Kia ora, and welcome to Genesis Energy's FY24 Results Presentation. I'm Malcolm Johns, Chief Executive, and I'm joined by Emma Ertley, our Interim CFO. FY 24 was challenging, but we're delivering our strategy. We were challenged by hydrology, major unplanned outages, and New Zealand's gas shortage. However, the portfolio showed its resilience, with earnings down but defended. We delivered all the Gen 35 strategic objectives we said we would in FY 24. Retail reset, forward OpEx growth arrested, more renewables, HFOs, and the stage one battery at Huntly Power Station. What was already clear to us, but became clear to everybody in 2024, was that energy security is essential, even in a high renewables grid. Under current strategy, Genesis can move another 500 MW of baseload generation to flexible generation at Huntly Power Station and make it available for energy security by FY 28. Executing our strategy is the fastest and most economic way for New Zealand to deliver greater energy security for winter peaks and dry years with low wind. I will speak more about this later in the presentation. Before we get to our results, I think it's important to discuss the recent market conditions and the steps that Genesis has taken to play our part through a challenging time when Mother Nature failed to show up. New Zealand has always had dry years, but the swing between wet and dry appears to be becoming more frequent. The impact of this dry year has been exacerbated by large swings in wind generation. Natural gas fields are declining faster than forecast, and New Zealand is now structurally gas short. The result is more volatile electricity prices, especially at the short and long ends of the range. However, the current market structure meant 99.99% of Genesis customers were on fixed price contracts and were shielded from this winter's volatility. Genesis has been raising energy security as an issue for some time. We all want a high renewables grid. However, the more wind and solar we put into the grid without also putting in place adequate capacity and energy reserves, the more volatile energy security and prices will become in the future. Electricity volatility indices are rising, and there can't be a free ride for any type of renewables generator when it comes to carrying a fair share of energy security costs. FY 2025 was challenging, but we are delivering, so let's look at some of FY 2024's highlights. Briefly running through our agenda for today, we'll first look back at our achievements during Horizon One of Gen 35 and FY 2024. We'll then go through our financial performance before looking ahead to Horizon Two and out to FY 2028. We'll finish off with guidance and time for questions. Turning to what we see as the most important achievements of the past 12 months for our impact on people, planet, and profit. For people, customers grew 2.7% in the year, demonstrating Genesis' strong stable of brands, including Genesis and Frank. It is worth noting that Genesis holds a majority interest in Ecotricity, whose customers are not currently included in these numbers. We delivered on the first stages of moving to a lower cost, lighter touch retail model focused on value share over volume share. At the same time, we invested in growing our teams across renewables development, trading, and fuels to reflect the needs of maintaining strategic delivery. Through the changes, we saw our employee engagement remain strong, 6% above New Zealand's benchmark. Looking now at achievements under our planet pillar. We were pleased to reach financial close for the Lauriston Solar Farm, New Zealand's first project finance solar development alongside our partners, FRV. Construction is well underway, and we expect to have the first megawatt flowing by the end of 2024. We have reached FID on stage one of the Huntly Battery program, with our first battery now confirmed, supplied by Saft. The Huntly site has many great attributes. Our team ran a detailed procurement process, and this will be New Zealand's lowest cost 100 MW battery to date. Our progress towards 500 MW of solar continued. Last week, we confirmed the acquisition of an advanced stage asset at Edgecumbe in the Bay of Plenty, one of the sunniest parts of New Zealand. The opportunity is expected to provide 127 MW of capacity. We plan to have it generating within 24 months. Speaking to our third pillar, profit. We are of course comparing our results this year against a year of record hydrology in FY 2023. EBITDAF was NZD 407 million, down 22% on FY 2023. NPAT was also down to NZD 130 million. Genesis continued to provide market-leading yields with a strong dividend. As previously guided, we paid NZD 0.14 per share over the year. That's the challenging part. Now for what we delivered on strategically. Looking at our retail and technology business units, we started on our pathway to a low-cost, light-touch retail model. We moved away from extensive in-house technology development, resulting in a reduction of 130 FTEs in our core retail and technology teams. We remained on track to operate retail with 200 fewer FTE by FY 2026. Key to this is our billing platform upgrade. This is on track, and we're planning for a late FY 2025 go live across our Frank brand and full implementation across all brands by end of FY 2027. We have tooled up and begun delivering strategy outcomes in our wholesale business. We have materially increased our development team, adding experience, battery, solar, wind, and project delivery resources. This team has delivered Lauriston and Edgecumbe solar opportunities quickly and reached FID on the Huntly Stage One battery, while also expanding our pipeline of opportunities for future development. We created a new senior leadership position of GM Fuels to bring a more future-focused fuel development and security approach, critical to our Huntly portfolio plans. Being able to store energy from a minute through to a month is an essential element of how Huntly will provide 1,400 MW of energy security in a high renewables grid by FY 35. We welcomed a new GM Portfolio to lead how we position our overall portfolio to maximize our group gross margin outcomes. I'm pleased to say that Emma will be taking up the role of GM Portfolio in November. Emma has deep experience in both the retail and wholesale sides of the business and will bring an energized and aggressively commercial focus to how we deliver more value from our portfolio. We also welcomed a new GM Trading, who is laser-focused on how we will monetize the portfolio plan Emma will drive. Now on to our retail business in more detail. FY 2024 was hard change delivered well. We had a strong year of delivery in retail, adding customers, restructuring the business, farewelling 130 team members while maintaining staff engagement and growing customer satisfaction. We drove improved net back in all segments across electricity and gas. We delivered high satisfaction scores with increases in both Genesis and Frank's Net Promoter scores, and we're proud that Frank once again won the Consumer People's Choice Award. Turning to our wholesale performance, it was Rankine Units to the rescue. FY 2024 was a challenging year for our wholesale business, and the contrast to FY 2023 could not be greater. We came into the year with wet conditions, lakes full, all the gas we needed, and all plant running. We ended the year with dry conditions, lakes low, a short gas market, and impactful unplanned outages in Units 5 and 2. Rankines generated one point nine terawatt-hours, protecting us from the spot market throughout. Despite the conveyor belt of challenges, we were able to back our customer position with our own generation assets throughout FY 2024, showing the resilience of the Genesis generation portfolio and our team. The fuel dynamics in the market significantly changed, where gas prices sharply increased and coal prices stabilized. Gas started as the thermal fuel of choice, but coal finished the year as the cheaper generation option. Now looking at generation, where great people and great assets delivered great resilience. It was a busy year for our generation team, with the unplanned repair of Unit 5 requiring a huge commitment of time and energy. The fact the team returned the unit to service four months earlier than expected is a credit to their efforts. Alongside those on the tools, we had a great outcome on the Unit 5 insurance process. It was concluded within the financial year and with a NZD 29 million settlement. In mid-winter, the Huntly team also completed critical unplanned works on the reserve Rankine Unit 2. They undertook what was essentially an organ transplant to move the intermediate pressure turbine from the retired Unit 3 into Unit 2, when Unit 2's turbine suffered a fault. This was the heaviest crane lift at Huntly since construction and led to Unit 2 now being affectionately known as Rankenstein. We also completed the multi-year program to replace all three turbines at the Tuai Power Station in Waikaremoana, increasing their efficiency. Turning now to our people, where great people and a great culture delivered real change. As we indicated earlier, FY 24 was a year of major structural change, and I want to thank all our team for their professionalism in working through this process with us. This was one of the best change processes I have seen in my career, and I want to call out our exec and senior leaders for this. To deliver that level of change, encounter no disputes, and have engagement outcomes remain above the national benchmark is simply outstanding. This year, we made excellent progress towards our safety and wellness objectives. We continued to see a significant reduction in injury severity, with the total number of lost and restricted days due to injury reduced by 42% compared to FY 2023. Our ongoing LPG injury reduction program maintained its momentum, with a 31% reduction in the LPG injury rate since the program launched in FY 2022. A focus on safety over delivery has helped achieve this outstanding result, and we plan to continue improving safety for our LPG team, ensuring this challenging physical work is done in a way our people come home safe at night. Our people finished FY 2024 with a delivery mindset, confidence, and momentum to launch into the next four-year horizon of Gen35. Moving to sustainability, where less gas equals more coal, until we have biomass. We said last year it was very wet, that Mother Nature can have effects beyond our control, including the amount of thermal generation required by the system. We were cautious when our carbon emissions in FY 2023 were within our Science-Based Targets. As has proven to be the case, Mother Nature again delivered conditions outside our control in FY 2024, and we saw emissions increase as a result. We have always said that if the bottom line is the lights must stay on, then less gas will mean more coal for some years to come. With coal now producing cheaper electricity than gas, and gas being structurally short in New Zealand, we will need to burn more coal for energy security than we planned, and we won't meet our FY 2025 Science-Based Targets. We're working as hard as we can to establish competitive domestic biomass supply options that will displace coal. This will bring emissions back on track by FY28, based on P50 hydro. Delivering Gen35 means we will be net zero by 2040 across all scopes. I will now pass over to Emma to provide further detail on our financial performance. I'll speak to our strategic outlook later. Thank you, Malcolm, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us. I'll now talk through our FY 2024 performance, starting on slide 12. While most metrics are down in comparison to FY 2023, we need to remember that FY 2023 was a record year. High inflows resulted in 1000 GWh more renewable generation, and a much lower need for expensive thermal. As Malcolm said earlier, this year's results were impacted by lower hydro, gas market conditions, and the Unit 5 outage. Looking at the numbers, revenue is up 28%, driven by higher wholesale prices and momentum across our retail business, especially in C&I. GWAP was up from NZD 95/ MWh - NZD 188/ MWh, reflecting the higher spot prices. Gross margin, however, was down 10% due to significantly higher generation costs relative to the very wet prior year. I'll talk to the details of this, plus gross margin from gas, LPG, and Kupe on the next slide. Operating costs were up 10%, which is higher than inflation, but consistent with the plan we set out in November. We're making a concerted effort to focus spend on strategically aligned areas such as digital projects and wholesale. We announced some significant changes in our retail business earlier this year, which were implemented over the last six months. We will see the full year impact of these reduced costs in FY 2025. Lower gross margin and higher operating costs resulted in lower EBITDAF, which is 22% down on the prior year. The factors that drove this were mostly beyond our control, but we're mindful that as a business, we must play the cards we are dealt and adapt our business through changing conditions. This also meant NPAT was lower, and I'll go into more details on a later slide. Capital expenditure increased by NZD 63 million, primarily due to expenditure on KS-9 and investment in our hydro assets at Tuai and Rangipo. Lastly, the board declared a final dividend in line with guidance of NZD 0.07 per share. This brings our dividends for the year to NZD 0.14 per share. Genesis continues to yield around 9%. Turning to slide 13, we look at the gross margin drivers in more detail. While we operate the business in segments, looking at product types is a good way to understand the detail. Firstly, let's review electricity, the largest component of gross margin. This was down from a record NZD 670 million- NZD 560 million, driven by the change in generation mix relative to the very wet prior year. Our portfolio generation cost, that is, the fuel and carbon cost of generation, divided by total generation volumes, was higher at NZD 63/ MWh. That's an 80% increase on the prior year. Lower hydro generation was the key driver of this, down 1,000 GWh s, which is almost a third of our hydro generation. We also had significantly lower generation from Huntly Unit 5 due to the unit's outage in the first half and challenging gas market conditions in the second. On the sales side, retail growth was positive, both in volume and price across all three channels. C&I sales price, which is most closely linked to wholesale prices, increased by 16%, while residential and small business were largely insulated from the wholesale market, with around a 3% increase in sales price. The final component is derivative settlements, which represents trading activity and other long-term contracts. Derivatives saw a net gain of NZD 20 million in FY 2024 versus NZD 41 million in the prior year. There are more details on this on slide 35. Next, at the top right of the presentation, we show Kupe gross margin. This is down from NZD 91 million- NZD 65 million. However, there is a NZD 6 million price adjustment in the prior year that related to the FY 2022 LPG transfer price. Once this has been adjusted for, the year-on-year decrease is NZD 20 million. Production was down 17% as a result of a planned four-yearly outage, which coincided with the drilling program and ongoing field decline. Having less gas is a key driver of performance in the Kupe segment and wholesale generation costs. Turning to LPG, around half of the year-on-year movement relates to strong pricing momentum across all retail segments. The remaining movement relates to the additional costs in FY 2023 from Kupe, as discussed. Finally, the bottom right-hand graph shows gas gross margin. We continue to focus on value over volume, maintaining gas in our retail channels with less available for wholesale. We expect to see continued stress in the New Zealand gas market and elevated gas prices in the short to medium term. Not shown in these charts is the insurance settlement from the Unit 5 outage. We're pleased to have concluded this process, and all insurers have agreed to the full and final claim. Insurance proceeds of NZD 29 million are included in other revenue, and the net impact is a NZD 7 million reduction in FY 2024 EBITDAF. Now, looking at operating expenditure on slide 14. As we said in November, operating expenditure is a focus for Genesis. We are investing our shareholders' money in areas that drive long-term value and are committed to keeping within our Gen35 operating cost envelope. We've previously signaled higher OpEx in FY24 and FY25 as we invest in digital projects and renewable growth opportunities, and then a decline through to FY28. Looking at the key drivers, retail costs increased primarily due to wage inflation, lower capitalization, and costs associated with the new target operating model. We have completed the first stage of the organizational changes and expect lower costs in FY25, which reflect the full year impact of these changes and delivery of the target operating model. Our technology costs increased slightly due to software inflation. Corporate spend was flat year on year, and we expect this to continue into FY25. The increase you can see in FY 2025 relates to a Gen 35 acceleration fund. Wholesale costs increased in line with expectations. As Malcolm has already spoken to, we invested in our asset development, trading, and fuels teams, three key capabilities to deliver Gen 35. This also includes a NZD 3.5 million one-off cost associated with the Unit 5 outage. Momentum increased across our technology investment program. The billing and CRM platform moved into implementation, the general ledger upgrade is at final vendor selection, and the trading and risk platform at RFP. This program is a significant investment and will return value through risk management, productivity, and training.... Digital project costs will be higher in the near term and reduce as the program winds up by FY 2028. Turning now to look briefly at NPAT on slide 15. NPAT is down from a high in FY 2023. The key drivers we have already discussed are lower gross margin, higher costs, and therefore lower EBITDAF. Elevated wholesale prices resulted in a significant increase in the fair value of our PPAs. An assessment of the Kupe reserves has been completed. P1 and P2 reserves have been revised down by 81.2 petajoules equivalent, and a corresponding impairment of NZD 64 million is included in this year's results. With that, we'll move on to capital expenditure on slide 16. Genesis committed significant capital expenditure in FY 2024 and plans to continue this investment in FY 2025. Looking first at FY 2024, our steady-state business CapEx was NZD 79 million for investment in our generation assets. Significant scheduled works at Huntly Unit 5 were undertaken during the plant outage. This included the repair of the failed circuit breaker and the purchase of a spare. We completed a seven-year project upgrading our Tuai Power Station, with the last of the three new generators installed and switched on. The upgrade has improved the station's efficiency by 1.7% and will potentially boost Tuai's capacity by six megawatts. At Rangipo Power Station, in our Tongariro Power Scheme, we completed the refurbishment of one of the two turbines, its generator, and the Rangipo intake gate. Similar work will occur in FY 2025 on the remaining generator unit, ensuring the station continues to deliver a high level of reliability. The main growth item was our share in the KS-9 drilling campaign. The outcome was disappointing, but there is always an element of risk in these campaigns. While we are still firmly of the view that the decision to back Beach's intervention was the correct one and the right processes were followed, it's an outcome that is unfortunate for the electricity market and Genesis shareholders alike. There remains some potential for KS-9, and the JV will consider options for the well over the summer period. The KS-9 outcome reinforces the importance of Gen35, and Genesis remains committed to directing our share of Kupe's free cash flow to new renewables. The amount from Kupe may be less than first anticipated, but we will explore more purchase power agreements and joint ventures with PPAs, in addition to direct investment to deliver our renewables pipeline. The KS-9 outcome has not changed our dividend policy. In FY 25, we continue with our plan: deploying capital to build flexibility, grow our renewables portfolio, and invest in our existing assets. Stage one of our Huntly Battery project will commence in FY 25, having just reached FID. Of the total cost of approximately NZD 150 million, around NZD 60 million will be spent in FY 25. We continue to invest in associates to complete the Lauriston Solar Farm, as well as ongoing investment in forestry. Growth investment also includes costs relating to acquiring Edgecumbe, so this Edgecumbe Solar opportunity, which Malcolm will speak to later. Now, let's look at net debt and funding on slide seventeen. The net debt to EBITDAF ratio increased to 2.7, which remains below 3, but is higher than our target of 2.5. The key driver for the year-on-year movement was a reduction in EBITDAF, which I've already discussed in detail. Debt was NZD 60 million lower. What we can see in this year's numbers is the working capital impact of the declining stockpile. The stockpile started the year at 961 KT and finished at 231 KT. We intend to maintain the stockpile at around 350 KT. The cost of our funding increased to 5.7% due to higher interest rates on variable debt and new fixed debt as it was secured, in line with wholesale market rates over the past year. As we said in November, we intend to invest NZD 1.1 billion in strategically aligned assets. The expected earnings growth of these investments will ensure that our balance sheet remains strong. With Kupe free cash flow reduced, this will put some pressure on these settings, more so from a timing perspective, with investment ahead of cash inflows. In the short to medium term, the debt to EBITDAF metric will remain above two point five, and this has been reflected in the FY 28 scorecard. I'll hand you back to Malcolm to discuss our strategic outlook. Thank you, Emma. Having delivered Horizon One, we are now moving into Horizon Two of Gen35. I'd like to introduce you to our Eight by 2028 for growth and security. Reaching EBITDAF of around mid-500s by FY 2028 will require us delivering the eight strategic objectives shown on this slide. This is our Eight by 2028.... Delivering our Eight by 2028 will also move up to 500 MW of baseload generation at Huntly into flexible generation, which we can sell into the energy security market. This is the fastest way for New Zealand to deliver energy security options to the market in the next four years. Eight by 2028 delivers growth and energy security. We are also turning our minds to how we maximize outcomes from our portfolio by focusing on value share over volume share. As I mentioned at the start, we have created a new critical leadership position, GM Portfolio, and Emma will take up this role in November. Emma's focus will be maximizing gross margin growth and earnings resilience within a proactive approach to portfolio strategy. Genesis's portfolio is often seen through an earnings defense lens. We believe there are gross margin growth opportunities available within our existing portfolio by focusing on value share over volume share, across both existing and future value pools. We expect to see our mass market position move notionally inside our renewables energy envelope. This will happen alongside the development of a lower cost, lighter touch retail model that will focus on hyper segmentation, using new technology and AI to prioritize value, value over volume objectives. As that occurs, we will see greater length come into Huntly, and we will trade that with more intent. Genesis holds a majority position in Ecotricity, and we have included Ecotricity's demand in this portfolio graph with Genesis and Frank. Ecotricity has quietly built the largest rooftop solar share of any retailer in New Zealand, with around 30% share of market of installed rooftop solar across the country and about 80/ MWh s of battery within its customer base. Ecotricity's demand side flex and VPP capability is building nicely and is now delivering meaningful megawatts of demand side flex from customer batteries across New Zealand. Along with a more proactive portfolio management approach, we will also accelerate our delivery of new renewables. Our pipeline of opportunities continues to grow as our expanded development team pursues opportunities to partner, purchase, and develop. We're focused on deepening and broadening our opportunities across owned assets, JVs with PPAs, and pure PPAs, with a focus on converting braggawatts into megawatts. We are delivering proof points on why Genesis is uniquely placed to partner or purchase opportunities and push them through FID to deliver new renewables. Our new Edgecumbe Solar Farm development is a great example of this, and of how we're monetizing sunshine. As announced last week, we've signed an agreement with Helios for the purchase of an advanced stage, 127 MW solar farm in one of the sunniest parts of the country, near Edgecumbe in the Bay of Plenty. This will be one of New Zealand's largest solar projects, and while ambitious, we plan to have it through FID within 12 months. It's a large project of over 200 hectares, and we've estimated its capacity at 127 MW peak, or DC, with annual generation of around 230 GWh s. The higher sunshine yields in the area means the capacity factor will be over 20%. The economy of scale supports the economics, and we're estimating a build cost of around NZD 1.7 million per MW. A key pillar of our portfolio strategy is flexibility, creating value by time shifting energy to secure the grid from a minute to a month. The perfect partner to our solar farms will be our battery storage system with stage one at Huntly Power Station. We are pleased to announce today that we have reached FID on stage one of the Huntly battery, a 100 MW unit providing 200 MWh of storage. This is the first stage of a 400 MW battery system we plan to develop as part of the Huntly portfolio. As we have said before, Huntly is ideally suited to batteries, with available land, direct access to the grid, and located close to New Zealand's electricity demand centers. These factors, alongside the work our team did procuring battery equipment at competitive terms, means we've been able to deliver the lowest cost, 100 MW battery so far in New Zealand. We're partnering with Saft, who already have on-the-ground experience in this country. We expect the total cost of around NZD 150 million, with around NZD 60 million allocated in FY25. Commercial operations are due to commence from around mid-2026. The revenue we get from batteries is complex, but we've tried to break it down to outline how Genesis will deliver value. Batteries serve the minutes and hours end of the energy security spectrum. Electricity arbitrage, through sale and purchase of electricity throughout the day, is a key revenue stream. With increased solar development throughout the country, price volatility will grow, so a battery portfolio is an ideal optimization hedge for our solar portfolio. Ancillary services or reserves are also an opportunity for Genesis, where we expect to reduce costs on thermal generation assets, as well as earning from the market. The Genesis portfolio will also benefit through reduced starts and lower requirements to operate units at low loads to mitigate potential peak losses. A battery is another tool to optimize the running of thermal units. How these benefits break down and drive value through the years will vary. We expect EBITDA of around NZD 25 million per annum, but this is likely to be variable year to year. We're targeting an internal rate of return of 9%-10%. This slide is an illustration of what a battery installation might look like at the Huntly site. Gas is now about delivering more from less. I'm stating the obvious, but the gas market is now challenging for New Zealand. This winter, due to the gas shortage, around 500 MW of gas generation capacity was idle due to the lack of fuel. Genesis took some risk, making a significant gas purchase from Methanex in a hot market. However, doing so had an immediate beneficial impact on the wholesale market of electricity and on energy security. Neither we nor Methanex can be expected to do this on a regular basis just because New Zealand doesn't have an energy reserve requirement for renewables in its electricity market settings. All renewable generators need to carry their fair share of system risk, no matter what type of renewables generation they operate. We're broadening our supply options for gas and have secured additional gas from NZEC, an additional two PJ over the next 12 months. But more importantly, we have secured a 12-month exclusive right to explore gas storage for up to 10 PJ of domestic gas or gassed-off LNG as part of this agreement. With little upstream development obvious and major operators in a harvest or divest mindset, what replaces gas in the electricity market? In November last year, we saw a pathway for biomass to displace coal. We have since come to see biomass as part of an overall fuel portfolio for energy security at Huntly, alongside domestic gas, coal, LNG, diesel, and future fuels. We said we would take 2024 calendar year to investigate biomass, and we are doing that. We have explored fiber supply capacity, production models, and biomass economics for electricity. We need nine hundred thousand tons of forestry residuals, that's slash and reject wood, to make three hundred thousand tons of black pellet biomass. There are multiple options for manufacture, and each option offers different scale and economics. We have also identified marginal land where short-cycle biomass crops could be grown for enhanced commercial returns to landowners. Based on this work, we believe there are sufficient resources and technology for a domestic biomass supply chain at the scale we need. The likely electricity price range will be around NZD 140-NZD 200 a megawatt through the Rankines. We have multiple parties engaging on biomass production options, and we expect to end up with a range of future suppliers. As we put contracts in place, we will provide updates. If I could draw your attention to the graph titled "Huntly Fuel Supply Costs," the broader the portfolio of fuels at Huntly, the greater the energy security it can offer New Zealand. We have attempted to lay out the megawatt cost, including carbon, at today's prices of the different fuel types through the different generation assets at Huntly. Domestic natural gas was the cheapest option through Unit 5. However, gas prices now mean coal through Rankine units is going to be the cheaper option. It is worth pointing out that the current Rankine units have very specific coal requirements. They cannot run on just any coal. There is currently very limited supply in New Zealand and only two mines in Indonesia that can produce to Huntly's specification. It takes some months to accelerate coal imports... And following the Ukraine invasion, Indonesian mines have domestic volume minimums, which must be met as a priority over export volumes. Imported coal supply will need long-term supply positions to be secure. Flipping in and out of the market every dry year will carry growing risk for New Zealand. We were lucky this winter that we started with around 800,000 tons of coal on the Huntly stockpile. We have said, going forward, we will maintain an operational solid fuel stockpile at Huntly of around 350,000 tons. 350,000 tons is operational. It is not an energy reserve. Holding an energy reserve only used in the asymmetric generation profile of New Zealand's dry year cycles is not financially viable for Genesis on its own. Those holding Huntly Firming Options will now be able to order their own solid fuel stockpiles to back their HFO generation rights. This will be solid fuel held in addition to the operational stockpile. While Genesis will arrange supply, this will allow HFO holders to manage their own generation risk profiles through their own future fuel reserves held at Huntly. Going forward, we will expand HFO volumes, and with that, the opportunity for HFO holders to hold more energy security at Huntly in the form of solid fuel reserves. LNG may well be helpful in the future portfolio for Huntly, and we are open-minded to that possibility. However, while LNG gives energy security, it isn't cheap electricity, at NZD 225-NZD 300 per megawatt. As we deliver the additional 500 MW of generation to Huntly by FY 2028, and we establish gas storage, we will look to expand HFOs to include gas, LNG, and solid fuel-backed generation and fuel storage options. This will enable HFO holders to add LNG to solid fuel energy reserves, improving energy security options. The big question in our energy transition will be whether Kiwi homes and businesses prefer cheaper electricity generation from coal with higher carbon or more expensive electricity generated from LNG at lower carbon. What is not in question is Huntly can and will flex to whichever fuel is favored. That is the enduring strength of Huntly as an energy security option for New Zealand. Finally, we're committing investment in time-limited technology projects now to ensure we move to a lower cost business in the future, while also serving our customers well. We are focused on three major value-enhancing technology projects, as shown on this slide. Projects are being resourced on a time-limited basis, with a focus on implementation risk management. I'll now hand over to Emma for FY 25 guidance. Emma? Thank you, Malcolm. FY25 guidance remains unchanged. Genesis Energy advises that FY25 EBITDAF is expected to be around NZD 460 million. Genesis highlights current volatility across electricity and gas markets and notes that this could result in a wider range of earnings outcomes. Guidance is subject to gas availability, plant availability, hydrology, and any material adverse events or circumstances. FY25 capital expenditure is expected to be around NZD 180 million, including around NZD 60 million investment and a 100 MW, 200 MWh battery at Huntly. In line with Gen35's strategy, operating cost expenditure is expected to be around NZD 390 million. That concludes our presentation this morning, and we'll now open the lines for questions. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star two. If you're on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. We will just pause for a moment to allow questioners to enter the queue. Your first question comes from Grant Swanepoel with Jarden. Good morning, Emma and Malcolm. Can you hear me? Yes, we can, Grant. Thank you. Four questions. First one, the additional cost of NZD 363 million looks like a good outcome relative to the guidance of NZD 380 and after you adjust that down for the NZD 8 million of SaaS. Can we assume, based on your November presentation, where you were expecting to take 20 million net off your FY 2024 guidance, that that still holds for FY 2026? Does the SaaS rule over? The SaaS change of accounting? Oh, yeah, sorry, apologies. Yeah, no, the SaaS change in accounting will continue into next year and is in relation to giving further advice in terms of how we treat those costs associated with the RT&T program. So there will be a further impact in FY 2026. ... No, sorry, let me repeat my question. At the interim results, you were looking for 380, you came in at 363. Eight million of that was due to the SaaS, so actually 371 rose to the 380. So actually the cost came in nine million lower. Then if you take your guidance that you gave in November last year, that FY 2026's OpEx will be down net 20 million on your FY 2024 expectation. Can we now assume that FY 2026, after SaaS adjustments, will now be 20 million lower than 363 million, so 343 million as the guidance? No, that was a one-off. Let me just take the line, I'll come back to you with some more information. Thank you. Second question is on the 124 PJs of gas that's left in Kupe, how many years of production that give—does that give you? And how low can the production go to in an annual year, to offset the fixed costs that are associated with that operation? The advice we have, Grant, is that it doesn't adjust the length of tenure of the well. It will result in lower flows per annum. There is a trigger point at which there's a reconfiguration of the well required to operate at lower pressures. We can get that point and circulate it. I don't have it in my mind right now. So we're still on track for about a 2032 closure. Is that correct? It'll be somewhere in 2032-2034, I think, from memory. Thanks, and then on slide 25, you put in your gas contracts. Is that enough gas to cover what would be a dry period over the next two years, potentially? Or is that just enough to cover your own requirements and commitments in an average hydro year? At this point, it's just our requirements. We don't think we'd have gas left. No. Thank you. And my final question, I see your carbon hedging drops off in FY 2027. Is that more to do with? Sorry, that carbon hedging was supposed to be 100% all the way to 2030, according to your last presentation on the topic. Now falling off in 2027, is that mainly due to the extra coal use in 2024, 2025 and 2026, or is there some of the credits that you're moving into the trading portfolio? No, it's directly related to coal use, Grant. Thanks. Thanks so much for answering those questions. Thanks, Grant. Your next question comes from Andrew Harvey-Green with Forsyth Barr. Morning, Malcolm and Emma. A few questions from me. First of all, just in terms of the HFO volumes, and you sort of talked about on the call there, just being able to expand those volumes over time. Just wanted to understand the way you, I guess, landed at providing 85 MW now, and I think you had bids of up to sort of 270. That seems like there is quite a lot of demand now. So why hasn't that been sold now? Ultimately, we had a reserve price of NZD 135,000, and the auction closed above that. So, that's ultimately what drove those volumes. A critical part going forward is the portfolio management piece, and how we set up our portfolio and Huntly for greater volumes of HFOs. Okay. Okay, thank you. Next question is just around biomass and the time it's taking. I guess when you released the HFO documentation, there was talk in there about potentially getting something done by the end of this calendar year, but it looks like that's been pushed back six months. Are there any sort of particular challenges or so, you know, things that are sort of pushing that timeframe out a little bit? Ultimately, it's a combination of contracting supplier fiber and the different manufacturing options that are in play. There's effectively three different manufacturing options. One is you import it, and the second is that you look at some scaled processing facility. And the third option is you actually put small mobile units into forest. And each of those options has different scale and economics to it. And ultimately, what we're trying to do is establish a contractual position that is long term, and that lands us with an energy or an electricity price that we think is feasible in the next sort of 10-15 years. You know, there's a number of moving parts in it, Andrew, and we're just not at the point where we have a contracted position. We would hope that next year we'll begin to bring some biomass into the mix, but the reality is, it's more likely to be 2027, 2028 before you start to see some real volumes in it. Great. Okay. Thanks for that. And the next question I just had was on the replacement, the sort of strategy, and I think you talked about maybe moving more to PPAs and offtake. Is that a, are you actually replacing new build here, or is this kind of in addition to just given the Kupe lower revenues coming from that going forward? No, I think we're still staying with, with the mix that we set on Investor Day, which was a mix of owned assets, joint venture with PPA and, pure PPAs. And we're judging each proposition on its merits in terms of whether, you know, we think it's best, as an owned asset, whether we think joint venturing, it gives us, some, leverage and opportunity, and pure PPAs really comes down to the competitiveness of the proposal. Okay, thanks for that. And a last question from me was just around the FY 25 guidance, and just to comment about the wider possible range of outcomes. I guess, yeah, would it give us some sort of sense of how wide that range is? Or perhaps alternatively, how much wider is the range this year versus, I guess, a outcome range in a standard year? You give me the rain forecast for the next six months, and I'll answer that question, Andrew. But I mean, I guess for, you know, hydrology is always has a fairly standard sort of range of outcomes. So I guess that, that is- I think the big- Starting point is key, isn't it? Yeah. The big difference that we're seeing, there's two, two big differences I think that are in play at the moment. One is that because of the gas situation, hydro is being dispatched at a much higher price than previous dry years, and, you know, that's, that's causing a different dynamic and forecast. There's, there's a wider range of possibilities because of that. So it's not just the rainfall, it's also the market dynamic of what price it will be dispatched at. The second is, you know, the demand-side responses, and, we don't have clarity on, on when, you know, the smelter could be called again, for example. So can it be called next winter again, or is there a period of time where it can't be called? And that's, that's gonna be quite significant in terms of the generation profile for Genesis. Yep. Okay, that's great. Thanks, thanks for that. Thanks, Andrew. Your next question comes from Vignesh Nair with UBS. Morning, Genesis team, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Awesome. Just two sort of straightforward questions from me. Firstly, just on the battery. The NZD 150 million in CapEx obviously comes in about 10% less than one of your competitors, but the IRR is about the same at 9%-10%. Can you just give a bit of color on what goes into that? Is it sort of inclusive of reserves, frequency keeping, arbitrage, and, you know, gas cost savings? Yeah, that's correct. It's also an asset that we haven't traded before. And so, you know, we've taken what we think is a evidence-based but conservative position, both in terms of the cost and the IRR. And we'll update that as, you know, as the project continues. Do you have a view on what the OpEx per year on the site will be? Is it sort of in line with your peers at around five million-ish per annum? I think it's, from memory, it's about four. I also think it's in one of the slides in our deck, so about three million, sorry. Yeah, is the number. Okay, that's clear. Thanks, and sort of secondly, just on solar, I think you're sort of still making a decision on whether to do it on or off balance sheet. Just wondering what goes into that decision. Clearly you're sort of heading towards the top end of your two to three times, you know, gearing range. Just wanted a bit of color on sort of how you guys are thinking about it at the moment. Yeah, I think it'll be a combination of what opportunities we have in play at the time we make final investment decision, and how we optimize capital deployment, given where that metric is sitting, once we deploy that capital. Okay. That's, that's clear. That's all for me. Thanks, guys. Thanks, Vignesh. We're showing no further audio questions. We'll move to the webcast questions. So I'll just read those ones out. So just a couple of questions. This is from Energy News. Okay, and so Transpower last week discussed ordering diesel for Unit 6. Has this arrived, and how much diesel do you think might be used in FY 25? So what we've done during this winter is work the system where we can now switch Unit 6 between diesel or gas almost instantaneously. And we're now carrying diesel on site for from memory I think it's up to five hours of running but it's relatively easy to replenish. And so it does give us. It's short-run marginal cost around 420. It does give us an option of bringing Unit 6 in when all the gas is deployed into Unit 5. So it gives us a bit of length with another fuel. Thank you. And just another question. I'll combine the two, also from Energy News. How much coal has been used since June? And has more coal been ordered since June? And is Genesis talking with potential domestic suppliers? So in our Methanex announcement, we indicated that we have 12 shipments ordered. We have four coming in the next month. The coal stockpile rose for the first time in the last couple of weeks, largely as a result of the extra gas from Methanex. We give quarterly updates on the stockpile, and we'll continue to do so. What were the other bits, Tim? Back to domestic supply, like that first? Yeah, domestic supply, absolutely, we're talking to domestic suppliers. Our challenge domestically is volume within the specifications we need. In essence, you know, we need a multiple times greater than the domestic market can supply. All right. We actually do have a couple more audio questions, so maybe we'll just pass back to them. Thank you. Your next question comes from Stephen Hudson with Macquarie Securities. Hi, Malcolm. Hi, Emma. Just a few from me. Just a clarification on the HFO. You're obviously acting as an agent there, for other generators. Can I just clarify that you're also guaranteeing availability of the Rankine units under contract? The HFOs have a series of options in them that relate to fuel supply suspension and plant outages. So we're not guaranteeing the supply, no. Okay. And then just on the LNG cost range that you've given there, it looks like sort of midpoint of NZD 200 a MWh, but with quite a range. Can you just give us a little bit more detail there? That was interesting. Sure. Just sort of, are you assuming ex-Gladstone or PNG and kind of breaking it down into the FOB contract and shipping contract and the regasification cost, I guess, would be interesting? Yeah, we basically worked off a set of figures that indicated that gas cost and landed is probably somewhere between NZD 22-NZD 30 a GJ, so we chose 25 to work it out on. The bottom end of that range is NZD 225 a megawatt. That's 25 dollars a GJ through Unit 5. And the upper range of 300 is 25 dollars a GJ through the Rankines. Got you. So that's just a landed cost? Yeah, we just chose that number. It doesn't have a huge amount of science behind it. It's based on third-party data in terms of what a landed cost might be, and as I said, it was kind of at a range of, from memory, 22- 30 a GJ. We chose 25, and that's the number that we put through Unit 5, and then the Rankines, and that gives you the range that's on that graph. Yeah. Okay, that's clear. Thanks, Malcolm. And just on your mass market electricity book, I just wondered if you can give us a feel for where your relative energy-only price is versus the rest of the pack. I know you got a little bit ahead of them a year or two ago. Where do you see yourselves now? I think from the last piece of work that we did, it's around 5%. 5% higher? 5% higher, yeah. Yeah. And then just last one on dividend that, you know, you obviously cut the dividend, I think, by the quantum of the, how you assess the free cash flow from Kupe, obviously with the KS-9 outcome and the transfer price, which I think you're using NZD 7-NZD 8 a gigajoule, obviously looking a long way south of current market. Are you ready to reassess the dividend on the basis of those two factors? The dividend decisions always sit with the board, so yeah, it's not for us to comment on that. But as we said in the presentation, there's no current plans to change the dividend policy. Okay. Thanks, Malcolm. No problem. Thank you. Your next question comes from Nevill Gluyas with Jarden. Good morning, team. Hope you can hear me. We can. It's great. Two questions from me, but a little bit multi-part, perhaps. The first one is just on your gas storage option, which sounds very interesting. I guess helps you potentially reconfigure the way you might be able to offtake your gas plant across seasons in a dry year. Good recovery on the supply side or good relations on the supply side. I just wondered if you could give a little more information. It's 10 PJ sizing you were talking about, roughly what kind of PJs in and out would you be thinking? Off the top of my head, can I come back to you on that one? Yeah, that's fine. Sort of probably the more important questions there. Would you be looking at Genesis capital for that, or is that something that you would be leasing from? And what would be the sort of a timing for an FID on that option? So we're- Yeah. We, yeah, haven't made a decision on whether that's third-party capital or our capital. We've kind of indicated that we'd prefer to use third-party capital and upstream activity. We have a twelve-month right from the time that the drilling finishes to explore that option and to negotiate a contract. Great. Okay. So this would be looking at sort of a serious life kind of asset here, you know- Yes. 20 years + kind of great. Yes. Okay, that's, that's very helpful. And the second question was just, you know, harking back to your slide 20, talk about portfolio positioning- Yes ... and your ability to sort of use a bit more length. Am I right to be thinking about this? You're saying basically, you have sort of extended your legs a bit in terms of using your, if you like, the strong degree of insurance policy within the generation side of the portfolio to back longer sales, to, you know, to third parties, I guess, to wholesale customers, is the way it's stated in the slide. Yes. That's the right interpretation here? Yes, it is. Wholesale and C&I. Yeah. Great, okay. Yeah. So we always believe that HFO, while we've put out a two-year HFO at the moment, that was really for us and others to learn and to begin to develop that product. Ultimately, we would like it backed by more generation assets, more fuel types, and a longer tenure for different types of customers. So, you know, the two, five, ten-year type tenures. Perfect. No, very clear. Thank you very much. That's all for me. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand back to Malcolm for closing remarks. Thank you very much, everyone. It's been a pleasure to update you on both the FY 24 and the strategic proof points that we're delivering, and we're now very focused on our FY 28 and look forward to engaging with you on that.