[Non-English content] everybody. Welcome to Mercury's presentation of our full year results for FY 2026. My name's Stew Hamilton, I'm the Chief Executive of Mercury. I'm joined here today with Richard Hopkins, who's the Chief Financial Officer, and Paul Ruediger, who is our Head of Business Performance and Investor Relations. I'll cover off this year's performance and our growth outlook. Richard will talk to our financials and our capital settings, and then together we'll answer your questions at the end of this presentation. The theme you'll see throughout today and this morning's presentation is one of the year execution, in which we've turned our strong earnings performance into outcomes. Three things that really define our FY 2026 are listed on this first slide. We firstly are demonstrating resilient earnings, we've pleased to show disciplined growth, and we're backing that up with a balance sheet that its strength is strong. Covering off resilient earnings, first of all, our EBITDAF for the year was up 36% to $1,068 million, driven primarily through higher renewable energy generation and cost discipline. That cost discipline showed up through our operational expenditure being held at our $370 million target that we committed to deliver. That's down $26 million from FY 2025 or 10% in real terms, really demonstrating our focused operational execution. We now have about 41% of our customers that hold two or more products, with the churn being 5% below market average at about 13%. We also delivered our stay -in- business CapEx target of $150 million. That's in line with our 10-year plan. We committed to a $590 million hydro refurbishment program that's within that window. From a disciplined growth perspective, very pleased to see our three gen dev projects being delivered on time and on budget throughout the year, contributing to an additional 1.1 TWh of energy per year. Also really pleased today to announce that our next wind project at Puke Kapo Hau, which is part of the Mahinerangi Wind Farm, that's reached final investment decision and is coming in at a cost of $2.6 million per megawatt, really demonstrating our capability to drive down the cost from our recent projects that were up around the $3.7 million per megawatt. Overall, we're still on track to hit our 3.5 TWh target by 2030, with the projects I've just discussed, but also with another terawatt hour of geothermal that's in advanced feasibility through our $75 million committed drilling program. If you look at our balance sheet, two thirds of our FY 2026 EBITDAF has been reinvested either back into current operating assets or new assets, reflecting our continued drive to grow investment within balance sheet guardrails. In fact, we continue to hold our debt to EBITDA within those guardrails. It's just around 2.0 x at the moment, and comfortably inside our BBB+ guardrails. Today, we're announcing that we have got 18 consecutive years of ordinary dividend growth, which is a fantastic track record. Our FY 2026 total dividend is up 13% to $ 0.27 per share, and also announcing that our dividend settings are under review. That reflects the future earning base that we can see, and also the completion of our first major investment cycle. Overall, today through the pack, you'll see some new information around our EBITDA delivery. The fact that we're guiding for FY 2027 to $1.075 billion. We've also lifted our FY 2030 EBITDAF bottom of our range up, so it is now totaling $1.2 billion - $1.25 billion. We are announcing the final investment decision of Puke Kapo Hau and also increasing our dividend to $ 0.27, guiding to FY 2027 dividends of $ 0.29 per share. Overall, we've funded and delivered a record investment year without stretching the balance sheet. Every number on this page is at or ahead of what we told you. I will start with the EBITDAF number. I've spoken to that previously. Up 36% on FY 2025, mainly driven by new renewable generation and increased generation for our current fleet. Our operating expenditures, very proud of delivering that cost reduction over the year. It was a challenge and stretch at the time, but we've delivered on that and intend to sustain that for FY 2027. We delivered just over 9,000 GWh for the year, up 15% from FY 2025. Some of that was due to water and a bit of it was also due to three projects that are generating, all of them bringing on stream electrons through the financial year. Our capital expenditure was also a positive note, up 46% since FY 2025. That represents nearly two thirds of our EBITDAF being invested into new or current assets. One of the areas I am most proud of over the year, though, is over in the safety box where our total recordable injury frequency rate dropped to 0.31. There is no success without safety. That result is a true demonstration of our execution ability. Overall, we have proven delivery. We've definitely got credible future growth options, and that means we continue to grow shareholder returns. I will hand over now to Richard. Thanks, Stew. The delivery that you've just talked through is showing up very clearly in the financials. At the half year, we said cash conversion points, and the full-year results really demonstrates that. As you mentioned, the EBITDAF increased to $1.068 billion, with generation the biggest driver. We had the water available, but this was not simply a good hydro year. The team have really delivered a strong operational performance with higher hydro, geothermal, and wind generation lifting total generation to 9.1 TWh, up 15% on FY 2025. Pleasingly, we also started to see the contribution from the new wind and geothermal generation we've been building. At the same time, we held the line on costs at $ 370 million. So that translated into $762 million of operating cashflow. We reinvested $ 710 million, 66% of EBITDAF into new and existing assets, increased the dividend by 13% and still finished in around 2x debt to EBITDA. Stronger earnings, stronger cash conversion, and record investments with the balance sheet preserved. The $ 370 million OpEx result matters because that's the commitment we made, and we've delivered it. Operating costs were $ 26 million lower than FY 2025, so around 7% down nominally and more than 10% in real terms. About half that reduction came from people costs, particularly focused in generation and customer, as we simplified their operating models. Maintenance was $ 10 million lower, but that predominantly reflects the $8 million reduction in non-recurring geothermal well repairs. Not every dollar of the reduction is structural, but more importantly, the operating model changes are now in place and position us well to maintain this cost discipline over the next few years. For me, the key point is productivity. Getting more out of the platform while continuing to grow and invest. Next slide. Cost discipline doesn't mean that we under-invest in our asset base. We invested $ 150 million in stay-in-business capital, and that's really important. The mix is now moving from geothermal drilling campaign towards the major hydro rehab program, and resilience work at Ātiamuri. That protects reliability, improves efficiency, and supports the long-term cash-generating capability of the assets. We're controlling the cost base while continuing to invest properly into the assets that underpin it. Right, I'll cover off basically how we're executing to create value. If you ask me about what has changed most at Mercury over the year, it's pretty much on this slide. At OEC5, we strengthened the capability in our geo platform that I'll talk to in a moment. We delivered base load renewable energy on time, under budget. We've now built five of the six last wind farms to be built in New Zealand, and two of those are being delivered now through Kaiwera Downs 2. All the turbines are erected and energized there, and at Kaiwaikawe, the first generation of New Zealand's tallest turbines has been started. There is some work at Ātiamuri now to enable the extraction of full output from that station, and that will be completed in the next few months. There's also work over the next few months on the substation at Kaiwera Downs 2 to unlock its full potential, but it'll still be delivered in line with our plan. In the retail part of our business, we've seen now four years of bundling growth with nearly 41% of our customers having two or more products. This drives retention with our churn of 13.2% being 5% better than the industry average. In a market where churn is a major margin risk, this supports value. Our total connections are up 35,000 to 936,000 connections. That includes telco at 242,000 connections, and during July, we passed over 50,000 mobile connections. We've delivered OpEx improvements. They're now 17% below FY 2024. We've implemented time of use fixed rates which also grow customer control. Okay. Look, the new generation Stew covered is important context for an issue we know that's on the investors' mind, which is El Niño. Current forecasts point to a potential for a strong El Niño, and more active westerly conditions. These conditions tend to support higher South Island inflows, but the relationship is not simple enough to make a single call on the outcome. What we can do is be much clearer about the position that we enter FY 2027 from. The national storage was 141% of historical average at 31st July, and Taupō started the year above average. That's very different from FY 2025 when low national inflows coincided with constrained gas supply. We now have the Huntly Firming Option in place. We have around 1.1 TWh of additional wind and geothermal generation coming through. FY 2027 and FY 2028 sales are substantially contracted, which reduces our near-term sensitivity to wholesale price movements. If South Island inflows are strong, national spot prices tend to be lower. For us, the key is knowing what our Waikato water is worth. If spot prices are below the value of our water, we can buy from the market, reduce hydro generation, and conserve water in Taupō. That gives us the opportunity to use that water later when its value is higher. We are also watching the increasing impact of solar, particularly through the summer. More low-price daytime periods can create further opportunities to buy from the market, preserve hydro, and deploy it when the system values it more. When wind is volatile, hydro gives us the flexibility to respond. We are not making a call on El Niño is good or bad for Mercury. We are entering it with more generation, stronger firming, a fully covered 2027 sales position, and much more portfolio flexibility than we had in FY 2025. That really is the largest strategic point. We have talked before about Mercury moving broadly towards a third hydro, a third geothermal, and a third wind. That is not a hard target. It is shorthand for the much more balanced portfolio we have built over a number of years now. Each technology plays a different role. Geothermal gives us firm, reliable, renewable generation, and strong price capture. Wind gives us scalability, low cost, renewable generation, and is one of our repeatful growth platforms. Hydro remains incredibly valuable, but increasingly, its role is flexibility. It lets us store water, choose when to generate, respond to price, and manage variability from wind. Increasingly, the value of hydro is about when we generate, not simply how much water we get. We layer contracting and firming around that physical generation portfolio. The Manawa CFD provides additional volume and price cover through its remaining term, and its roll-off is already incorporated into our portfolio planning. By FY 2030, about 87% of our generation is covered by retail and demand that is already contracted, giving us significant earnings visibility while retaining some exposure to market prices. On demand, long-term customer contracts give us visibility, while new generation remains staged rather than built ahead of the market. El Niño is one example. The bigger point is that we have built a much more balanced generation and sales portfolio with different assets doing different jobs. That gives us multiple levers across weather, across price, and across demand outcomes, and greater earnings resilience across the cycle. Talking about that growth cycle, one of the key aspects that determines what our future pipeline is worth is the demand forecast. Our mid case has demand growing through to 2030 by about 10%, and then a further 10% beyond that up to 2035. There could be other significant electrification moments along the way, including material opportunities with sectors like data centers. The critical point for us here is that we do not need high demand for value accretive growth. Our wind and geothermal platforms give us the flexibility to advance the right projects at the right time. We have built optionality now, not necessarily obligation. You should be able to see from this slide some of our capability in the geothermal and wind space. It has been developed and executed across 20 years. Our share of New Zealand's generation from these two platforms has grown from 0% 20 years ago to now over 12% of New Zealand's power. The point here is that these are not just individual projects, they are platforms to grow from. Our geo platform now provides New Zealand's largest diversified opportunity set of geothermal options with deep partnerships and expertise. Our wind platform is large, it's regionally diverse, and our delivery is proven, and both these platforms are why our ability to execute on time, under budget, and to sufficient quality is strong, and we continue to deliver steady growth. We have a deep pipeline of over 17 TWh opportunities of which nearly, if we did that, it would increase New Zealand's total demand by another 50%, or generation by 50%. Of that, we have six live opportunities ahead of us, each with clearly defined gate processes. I'm excited to share today that the first of those, Puke Kapo Hau or PKH, has reached a final investment decision. I'll talk to that in a moment. Whakamaru Battery Energy Storage Solution, or BESS, will head towards a potential final investment decision later in this financial year. Waikokowai is a strong prospect for one of our next wind farms. We're targeting a consent application for that sometime over the next 12 - 18 months. Our geothermal expansion is under further feasibility with the appraisal set of wells ready to start drilling in the early part of next year. Our hydro rehab project is well underway, and Puketoi continues to have detailed exploration and feasibility in that project. We have multiple pathways ultimately through this to hit our FY 2030 target. We'll choose the best option in which to deliver on that. Final investment decision has been reached for Puke Kapo Hau, and this really continues to demonstrate our capability in growing wind pipeline in New Zealand. This is stage 2 of the Mahinerangi Wind Farm, and together with stage 1, it will be New Zealand's largest wind farm. The project ahead of us with PKH is to deliver 40 turbines. It adds another 192 MW at approximately $506 million capital investment. Our engineering and procurement teams have done an outstanding job now. They'll deliver a project cost of $ 2.6 million per megawatt down from the Kaiwera Downs 2 and Kaiwaikawe projects. This is our first project to go through fast track, and we've been equally fast to convert it from consent into an investment decision. We're expecting civil works to start this spring or into summer with first generation in mid-2028. This will produce South Island generation that supports South Island demand, which could include data centers. In May, we presented our geothermal investment platform or geo platform. There's four numbers that framed that. A 5 TWh geo platform pipeline, 1 TWh of projects under feasibility, a $75 million approved appraisal drilling program for the next two years, and aiming for a 2030 first generation. The near term focus or Horizon One is on brownfield expansion. That's underway with that $75 million drilling commitment. Beyond that and Horizon Two, we're building greenfield options at places like Whakamaru, and we're also supporting Horizon Three with the government's geothermal super hot project. And that's why geothermal gives us reliable baseload energy with robust price capture, and it best complements our wind assets and our hydro assets and pipeline. Our strategy and our strengths lie in building and operating power stations, and one of the best ways to enable confidence to execute on that and to continue to deliver our pipeline is in growing demand. New Zealand's been building power stations at a faster rate than ever, and our renewability in our grid is now well over 90%. The next phase or our next opportunity really exists in building for growth and building for affordability. Data centers represent a significant growth opportunity for New Zealand, and the most advanced prospect in New Zealand for an AI data center is that with Datagrid. We've made an initial equity investment to support the progress of this potentially material long-term demand growth option to enable the value to be delivered and firming our pipeline. The project has begun with horizontal groundworks being announced today. Early procurement is underway with transformers, and we're looking forward to supporting this project proceed through to final investment decision. Mercury's growth story has progressed significantly in this last financial year. In fact, we've built the most of anyone over the last six years in New Zealand's grid. We have proven platforms, we have a strong pipeline, and we're committed to progress that, and we'll scale it and scale our options to meet demand. To summarize our growth story, we choose to engage with demand, we're developing the best projects, and we're pushing those right projects through at the right time. Our growth case is a portfolio of choices. It's not a single bet. Thanks, Stew. The next slide, please. The depth of the pipeline you've just shown gives us a lot of choice. But a pipeline only really has value if you can turn it into operating assets. What gives us confidence is our delivery record. At the half year, we described that simply, deliver and then deliver again, and the projects Stew has just covered are the evidence of that. At Geo Day, we talked about four lenses we use to allocate capital: value, timing, risk, and funding. Those apply across the whole portfolio. Value comes first. We're not chasing megawatts for their own sake. Timing means we're investing against visible demand rather than building ahead of the market. The 17 TWh pipeline is optionality, not a commitment to build 17 TWh. If demand develops more slowly, we can defer capital and preserve returns. Risk is managed through clear technical, commercial and investment gates before major capital is committed. And funding discipline matters. Every project needs to fit within our balance sheet guardrails and earn the right to proceed. So confidence comes from delivery, but the discipline doesn't change. Projects proceed when demand and returns and execution readiness all line up together. We enter the next growth cycle from a strong balance sheet position. Debt to EBITDA finished at around 2 x. We also have $ 610 million of liquidity headroom and drawn committed bank facilities net of commercial paper on issue. Even including the current growth plan, leverage peaks at around 2.6 x before declining. So we have the capacity to fund staged growth on balance sheets within our guardrails while maintaining a strong investment-grade credit profile. We've also continued to grow shareholder returns through a very significant investment cycle. The FY 2026 ordinary dividend is $ 0.27 per share, up 13%, and $ 0.02 up on our previous guidance, reflecting the strength of the result. That is our 18th consecutive year of ordinary dividend growth. For FY 2027, we are guiding to $ 0.29. Over that same period, we have invested heavily in value accretive growth while maintaining balance sheet strength. We have continued to grow the dividend while funding the build, and that leads to the question of what the right balance is for the next phase. The question for us now is how we strike the right balance between continuing to invest for growth and returning cash to shareholders. The context has changed. Earnings and cash flow have stepped up materially. The first major investment cycle is nearing completion, and the balance sheet remains well within our guardrails. Our current payout settings are also lower than those of our utility peers. We think it is the right time to review whether the current settings remain appropriate for the next phase of Mercury. That means looking at two separate questions. First, whether the 70%-85% is the right payout range for Mercury, including whether that range should change. Second, where Mercury should normally operate within whatever range we ultimately determine is appropriate. That includes considering peer practice, including the potential to lift our dividend settings as high as our peers, alongside growth requirements, liquidity and credit settings, and the role of DRP and the broader capital management tools that we have. The objective is not simply to maximize dividend. It is to find the right balance between returning cash to shareholders and retaining the capacity to invest in attractive growth opportunities. There are some important constraints. Value-accretive growth remains the priority. We intend to fund that growth on balance sheets within our guardrails. Maintaining a strong investment-grade credit rating remains important, and progressive dividends remain a core part of shareholder returns. Look, there is no predetermined outcome, and the current policy remains in place while we undertake the review. We do not expect to provide a further update until next calendar year, as we build further confidence in our near-term development pipeline. Looking forward now, our investment in renewables remains essential, not just for Mercury, but for New Zealand. We continue to engage in market settings that are evolving to support this investment. There are three broad policy settings and changes underway. The first relates to build settings with the resource management changes and settings supporting renewable supply. The second relates to security of supply, where dry year firming becomes critical. It is really vital to enable the lowest-cost firming to support renewable build. The third aspect that we are involved in looking at is affordability, to enable customers to have access and choice to products, providing transparency to enable scrutiny, and we welcome all of those as answers exist in the areas of innovation, flex, and productivity. The dry year and the affordability initiatives that are underway need to preserve investable market signals, and stable rules will then let private capital fund the transition. Thanks, Stew. A couple of final slides from me. I am going to start off with the FY 2027 guidance and then look at FY 2030. For FY 2027, we are guiding to EBITDAF of $ 1,075 million based on 4.1 TWh of hydro generation. We also guide into $ 0.29 of ordinary dividends and $ 150 million of stay-in-business CapEx. The important comparison is with the normalized FY 2026 earnings base. We reported FY 2026 EBITDAF was $ 1,068 million. Normalizing primarily for generation, trading volatility, and favorable one-offs gives us a base of around $ 1,050 million. From there, new wind contributes about $ 33 million and new geothermal around $10 million. That more than offsets the around $ 18 million of yield and portfolio impacts. Importantly, the 4.1 TWh hydro assumption is slightly below mean. The underlying growth in the bridge is being driven by delivered generation, not by hydro, and that is the key point. The assets that we have already delivered are now contributing to earnings growth. Now looking to FY 2030, we now have greater confidence in the pathway to FY 2030. That supports lifting the lower end of the EBITDAF target by $ 50 million to $ 1.2 billion, while retaining the upper end at $ 1.25 billion. As we build further confidence in the pathway, there is scope to lift the upper end. As I have said before, we prefer to underpromise and overdeliver. Looking at the bridge, we start from $ 1,050 million normalized 2026 earnings base. The approximately 1.1 TWh of generation we have already delivered adds around $ 100 million by FY 2030. The range assumes a long-term power price of $ 120-$ 130 per megawatt hour in real FY 2027 dollars. The lower long-term price environment that the market is focused on is already reflected in the target out to FY 2030. The portfolio and cost headwinds are already in the bridge. Puke Kapo Hau is the next material step, contributing around $ 50 million, and around $ 60 million is from our next highest confident development options, and that supports the $ 1.2 billion lower end. A further approximately $ 50 million of generation development supports the $ 1.25 billion upper end. Those future projects remain subject to FID, timing, and return thresholds. Importantly, the range does not depend on us building the whole pipeline. If demand develops more slowly, we can defer capital rather than building ahead of the market. If demand develops faster, we have a deep set of projects and a demonstrated ability to execute them. Our confidence has increased more because we have the earnings pathway, which is supported by assets already delivered, and the next steps are becoming increasingly visible. The confidence has increased, but the capital discipline has not changed. We have a higher earnings base, a clearer pathway to FY 2030, and a balance sheet with the capacity to fund it. Look, we enter FY 2027 with a higher earnings base, with a clearer pathway. We think that the opportunity ahead is significant. Stew, back to you to wrap up before we head into Q&A. Thanks, Richard. If I summarize FY 2026, there is really three core messages. The first is around delivery. We have delivered a record EBITDAF result. We have great operating cash flow. We have delivered our OpEx improvements to $ 370 million. Our three generation development projects are generating electricity, and we have delivered 18 consecutive years of ordinary dividend growth. Everything we said we would do, we did. Second message, higher earnings base. We have a superior portfolio with two leading platforms that are diversified in growth from a wind and geothermal perspective. We have increased our generation base by 1.1 TWh. 87% of our generated load is contracted out to FY 2030. We have gone to the final investment decision for Puke Kapo Hau, our next wind prospect, and our FY 2030 EBITDAF target is raised on the back of growing generation volumes. Thirdly, we have staged growth options ahead of us. We will stage those against visible demand. We have a great pipeline of 17 TWh of wind and geothermal options, but we also have the freedom to accelerate, defer, or hold those options, and we are underway in our review of our dividend policy settings. We have a stronger earnings base, a resilient portfolio, disciplined capital allocation, and that is what supports durable growth and growing shareholder returns. Thank you very much, and we will hand over to questions and answers. Thanks, Stew. If you have a question, please raise your hand, and we will go through them. Once we bring you online, just unmute your microphone and ask a question. First, we will start with Josh Dale from Craigs. Just bringing you online now. Josh. Good morning, Paul. Can you hear me okay? Yeah. Brilliant. Thank you. Thanks, guys, and well done on a great year. The first question, I know guiding based on P50 is the done thing in the sector, but when setting your FY 2027 guidance, what was the debate internally as to whether assuming close to P50 was sensible in light of El Niño? I appreciate your hydro assumptions below mean, but only slightly. Yeah, look, so we've had some really good discussions and debates around all this, Josh. We think we've ended up with a really balanced forecast for next year. I think we look at the whole portfolio. We look at where the lake was. We look at what hydrology looks like and try and take a balanced approach. We've not just got one route to the $1,075 million, we've got multiple routes to get there. And that balanced portfolio and that sort of really strong hedging that we've got in place, mean that we think that's very deliverable. Okay, thanks. Just on slide 29, looking at your FY 2030 EBITDAF targets. In that column titled Additional Generation Development, you need $ 60 million to get to the bottom end of that FY 2030 range and another $ 50 million to get to the top end. Looking at the buildup to that, the battery won't contribute enough on its own, and FIDs on the Ngā Tamariki and Rotokawa look like they might come in too late if FID on those is the first half of 2029 at the earliest. All signs seem to point to Waikokowai. Two things on that. Do you have demand for that one locked in? Do we read that range as really reflecting the pace of Waikokowai's contribution in the FY 2030 year? Yeah, look, I think that you've worked that through pretty well. Look, we're making some really good progress on Waikokowai. That's got, I would think, a good chance of landing. The other one that we would like to see, which could be part of it as well, is what happens with our geothermal drilling and exactly the timing of when all of those lands. So what we've really got there is effectively a probability-weighted view of what we think is a reasonable base case to get to the bottom end of the range. But we just need to run through the process. But effectively, we're in a strong position, but there's still a long way to go to get through all the consenting, get the build done, and deliver it on time. But look, we've got a good, strong track record now, and we think we can do it. Thanks. On the demand for Waikokowai, do you need Datagrid to come through, or can you get there with other options? We believe we can get there with other options. As you can see with Puke Kapo Hau even, we take the projects through a pretty disciplined and rigorous review process, make sure that the long-run marginal cost of those projects come in under what we think the price is likely to be in the long term. So we assess all those projects against the long-run marginal price of what we think will happen, and if the project doesn't meet it, then the project won't get through the gate. So it's nice to have the demand come on stream so we can build into it, but it's not necessary. Thanks. Final question, just on wind build costs, Mahinerangi 2 at $ 2.6 million per megawatt. What has made that achievable, and is it a reasonable indication at all of what you might be able to build Waikokowai for, or is that far too aggressive? I would tell you, on your first part of your question, we have got a team now that is match fit, running really strongly. We have built five out of the last six wind farms in New Zealand, and this will be the sixth out of the last seventh. We have got a really strong internal capability, and we also have very strong relationships with OEMs and suppliers. That puts us in a very strong position to bring those projects on stream and have confidence to bring them on stream at very efficient prices. That is a key driver of that $ 2.6 million. I would not necessarily look at using a similar number for Waikokowai. It is a different part of the country, different wind prospects, and probably a different type of technology. It is early to say, but what I can say is that we have got a really good team in place that will make sure that when that project comes to final investment decision, it has really been taken through the wringers and it has been considered against previous projects. Thanks. Sorry, Josh Dale, you will see that PKH is we are going with the Nordex technology, and that is pretty important and significant from an Australasian perspective is actually we have got a history of going with Vestas, and we still think Vestas are fantastic. But Nordex have come through. They are actively winning some projects in Australia now, but now that has created some real tension in the procurement process for us, and really helped us get what we think is a really sharp price for that. I think there is another significant player in the market. Each of the wind resources that you have have different characteristics that can benefit from the setups that the different suppliers have. What we think is, yeah, look, it really gives just more options and choices as we look through the future. We obviously built a good relationship with Nordex now. We've got a great relationship with Vestas, and we expect to make sure that we can bring a lot of our wind knowledge to that new project, but also really compete the different technologies to get the best outcomes for shareholders as well. Okay, thanks. It might be fair to say that Mahinerangi 2 is potentially the last project we see in the twos in terms of cost per megawatt, and others might come in in the 3s. Do you think? Look, honestly, it's too early to speculate on that. I think all we can do is we can just play our own game, and we should be really proud of what we've achieved here. We'll make sure we do a great job for shareholders for any future projects as well. Okay. Thanks, Richard. Thanks, guys. Cheers, Josh. Next we have Vignesh Nair from UBS. Welcome, Vignesh. Should be able to unmute. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Amazing. Congratulations on the great outcome. A couple of questions. Firstly, just on the balance sheet and appetite for dividend growth, notwithstanding the fact that it's under review. Sort of NZD 0.27 this year. Next year's guide, sort of 7% ahead of probably what the market was expecting. Feels as though the guide implies a pull forward of DPS by about a year. I just wanted to get a bit more color on what the pathway could look like into FY 2030. The way I read it is that the balance sheet potentially has been deployed potentially too conservatively thus far. You guys haven't really breached the top end in the last 13 years. Is that a fair comment? Is the first question. Yeah. No, look, I think it's a fair, Vignesh. That's why we're just going to have a really good, the time now we've got good visibility through to 2030 of what we could build. We've been banging on this 2.6x for quite some time. Trying to hurry Stew and the team up to build some more if we can see the demand as well. We've delivered one for you. We've delivered quite a bit for the shareholders. But look, we've just got choices there. And so what we want to do is have a real good look at what choices we have. There's no predetermined outcome of what we're going to do. But we thought it was a question that we should be getting from shareholders and so we wanted to signal that we're already thinking about it and we will do some really careful work about it and work out what makes sense through to 2030 and beyond. And so just extending that, should the market read this as an intention that it sort of DPS growth over the next two to three years should in theory exceed your historical average of 7% per year, or is that premature? I think that's a bit premature, yes. But I think all the analysts should be doing their own modelling and really looking through at what we can afford to do and what you think is reasonable and thinking about that. We can see that dividend yield is clearly an important part of how investors look at that. We can see we're a bit different to others and we just need to make the choice of where we want to sit. What the prospects look like and what the right setting are for us. I suppose by extension, just commenting on the balance sheet overall, I think Richard, in the past you've mentioned your sort of internal modeling peaked at 2.6 x net debt to EBITDA. Is that still the case? That's the case. Yeah. Great. The second set of questions are on Datagrid. Obviously, one of your peers clearly opting for a similar co-investment strategy. I just wanted to get your read in terms of what you think the potential size of the DC market could be in FY 2030. Really that's just to get comfort on whether or not the announcements we've got so far from the range of operators are additive or potentially peer projects, I suppose limits the pace of Datagrid's full 360 MW being delivered at the pace that you want it to. Yeah, I think certainly had the opportunity to talk to the global players in the space, whether it is the hyperscalers, the AI companies, the developers, and there is an insatiable appetite for compute demand. I do not think that there is a limiting factor, especially with the couple of projects that have been announced so far. I think you will find that most limiting factor will be our ability to build new power stations at a rate that support that. Certainly from our perspective, while we welcome the announcement around Stratford, as much as we do Datagrid, we think they both have a big role to play in it. There might be some others, but I think you will probably find that, with those two, maybe another one big data center, that will probably consume our ability to build power stations over the next 5-10 years, I would think. Okay. That is very clear. That is all from me for now. Thanks, team. Thanks, Vignesh. Thanks, Vignesh. Next we have Andrew Harvey-Green from Forsyth Barr. Welcome, Andrew. Good morning. Hopefully, I've got the technology working this time. Yes, we can hear you. Excellent. Great. Welcome. That's a good start. A couple of questions from me, just I guess, first of all, starting with or following on from what Vignesh was asking around Datagrid and just looking at timing of that particular project. I think you've called out here that the Transpower GXP is supposed to be ready by the end of 2027. Is that a signal for when, if all things fell in line, you're looking at potential live data center down there as well? Or is that just the first thing that needs to get in place? It's definitely one of the key milestones on the critical path is that GXP definitely. There's obviously a number of other milestones we need to get through first, but certainly that GXP is a critical factor. Then once you get through that, it's the last thing you really want to get going before you start to use it for compute. Certainly, you can look at that milestone and think about the target of a 2028 coming on stream, and that we're lining that up pretty closely with our ability to deliver Puke Kapo Hau. Yep. I did recognize the time frames there. Second question, I guess is, we saw with the Contact announcement. That was really, I guess, leveraging their Stratford site. Just thinking about your old Southdown site, which I think you still have some ownership of, is that a potential future site which has similar characteristics to what we've seen at Stratford? Not really, no. We've actually sold part of that site off now. But before we did that, we did a pretty detailed assessment of the site, and it just is not big enough for the sort of scale that's needed for these AI factories or data centers. So, that site wasn't advantaged for the current data centers, but there are some others that we're thinking of that could be advantaged. And the work that we've done with Invest New Zealand, and that was actually a collaboration with Contact and ourselves to look around New Zealand at a number of potential sites, has identified some of those, and it's fair to say that we're considering what they could be and how they might fit in our future portfolio. Okay. Great. Thanks for that color. Next question is just around PKH, and the $ 2.6 million headline number is very impressive, but recognize per gigawatt hour basis, it is actually pretty similar to Kaiwera Downs 2, so a lower capacity factor. I guess the question I had is in terms of that really low $ 2.6 million number, how much of it is due to, I guess, the site-specific and I guess therefore a lower spec, for want of a better word, turbine, a cheaper turbine. Also, I guess, what potential discounts you may have received from Nordex. So how much of it, I guess, is site specific versus getting Nordex in as this being their, I guess, launch project in New Zealand? I would say it is not a lower-spec technology at all. This is still a really good turbine, that is equally as good as some of the other technology that we have seen, including Vestas. So it is not a lower-spec turbine to deliver on the cost. There has been a lot of great work that has gone on in the procurement process. So it really comes down to the site is a really advantaged site. There has been some really good procurement work, and as Richard mentioned, tension that has gone in the procurement process between the different suppliers. It has not been because we have gone for a lower-spec turbine. Okay. That is all good. All right. Last question from me was just around dividend and just thinking about imputation going forward. Are you able to give us any sort of color on what you are expecting there, Richard? Are we going to be fully imputed going forward, or are we going to start hitting a few headwinds given the level of CapEx and some of the depreciation benefits that you get? Yeah. No, we are all good on imputation credits out to FY 2030. So it is not a big worry for us. If we significantly changed our dividend or something, then that would be different. If we accelerated our build program even more, then actually, you start to get into a piece where just the way that the tax depreciation is calculated, that matters. Actually, the sort of government policy helping us to build faster is also reducing our tax burden a bit. But no, you currently look at 2030 with everything that we have got planned, we are expecting to continue to fully impute. Okay. That is great. Thanks for that. That is all from me. Thanks, Andrew. Next we have Grant Swanepoel from Jarden. Welcome, Grant. Morning, guys. Can you hear me? Yes. Morning, Grant. Fabulous. Three quick questions. First one, just on retail pricing outlook. I see you have your yield going down, but not for reasons of not putting up residential pricing. It was a good year in FY 2026. What's FY 2027 looking like on residential pricing from your perspective? Yes. We'll consider what residential pricing looks like as we head towards our February assessment. Certainly, as we look out, one of the big factors in residential prices will be, as you'll be familiar with, transmission and distribution pricing. So our principle is to largely pass that through. From an energy component, we're typically seeing and thinking about a price rise, which is less than CPI. Looking out ahead, as the wholesale prices do come down, we sort of continue to build that into our thinking around what the residential prices will be. But it's more of a smooth effect. So we expect that over the next few years, price rises will be at or under CPI, but we'll still continue to pass through the lines of distribution costs. Thanks. You've got your costs broadly flat this year. Now that the Manawa Trustpower acquisition is fully into your business, where are these inflationary cost cuts coming through from? Yeah. So during the last few years, the Trustpower integration has very much been about setting us up to kind of be fit for now, so there was some great work that went on to get the synergies out of the initial part of that integration. Now we've got the opportunity to really leverage that size and scale over the next few years, so we're calling it sort of fit for future. So there's still a good amount of work that can be conducted to look at what our duplicate systems are, how we take it further, so there's still, we think, good efficiencies to be brought from that combined business. Okay, still from that area. Then my final question is on the $ 75 million drill program. Are we still looking at March when you can let the market know how successful that drills program has been? No. We've got the drill program in place. I think spudding, which is when they first start to do the drilling, won't actually happen till the first quarter of next year, with the first well that gets underway. We'll start to see those results flow through towards the latter end of this FY and the middle of next calendar year, and that's when we'll start to get a better understanding of what the results look like, firm up some of our data, and that'll flow into what we expect for those next one or two projects. It's more likely next year, I'd say, Grant. Okay, thanks so much. That's mine. Thank you. Thanks, Grant. Next we have Steve Hudson from Macquarie. Welcome, Steve. Hi, Paul. Hi, guys. Thanks for the presentation and detail. Just a couple more on Datagrid. It's obviously kind of topic du jour at the moment. Can you just give us the summary view on why you need to own equity in the SPV? Yeah. Fundamentally, I mean, go right back to the beginning. If we believe that data centers have a strong potential to be one of a once-in-a-generation transformation in terms of demand in New Zealand, we've been looking carefully at how we get involved in that sector because the desire for that sector to have power is strong, and that's a key thing of what we do, and it's how we bring value. So we wanted to work out how we get involved, and at the lighter end, it was sitting on the sidelines cheering. As you go through into a more engaged process, it's providing PPAs, which we've involved. You kind of keep heading along that potential pathway of being involved in that sector, and it is through equity all the way through to ultimately being a developer of data centers. So we've been stepping our way along that curve and understanding what's the best place for us to play. As we look at a project like Datagrid, we believe it is New Zealand's most prospective project. It's got the consent. It's been progressing really well. As we looked at it and put in place a PPA with Datagrid, it became clear that one of the things that'd be very useful is an early-stage investment of a reasonable amount that basically enables it to keep going and get some of the horizontal works underway. Because as we're finding out from a lot of the consumers of compute overseas, time matters. They're after the scale of these data centers, but they're after it at pace. Our investment enables that pace to be kicked off, and it means that it can in effect bring it forward. That was kind of our reasoning, was providing a, I guess, a seed amount of money in there so that they can get the project going, demonstrate, I guess, progress so it can get the ultimate tenant engaged, and that means that the project's much more likely to be successful, and that means that the power demand will come along, which means we can build into it. That's useful, Stew. Hey, just to follow up, should we read very much into the amount? It grosses up to $413 million. I guess the obvious question is how much of that is sunk costs, so in other words, land, pre-purchase transmission, consenting costs, and how much of it is an intangible? Yeah. No, there's clearly a bunch of intangible in there. Ultimately, the value will show up through signing the tenancy agreement and the cash flows that flow from that. At the moment, our investment was very much linked to the physical components that are needed to be purchased and to start the civil works on site. That's kind of what we've invested into, is the physical work up front that will deliver value in the long term in terms of cash flow through to the entity. The $400 million is kind of what we should think of as the joint transmission investment that's going on? No, I think that $400 million is also representative of some inherent intangible value that comes with the value of a project like this. If you were to take this project and go away to some large developers overseas, what would a large developer pay for a consented site that has potentially a tenant lined up, has the power purchase agreements in place, and has the land ready to go? Okay. No, that's clear. Hey, there've been talk that the transmission assets when they are fully built out down there may only get that project to kind of 300 MW. What's your view on that? It definitely, first phase is at 300 - 360 MW. That's what we've been focused on for the moment, and so we're providing the 140 MW as part of that. I think as you go in Southland, if you go much further, there's definitely some constraints on the grid and transmission, and so that's going to have to be considered during the next stage of that project if that goes ahead. Okay. Thanks, Stew. PKH, I know everybody's had a crack at this one, but just interested in Nordex. That sounds as if it's their first project here in New Zealand. Are they offering a full EPC contract? I guess is the first question. Second question is around Siemens and whether or not they're still hanging around in New Zealand. Yeah. Just on your first question, with Nordex provide the equipment and install it, but the actual way we will deliver that project is very similar to how we have delivered the last couple of wind farms. So we line up the balance of plant contractors, and we have direct relationships with them, and then we have a direct relationship with Nordex. So we utilize our in-house capability to manage the whole of that project and connect the different contractors and suppliers together. It has been very successful for us for the last few projects, and so we intend to follow the same model for PKH. But what Nordex do, they will provide the full operations and maintenance of that wind farm when it is up and running all the way through for the 30 years. So we have built that into our project. Got it. The second part of your question? Just whether or not Siemens were still— Oh, Siemens. —in wind in New Zealand. There have been a number of suppliers that were taken through this process, that includes the common names we are familiar with as well as some others, more prospective. But when it came down to it, we are currently building two wind farms with Vestas, and we rate their platform and their technology very highly. And this is an opportunity to bring in a player who is significant in the European market. I think they are one of the dominant in the European market. They have been building in Australia, and this is a good chance for them to launch their platform into New Zealand. Got you. Last one, sorry. The long term $ 120 -$ 130 that you give, that is an Ōtāhuhu number. So presumably you are saying long-term futures are kind of ant to your long-term assumption. I think that was what I took from Richard's con. Yeah, that is spot on. Yeah, cool. Thanks, guys. Thanks, Steve. Thanks, Steve. That is the end of Q&A. Thanks for all your great questions. Pass them back to you, Stew. Yeah. Thanks, Paul. Thanks for your questions. As I mentioned, it has been a great year, a great set of results. We have delivered strongly in FY 2026, and we are setting the business up for an exciting few years ahead. Look forward to sharing that as we go through over the coming months. Cheers. Thanks, everyone.