Ladies and gentlemen, welcome all of you at the press conference of PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna, on financial and operating results of 2023. In our today's conference, we will have President of the Management Board, Dariusz Marzec, Director of Finance Division Piotr Sudoł, and Director of Investor Relations and ESG Filip Osadczuk. I will also welcome journalists and analysts, both those present here in the room with us and those attending the conference online. In a moment, I will give over the microphone to the CEO, and then we will, after the presentation, we will invite you to ask your questions. President, over to you. Thank you very much. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. It is a great honor for me to welcome you on behalf of the new Management Board. I have been the CEO since 18 March 2023 this year, so I took over this position quite recently. As you know, I'm not a newcomer to the Polish Energy Group. I have already previously been Vice President of the Management Board, but in this role as CEO, that's my first meeting with you, and that increases the pleasure today. I hope we'll be able to meet regularly when we present our results for the next reporting periods. Let's move over to the presentation. The general situation of the group is such that we recorded a double-digit EBITDA, but we should remember that it results above all from the energy crisis, which caused quite a significant spike in energy prices. Decrease in energy prices and this decrease in energy prices is something that we will have to face in the upcoming periods. The most important thing is still ahead of us, and namely the volatility of market situation and regulatory situation, regulatory environment of the group. I think the best reference point to indicate the changes would be the impairment write-offs that we had to make at the beginning of this year. And as a result of non-cash write-offs, which were necessary related to the analysis of the market and economic value of the assets, PGE ends the year 2023 with a loss of PLN 5 billion, with increasing debt that results from purchase of emission rights, CO2 emission rights, which increased by over 50% year-over-year if we take as a reference point 2022. From the perspective of operations, we need to record that as the greatest producer in conventional energy, we recorded a significant decrease in generation on those assets that use fossil fuels, in particular lignite. The decrease of production here with relatively comparable costs or maybe even growing overheads, this decrease in the production is more than 25% year-on-year. In terms of volumes of production that has a key importance for the economic results, so this decrease is extremely painful to the results of conventional energy prices. We recorded increases in distribution in retail sales, but it follows mainly from railway PKP takeover that we had last year. This volume in distribution and sales of energy increased, but that was the consequence of the acquisition of PKP Energetyka, railway PKP. Without that, our operating results would have been slightly lower than the year before. We have to say that the situation in the energy market generates a lot of challenges. From the perspective of PGE, we see this situation as deteriorating and causing a number of challenges that we will need to face, tasks that we will need to accomplish, and tasks that we will have to engage in order to modify the structure of the group and prepare the group for the challenges resulting from the EU climate policy and changes in the structure of energy sector related to the strategic decisions around the general structure of energy generation sources in the EU. You can see the overview of the situation in the energy market. There is a decline in domestic consumption of this energy that is the result of improved utilization. There is production increase, but that is, of course, a certain challenge for us from the perspective of decreasing volumes of consumption of energy that we produce. Additionally, our situation is affected by efficient use of energy assets, namely in the form of energy imports, almost 450 terawatts last year. Especially if we took into account the situation in our neighboring markets, we expect this trend to continue. Namely, there will be a growing impact of trade with neighboring markets with the resulting deterioration of the situation in our conventional assets. Generation of electrical energy in Poland dropped by almost 7%, but we had an even more significant change in the structure of this generation. Because if we look at the structure of energy generation in wind energy due to good wind conditions that we had last year, which were very conducive to good operating conditions of this segment, we had an increase in 3.5 TWh in wind energy, photovoltaics, both small PV and big ones, professional and prosumer, has already achieved the power of more than 10 GW. All renewable energy sources in 2023 generated over 8 TWh more than the year before, so the growths are quite significant. And mainly, they are consumed and absorbed by the decrease in production in conventional energy, mainly on lignite. Low price of gas also caused high generation of energy, and production of energy was up more than 37%, more than 3.5 TWh from gas units. That was the result of declining price on gas. 12 TWh of energy in the market pushed out the production on coal, -13% and -26% on lignite. I'm mentioning this because this shows very clearly the direction in which the group is going to develop and the changes that are required in the structure of our assets in order to prepare for a modified structure of the group that will respond to market challenges, which are already visible, which can be shown on hard numbers today. The situation is not something that will last for a single year. In January, in February, production on lignite decreased another 10% compared to 2023. Also, in terms of prices, this situation is not advantageous. Contract prices and market prices are decreasing. They dropped at the end of 2023 to below 500 PLN/MWh. Now they are at about 450 PLN per MWh in contracts for the following year. This shows that while in 2023, the average price that we had on conventional energy, of course, after the appropriate reductions following from the regulations, in 2023, we had almost 730 PLN per MWh. For 2024, that is already 642 PLN per MWh. That is about 90 PLN per MWh, the drop in price with fixed or even growing overheads that increases the pressure on operating costs in the segment of conventional energy. No i tak jak już mówiłem. As I said, the lower electricity prices result from a whole slew of factors, such as a decrease in prices of fuels, so oil and coal. Coal from $175 per ton down to $175, and in August last year, the price was more than $400 per ton. This all translates into the electricity prices for obvious reasons. The gas market situation also is conducive to the economics of electricity production. The price went down to PLN 150 per MWh for the contracts for the next year. Also, the CO2 price oscillated between 90 up to 100 EUR in 2023, and of the previous year, it went down to 70. Now, the prices are even lower at about 60 EUR per 1 ton of CO2 emitted in the production process. This could have been conducive to pricing because this translates into lower costs, but it also results in the deteriorating electricity prices, which increases, in turn, the pressure on costs in the conventional segment. We also need to take into account the decreasing volume, especially lignite, that exceeds 25% and continues to drop. This taken altogether, all the factors I told you about, market situation, electricity market situation, production assets utilization, all demonstrate the directions that the group needs to follow, especially in the restructuring of assets. That would allow the group to further grow and adapt the production assets to align them with the trends that are present in the environment. One of the key activities will be to separate coal assets, a conventional segment, out of the group structure. As we understand it, the governmental side is conducive to us negotiating a positive solution in this regard and closing an optimum solution. That would be outsourcing conventional generation assets in a way that also respects social needs as well as the need to keep them operating in the generation system because they are still the foundation of the environment, and the environment is or the system, rather, the environment is more and more demanding. We need to respect the social regulations and situations as well as the employees. We are very much convinced that all those activities need to be undertaken as soon as possible. We are in a dialogue with the governmental side, with the pertinent ministries, and we are looking forward to the drafts of corresponding legal acts emerging quite soon. In addition, we are going, as the management board, we're going to review all the activities and assets of PGE so as to manage our assets in the most effective way for them to generate the value for the group and for their stakeholders, as well as to match the strategy that we're going to follow for the group. Now, a couple of words, perhaps, on a single situation that was quite widely advertised in the press. The Wrocław court overturned the environmental decision regarding the Turów power plant, which is absolutely indispensable for the whole generation system. Once we have received the written statement, explanation of this verdict, we are going to undertake all actions to maintain this environmental decision and to ensure further operation of the Turów power plant. Both plants Bełchatów and Turów, as well as the other conventional plants, are slated for restructuring, but this restructuring needs to be carried out in a responsible and cohesive way to ensure both electricity and social security of the country, of the region, and the local employees. This is the responsibility of the PGE Group, which we are going to pursue as we have done that in the past. Now, as regards capital investment project, the biggest investments are in the offshore wind farms. Here, we execute several projects, the most important of which is Baltica 2. This farm is going to go online by the end of 2027. This project is operated together with the Danish Ørsted Company. We have been working on all components that actually will make this project work: deliveries of components, installation contracts, and so on and so forth. So all these activities combined will assure that we will meet the deadline of the end of 2027. We also work on the financing side. We want to conclude the financing and to make the final investment decision that it's going to happen in the couple of the next months. This is particularly important for us because this is a strategic direction for the group, and it demonstrates quite clearly where the group should go in terms of generation structure. This holds true also for the entire electricity sector of Poland, and the Baltic Sea is a natural opportunity for growth of the professional electricity generation sector. So we do hope that in a decade's time, offshore will become the dominant generation form in the renewable sector of the PGE, as well as the Polish economy, perhaps. Now, when it comes to distribution, its growth is definitely needed for the transformation of the entire sector. The distribution grid needs to be flexible to encompass, accommodate all those changes that are happening, prosumers, including. The grid needs to be more and more intelligent, flexible, and responsive to the client's needs. The spending on distribution exceeded PLN 4 billion last year. This is one of the most important operating components, which generates very stable revenues on the operating profit side. So we have earmarked huge money for investments in the sector. Now, when it comes to the generation projects, we have been heavily investing in the gas sector, such as power units, gas power units in Gryfino and Rybnik, which are huge investment projects, which are quite advanced, especially in Gryfino. In Rybnik, we have just started construction works. The gas system company started constructing their gas connector, and we plan that the Rybnik power plant and the huge 883 MW power unit fueled by gas will go online in 2026. Polskiej Grupy Energetycznej. It also shows the ongoing changes in the structure of our assets. We are going away from fossil assets, coal, and we move towards renewable energies or low-emissions energy, and that is mainly gas. As I have said, we are becoming more independent of coal and heat generation. Another boiler unit in Rzeszów, Lublin, is being handed over for use, and we are working on a gas source in Gdynia. We are continuing our Baltica project. Now, we are in the process of negotiations with the vendor. We are renegotiating the contract, and in general, the direction is quite clear. We support change in the structure of the group towards greater reliance on renewable energy sources and low-emission energy sources. That is aimed at reorienting the group towards a new structure that will address the challenges related to Poland being part of the European Union and a participant of changes that are going on across the entire European Union. We are going to act with determination to achieve those goals. Thank you very much. In this part, I will try to sum up our results for 2023: CAPEX, debt, EBITDA. We'll start with operating results, sales results, because that provides background and perspective for the upcoming 12 months, as well as this outlines the challenges ahead of us in this context. As you can see, generation of electricity and heat shows a negative trend: 9 TWh on generation of electricity and 2.3 PJ on sales of heat. Sales of heat recorded a decrease due to the growing temperatures. We will not win with nature, but we can assist the situation. Our CEO mentioned the pros of decarbonization that we are consistently implementing. This is a way of helping nature, so it will be cooler. As for the generation of heat, if you look at individual types of fuel from which we generate electricity, we have a drastic, dramatic decline in lignite, 25% down. That is one-fourth, meaning a significant decrease in generation mass on coal, also a significant drop at about 8%. And on the other hand, we have very high growth in generation on gas, more than 50%. However, the capacity that we have on gas cannot offset that. Also, we need to keep in mind the effect of a very low base of 2022. Basically, no one generated electricity on gas, and the prices were EUR 200-EUR 300. Another segment or two segments that show nominal growths in distribution: 1.8 TWh, 0.4 terawatt-hours. There is a growth, but if we deduct volumes generated in three quarters generated in 2023 by PGE Railway, that is excluding the acquisition, we also have declines. And the reasons of that decrease are common for both segments. First of all, we see high and medium voltage A and B groups experiencing drops, optimization of consumption due to high electricity prices, and those customers were not protected. Then there is increased consumption of energy from both renewable energy sources and owned sources that covers a number of PPA contracts with investors and developers and renewable energy sources. In Poland, also, we had the second lowest result in the last 30 years, which also translated into business and overall economy and, naturally, a lower energy consumption. In the following slide, you will see the EBITDA results. Recurring EBITDA is something that I would like to focus on because that is this cash result generated by the group here. We had PLN 3.6 billion growth. I would like to highlight two aspects here: generation PLN 2.5 billion, energy crisis, high prices, and as you can see on this green bar, more than PLN 12 billion growth, consumed in half by high fuel prices and high CO2 prices, and in a significant part, consumed by the legislator who set maximum prices on generation and thereby caused an outflow of cash from the group at a level exceeding PLN 6 billion towards the fund for price equalization. As I have already mentioned, we had quite significant generation on gas, but also heat, and the result on heat sales is almost PLN 2 billion. Again, here, we see the result of a very low base. When we presented our results last year, sales on heat were deeply negative. The entire segment generated zero EBITDA. Altogether, PLN 2.5 billion growth on generation and PLN 3.6 billion. Here, I would like to highlight railway energy, which added margin on electricity sales and distribution sales over PLN 1 billion. Once again, I would like to reiterate that this is for three quarters, starting from April 2023 till the end of the year, so from the moment of closing the transaction of acquisition of PKP Energetyka. Other two aspects that are worth noting here are related to reallocation of power with compensation by the regulator in favor of generating units. That was mainly in conventional energy. This, however, cannot be repeated because the rules of settlements changed, and the last quarter of 2023, those revenues were significantly lower, and nothing indicates they could be repeated in the following years. PLN 10.7 billion real EBITDA with 50% growth, and the main drivers have just been presented. Next slide. Investment expanded the chance. CAPEX close to PLN 10 billion, similar to the generated EBITDA. It's noteworthy that PLN 2.5 billion were recorded as growth in our two distribution networks, plus nearly PLN 1 billion of executed CAPEX by the Energetyka Kolejowa railway electricity company from the outset of our consolidated balance sheet. There's a very good foundation for the expansion of revenue sources, sorry, renewable sources, and combined with revenues for the operator can definitely pay for the CAPEX. The conventional area, we have PLN 700 million growth, but I shall emphasize that we have ceased to invest for growth. We just need to comply with environmental requirements as long as we are producing. This is why the outlays. We have conducted this year three capital maintenance and repair works in Bełchatów, especially at PLN 360 million level, the biggest power unit then in addition on two power units, six and seven. If we deduct that, the capital increase would almost go unnoticed compared to the previous years where it amounted to PLN billions. Now, in the renewable sources, three components: development of the Baltica 2, as well as upgrades in the water pipelines in Dębe, as well as the pipelines in Porąbka-Żar. As far as the Gryfino gas pipeline is concerned, there are some problems with the schedule. The milestones were executed in 2022, and according to the contracts before it was annexed, the whole project was to be concluded in 2023. If that went according to the schedule, this would have been already wrapped up. However, with the annexed prolongation of the contract, we see a decrease in the CAPEX as well, coupled, excuse me, with the new CAPEX in the Rybnik, which is going to start in 2024, and we're going to see significant investment CAPEX into this power plant. So far, when it comes to investments, when it comes to debt, that went up significantly. This is because of significant CAPEX projects, plus PGE Energetyka Kolejowa acquisition, the value of PLN 6.5 billion coupled with PLN 10 billion investment outlays, which is actually tantamount to PLN 7 billion's overlay on the generated EBITDA. The overall financial debt exceeded the projections by PLN 13 billion, but it also includes the specificity of CO2 settlements depending on the instruments we contract on December and in March next year, also depending on the exchange rate złoty euro, which causes certain financial volatility. Also, VAT settlements due to CO2 actually make the groups' balance sheets a little bit wobbly. We are talking about the OTC ETS market players who are mainly foreign players who come from abroad, and they clear in euro. We need to convert into złoty and put VAT on that. So given that fact, we are faced with several months of those funds being frozen in the accounts of the Polish revenue service. Also, we present you the net debt to flatten out the curve because it also includes the reserves for the specific year. So we speak about PLN 22 billion as debt for 2023, and PLN 14 billion was recorded at the end of 2022. So the difference is actually due to the wind farms and the acquisition of the PKP company. So in a comparable situation, the EBITDA minus CAPEX minus other things result in the debt of the company going slightly up. The wrap-up slide summary, which gives you a certain outlook for 2024. We expect tremendous challenges, a lot of threats, starting with conventional generation, with EBITDA with definitely decreasing trend due to lower electricity margins. Also, the revenues from the power sector and the systemic regulatory markets cannot repeat themselves. There is also huge pressure on the volumes, 2022 on lignite and 2023 on coal. In the first months, we observe further declines in the sector. Given the high fixed cost of the lignite pipelines, this results in every power unit being encumbered with a higher fixed cost allocation per producing power unit. What is a positive message as regards to coal-fired power plants is the much lower fuel cost in 2024 compared to the previous years, especially the years 2022 and 2023 due to the outbreak of the war and dramatic surges in prices of coal up to $400 per ton, coupled with the exchange rate of five złoty to a dollar. When it comes to district heating, PLN 2 billion. I spoke about low base effects, speaking about EBITDA and production volumes in 2022 due to a dramatic, sharp rise in fuel prices and prolongation, also the delay in tariff renewals. We had a sharp increase in the revenues now with the tariffs caught up. So this generated those PLN 2 billion that I mentioned. And after the acquisition of EDF assets, we have realized 1 million sorry, PLN 1 billion of EBITDA. If we take 2023 and divide by 2, we would come up with that extra PLN 1 billion. So this is a good direction to follow. So this is something we should expect. Importantly, heat tariffs are going up, but that is at a one-digit level, around 7%. So we do not see here any significant acceleration in the growth dynamics of the revenues and of the generated profit. Renewable energy, PLN 1.1 billion. We estimate this result as stable. On the other hand, a decrease on peak pump power stations. And we also have to remember that we sell a lot from our renewable energy source on the spot market, but the prices will go down in connection with the photovoltaic facilities that will be handed over for operation, both and onshore wind as well. There are two events which are worth mentioning here. That is the establishing of the provision for G-tariff of 2024, the so-called provision for liability-generating contracts. We know that we will generate loss on each terawatt-hour. We know the prices of acquiring the energy because the prices have been approved. But on the other hand, what we have in the approved tariffs does not cover this amount. So we have this provision of over PLN 800 million that will be the burden for 2024. On the other hand, if you recall the regulation of the Minister of Climate and Environment about refunds to customers who meet one of six criteria of the amount of PLN 125 per each energy consumption point, that seems insignificant. But given the customer base we have, the result will suffer the burden of more than PLN 500 million. Distribution. That is the driving force of the PGE Group, and it is accelerating almost PLN 4 billion last year. That is related to the tariff approved last year, which takes into account return on equity at almost 5% with volume conditions not worse than last year. That should drive the generated result up. Regulatory value of assets also increases. That is this ratio 11.5. Cumulatively, we will see growth in the profit in this segment. As for railway electricity, also WACC is higher for 2024 with a growth of several percentage points, although in the absolute terms, it is lower than in distribution. We expect a lower result here on account of cash-related one-off event, namely a significant delta in connection fees between 2024 and 2023. In 2023, we had a cumulation of closing of investments related to power supply systems. That was the so-called MUZa program initiated by the previous owner. In accordance with the principles of accounting that we recognize in the group, we recognize the revenue as a cost of interconnection. That is PLN 300 million as a negative impact on 2024. On coal business, that is distribution of electricity, thanks to the growing WACC as in distribution, PLN 900 million CAPEX in PGE Railway. But actually, 50% of that goes from railway. But there is also trade and distribution. The CAPEX on those three elements is not equal with a clear focus on distribution and increasing regulatory value of assets. That's it from me. Thank you very much. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, as promised, now we move on to the Q&A session. We have already received quite a few questions by email. So if you allow me, I will start with a few questions sent this way. Mr. President, Directors, the first question: how would you see setting off distribution from electricity groups? Maybe the CEO. Ladies and gentlemen, distribution is an integral part of the business of PGE. We are a national energy group that ensures security of energy supplies for the Polish economy. I cannot imagine such a concept to be implemented from the perspective of the group that would prevent any growth of the group in the following year. So I think this is one of those ideas that in no circumstances should be put into practice in PGE. Thank you. Another question: why is PGE, once again, not going to pay out the dividend? Development, development, and once again, development. At net profit, we had a PLN 5 million non-cash loss. The key challenge for the group is growth. So unfortunately, the challenges that the group is facing, including CapEx and structural, the program of development of renewable energy sources, offshore wind, and so on, means that the more of our own funds we invest, the less we need to obtain funding in the market, and consequently, the lower our costs. So my answer is of three words: development, development, and development. A very important aspect has been brought up by the CEO. The more of our own funds we have at our disposal, the less we will be required to raise in the market. Keeping in mind the offsetting of coal assets means that it is very hard to raise funding. Now another question, slightly longer. Polimex has informed about establishing a provision for about PLN 102 million in connection with EC Czechnica. And that was related to an increase in compensation and changes in deadlines. Why does PGE not inform us if something changes regarding the investment? Ladies and gentlemen, each market player makes their own decisions regarding their situation, taking into account their perspective and their assessment of how those details should be presented. We will not speak on behalf of our colleagues from Cogeneration, which is a listed company and a party to the agreement with Polimex. The proceedings before the prosecutor's office have not been completed. We cannot talk about achieving any final solution. Polimex has its own constraints related to financial statements and the impact of this contract on their financial statement. Probably that is why they made this communication. We have our own constraints. From the perspective of a contractor, that means a realistic prospect of penalties. Deviation from the budget means a loss. But we would be far from publishing any imprecise information that might mislead investors or the public, in particular, bearing in mind that we have not finished the mediation procedure. So such messages would be premature. Thank you. Thank you. Next question. In 2024, sorry, correction, 2023, there was an increase in... Okay, the tariff has been or was officially instituted in 2023. And negotiations that followed led to the adoption of the Charter of Effective Grid Transformation which prioritizes capital projects, investment projects, which focus on connecting new recipients or clients to the grid, especially in the renewable sector, which can be characterized by high instability. So grid that is decades old cannot accommodate them. So we have received a WACC premium at 4.27 percentage points, which gave us two-digit results. And we wish more projects with such rates of returns to materialize. Also, the railway company joined the charter with a certain delay. So nominally, it's not a high level, but the percentage grew from 8% to 11.75%. And similarly, in the railway, from five to eight to nine percentage points. So this all gives us a very stable foundation for CapEx in both companies and PLN 4 to 5 billion annual in the entire distribution sector. I can also say prioritization. So we are actually on the same page as the management board, especially when it comes to competencies. Now, the question is about the nuclear project. Is PGE committed to that? Well, at present, we've been implementing the steps covered in the agreement of the shareholders called PGE and PAK Nuclear Energy. We are at the stage of a feasibility study. We are considering a very serious supply of technology, but this is at a very preliminary stage. However, at the governmental level, we will have to see a discussion happening concerning the implementation of this project and the involvement of the PGE in such a project. As of now, all the works that have been defined or had been defined amongst the shareholders run according to schedule. But these are very preliminary works, which analyze the location in terms of its capabilities and ability to actually uphold such capital projects in the area of the Konin power generation landmark. However, we are not close towards a fact-based analysis. As soon as the results of this study arrive, we will see and analyze the location from the power grid point of view, from the point of view of the technology supplier. So at present, we are at a very preliminary stage, but we are committed to continuing this work. All right. I have a very exhaustive list, but I just wanted also to give the floor to you, ladies and gentlemen. So could you please distribute the roving microphone and please introduce yourselves? Piotr Dzięciołowski, Citibank. I just want to ask about a project of outsourcing coal assets. You said that PGE intends to continue this project. What will be the changes in the assets? And in addition to prices, is this transaction structure different? You spoke about PLN 12 billion net previously. What is the current amount involved? I just don't want to speak for the entirety of the program. I can say something about our approach as a group. We have a separate company, which is Górnictwo i Energetyka Konwencjonalna, and a separate entity. So our approach will be based on proposing the government a solution that would be, let's say, universal for the time market if it's proven its worth in the PGE. So this solution, we're going to advertise to the ministries and to talk with them about implementation of a solution that will be the fastest possible to implement from the group's interests point of view. As you may recall from the previous meetings in this room, we are prepared to outsource those assets as we speak. One of the premises for this will be the update of the model and the pricing because the situation, the market, is very volatile, very dynamic. So depending on the results of evaluation of those assets, a procedure will be implemented. I cannot say anything more specific, but this model definitely needs updating to the current market data in the conventional generation sector. So only based on such an updated model and evaluation of assets will we be able to select the right legal toolbox - that's the right word for it - to carry out this project. It is of strategic importance for the group. But given the passage of time that occurred from the moment where the previous studies were conducted, we will attempt to propose a solution to the government and persuade the government to actually rubber stamp it as soon as possible. So we want to make this transition as profitable for the sector as possible, to respect as well as social needs because this is something very much needed from the point of view of the group's development or growth. We've been communicating this topic well into the past, and the mechanism that has been developed was not accepted by the government or part. Tego użycia. If I could ask for a small follow-up, I will not use those fancy words that you have used in discussing your answer. I would like to ask about valuation of conventional energy. If you look at the assets on lignite, operators say that cash flow on that will be negative or at best zero. Is there any risk that you will have to pay many billions PLN in order to get rid of those assets? Is there such a risk that we define the market price at minus X billion PLN? Is this scenario possible to have this kind of settlement? It would be too early to discuss it right now, but the concept you have just mentioned would be a very bold one and creative. At first glance, I dislike it very much. Well, maybe we can call it controversial. My gut feeling is it is not likable at first glance, but it is premature to talk about this as a viable solution. Once we have preliminary results of the model, then we will have to select appropriate legal instruments, which might require even some legislative solutions. But first, we need to get acquainted with this advanced model. Definitely, time is a factor against the painless course of this transaction. You can see that the situation of conventional energy is not improving. Just the opposite, it is deteriorating. So the circumstances for this segment are worsening. For sure, this will have some impact on the financial model. That's why we need to introduce the solutions as soon as possible. Thank you very much. Bartłomiej Sawicki, Rzeczpospolita Parkiet. I have three questions. The first, with reference to the question about coal assets, I understand, Mr. President, you continue to assume a hard disposal of conventional energy from your capital group. The government, also PSE, talk about hard separation of coal assets but while keeping them within the group. That's the first element. Maybe that could be somehow linked to mines. Could power plants be linked in some form to mines? Is this form of carrying out those assets optimal? In our case and please note that various energy groups find themselves in different situations. They have different structures of generation assets. Here, we have a hard separation of those assets because they function within separate companies. In our case, they are already prepared for the hard separation, and that is change of the owner. The only impact from the perspective of institutional solutions is change of the ownership structure. That is the direction in which we are going. When we talk about the possible linking of generation assets to mines, in our case, in fact, most of those generation assets are linked to power plants. Bełchatów, for example, is very much linked to a power plant and a mine. So there is no dilemma here about the linking of power plants with mines because it is just part of the single business organism. No power plant without a mine and the other way around when we talk about lignite. There is Opole Power Plant, and obviously, we will discuss with the government that is working on coal, but there are also some assets on coal in heat generation. So for sure, we will have talks about that in order to achieve some formula strategic coworking between those generation assets and coal mines. I don't want to talk about linking, but maybe strategic collaboration. It may be based on capital or strategic contracts that consist in ensuring, safeguarding a specific amount of raw materials. So we will discuss this type of solutions. But in the case of PGE, we already have a large part of what you have just outlined. So we have this hard separation. We are aiming at hard division, and we have some sort of connection between generation and mining assets in business and organizational terms. That is a single whole. My second question then is about update of the strategy or revision of the strategy. We know that it was suspended in September for various reasons, more or less obvious ones. What is the status of this update or revision? Is this revision taking place? Is it going to be suspended? We are talking about this strategy with a target of leaving coal by 2030. That's a very valid question. My preliminary assessment of the situation is such that, in my opinion, an update, a vision of PGE's strategy should be connected to the discussion about change of the group asset structure because that is a key element. We, of course, know that we have to modify the structure. We have to increase the share of renewable energy sources. We know all about that in general terms. But when we want to have a hard revision, that is something that can be achieved when we have the hard elements of the new strategy, namely, once we have agreed with the government something specific, once we have any solutions that allow us to change the structure of the assets, that puts us in the best moment to communicate a new revised strategy based on what we are intending to do. That would be something specific, providing the first milestone of the implementation of the strategy. I think this is crucial from the perspective of group development and its specific hard development strategy. We need to start with the asset structure. In my opinion, once together with the government, we have developed some proposal of a solution, in my opinion, that should be one of key elements of this updated revised strategy. Now we know it's key assumptions. We can also discuss dates that follow from the model, but we will not come up with anything new in terms of general directions. Decarbonization of generation, development of renewable sources, development of wind, maximum CAPEX and distribution, and alignment of it with the current requirements of the system, huge number of prosumers, huge number of renewable sources, which forces a completely different operation of distribution network as compared to the situation where we have centrally managed distribution network. And of course, ensuring reliability, reducing failure rate, improvement of customer service, and so on. We are perfectly aware of all this. In my opinion, a revision of strategy should take place based on a very concrete starting point, and the starting point should be the change of the structure of generation assets in PGE. And as of now, I would present this opinion. If I could add something to this, you talked about suspending the strategy. The strategy was revoked. So we have the strategy of 2020, which assumes decarbonization by 2050. Okay, so the third and last question from me, namely, possible adjustments of tariffs on G11 for households in mid-year. The model is to be such that the president of the regulatory office, in line with the act on freezing energy prices, can call on companies to adjust the tariffs. Such a situation took place some time ago in the case of Orlen and gas. So in connection with the market situation, decline in electricity prices, in commodities exchange, the president of the regulatory office could request the companies to change the tariffs in the sense of going down from 39 to some lower amount. How does PGE see that? Is there any space for reduction? If not, how big could this rise be in this group of clients? I'd like to refrain from any speculation on the potential possible call by the president of the regulatory office. I don't know if such thing happens. Every price reduction of the household prices will actually augment our challenges for PGE as the market player. That's what I can say. And if we are confronted with such a call from the president of the regulatory office, we will respond by adjusting our plans, be it capital investing or financial plans. So this is a very sensitive area. So it's very difficult to make any statements without knowing what we are confronted with actually, unless you want to add something. Well, let me remind you that the G-tariff electricity for 2024 has been contracted at a known price. Thank you very much. No, if I was asked when it was okay in a P&L. Thank you for singling me out of the asking group. My contribution to those difficult words issue. The G-tariff loss, I understand it does not include compensations. So what is the amount of compensations that you received back in 2023? So this is question number one. Am I going to answer all my questions or individually? Are you speaking about the reserve for the tariff in 2024 because I cannot follow your question? What was your compensation amount for 2023, and what was the loss on the G-tariff in 2023? Well, as far as the compensations are concerned, we received amounts. I'm not sure 100% if all the applications were processed, but whatever was paid out until February this year is in line with all the applications, excuse me, that our companies and distribution company filed. So all these amounts have been paid out to us. However, the potential G-tariff loss might result from mismatch between the compensation and the actual black energy costs. So on a standard market without any legislation compensations, the black energy price was higher in 2023. So it was higher than the tariff that was instituted. So you incurred a loss despite the compensation. Yes, we did. So we are not going to disclose the complete amount, but I can say that PLN 125 per every eligible applicant received. So it actually pertains to tariff in 2024. My second question is about NABE. From your studies, does it seem that PGE Górnictwo i Energetyka Konwencjonalna, after outsourcing and given the current prices of electricity and fuels, would the company be able to sustain itself, or will it immediately require an operating support once it's outsourced? What does your study say? Well, we have been working on updating this model, so I cannot say anything substantial. I don't think that we could use the word immediately, but we've been working on updating the model. The situation is quite dynamic and volatile. So I think in the midterm rather than short-term, midterm one or two years, I would say it would hold true, but I cannot give you any results before we have concluded our work. Does the current price cover the production prices of coal generation? Yes, it does. All right. A question about offshore. How about completing the financing project? When are you going to sign the contract? We've been working on finalizing all the contracts with the suppliers and completing documentation for the banks, which will conclude the diligence process by the financial institutions. I hope that will be concluded in the second or the third quarter, that's the latest. We've been working on this very hard. So it's all a standard amount of labor that goes into it. So between 15 October 2024 and 15 March 2023 was not quite dynamic, if I may put it this way. We are also of the opinion that the final deadline is not threatened unless any black swans appear. So we believe that the deadline is still unchallenged. It's still green and even not orange. Question about PGE Fuels, a big company worth PLN billions and managing PLN billions. Why don't you show this company's results for us to see its outlook and what coal volume does PGE intend to import in 2024? Correct. The situation blew up and then disappeared. So it was a one-off contract, a response to the instruction by the prime minister to import coal for the benefit of households, which resulted in a bigger volume of available coal. When needed to separate this, this volume was about 10 billion tons, the price of $3,400 times five resulted in billions. But we have successfully managed to sell that coal down the line, and we have concluded a deal with the Ministry of Climate to cover the loss that we incurred because now the coal price is $120 and the dollar went down. So we want to make a reserve at PLN 850 million for the next year of the unsold coal. The rest will be actually sold. So the loss between the purchase and the selling price will be fully covered by the state treasury and the Ministry of Climate. In particular, we spoke about 900 million tons annually. So we are reverting to pre-war imports. I'm just saying the scale before the war. But what is going to be the volume in 2024? For the time being, I would not mention any specific values, but multiple of what we had at the turn of 2023 and 2024. So maybe one more thing that relates to imports and trade and coal. It is not something that we treat as the core line of our operations, and this is a side activity, definitely not constituting the core operations of the group. The last question, what is the planned net profit in distribution, and what is going to be the dividend paid out by distribution to the parent company for 2023? I do not have the exact number here, but it can be estimated based on EBITDA, and it's going to be at least PLN 1 billion taking off depreciation and taxes. We have time until the end of June for corporate decisions. Haven't you considered keeping this profit or at least part of this profit in distribution? For sure, we will not do anything at the expense of CAPEX needed in distribution. We keep in mind our priorities, and our investments from the past year show that the priority in distribution is to carry out the necessary investments. Thank you. Barbara Oksińska, Business Insider Poland. On matters that have already been discussed, I would like to ask a clarifying question as regards strategic cooperation with mines. The president has mentioned that you want to secure deliveries and receipt of coal. I don't quite understand this. You have contracts with mines that do guarantee those deliveries and receipt. So what would be the other shape of this cooperation? Doesn't it mean that, for example, you are going to guarantee coal purchases at a loss to PGE? Isn't it going to be a decision that is unfavorable to the company? Let me explain this. This cooperation can concern, well, actually, we are now discussing potential solutions. And now, with respect to, while keeping in mind all technological conditions, on the one hand, a power plant can very clearly plan how much electricity it's going to generate and how much coal it will need for that purpose. On the other hand, the mine will produce as much coal as is needed for this power plant, maybe with a slight margin, and not as much as it possibly can, to keep it in some storage. So in terms of aligning production volumes with requirement levels. But what would that change for PGE? Because so far, PGE has declared how much it needs, signed agreements. For sure, within this cooperation, PGE will not buy much more coal than it needs. We are talking about coordination of production and adjustment of coal production to the requirement of recipients or those generation plants that have this kind of cooperation. The point is not to produce as much as you can have as a maximum output, but to produce as much as can be used in the collaborating power plant. But these are all discussions at a very initial stage. Today, the problem we are facing consists in a big quantity of coal that is in storage and finds no recipients because power plants are unable to process it. And the warm weather means that there is no demand for this coal in the market. So we have to align those levels, especially in professional energy facilities, in order to secure safe levels but not with margins at the level of 300%. My second question is about coal imports. I would like a clear declaration from you. Is PGE Fuels going to sign more agreements on delivery of imported coal? PGE Fuels does not constitute core activity of PGE Group. That's not an answer. I'm not the CEO of PGE Fuels. This company is running its own business. If you ask me whether I'm going to make a declaration, they will not have this kind of contracts. I'm unable to make such a statement speaking on behalf of that company. In general, I would like to stress that this is not our core business, not something we want to develop, continue, support, and on which we want to earn because this is our own business: import and sales of coal on the domestic market. It is maybe also worth adding that this company was in our group as a result of EDF acquisition. That was part of a certain transactional package that we received. We are also considering further development of this business in the group because we do not have the relevant expertise, either technical or market expertise, in this, and it's not our core business. Słucham? Na pewno możemy sprzedać? We can surely sell it if a buyer steps out. Our collaboration on selling this asset is something we could consider as an offer. Tomasz Brzeziński, Cleaner Energy. I just want to revisit the CAPEX for 2023 concerning renewables. It's amounted to PLN 1.2 billion. A big chunk of it was restoration work, so two water hydro plants. The rest are the platforms for PV and wind farms. What are the proportions between the two? Offshore is about PLN 500 million. Yeah. Are we going to expect elevated CAPEX in that sector, definitely? That you mean several-fold, like twofold, threefold? Let's say it will be a-fold, x-fold. But it will not be many times over. But I understand this is due to the necessary expenses on offshore, like advances to suppliers and so on. This schedule is not in danger. No, it's not threatened until 2027. Your partner has corroborated that. I just want to ask you, Mr. President, about further collaboration in terms of the licenses the company received last year. Do you maintain that PGE should single-handedly build those wind farms, or do you also consider acquiring partners because there are many willing parties to do that up to those 5 gigawatts? We have a partner for Baltica 2. This is Ørsted. So the project has been now updated to update the CAPEX to the current technology situation, market situation, to ensure the cost efficiency of this project. There's Baltica 3, Baltica 1. In this project, we are alone, but this is the furthest project timewise, so we do not exclude any possible solutions. Our approach to the third project will hinge on the development potential of the group, bankability of the group, better abilities to acquire funds single-handedly. We presume that as the time for Baltica 3 comes, we'll have much higher technological and technical competencies in the windmill sector. So we cannot determine now which model we will use, and this model selection will depend on the growth realized by the group. Meanwhile, this will all depend on the asset structure, which translates into a complete re-engineering of financial abilities, capabilities of the group in terms of financing and executing such projects. So all these operations will determine the formula we're going to apply to the specific works on the last licensed plot. So all the preparatory work has been conducted. So speaking about now the projects that go beyond 2030. Well, as an interjection, as part of the swipes, we have this Baltica 2 Plus, which we applied for together with Ørsted. So we have a partner. For two others, we have Enea and Tauron as partners. And the third one, we are alone at this moment. But as the CEO said, Baltica 1 is actually a proving ground for us. We have interested candidates who already applied. There were 10 areas and two beneficiaries applied out of several dozens. So those expected higher outlays for offshore, will they increase the CAPEX pool for the entire groups? Will you break out their record of CAPEX this year? Are these capital outlays be at a similar level with the previous year's level, same with a slightly higher margin, perhaps, or higher trend and growth print? We have another question here. Good morning, Marek Strzelecki, Reuters. I have a question pertaining to the internal market, if I may. We are past Easter, and in March, several times, renewables were switched off. Please do not connect markets, which is March, with disconnects. I will try not to. Okay. You disclosed systemic services revenues, which actually are you are going online in difficult situations. The loss of profitability on coal production and the higher share of renewables is a systemic and a financial problem, but is it not an opportunity for you as well when it comes to those emergency online switches? And what is the bottom line? What is actually the outcome of it? How does this situation affect you? Wspominałem. I have mentioned the revenues from regulatory systemic services cannot be repeated because settlement systems change and volumes are different. We were not negative beneficiaries of reductions. Our capacity is only now being handed over for use, and only after everything is available will we be able to look at balances. Looking ahead, if there is more sun, coal assets will no longer be in the group, but that's an optimistic scenario. That's our base scenario. That's the strategic scenario, and that's a necessary scenario. That's a scenario without which we cannot imagine the development of that group, as simple as that. Thank you. That will no longer be at the level of group balance, but the entire system. Justyna Piszczatowska, Green News. I would like to ask about what we have seen, the prospects, and if we look at what is happening in the market, this year is unlikely to be better for PGE in financial terms. My question is, how do you assess today how much time you still have to get rid of those coal assets before this decision package, let's call it like that, becomes a threat to the stability of PGE finances, its current investments, and so on? And a more specific question, have you calculated the loss per megawatt-hour of electricity from lignite in the group? Analyses of this financial model are going on. I wouldn't like to talk about it in detail before those studies are over. And with reference to the previous question in our CAPEX related to major development projects, those expenditures will grow with each year. The sooner, the better. In our opinion, I wouldn't see that as a decision-making stalemate, but for the government, it is also an opportunity to make this available. So I definitely wouldn't use the phrase decision-making stalemate. We need to come up very quickly with a mechanism that will be financially viable, acceptable to the government, and socially responsible. Such action is to be taken as soon as possible, and we want to come up with some solutions like that soon. I do not think there is any menace in this because we have very clear declarations of the willingness to solve this problem. That is to allow us to use the full development capacity of the group. And more specifically, to 2025, 2026, how long is PGE still able to continue its to-date operating model? Everything will depend on the market situation in terms of energy prices and costs. These are the key factors for the functioning of those assets. We do not have any short-term difficulty, rather a mid-term problem. I'm saying with full responsibility in the context of what we discussed with the person who asked the question before you, that this direction is not going to change. The only issue is about the mechanism that will be acceptable, socially responsible, and accepted by the government. I hope this will happen as soon as possible. I don't want to make any declaration on behalf of the government. That is not my role. We will come up with a proposal of a mechanism enabling all this, and then we will ask for appropriate legislative measures or decisions to make all this workable. Piotr Dzięciołowski, I have two questions. One is about WACC at almost 12%. How is it going to develop in the future? Why the regulator should give 12% return on equity for the whole base, like 20 to 22 billion RAB, 300 to 400 basis points in value creation spread? What are the arguments for making it so generous? My second question, we talked a lot about this NABE thing, this National Agency for Energy Security. But if you were to agree to this, what does PGE offer? If you look at other major groups across Europe, all those groups have some forms of closing down their assets in accordance with the economic cycle of the functioning of those power plants, and that's how they solve this problem. ZE PAK in Poland also dealt with this problem as a private group. Now if you go to the government and you say, "Well, we have this asset which we do not know how to restructure," why should the government suddenly accept this and do something like SRK? For example, if you say, "We might release the opportunity to have X billion PLN," how are you convincing the government that you are able to do that? If you look today at the financial plan, that seems to be fundable. There is no pressure on the balance sheet of PGE in the following years, even with the decline of conventional energy. But on the other hand, whenever they're successful in wind and solar panels, why should the government agree to this deal instead of leaving PGE with a problem, cross-subsidize other activities like distribution, and in fact, allow PGE to solve the problem on its own by 2030? You cannot cross-subsidize. And secondly, the functioning of those assets is necessary from the perspective of stability of the entire electrical energy system and stability of the basis of this system, stability of its functioning as a foundation. The arguments of PGE as such that when we implement those biggest offshore wind projects with this structure of assets, we won't be able to fund the licenses that we have on the Baltic Sea. So we need to increase the capacity of the group, multiply it. It's not only about the amount but access to capital, which as a group with a present structure of assets are unable to even start talking with financial institutions because we are eliminated immediately. So we need to change our asset structure in order to be able to talk to those financial institutions in order to finance our development. RWE has a bigger program on coal than PGE today, and it has a big program of investing in renewable sources. Well, I understand your answer. Maybe those things can be combined. And could you comment on WACC, why the regulator allows the company to earn 12% return on equity on all assets with 10-year terms at 10.5? Significant premium. Yes, it is significant. That's more than four percentage points. It follows from the KET program, and that is a charter of effective transformation of energy network. And that is the regulator's response to the increased requirement for development and modernization of the network. So that is a type of premium for reinvesting and for development. It is not so that we gain some profit. I do not get into details of cash flow management or liquidity management in the group, but that's channeled to CapEx. Yes, the premium is significant. It is an incentive. It is the carrot, but on the other hand, you have the stick. If we do not invest sufficiently, if CAPEX is not enough, we return to WACC at the level of 10-year terms. We will have to wrap up. Two last questions then. The first is about potential acquisitions. To Energetyczna. PGE used to grow by acquiring assets in the renewable sector. So are going to continue this policy despite high threats to the conventional sources? We have been considering proposing some offers for acquisition of wind projects very close to operating status or building or construction license. We are analyzing, conducting due diligence of several projects, and we have discussed those projects at two or three sessions of the management board. I cannot give you no specifics in terms of megawatts, some dozens in wind, and several hundreds in further photovoltaics, but I don't give you any incorrect numbers. We are definitely committed to acquiring new renewables, but preceded by the full-fledged studies into commercial and financial aspects, but we're going to continue those projects. Like last year, please correct me if I'm wrong, the State Treasury injected capital to the company in the new issuance, in particular for the new renewables projects. Are you going to turn to your shareholders to acquire new capital? And now at present, we do not have any plans to ask the owner to raise capital, to raise equity. Excuse me. Thank you. Thank you, directors. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other chairmen. Thank you. Our online guests, we are concluding our conference. Thank you very much.