thought I would see the year 2023. It's been and gone. Please, ladies and gentlemen, do watch it. It's very, very sobering. S-O-Y-L-E-N-T. Edward G. Robinson was actually dying than filming. When they finished, three weeks later, he died. It really is quite frightening and sobering. This is the future. It's like in the film, "The Fly," 1958, Vincent Price. Mr. Tory, do you have a question for us? Yeah. Okay. All right. It's mentioned about the flat screen. Look what we've got now. What I'm just saying is, we've got to be cautious about the future. The technology mustn't overrun us. That's all I'm saying is, this has its good points, this has its bad points. For me, I can live quite comfortably without the technology. In conclusion, slightly humorous, please arrange the next meeting when there's racing on at Worcester, Warwick Racecourse. I like horse racing. Want to say thank you on behalf of my fellow shareholders to express again our appreciation for what National Grid does. We do take it for granted, and are saying the same thing every year. We come home, we put the switch, the light comes on, we flush the toilet, it goes down a hole in the ground. We do take it for granted. When there is the occasional power failure, everybody goes crazy. If you go to Bakersfield in America, you look at the wind farms going round, not hundreds, I believe there's thousands of them. It's very, very impressive. They're way ahead of the game. Let's, if we're going to take the future, let's get on with it and do it ASAP. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time and listening to me. Thank you. Thank you very much. I will say that, Zoë and I were in a meeting a while back with an elected official, he, Julian, may I use your phone here as a prop? Thank you. He said that people stopped him on the streets because he was well-recognized, and they'd say to him, "How do you feel about these data centers?" He said, "I would do this." He said, "I take my phone out of my pocket, and I say, 'We need data centers because of you and me.'" I think what we can say is, we need data centers because of everybody, you don't need it for this, because you are managing to navigate in the society without all of the technology. As you say, we need to be cautious about the future, but we need to provide for the future. Thank you for your remarks. The final question, I believe, question point number one. Thank you very much. Thank you. Richard Crump, small shareholder from Warwickshire. Apologies if this has been asked or something similar has been asked previously, but I've only recently arrived. What would the board's strategy be if, in a couple of years, Nigel gets in and upends or destroys everything we've all been working towards for the last 15 years in terms of climate? Have you begun thinking about that possibility yet? Well, I kind of go with Zoë's question, which is we work with every government that comes to power. Yes, we've given consideration to the fact that if a Reform government came in, it could be some rather material changes in energy policy. We are not without scenarios that we consider as a board. Yeah. The only thing to add is that we do have a number of our staff who attend all of the various political conferences. Of course, once you're in government, you get access to a lot of information and briefings. We do think it's important to make sure that all of the political parties, as they evolve, have access to important information. As they start to develop their campaigns, and they develop their public policy, they are well-informed with the same information that may otherwise be available to government. We do make sure that we engage prior to elected officials coming into place. You have the ability to nudge. Well, I wouldn't say nudge. I think what we seek to do is ensure that we provide the right information, at least from the data sources that we have, that help to inform, we believe, strong policy. Thank you. Paula, that concludes the questions, unless anyone in the audience raised their hand. Okay. All right. Well, I think we can bring this Q&A session to a close. I thank everybody for their questions and interest. If anybody hasn't registered their vote, please do so. Summary of the proxy votes cast in advance of this meeting is going to be on the screen in a second. Of course, these figures are preliminary. They're going to be reviewed by the registrar after the meeting, including any votes cast today. It would appear all resolutions have been passed, as shown on these slides, by a very substantial percentage in all cases. We're very grateful for the support of shareholders. We will publish the final results on our website. We'll announce them in both the London and the New York Stock Exchanges as soon as the final tabulation is done. This concludes the business of our meeting, and therefore, we are closed. There are lunch bags for those of you who have come to take away with you. Please return your wristband on the way out. We recycle everything. That's one of the things in our control. We appreciate your continued support and feedback. Again, we thank you for joining us. Zoë, Andy, and I will be around for a few minutes in the lobby. The rest of the board is going to rush off to get started on the board meeting, but we can be available if you had any other questions. Thank you so much for being with us today, and thanks for those who came in on the Lumi platform as well. Okay