Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to all of you, both here in the room and virtually, that are following us in the webcast. We have today here the Capital Markets Presentation 2025 of EDP, in which we'll start with the presentation by our CEO, Miguel Stilwell d'Andrade, of our vision and commitments and our platforms, followed by the presentation of our financials by our CFO, Rui Teixeira, and then closing with the closing remarks by our CEO. The session, the presentation will be followed by a Q&A session in which we'll have the opportunity to discuss the plan with you. You can place your questions, or written, through the webcast or live here in the room. Without further ado, I'll pass now the floor to our CEO, Miguel Stilwell d'Andrade. Thank you, Miguel. Good morning, everyone. It is really great to see so many of you in person. I know we have spoken a lot over the last couple of quarters, or sometimes on one-on-ones, but it is actually great to finally be here and to be able to talk about EDP and about EDP Renováveis. We are going to be talking about 2028, but we are going to be talking about a lot more than 2028 and how we see the company develop over the next couple of years. I think it is a particularly good time to be talking about EDP and EDP Renováveis. I think over the first sort of six months of the year, a lot of dark clouds in terms of what was going to happen to renewables in the US, what was going to be the framework for the regulatory, you know, for the distribution in Portugal and Spain, what was happening with the blackout, and what was happening sort of in terms of ancillary services. I think today we can confidently say that we have much more clarity on the renewables in the US. We have much more clarity on the flex gen and on the value, the structural value of that. We have much more clarity on the framework for the distribution in Portugal and also in, in Spain. With that, I think we have the conditions to actually be able to talk credibly about what we see for 2028, but also talk very much about the trends that we see over the next couple of years. With that, I'd start by talking about some of those key trends. I think one of the first things to note is really this incredible growth in demand that we're seeing. This is not just PowerPoint. I'll just give you one specific data point, which at least for me really impressed me. There's a data center being built in Portugal, which is about 1.2 gigawatts in six phases if it gets all built out. Just that one data center could represent 10 terawatt hours of energy. That's 20% of Portugal's energy demand. That's one data center. I think this is just an interesting data point because when I first learned about it and sort of started thinking about it, I mean, I was just blown away. 1.2 gigawatts, 20% of Portugal's demand, one data center. This is happening the world over. We're seeing that in the U.S. We're seeing that in Portugal. We're seeing that in Spain. We're seeing that pretty much everywhere. If this builds up, we will see this incredible amount of demand that will drive electrification. It'll drive the build-out of renewables over the next couple of years. We're also seeing other things. We're seeing EVs. We're seeing electrification, heating, pumping. There does seem to be, and again, a specific data point, we're actually seeing demand in Portugal and Spain after many, many years of stagnant growth actually growing to 3% plus. That's concrete data. That's not PowerPoint. That's not something that we're reading about. And that excludes sort of temperature effects and others. So concrete demand, we're seeing it. Renewables, we can, I know there's a lot of talk about nuclear. We're quite agnostic, to be honest, in relation to technologies. We've had coal, we've had nuclear, you know, we have a small stake, we have gas, we have renewables. So objectively reliable. And we see that again, one to three years to deploy it in many of the different markets. I mean, if you solve the short, medium-term issue around the energy demand. Then we can talk about flexibility. I mean, as you have more renewables coming into the mix, you're going to, I think that's a source of increasing value. I'll show in a couple of slides that value, how it's increased over the last couple of years and why we believe that that's a structural trend that will continue going forward. Specifically for Portugal and Spain. In particular for Portugal, this is going to be driven by demand, but very much about 25% of the transformers in Portugal, high and medium voltage, will be over 40 years old, which is their typical back in the seventies and eighties. That wave of investment is coming. That is a trend that will carry well beyond 2030 until 2040. Again, a massive wave of investment that's necessary in networks. I talked about regulation, the US, you know, PTCs, ITCs, we know that that's there. We have visibility on ITCs. We have visibility on the PTCs. We have visibility on the IRS guidance. I think we have, there's been a lot of movement there, continuing to incentivize CFDs, continuing to incentivize PPAs, action plan also in terms of networks investments. The actual recognition that you should have capacity and impact also on our portfolio. Again, capacity payments have been talked about for many years. That's now becoming a reality. We expect that to happen already in 2026 for Spain and in 2027 for Portugal. Brazilian concessions, we now have visibility for the next 30 years. That was a question mark we had last year and the beginning of this year. That's now signed. That's now agreed. There's no doubt. Growth in demand, I think that's undeniable. Renewables continue to be the fastest, cheapest source of generation to meet that demand. More flexibility in increasing the value. I think we're all set up. EDP, leader in renewables, resilient integrated position in Iberia and really extracting maximum value from that. The strong electricity network goes going forward. These are trends, again, our business plan goes till 2028, but I think these are macro trends that last well beyond 2028. Okay, let's get into the commitment of resilient portfolio. On the investment side, EUR 12 billion of investment, mostly focused on networks in Iberia and US renewables. Net EUR 7 billion to refocus on more core markets. We are seeing an uptick in the past. We're keeping a very strong discipline on efficiency. 26% OpEx over gross profit. I think that's best in class, frankly. We will keep in that, be keeping that. Doesn't have any tax equity effects or any others. This is a real EUR 1 billion net debt reduction. With all of this, you end up with an increase in EBITDA, an increase in earnings, and capture that optionality going forward. We are building in optionality. We are building in headroom. We are taking a prudent approach to make sure that all the projects that we approved are. We are comfortable. We have de-risked the supply chain and that we can capture that going forward. Powered by an extremely talented team in this room. I think I am standing here just representing sort of the 12 on all the digital and AI applications, which I think is really making a huge difference, translating it to efficiency and much better availability also of our assets. Going into a little bit more depth now. In 2023, it was triple B. It has had a remarkable improvement. I think we will talk more about that, but it is now at around 90% debt to GDP. It's got the lowest spreads to the German Bund ever. Building a vast rotation, mostly renewables, a little bit of transmission in Brazil. Net investment renewables increasing from 50% to 60% in the US. There is this greater focus on networks and beyond. I think that's really a key thing. Returns. We're seeing returns relatively stable in Europe. We're seeing them increasing in the US. Again, many data points we can give you. We've got Sandhya Ganapathy increasing prices and increasing returns on the investments on renewables in the US, but also on the net more. That's what we're assuming. Very importantly, particularly in the case of Portugal, is that we used to, in terms of the profitability of the networks, that is now exempt. Networks in Portugal are exempt from the extraordinary tax. That's an uplift in return of about 0.85%. IRR just on that basis alone. That is a big improvement, certainly on the networks. Not even talking asset rotation. This is something I think that has distinguished us over the years. We have done already 35 transactions, €13 billion of proceeds. Every year we get asked this, every year, there is some skepticism. Are you guys going to be able to do it? Every year we have for our assets and we continue to see great multiples for our assets. I mean, even this morning you were asking about the capital gains in our French portfolio. Yes, it is true. Great capital gains, great multiples. Asset rotation, our asset rotation, what we called our pioneer portfolio, 1.6 gigawatts. We sold 49% common equity, no structured equity, no fancy structures, just straight rotation going forward of around €5 billion and then of around €200 million of asset rotation gains per year. Efficiency. Listen, I think this, as I say, bringing down the OpEx of gross profits, increasing the megawatts and the RAB. We're doing this by redundancies. We've been focusing very much on digital automation. We've really been going deep on that business. We have the scale we have, and we need to be better and faster and, more ESG. I know this is not a, it's a forbidden word in some places nowadays, but, you know, this goes in cycles. I don't think we've abandoned ESG. On the contrary, I think we're leading still pretty much zero. We're just waiting for final permission from the Spanish government to decommission some plants. We sold Pecém, we closed Sines, we converted a Aboño, which is a major coal plant. Surprised, to be honest, just how far we've come in terms of reducing emissions intensity in our portfolio. Committed still to net zero by 2040 and continuing to go down that path. In terms of our other commitments, climate adaptation, communities, biodiversity, supply chain, making sure we comply with the ESG standards, safety, and leadership diversity. We are keeping our ESG commitments. We are reinforcing. Overall, in terms of our results, EBITDA, big part of it still coming from Europe, obviously. North America increasing from 20% to 30%. As I said earlier, 80% in A-rated markets, 30% the US, 30% electricity networks. Price going forward. I will come back to that, particularly in the US. That is basically we maintain that. We are seeing a decrease or improvement in the ratios. We are having record organic cash flow. That is important. Keeping the low-risk business and the absolute net reduction over this period as we also increase earnings. Quality as well, I think. I mean, back in 2019, we had a higher percentage of asset rotation gains. We'll still have some asset increasing dividend, stable, script dividend also at EDPR, keeping our payout ratio between 60%-70%, slightly towards the higher end, but having that increase in dividend also to $0.21, over the period. That is it in terms of commitment. The first one I'll talk about is the networks business. Again, many of you know, and you've followed us for many years. The networks business, we basically manage the high, medium, and low voltage networks business in Portugal. We also have the networks up in the north of Spain, Asturias and Cantabria. Then we have €1 billion of RAB and a recurring EBITDA of around €1.5 billion. Continue to work on. This is what we've done so far. We've improved quality of service and improved efficiency. We are going to get the 30-year extension of the concessions in Brazil. Why? Because we delivered on quality of service, on investment, and on efficiency. We delivered on the criteria. Why would you not extend the technology by leveraging on the people and making sure we were managing well those concessions? Investment plans, approved by the regulators. RAB increasing over the course of this period, EBITDA also increasing. We can go in a little bit more depth there. EBITDA in 2025 in Brazil has some effects that have to do with the extension of some of the transmission lines this year. You have a slightly lower starting point in Brazil. Most of this is already locked in. The regulatory context, as you know, in Portugal. Spain, ongoing discussion. Many of you are following that, around what is the regulatory context there. One way or the other, it'll be closed in the next couple of weeks. Certainly for Espírito Santo already locked in until 2030. For São Paulo, at least the return on RAB is already fixed for this next period. That is also helping us define what are the returns, sort of as the weighted average of these different businesses. We are assuming versus the current proposals, a slight increase on the returns still versus where they are, at least in Portugal and Spain. Just pause here just a little bit on this slide because I think it's an important one. The investment in Iberia is going to be driven partially by demand. Even if you ignore the demand, this is what I was talking about earlier. This is the profile of the, and it jumps even more from 2031 to 2035. This is the end of the useful life of most of these transformers. This means that this wave that we're seeing of increased investment in Portugal is going to continue well into 2040 because these assets need to be substituted. They need to be modernized. They need to be replaced on demand. This is driven very much by modernization. I think that's what gives us that long-term visibility, which is a break from the past. It's true we weren't growing in Portugal because there was to incentivize greater returns on the distribution. We have the prospects for that over the next couple of years. In terms of returns, we're seeing, as I say, by the regulators. We have pretty good visibility on this in Spain as well. We can then get into that. Essentially, there is a cap on investment that's been increased. It's been revised upside to 6.58. Maybe it'll go up a little bit further. It'll be great. In Portugal, the first proposal was 6.33. We think it will still go up, which would allow us to still hope for a higher return. We'll know that on the 15th of December. In any case, we believe that that's going to be the case. Importantly, there are add-ons on top of these returns in terms of the incentives, around 100-200 basis points, whether it's because you're beating the TOTEX or the efficiency or the quality of service or the improvement in losses. There are additional add-ons to highlight, which is particular to Portugal versus Spain, is that the returns are indexed to the bonds, which means there is some de-risking of that. If the yields were to go up, the returns will go up. If they were to go down, they go down. What is important is the spread stays relatively constant. There is some de-risking of the returns in that sense. In terms of Brazil, as I mentioned, I think the key thing to highlight here is the extension, which gives us a long. It is already fixed for São Paulo as well. This one is already signed. This one is expected to be signed before the end of the year, but we have already got the approval from the regulator, and that will help us drive this sustained growth on the distribution side. On the transmission, we also continue to see good opportunities coming up. As you know, in Brazil, there are very regular auctions, sort of every six months, 12 months, of transmission lines. We just won another small lot recently. It's typically 30-year locked in, almost like a bond, as long as you can build it on time and on budget. We've done that. We've typically built it under budget and ahead of time. I think feeling very comfortable about the transmission growth also going forward. In summary, for networks, EDP Group. Step change in investment. This is something that we have good visibility on, well beyond the business plan. Increasing investment visibility, improvement of regulatory returns, improved efficiency, and growing EBITDA throughout the business plan period. These are the key numbers, and we can get into sort of more detail afterwards in the Q&A. Now I'll talk about clients, renewables, FlexGen. Before I just get into more depth on that, I just wanted to put up this slide because I'll just deconstruct the slide. What it's showing us is on one side we have, let's say, the Iberian FlexGen and clients, where essentially we have our hydro, we have our CCTs in Iberia, we have our customers, we have our integrated position. On EDP Renováveis side, we have 20 gigawatts of generation assets with a lot of customers, PPAs, CFDs, big tech. EDP are here on the right-hand side, but we try to manage as much as possible in an integrated way. Why? Because we think that that creates value. Generation assets run in terms of systems, in terms of managing availabilities, really trying to squeeze out as much efficiency as we can out of all of this operating technology. In terms of energy management, again, we're managing energy in multiple different markets. There are correlations. There are issues. It's much better to manage an integrated portfolio than to just manage it piece by piece. From a risk-return perspective, we can optimize it here, obviously safeguarding the interests of the minorities of EDP Renováveis. This allows us to have a much more holistic view of energy management across the group. Client solutions, again, it cuts across many of the different geographies because in many cases, some of these customers can be customers in the US, they can be in Iberia, in Japan. This is a true story. We have for Amazon, it's in the US, in Europe, Brazil, and Japan. We literally have contracts with all of these people. Client solutions, it also makes sense to have a transversal view across the company. Getting into a little bit more depth on FlexGen. You know our existing portfolio, so I won't get into much depth there. I mean, in terms of megawatts, the 5.5 of hydro and then installed capacity of gas, a 12 terawatt hours of electricity generation, about 8 terawatt hours of hydro. In Brazil, it's mostly contracted, so I won't spend too much time there because it's basically a relatively fixed value. What I did want to talk about is the efficiency on one side, on the FlexGen. For example, on customers, continue to bring down that OpEx per year, per customer per year. In terms of the renewable generation assets, also keeping relatively high rates of efficiency. We're doing targeted investments, around $100 million of CapEx, double-digit IRRs, improving the output of some of these targets, of some of these power plants, and using robots, automation technology to really try to drive that efficiency going forward. Now I'll get into two important slides that I wanted to just spend a little bit of time on. As Iberia gets more solar, you start getting more duck curve. I think most of you are pretty familiar with that, and that's driving more ancillary services. This is 2020 to 2024, and you can see this increase. I'm not putting 2025, where the number is actually EUR 17 per megawatt hour, because I think that's pretty extraordinary. We're not assuming that level. We're assuming somewhere in between the 2020-2024 number, sort of as a structural ancillary services value going forward. It's still going to be higher than what it used to be in the past, but that's, let's say, an assumption that we're making for the business plan going forward. In terms of hydro, what you can see here is that the. Price premium for hydro versus the base load is being increasing over time. We are assuming around 20% of premium over base load. On the pump storage, we are also assuming more pump storage in terms of megawatt hours and also slightly higher spreads versus the base load. The pump storage over base load. All of that driving, and this is the last slide on this section, driving. This profile of returns on the integrated Iberian business. This has been normalized to help guide you in terms of how we see the business evolve. We have backed out, let's say, price and volume differences. What you see here is essentially a growth of the flexible generation, of the flexible services growing between 25% and 28%. It is important to note that 2025 has a negative, which is offsetting some of the positives on the FlexGen coming from the retail, because you cannot pass all of the ancillary costs onto the customers, onto the market in the first instance. That will come off over 2026 and 2027. You see that uplift in the flexible services over the next couple of years. We are assuming a base load reference of around EUR 64 over this period, 2026-2028 period. As I say, normalization of prices and volumes, 2026 and 2028, P50 for most cases and around EUR 64. The increase in margins from flexible services is also partially offset by lower gas margins. We have one of the contracts of the gas contracts, which have slightly lower margin. The 3.4 million retail clients here, we're assuming a relatively flat sort of margin coming from the customers. All in all, if you want to focus, it's more on this side about where a big part of the growth is coming from in the flexible generation. That's FlexGen and customers. Moving on to EDP Renováveis. Again, most of you know EDP Renováveis well, 20 gigawatts, pretty much spread globally with a very strong emphasis on North America. Long track record. 22 states, 10 gigawatts in the US specifically. I'll give you, we'll go deeper on the US in just a couple of slides. Before I go there, efficiency has come down, has improved dramatically. I think as we scaled, we managed to get the economies of scale. You can see the OPEX per megawatt coming down. We assume that stays relatively flat, continues to improve slightly until 2028. Assuming improved renewables availability from some of the projects that we're able to solve, some of the ones that had some technical issues. Being very targeted in terms of the way that we allocate our resources to solving the issues that have the highest payback, the fastest. That driving AI, digital technology, just using that to really drive this efficiency and availability. Investment plan, €7.5 billion over this period, €4.5 billion in terms of asset rotations, net investment of around €3 billion. In terms of growth, around 1.5 gigawatts per year for 2026 and 2027. 2026 is locked. 2027 is mostly locked. We have flexibility on 2028 and beyond. That is why when I talk about flexibility, we are talking about 2028 and beyond as having the potential to capture that upside going forward as the projects go on arising. 2025 on time and on budget, as I mentioned earlier. Overall, the five gigawatts, so it is slightly more than one and a half over this period. Obviously, it is accelerating towards the back end of 2028. In terms of split, again, the five gigawatts, maybe things to highlight, already a big percentage of solar and co-located batteries. This is becoming more and more one of the key issues here. Not just doing naked solar, but really doing it with batteries. This is particularly relevant in the U.S. And the batteries in the U.S., we are getting great returns on them. You're getting tolling agreements with double-digit IRRs, and that's really helping sort of the economics of the case. Even solar PV, just in general, we're still seeing a huge amount of demand coming through and helping drive those returns. Most of these technologies are, let's say, under CFDs or PPAs. As you know, we contract most of these. We don't, let's say, take merchant risk on these projects. Only in the back end, once the PPAs have come off. This slide, I think it's relevant just to spend some time on because a lot of you have raised questions about how we see repricing. This one and then another slide in the US. About 70%, we're assuming about 70% will be long-term contracted. We have about 25% by the end of 2028, part of that in the US, part of that in Europe. We're seeing different trends in the US, increasing PPA contracts and increasing merchant prices. In Europe, we're seeing slightly decreasing prices, at least until 2028. We're assuming an average selling price, which is about flat over this period, between $26 and $28 on the combined portfolio. Brazil and APAC has a lower weight in this, but we're still seeing upper trending prices on that. I wanted to talk to you just a bit about data centers because I know this is a topic that also comes up very often. We really, I gave you that data point at the beginning. We really are seeing this incredible demand and growth coming from data centers, big tech asking for more PPAs and more power. And even today, you know, we continue to get that type of inbound calls. It's coming through either directly through our contacts, and we have more than 3 gigawatts already contracted with these guys, with the big tech. They have our direct line. They know who we are, at the highest level. We interact with them, but it's also coming through very much with US utilities because a lot of the big tech are setting up in utility centers in the regional space, and the utilities are having to procure that power. We are seeing more and more build and transfer agreements where the utility is essentially saying, "I'll buy the project from you. You build it, and I'll buy it, and I'll pre-agree a margin on that project. That's almost like an accelerated asset rotation in which we know upfront that if we build it, we'll get that margin and we're able to lock that in. We're seeing that demand coming through, not just directly, but also indirectly through the utilities, and that's helping drive. Those types of contacts and relationships that we have are extremely important. I'll go in deeper, as I said, in the US, but I just wanted to highlight that here. On the new assets, opportunities to contract PPAs for longer terms. You'll have seen yesterday, we put out a press release, 30-year PPA. It's interesting how we've seen actually the contracts extending throughout the US and the existing assets opportunities as we contract. Just a second here on powered land, because what is powered land? Powered land is basically where we have access to the network, which can be used to either inject power into the network or it can be used to consume power from the network. In some cases, we have some projects, whether it is because they are older projects or they are more curtailed, where we can actually be a window into the network. We can have, let's say, talk about co-locating data centers with our projects. For example, in the case here, we are talking about a 400 megawatt Lone Star project in the US, where potentially you can have this co-location of a data center with an existing asset, which has curtailment issues or which has lower merchant prices, and you can reprice those projects higher up. We're looking and we're exploring our existing assets to see how we can extract more value from these assets. That gets me into the US. The US, I think you just have here an overview of where we are in the US in terms of installed capacity, so pretty much spread out, but with a big concentration in MISO, PJM, we have quite a bit in CAISO, a little bit in ERCOT. MISO and PJM, as you can see, is where we have a big part of our pipeline. It's also some of the area where there's biggest growth in terms of demand coming through from the data centers. I think we're particularly well positioned to take advantage of that. That wasn't by design. This is something we've been doing for many years. It just so happens that that's where a big part of the demand is coming. We are fortunate to be able to line up, let's say, the demand with our pipeline. Miguel Viana told me, "Spend more time on this slide." I am going to spend more time on this slide. This is the evolution of the PPA prices over the last couple of years. This is market data. This is not our data. This is, I think some of you will know, LevelTen data. In 2018, 2019, 2020, contracting at around $30 per megawatt hour. These PPAs will run off, let's say, in 2030, 2035. First, if you are contracting here, you are contracting much higher prices. This is a fact. I know you have higher CapEx. I know you have higher cost of capital, but we also have higher returns. You're contracting new assets at these higher prices. Then you're also going to have these PPAs or the PPAs that we contracted a couple of years ago running off, and that will allow us to reprice. We don't expect any impact in the context of this business plan up to 2028 because a lot of the PPAs are already locked in. We do expect to already be signing, let's say, contracting power at a premium to merchant price. This is not theoretical. This is a fact. We've already signed, for example, a 10-year PPA at $11 premium to merchant prices. Why? Because people are willing to pay a premium to lock in long-term energy. We've got energy, for example, from one of our projects, Rail Splitter, $11 for the next 10 years, starting in 2029. From 2031 to 2035, that's when some of the PPAs that we signed back sort of pre-2020 at around $20-$30 per megawatt hour are coming off. That's where you see the 12 terawatt hours of energy that becomes available that you could potentially recontract at higher prices going forward. I think higher prices for what we're contracting today and the potential for repricing of contracts as they come off towards a post-business plan period, towards the end of the decade and beginning of early next decade. In the U.S., what are we expecting? 2026, as I said, 2025 is obviously locked in. 2026 is locked in. A big part of 2027 is locked in. What we're looking at is 2028 and beyond as being where we can position ourselves to capture those opportunities. That has to do. What I. What we did not want to do is to commit to a lot of megawatts where we are then in a position where it is a lose-lose. Either we comply with the megawatts and maybe have sacrificed returns, or we comply with the returns and we sacrifice the megawatts. We are not going to put ourselves in a lose-lose situation. When we get the projects, and we believe we will, we will communicate them, and that will be an upside. That is what we are driving at. We will be taking solid investment decisions to make sure that as those projects come through, we will be able to surprise, hopefully on the upside, and not be in this potential lose-lose situation. As I say, we have good visibility on the safe harbor, and we're going to go into that in more detail, but we already have about 5 gigawatts plus that are either safe harbored or already are on track. We have the supply chain. You know about our contract with First Solar. You know about the relationships that we have, for example, with LONGi, with the factory that they have in the US. We feel pretty good about the supply chain setup. I do not think there is a lot of tariff risk there. We have a good pipeline, and I talked about that a little earlier on. Honestly, we are feeling pretty good about the US. I know we had a first couple of months of huge uncertainty, but we are in a different position now from where we were. Let's talk about Europe. Europe continues to be an interesting market. I spoke, you know, we got that question this morning about the capital gains in our portfolios. There's less volume, but they are really good projects when you can get them. And we're making sure we're getting those good projects and rotating them. We did the French rotation. We did the Italian rotation. We did the Greek rotation. You know, these are good projects. There's an issue about how you can scale them up and make sure we get more. I think we're well positioned in terms of pipeline. I mean, particularly places like Italy, France, Poland, Germany, Portugal, Spain. Let's see how the demand picks up there. I'd say there are key markets, or we are in the key markets that we want to be. These are the ones that we'll be focusing on going forward. We're assuming about half a gigawatt over the next couple of years, but the same thing. Again, we have the opportunity to flex up. If you see those opportunities, most of these CFDs and pay as produced, a lot of hybridization also going on. Using our installed base and putting on multiple different technologies on the same interconnection point. In APAC, what we're seeing in APAC is actually we've opened up Australia, and that's potentially bringing through a pretty big growth towards the back end of this plan or towards the back end of this decade. In the meantime, we continue to have a pretty solid growth in Singapore, places like Japan. Those continue to be, let's say, the places where we will be delivering growth, and keeping that optionality also in Southeast Asia, which I think is an interesting market to be in. Like, it's a relatively high return option in the sense that it's like there's a huge amount of consumption there, a huge amount of potential or growth there, not potential, the growth there. Being able to even capture a part of that, I think is a great option. It's a question of finding the right projects, being in the right countries. I think we've refocused significantly over the last couple of months to be really in the key markets we want to be. On Ocean Winds, the key word here is discipline, focus on extracting value from our existing pipeline. We're not going to go for huge growth. I know we have a partner, 50-50, that we also need to manage or we need to work with. Our objective is to extract value from our existing portfolio. We finished Moray West. We're doing the Polish project, which was already under. So we've taken FID on the Polish project. We're finishing up the French project. We're continuing to evolve our existing pipeline also, for example, in Australia and South Korea. I'd say the key focus is getting the existing projects done and just being very disciplined about additional projects that we take on. That takes us globally to EDP Renováveis. Just a sort of overall summary: EUR 7.5 billion of gross investment, of which 60% in the US, good equity returns, strong asset rotation plan, EUR 4.5 billion, EUR 1 billion of disposals, basically refocusing to more core markets, continue to drive efficiency. With that, you get an increasing recurring EBITDA, a doubling of recurring net profit. We get the net debt down. We build up also that optionality and that headroom. We keep the stable script dividend at around 30-50% throughout 2026 to 2028. That's basically a summary of EDPR. I think good optionality, good growth. We're in the right markets. We've refocused, and we have it very, very clear what we need to do here to create value. With that, I'd pass it over now to a video just before I then turn it over to Rui. It's on technology, on engineering, on innovation, because I know a lot of these slides we talked about, you know, we talked about AI, we talked about technology, and it's very dry. It's difficult to sort of actually show what we're talking about. I could spend hours talking about it, but there's nothing better than to actually see it. We have a short video. I will put it on, and then Rui will take over for the financials. Thank you. At EDP, we're not just building the future of energy. We're engineering it with intelligence, precision, and purpose. From the ground up, we're using robotics and smart systems to support our teams in making engineering and construction faster, safer, and more efficient. In the field, drones and AI-powered diagnostics are transforming how we inspect and maintain our assets, detecting issues before they become problems. High above, robotic tools are restoring turbine blades with surgical precision, extending the life of our infrastructure and reducing downtime. Down in our control centers, a unified cloud-powered big data system serves our renewable asset management with a single source of truth that enables a state-of-the-art operational reporting system. Our networks are evolving too, powered by new engineering solutions that accelerate construction and improve reliability across every connection. For our customers, we're building intuitive digital experiences that put control and insight at their fingertips. We're helping businesses navigate the energy transition, addressing client needs worldwide through a tailored commercial approach and an integrated technology portfolio. Behind the scenes, intelligence systems are automating processes, drafting policies, and generating training, keeping us agile and aligned. At EDP, technology isn't just a tool. It's the engine driving our operational efficiency. EDP. Again, good morning. Thank you for your time today. I'm afraid I have to ask to be apologetic with the people remotely because there is a lag in terms of both the voice and the slides. It's just a bit awkward that we just saw the video about what we are doing in innovation, but today, unfortunately, it's not working as well as we'd like to. Apologies for that. What I would like now to take you through is to show how the strategy that Miguel just presented turns into solid financials for EDP as well as EDPR. Maybe starting by looking at, you know, the $5.2 billion EBITDA that we commit to this business plan, the $1.3 billion that we commit to this business plan, but looking also over a longer period of time. If you look on a nine-year basis, so let's say from 2019 all the way down to the end of the period, this is actually showing a stable 4% CAGR, on earnings. I think it's important to highlight that, you know, we looking backwards, we have a company or we had a company that was around EUR 0.8 billion-EUR 0.9 billion in net profit, and then it stepped up to become a EUR 1.2 billion up to EUR 1.3 billion of net profit by the end of 2028. Also highlighting that we keep a very stable dividend policy, DPS floor increasing to EUR 0.21 by the end of the period. Also, and something that we always highlighted as being a strategic pillar in the company's business plans, is that we are very keen to keep our triple B balance sheet. This is shown by the ratios, the leverage ratios improving. From 3.7 times net debt to EBITDA in 2019 to 3.2 net debt to EBITDA ratio by the end of this period of 2028. What I would like now to take us, take you through is really how we look at the quality of the portfolio and the different how the different segments are playing within the evolution or within this period and the evolution that we're expecting. Obviously, the renewable segment is where we see an important growth contribution, up to $2.2 billion of EBITDA by 2028. This is on the back of the growth that we are seeing in the US, and obviously resulting from the capital allocation towards the US, given the opportunities that we are seeing in the renewables. The networks reaching $1.6 billion of EBITDA by the end of this period. Which is a consequence not only of higher CapEx, but also improved returns, improved incentives, and even in the particular case of Portugal, the fact that we are no longer having the SES, the special special tax for new investments. The, let's say that normalization impact that we are expecting in the flex generation segment. If you normalize from, you know, high hydro years and high prices in Iberia, that is being compensated by higher value coming from the flex gen. There is a pool of value there that is increasing its contribution, and that gives us, you know, this expectation that we get to the EUR 1.3 billion of flex gen EBITDA contribution by the end of 2028. Capital allocation. It is a plan where we will be investing on average EUR 4 billion per annum. The bulk of it obviously continues to go to renewables, where I would like to highlight that 60% of the investment in renewables is going to be allocated to the US. In the past, we used to have around 50%. That is an increase, obviously, you know, taking the opportunity to capture higher returns in the projects that we are seeing available in the US. Also, grid, the networks is increasing in terms of relative weight. In the past two years, we allocated about 21% of capital to the grids. In this plan until 2028, we are getting to 30%. I would also like to highlight that it is as well about focus. We are reducing the number of markets where we are investing. 95% of the CapEx will be allocated to less than 10 markets. Also, 90% of those are A-rated. It is also a question about management focus and the quality of this capital allocation across the different markets. I would like to spend a couple of, well, not minutes, but at least a minute or so on the asset rotation, because as you know, and Miguel said it very clearly, I think that we have shown that we have been executing for the past 10 years. Even if we look to the 2025 asset rotation program, we knew that many people were doubtful that we would be able to execute. We committed to a €2 billion in asset rotation proceeds program, and we are delivering that. It is a combination of mostly coming from the renewables, different portfolios in Spain, in Europe, United States, also asset rotation in Brazil on the transmission. We are delivering that €2 billion. The asset rotation in the US, I think it's worthwhile, you know, highlighting what Miguel said before. It's a very large portfolio, 1.6 gigawatts. 49% sale, straight equity, common equity. There is no structured cash flow allocation. You know, we sell 49% of the cash flows. Very importantly, this was a competitive process. Very large investors, high-quality investors. We are really happy that we are delivering this with such a quality, it's not only quantitative, but quality outcome. That is giving us confidence for the future. As we look at the EUR 5 billion asset rotation target for the remaining of the period, 2026 to 2028, approximately EUR 4.5 billion in renewables. The rest will come from the rest of EDP's business, namely in the transmission. We are including in this asset rotation those build and transfer projects that Miguel referred to. This all also helps not only to de-risk in the sense of once you sign the contract, you pretty much signed already the gas rotation as well. In terms of the capital gains, we consider that throughout the plan, we'll go back to a normalized capital gain of around 15% over invested capital. That pretty much should give us $0.2 billion of capital gains, on average per annum. The funding also has two important contributions. There is €1 billion of disposals that we are considering in this plan. This means that we will be exiting countries and businesses that, as of now, we don't feel that they are core to the growth of the company to 2028 and even beyond 2028. Those are markets either where we have established very small positions or we are not seeing the synergies. We are not capturing the synergies from being there. That is one element. There is another element, which is not new to us and not new to the market, which is the tax equity market. We target to raise about $1.5 billion of tax equity in the US. Maybe here just a couple of notes. The first one is, given that we will have more investment in solar battery storage as opposed to wind, this skews the tax equity to ITC-based tax equity, not PTC-based tax equity. We estimate that we have about 40% of our invested capital in the US in the next few years raised through tax equity structures. The fact that these are ITC-based structures has some implications. The first one is on earnings. As you know, we depreciate this over a five-year period. Very importantly, from an economic exposure perspective, the moment the investor locks in or closes the project, he gets the ITC in full. If you look to our economic liabilities, we will go from around $1.6 billion in 2025 to around $1.4 billion in 2028. There is actually a decrease, and it is just because of the dynamics on how the ITC works. We feel really comfortable that we will be able to raise this $1.5 billion. We have been doing that since 2007. You know, we have an excellent relationship with the largest investors and even the new ones that are coming into the market. Really comfortable that we will be delivering this one. This is how we see the plan being fully funded. We have a €12 billion investment program, a gross investment, an additional €2.5 billion in terms of dividend distribution. This is funded primarily through organic cash flow, €9 billion cumulative throughout the three years. Then we have another block, which is a combination of the asset rotation, the disposals, as well as the tax equity funding. At the end of the period, what we are seeing is a reduction of our net debt. Our target is to end this year with around €16 billion, and the plan is to be at €15 billion by the end of 2028. There is a net debt reduction. Again, I just remind that we are showing a net beta increase, and paired with a net debt reduction, which obviously supports the improvement of our financial ratios and our debt ratios. Our FFO net debt is expected to go from around 19% as we close this year to 22% by the end of 2028. This shows that not only we are completely committed to our triple B balance sheet, we are improving the ratios. This is also what gives additional flexibility from a balance sheet perspective to think in 2028 and beyond. Life does not end in 2028. Actually, there is much more life to come after 2028. It is super important to have this balance sheet reinforced by that moment. I'll spend a minute, if you do not mind, in Portugal, because I think we definitely see this as really positive. Portugal came from being a triple B country in 2022 to an A-plus rated in 2025. The spreads are close to the minimum if you compare it to the German bond. The public financing net debt or debt over GDP is below 100%, is at 91%. This obviously has a reflex, a reflection in terms of the overall public accounts and the budget. The government already approved that throughout these years until 2028, there will be a reduction in corporate income tax. It will go down to 27.5% by 2028. That has a positive impact in terms of our earnings. Secondly, also already announced that it's included in 2026 budget. That special tax that is applicable to investments in what concerns new investments will not be applicable. We won't have that burden in our books. We still believe that by the end of this period, we should also have a positive court ruling and that will, that special tax will go away in 2028. In what concerns the public financing, it's in a very, very well position. Obviously this has also implications in terms of consumption, in terms of how the economy is growing. Also on the electricity system, because not only Portugal today is one of the most affordable, you know, places in Europe in terms of end consumer tariff, it's 25% below the European average. Also in terms of the system debt, which is converging to zero within this period, again shows how sustainable the system is even today and moving forward. Cost of debt. I will spend a little bit of time here on this slide just to explain the different building blocks on how cost of debt is evolving. Overall numbers, it will move from around 5% to 5.1%. I'll break this down in three different dynamics or blocks. There is one coming from Brazilian real denominated debt. Brazilian real today is at 14%, or the interest rate. We are looking at the forwards, it is coming down to 11%. Actually, today probably is around 10%. All of our debt in Brazil is floating, so we will benefit from this. In terms of weight of the Brazilian debt into the overall portfolio, it is also reducing from 32% to 27%. Second building block, what is happening to the euro and the US dollar denominated debt? What is happening here is that we do have bonds that were issued some years back with extremely good coupons. If you look to the bonds that are maturing in 2026 and 2027, the coupons are 1.7% and 1.8%. As we refinance these bonds, and if you consider, for example, what we issued already in 2025, senior bonds were issued at 3.4%. Hybrid bonds were issued at 4.5%. Naturally, as we refinance the maturing bonds in 2026, 2027, what we are assuming is that there will be an increased cost of funding. The third one, however, the building block is that when we get to 2028, our bonds maturing in 2028 are actually at the 4.1%, which are higher than today's refinancing costs. What we are expecting is that we would see an increase in terms of the cost of funding for 2026, 2027, and then starting to decrease from 2028 onwards. That is basically what is justifying these dynamics around the cost of funding. No big changes on our funding policies. We keep 80% of our funding through holding. We keep 80% of our debt fixed. The 20% is primarily Brazil, and we have a funding according to the currency that we operate in the different countries. Again, just to highlight that US, there is a big funding coming through the tax equity, and that obviously you do not see this year on this debt allocated by currency. No change whatsoever in terms of our new issuances. All of our new issuances will be both green and/or sustainable. That means that when we get to the end of 2028, 90% of our stock will already be under this taxonomy. It follows obviously the investment, as you saw, the investment is fundamentally into networks and renewables. I think this is widely recognized by the investor community on the bond side, as well as different indexes. One last word on the financials, liquidity. We will keep our strong liquidity position and conservative policy. We have by the end of September 2025, €9.4 billion of cash and equivalent. Plenty of space to refinance all of our needs throughout the period. The charge also includes the hybrids. As you know, the hybrids is different. We will be issuing new hybrids to refinance the existing ones so that we preserve the equity content that we currently have in the stock. To finalize, and just before I hand over to Miguel again. This is showing strong financials as we deliver the strategy. We get our net profit to $1.3 billion. If you compare straight to 2025, that's an additional 8%. 6% up in terms of EBITDA compared to 2025 as well. Net debt coming down, so increasing EBITDA, reducing net debt from $16 billion to $15 billion. That supports that strong improvement on the FFO net debt and therefore super keen to meet the triple B criteria and keep that as a strategic part of the plan. Last but not least, dividend also improving to the $0.21 at the floor in 2028. With this, I would hand over to Miguel for final remarks and happy to take questions later. Thank you. Thank you, Rui. Okay. Three final slides just really to wrap up and then to pass the Q&A. The first is to wrap up the commitments, the €12 billion investments, the focus on US renewables and networks, the €5 billion of asset rotation, and I think, again, the credibility to deliver on this, the €1 billion of disposals. I think this is an important part also of the funding and the refocusing that we're doing. The efficiency, again, I think best in class. I would love to know others that are getting there. 80% EBITDA on A-rated markets, highly contracted profile, triple B rating. These are some of the commitments. Very importantly, increasing EBITDA while decreasing net debt, and that gives us that optionality, increasing net income and increasing dividends. Okay, I think this is not—I'll say something that is not clear because I think there are some sort of doubts about whether we are reducing debt or not. No, we are reducing debt, keeping that optionality, and then we can manage that over the next couple of years. Why are we comfortable with this? As I say, a big part of the framework on the electricity side is already defined for the distribution. There's not really very much risk there. There's only some potential upside over the next couple of weeks. Safe harbored, we already have more than 5 gigawatts safe harbored. We can still work on that. We have until June to continue working on that if we want to upsize that. Two gigawatts already secured for 2026 and part of 2027, and the supply chain, as I said, with good long-term visibility. We feel pretty comfortable about the assumptions both on the distribution side and also on the renewable side. We have the optionality. As I say, I think we need to think we're running a business for the long term. This doesn't stop in 2028. This trend in the distribution business will go well beyond 2028 and up to 2030. I think I showed you that slide on the distribution, the assets that are sort of coming to the end of their useful life to 2040. That is a major step up versus the past that will stay there for the next coming years. On the flex gen, we are in a great position to capture that. That is a structural change also versus what happened in the past. We are not saying assume what happened in 2025. I am saying you can be a little bit more prudent than that, but it is certainly not going to go back to what it was when there was not that much solar or wind in the sector. Finally, EDPR. Structural demand growth in the US and Europe. We are seeing that today. Repricing in the US. We are seeing that, and we already have a concrete data point. is then a solid pipeline in the various different markets and the ability to leverage more on our existing assets, whether it is our hybridization strategy, whether it is on even, for example, thermal assets in Iberia. There is, let's say, that optionality that we can take advantage of. We can continue to grow well beyond the business plan. People may say, why are you not being even more aggressive in your growth? I think what the message I really wanted to pass here is we are taking solid steps to invest with great projects. As we go on seeing that optionality and capturing the optionality, we will then be able to accelerate. We are not going to promise you things that we cannot deliver on. As we see those projects coming in, we will take advantage of that and we will have the flexibility to be able to take on those projects and upsize that. That is essentially, in a nutshell, the presentation. You will see a moderate growth in networks over the many coming years, well beyond 2028. You will see high growth in EDP renewables over the next coming years, particularly on the earnings side. You see flex gen capturing that optionality, that structural ancillary services in Iberia. That is also something that we think is a long-term trend. We will have the balance sheet flexibility to then go on capturing growth beyond 2028. That is a little bit the thesis of EDP. The focus is on profitable growth, focuses on value creation for shareholders. I just wanted to end with a thank you to all the teams that have worked on this and a lot of people here on the sidelines, leadership team, the various different corporate bodies. Above all, I think the 12,000 people at EDP, I know this represents a lot of work that's come bottom up, not just to get EDP to where we are today and through the many different sort of crises and issues, I think also to then work on the execution going forward. I think it's really a privilege, like a highly talented team. I really am privileged myself and Rui to be here representing the wider team. I think we really do have the right conditions to carry the company forward. It's been great to talk to you. Looking forward to the next couple of years of execution and delivery. I think we can now turn it over to Q&A. Thank you. I'll pass it back to Miguel Viana, and then we can take Q&A. Thanks. Like we said, sorry for the initial issues in terms of webcast. We have 2,500 people connected. The beginning was a little bit more trouble, but then all the presentation, I think it went quite well. We'll move now to the Q&A. Again, from the website, if you want to make your questions, you can insert it in the text box. We'll address here also the questions in the room to discuss all the teams around the business plan presentation. I invite Miguel and Rui to come to the stage. Maybe we'll start with the first question. Maybe here, Javier Garrido. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning and thank you for the presentation. I have thousands of questions, but I will try to limit myself to three. First, on 2030, I agree with you that there is a lot of potential beyond 2028. Talking two questions about that 2030 potential. Firstly, you show the chart, a bar chart with your capacity additions to 2028 and illustrating an increase in gross capacity additions for 2029-2030. How much capacity will you have by then with the increase in FFO to net debt with the reduction in net debt? How much capacity will you have to add megawatts in 2029 and 2030? Second question about 2030. Previously, your strategy, and you mentioned ESG is not dead. Your strategy was to be a 100% renewables company in 2030. Has that changed? What is your view on your gas assets for 2030 and beyond? Because the future of renewable gases is, let's say, a bit questionable. Then the third question for this plan period, 2026-2028, you're talking of EUR 7.5 billion gross CapEx in EDPR to build 5 gigawatts of gross capacity. That's EUR 1.5 million per megawatt. When you are building a lot of solar and batteries, how much, I mean, there has been a lot of debate with your CapEx 2025-2026. You had contributions to Ocean Winds, et cetera, but now this is starting to be more cleaner numbers. Can you elaborate first on what is your assumption for CapEx per megawatt per technology? Second, how much work in progress would you have at the end of the plan period? Because if I am correct, there might be a decent amount of work in progress at the end of this plan period. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Javier. Capacity additions beyond 2028, I think we'll see from the five gigawatts. We're already assuming slightly more than one and a half, already in the business plan. Even so, we're having that balance sheet net debt reduction. I think if you do the math, it'll probably be like 1.7 or 1.8 that you'll have in 2028. I think going forward, we can upsize that, you know, to two. Plus that will depend then also on the asset rotation strategy that we have at the time. I think we can do then the maths on the multiples per megawatt to calculate the number of megawatts. I could see us clearly going, if we're already at, let's say, 1.7, 1.8 in 2028, we could go higher than that because we'll have the balance sheet flexibility for that. Specific numbers will then depend on our strategy for funding and the asset rotation. On the ESG, it's a great question. I think we're still five years away from 2030, but I think one thing is for sure. I mean, gas continues to be a very important part of the mix, and it's not going to go away for the next many years. I think you'll see that we've probably been the companies decarbonize our generation most already in terms of the emissions intensity, in terms of the percentage of renewables in our mix. We're not in a rush to sell the gas assets, and there are many different ways. I don't think the gas assets will go away. They'll certainly be in the system. The question is then whether you want to consolidate them or not, but I don't think it's a short-term question, so I have time to manage that. I think the road is more important. The road that we've been going down, which is to decarbonize our generation, and I think that track record is, you know, best in class. I think that's our commitment. For the question on the CapEx per megawatt, bear in mind that a big part of the CapEx in renewables is now going, or more is going into the US, and the US has structurally higher CapEx per megawatt. Even solar in the US is at high multiples, and I'd probably say around $1.5 million per megawatt. Europe will be lower, maybe 0.7, but then you also have some wind assets, which will also be higher. I do not know if you have any specific numbers, but that structural shift to the US is already going to be pushing up your CapEx per megawatt, sort of, numbers. Yeah. If I break it down, technology and markets, as Miguel said, maybe starting with the solar in Europe, average is 0.7. In the US, 1.5 in some projects could be a bit higher than that in euro terms. I am giving all in euros just to be comparable. Wind, actually, the US is likely to be around the 1.5, but because it's a repowering, what we are doing, and in itself, it also shows how valuable can be a repowering in the US is not only about the repricing, but really the reduction on the cost per megawatt. Battery storage, I think it's ranging somewhere between 0.6-0.7 in Europe and around 1.3 in the US, and that's full cost, all-in cost. Okay. Regarding your question on working capital, I would say probably around the $4 billion by 2028. Looking into what is the construction going into 2029 and onward, give or take around the four. Next question here from Arthur Sitbon. Hello, thanks for taking my question. Just a first question, a follow-up to Javier's question on the unitary CapEx. I was wondering if there is any upside risk to this unitary CapEx assumption that could potentially change a bit your deleveraging trajectory, knowing that there are still question marks in the US on FEOC, on, I think, anti-dumping investigation as well. That would be the first question. The second one was you touched in the presentation on the power land opportunities for data center. I was wondering if there is anything on that included in your guidance to 2028 or if that's just optionality on top of your numbers and what can we hope there. Are there deals that could materialize in that time frame? What are your expectations around that? Thank you. Your second question was the guidance beyond 2020 on. No, it was the power land. Oh, the power land. Yeah. On the powered land, I mean, those are opportunities that we're working on. Those could translate into two things. Either one is new projects, but it can also, and that would probably be the primary value driver, would be existing projects that we have that we can share with a data center, and that can result in a slightly higher pricing, lower curtailment, particularly if it's co-located, you know, better ancillary services. I mean, but it's basically having some synergies with actually that co-location. As I talked about, for example, the US project, because that's a good case, it's a project which is a little bit less performing, but it actually would be a good place in terms of land and et cetera. That's on the powered land. I think in terms of the CapEx, the additional guidance, yeah. To be clear, whatever is secured that we are presenting as secured, we see no risk on that CapEx for several different reasons. A, that we take no tariff risk. That is by contract, with the supplier, with the OEM. The prices are locked in. There is no indexation. That is clear. Even if you think now what is still not contracted. All the contract that we have with First Solar is yet to be starting to be deployed in, I mean, we get the panels in 2026 for delivery in 2027, 2028. All of that is not subject to tariffs and definitely not subject to any FEOC rules. The contracts that we have in place that we could start closing, or that are negotiated, we could start closing with other solar manufacturers. They will be from US facilities. As you know, we have been working with LONGi and offtaki ng from their facilities in Ohio. We'll continue to do so. Again, we take no tariff risks. I think that we will still need to wait and see the clarification on the FEOC, but I would say probably more to the battery storage side. Definitely, we don't see many issues on the solar side. That's why we feel really comfortable with this CapEx plan. Of course, we'll see what the rules are in terms of FEOC, which as of today, probably what we expect is that not before the end of 2026, we'll have that clarity. Jenny Ping from Citi here in front. Thanks very much. Thank you for the presentation. A couple of questions from me, please. Just firstly, Miguel, you talk several times about how conservative this plan is. Can you just kind of give us a feel of where you could be wrong, both on the upside, more sounds more likely, and on the downside? Where are the moving parts, where things could change from what you've set out? Secondly, one for Rui, one of the things that we've noticed in your results is, obviously, you know, several impairments coming through, one-offs, and that's you tidying up, I presume, some of this sort of assets for non-core countries. Can you give us a sense of how much more of that is still to come? I presume the sort of guidance you've set out today on the net income level is excluding any further adjustments as we look through into 2028. Lastly, just on the FFO net debt numbers you talked to. This is more applicable for EDPR than EDP, but there is quite a bit of debate around the methodology rating agencies are going to use, looking forward around off-balance sheet debt, project financing debt. Has that been taken into account when you look at your FFO debt ratios and therefore your net debt reduction targets? Thank you. Okay. I do not think I said conservative. I think I said we feel good about the plan and that we have the optionality, you know, as the projects arise, to be able to commit to them and take them up. I think I did mention what we do not want is to be in a situation where we are either pressured to do the megawatts and sacrifice returns, or we keep the returns and then you will tell us, oh, we missed the megawatts. I think by taking this approach, what we are saying is we are seeing good prices, and you saw the PPA prices, we are seeing good repricing opportunities, and we will go on taking advantage of that. As we go on locking in those projects, we will give you visibility on that. We think that the five gigawatts is a pretty, you know, it is a healthy number. As we go on locking in additional projects, we will be able to upsize that. If the projects are not there because the market crashes or whatever, okay, we have not committed to doing those megawatts. Fortunately at the moment, I think we are seeing that demand and we are seeing the projects and we are seeing, you know, the Googles and the Amazons calling us up and, you know, we can even afterwards we can talk about that. Like, you know, even this evening we were talking about like getting like two big tech, which who do we go with like the project? It is literally a seller's market. It's a great market to be in, but let's go step by step and then take advantage of that over the coming months and years. I'm not suggesting that it's conservative in that, in the sense of like we're holding back or something. Yeah. Starting with the first question on the non-recurring, yes, we did have, we did that. I mean, it's normal that every quarter and definitely every year end, we'll just review not only, you know, the viability of the pipeline that we have in the different countries. And, you know, if we feel that it is not moving forward, then if there is any write-off, we do it. I mean, we've done that in the past. This time around we did the same. When we think about those disposals, the $1 billion disposals, we are not really considering any material impact in terms of additional write-offs. It will depend obviously on the price at which we sell, but we are not considering or we are not expecting anything material. On the project finance, maybe starting with the, so we, we do not use a lot of project finance, as you know. The project finance that we use in projects that are consolidated by EDP, that is treated as debt as normal. We fully consolidate that debt and we do not treat that as non-recurring. Basically, we know that we will not, or the rating agencies already know that we will not let those projects default and therefore they are part of the ratios. I think since the inception of the JV in offshore Ocean Winds, those projects which we own at the 50% and actually at the project level, Ocean Winds sells down, those are funded through project finance. We are only booking whatever is a net contribution from Ocean Winds. We are not expecting any change whatsoever as of now. We know that there is this report out, but right now we do not have any different view from what we had in the past. We continue to treat that as off balance sheet. Of course, we have that equity injection into our books. Jenny, sorry, I just realized I missed the second part of your question, which was the upsides and the downsides. There are certain sensitivities, and actually you will find them also in the appendixes of the document. In terms of some of the key sensitivities, as you know, one is hydro, that can be up or down. That typically levels out over the long term. There are power prices that obviously impact our integrated margin principally. I'd say on the upsides, there are certain things that are not in the context of this business plan, but we point you to in terms of the repricing post 2028. I think those are some of the upsides that we're seeing. We're not capturing that within this business plan, but that could be obviously quite material in terms of the megawatts, what I said. I think we prefer to build up. I wouldn't say that there's an upside. There's an upside there, of course, but, yeah, that's what I'd say about that. Next question here from Manuel Palomo from BNP. Hello, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. I'll stick to three. The first one, and sorry to go back to the investments. Renewables historically, I think, has proven to be quite a cyclical business. As of today, it looks like there's a good amount of opportunity, good prices. Pretty much everything looks pretty positive. So, why, sorry, why not accelerating now? Why waiting up to 2028? That would be my first question. Second one, and somehow linked to this, we all agree about these increases in demand, increasing power prices, particularly in the US, thanks to AI and data centers. So, and you've shown that slide with the PPA prices going up materially. So, I think in the case of the US, the reserve margin is already pretty tight. So there's need for electricity. My question is, what's preventing off-takers from signing PPAs or maybe developers? That would be the question. And lastly, I'd like to ask you about the installed capacity in renewables because you're pointing to 5 gigawatts over the period 2026-2028. That's the gross installation capacity. I don't know if deliberately you decided not to give us the net, but I'm going to ask about it. And just following up on that net capacity, I would like also to know whether that gigawatt of disposals is included there. Thank you very much. Okay. Manel, just on the first, just to be very clear, 2026 is locked. 2025 is locked, obviously. 2026 is locked. A big part of 2027 is locked in the sense that it's very difficult. You know, don't forget that the last 12 months we were risk off. There was a huge amount of uncertainty in the sector, a huge, particularly in the US, a huge amount of volatility about, you know, the big beautiful bill, about the IRS, about all of that. We held off from signing PPAs for the future. We are resuming that and making sure that the PPAs we are signing now, and as I say, you know, we just came out with two yesterday and I am sure we will come out with more. That happened, let's say, post summer. We are picking up basically to see now signing 2027 and 2028. In terms of acceleration, we hope to be able to accelerate, let's say, more towards 2028 and beyond. That does not mean that you will not see those being announced maybe over the next 12-18 months, because that is when we would be signing them. You will not need to wait until 2028 to know if there has been an acceleration or not. You will know probably over the next 12-18 months how those megawatts for 2028 and beyond are beginning to pan out. I think the accelerating, we are accelerating, but you'll start seeing that probably from 2028 and beyond. On the second point, on the PPA prices, I'm not sure I quite understood the PPA price. Yes, the merchant is being trending up. For example, I gave you that data point for one of the projects where we're signing a new PPA for 10 years, starting in 2029, already at a premium, like I think it's an $11 per megawatt premium to the merchant price. I mean, we have only about 4 terawatt hours merchant in 2029, 2030, and then about 12 terawatt hours from 2030 onward. A big part of the energy will only become available from 2030 onward. That is where you can then see a more material, let's say, increase in the number of megawatt hours that we can contract. Is that, was that what you're asking? My question was more on the PPAs, on why you are not signing more PPAs as the ones that you announced yesterday or why you're not signing. We've resumed. Do not forget that we were not signing PPAs until end of August. We were not moving forward in negotiation because, until we had firm visibility on how the safe harbor was going to be and on how the tariffs were going to be and sort of on the big beautiful bill, until we had good visibility on that, it was difficult in terms of negotiations to be able to sit down with the off-taker and say who's going to pay for the risk. Six months ago, if you did not know if the PTCs, ITCs were going to be around, you are not going to commit. To a PPA in that. Basically, that has resumed post summer. These things then take time to be able to develop the projects or to develop the negotiations on the projects with the off-takers. These things also take time. That basically started post summer. As I say, these are negotiations where we want to make sure that we are de-risking. We are comfortable on the project, that we have the permitting all in place. We do not want to take risk on permitting in the U.S. Trust me, it is not a good time to go out and, you know, commit to doing PPAs. Then you suddenly look around and, okay, actually permits are not there or the interconnection is not there. Even in terms of the way we are approaching the projects, we're taking a lower risk approach to make sure that when we're locking in, we're locking in the CapEx, we're locking in the, you know, we've got perfect line of sight on the permitting, on the interconnection. We're not going to commit to PPAs in this current context. We're not going to be committing to PPAs without certainty that we will then be able to deliver the projects as well. I think that's something which, maybe it'll take a little bit more time, but we will not put ourselves in a position where we are taking on a liability that we can't then deliver on. On the installed capacity, it's very straightforward. Five gigawatts gross, about two and a half gigawatts net asset rotations. So two and a half net. In installed capacity, and then about one gigawatt disposals. Disposals is also a relevant part, not just of the funding, but also in terms of the megawatts that we're assuming we will be divesting to then reinvest in the core markets. And Pablo Cuadrado there from JB Capital. Hi. Thank you for taking the questions. Two questions on my side. One will be on the regulatory reviews, particularly on the Portuguese one. You hinted before that the 633 is not enough, but you have allocated EUR 1.7 billion of CapEx. I was wondering whether, you know, that figure is written on a stone or basically you can be touching that during the plan, whatever you see on December. It would be good if you can also share a little bit of details on the 100 basis points of, let's say, additional return that you are seeing, looking at efficiencies, quality of services, et cetera. The second question is, also, I do not know if you can comment a little bit on how you see the integrated margin on liberalized activities. I think you mentioned as well that you are seeing clients somehow not growing. Clearly, the competitive landscape has been difficult in Spain, at least what we have seen in the last few quarters. Power prices, if we look at the forward curves, probably they are going down a little bit, but how have you reflected that in the assumption of the plan? It would be good to have an idea. Thank you. Sure. On the regulatory review, we are allocating about $1.7 billion. We have some flexibility. The $633 million, we do not believe will be the final number. We think that there are good rational arguments to make to the regulator to have a bump on that in the final proposal. In any case, we can adjust somewhat the CapEx. This is the headline number. I mean, this is what typically most of us focus on, but there are a lot of other parameters which have improved. For example, efficiency gains are now split 50/50. Before, they were 75/25. That is an additional upside. In terms of the actual efficiency, it used to be, you know, inflation minus 0.75%. It is now minus 0.5%. It gives you a little bit more upside there. There are other regulatory parameters which, you know, typically we do not talk about as much, but that have improved as well. It is important not just to take the headline number, but let's say the expected overall return, and that has improved. The other thing that has also improved significantly is the fact that we do not have the extraordinary tax. That is also a big bump in our returns in Portugal versus where we were in the past. Between 0.85 of the non-extraordinary tax plus also about 0.8 of the already improvement to the 633, plus if it goes even a little bit higher, we could be talking about, you know, closer to 2% bump in terms of returns on the regulation in Portugal. Anyway, this is playing out. I think the regulator has been constructive. There's still room to play over the next couple of weeks, and we'll see what happens. Sorry. So that was on the regulation on the integrated margin. I don't know if I completely understood your question. The clients are relatively flat, but I think the team has done a great work in just like in this year in particular, we've completely changed our game in Portugal, in terms of the competitiveness of our strategy, in terms of like stabilizing the net adds. Obviously, we're the incumbent in Portugal, and so it's natural that you go on losing some market share. That's pretty stabilized or stabilized much more. We actually had some net adds over the last couple of weeks, versus the past. We're stable sort of at around 60% market share. I think we've managed to find a good balance between being competitive and having a, you know, a reasonable margin in our business. Is that, I'm not sure, was that what you were asking about in terms of the interview? Okay, great. I think we had Gonzalo from UBS. Hi, good morning everyone. Thank you for the presentation. I have a couple of, well, I would say, key themes to go through. I'd like to go a little bit deeper on the US side of things. First, a clarification on the five gigawatts that you have safe harbor. Is that including both the old and the new regime? I guess the question there is how much more you think you can add or how much more are you working to add in before the end of the safe harboring period? That's one. And then the follow-up of that, which links a little bit with what we've been talking about before, is whether that would drive higher additions, I guess, in 2028 within the plan. Very clearly not in 2026, 2027, as you've already mentioned, but whether it is soon enough in 2028 to get more out of that or not. The next question on the US side would also be on, on, I'm quite curious about the conversations you're having. I mean, you've mentioned the seller's marke t and that you're having these debates with, you know, which hyperscaler going with or not. Traditionally, if I'm not wrong, and I guess that's a question, you've been focused more on signing PPAs with utilities rather than hyperscalers or tech companies, although you've had a good combination of both, but there's been more on one side than the other. I'm curious about how you think about this, whether the market is changing, whether you are seeing different dynamics, based on obviously the money increase and how this is going. That's the first kind of group. Second group of questions. Sorry, I'm just getting a bit long. This one is shorter. I'm gonna make the question anyway, and I'm anticipating the answer, I guess, but are you seeing any changes in the corporate structure, between EDP, EDPR, and Ocean Winds? I guess a follow-up there, which I think might change your view in some years, is if you are thinking about all of these increases in prices, PPAs, renegotiating all the contracts in the next five to 10 years, particularly in the US, whether you're leaving some money on the table with all these minorities within the structure at different levels. Yeah, those are the very long questions. Thank you. Thank you, Gonzalo. In terms of safe harboring, you mean old regime, new regime, the 5% working? What we had in, so we have about 1.5 gigawatts that was safe harbored already at the end of 2024. I'd say that's probably mostly old regime. Let's call it that sort of 5%. Since we, you know, when we started getting more visibility sort of before the summer about how the safe harboring rules were going to change for the summer, sort of, you know, June, July, and then August, we also started moving much more towards the, let's say, the specific assets metric. That's actually an easier one to do than the 5% because it actually is cheaper. I mean, to be honest, in terms of the optionality, you need to put in less money to get the same basic outcome. What we did do is make sure, you know, and working obviously with the team and the lawyers and the regulation guys to make sure that there's no doubt about our qualification for those safe harboring. You need to have those specific assets. Let's say you ask for a specific transformer, it needs to be allocated to a specific project, and that's being worked on. I'd say the remaining, let's say if one and a half was in 2024, a big part of the rest is probably under the newer regime. Sandy will then correct me if I'm wrong, or Miguel, but what we do going forward until mid 2026, which is when we can still go on safe harboring additional projects, that will be under the new regime. That was the first one. More additions 2028. I think the question there, I mean, I've, I think I've talked about it, but we're assuming about 1.7-1.8. Your question is, can we do more? Like, I guess that's based on the five gigawatts. Yeah. Let's say if you lose seven gigawatts of harbor by July 26, would that fit through this plan or next plan? It'll be towards the end of the decade, you know, 2028, 2029, 2030, that would be sort of the range when we would start getting projects locked in. As we go on getting more visibility on the, that we'll have visibility on the safe harboring, and we have to try to tie that up with PPAs and with the negotiations that are ongoing and with our existing pipeline of project to make sure we can triangulate between all of those. And then, as I say, over the next month or so, we'll be giving more visibility on what we're already locking for 2027, 2028, and beyond that, we'll need to wait till, you know, end of 2026, 2027 to then start getting visibility on 2029 and 2030. I think that's one of the things that's, you know, typically we don't lock in things with three years in advance because then that also puts you in a big position of risk unless you can, because you're not going to lock in also the CapEx with all of that, sort of time ahead. as I say, I think the point here is to make sure we're getting good returns, but also de-risking the projects so that we can deliver them, with the, you know, with the returns that we want. The conversations with the high tech, I think I showed the slide. We have more than 3 gigawatts already signed with the high tech, and a lot of the conversations are going on also with the high tech. It's true that we also have good relationships with the utilities. I wouldn't say necessarily the dynamics have changed. I mean, let's say the intensity has probably changed. We're seeing the utilities being very aggressive now about their demand growth. You saw AEP, you know, you can talk about the NIPSCOs. I mean, they are seeing a lot of load growth in their region and they are having to procure. As I mentioned, a lot of them are then resorting to BTAs and, you know, build transfer agreements. We're seeing more of those. I'd say we have pretty good relationships with both the big tech and the utilities. Then it's a question of what are the projects that they're most interested in and sort of will feed that through in the discussions. On the issue on the corporate structures, I mean, you can probably guess the answer of it. I'd say don't assume any changes, keeping the current structure. I think, I don't think it's a question of leaving money on the table. I mean, we have more than 70%—EDP has more than 70% of EDPR, so that will flow through naturally to EDP. At the OW level, as I say, our focus there is extracting value. It's not taking risky growth or, you know, sort of merchant positions. I mean, we've seen a lot of auctions actually go deserted, you know, with no one actually showing up to those auctions. I think there is also a fundamental just change in mindset about the way that people are approaching those types of auctions. And certainly in our case, you know, we are very conscious of the fact that these are very long. I mean, you know, if people are worried about solar and wind, I mean, which take maybe 18 months, 24 months, you know, between sort of starting to get the CapEx to cash time, to cash. I mean, in the case of offshore, it's really long. You need to be very comfortable that you've locked in all of those risks, whether it's on the CapEx side, whether it's on the interest rate side, you know, to make sure you don't lose money in that process. If you're out for four, five, six years just in the development of those projects, and I don't need to mention names, but, you know, you can be out by a lot of money very, very quickly. We don't want to take that type of risk on the offshore business. That's been our position in the OW partnership. Maybe I would just also complement on the minorities, just to be clear. The 49% sale that we did this year in the US, in the plan, we are not considering to replicate that. In the plan, what you can find is in the US, we typically sell 80%. That has been the structure, but we need to keep some skin in the game. In Europe or elsewhere, we'll sell 100%. There is no new minorities coming in through the asset rotation. We have here Pedro Alves from CaixaBank. Hi, good morning. Thank you for the presentations and taking my questions. The first one, and coming back to the balance sheet optionality, because I'm pretty sure that people looking at 12%-14% equity IRR, significantly higher than your cost of capital. There is this potential. Can you please quantify what is, because for us, sometimes it's difficult to triangulate according to different rating agencies' metrics, the firepower, how much headroom do you have to invest by 2028, more and still comply with the triple B? If eventually that firepower can even increase, if you are suddenly more aggressive also on the asset rotation side, you mentioned the build and transfer agreements, for instance, in the US, and the utilities continue to see this massive load growth, if you have opportunities to increase asset rotations. The second question is how much of your CapEx in this plan is really secured, is really closed. I understood it's most of it, but if you can provide a rough figure, it would be helpful. If eventually you see the risk of an increasing shift towards domestic manufacturers in the US, putting your cost inflation up to a prohibitive level at some point, PPA is not compensating for that. Thank you. Okay, maybe starting with the balance sheet optionality. What we shared was this FFO net tapped 22% by the end of 2028. I mean, S&P and Moody's, then they have different adjustments. The number will be lower than that when you look to these different numbers, but we are, you know, comfortably above the minimum threshold on those metrics. If you take as a reference, I mean, we are going from this 19%. In the past, we said that the bare minimum would be 20%. Consider that we have this sort of two percentage points of additional headroom that we are creating on the FFO net tapped towards 2028. On the CapEx, I believe that we share a slide where actually we show how much capacity we have already secured. On the domestic content, and again, I just want to clarify a few topics here. In the US, and this is something that we decided back in 2022, we completely shift our procurement strategy and supply chain strategy. We went from having a global supply chain strategy towards having a US-centric and US domestic supply chain, and then the rest of the world. That was what enabled us to then sign the contracts with First Solar. The prices are locked in until 2028. It enabled us as well to build that relationship and lock in the contracts with the manufacturers that have brought their factories in the US, namely the case of LONGi, and the higher factories, South Koreans as well. Since then, we have been also creating stronger relationships with the main EPC contractors. You can think that we buy the main equipment and then the EPC contractor will be buying the rest. We'll also buy some of the main transformers, the main power transformers. They may buy themselves, on our behalf, but that is also a U.S. supply chain, and that has been built over time. CapEx is higher. If you're, you know, the, and I think I may have shared this example in the past, exactly the same module, the solar module in Europe may cost us around $0.09 per watt. In the U.S., it's going to cost us $0.25-$0.30. That's why you have the CapEx per megawatt higher. That's why then it drives higher PPA prices and domestic content on the ITC. If you recall that we shared that we target around 40% of our invested capital in the US being funded through tax equity, that means that not only are we capturing the base 30% for the ITC, but that additional 10% other from domestic content, project by project, we may have an additional 10% from the local communities, the energy communities. That is why, yes, there is this higher CapEx in the US getting reflected into the economics of the project and therefore meeting the return targets. We have a question there from Meg from HSBC. Please go ahead. Yes, thank you for taking my question. I'll keep it to one. You're going for a spread over a back of 250 basis points, going forward. Can we think of a higher number post 2028? I think that's a question in the nutshell, and why I find that the absolute level of PPA prices in your, in the US hasn't been very indicative of your margin because when those prices were low, you had one of your best spreads of more than 300 basis points over the WACC. You know, as the prices have gone up, you've actually had one of your worst spreads because everyone needed to reprice as the costs went up, and then we needed to follow up with the pricing. Now, if it's such a seller's market, why are we not above 300? Or is it the same as you already explained? Now we're still half the projects that have been locked in during the difficult phases, and actually post 2028, we could be looking at 300, or actually if it, if the US is so eager, shouldn't it actually be 400? Just wondering where you see the long-term spread over what going for the projects. Yeah. First of all, we said more than 250 across the portfolio and across the different geographies. I think if, and actually we've got even better than that. I do not know if we had that number, but currently it's about 280 basis points across the portfolio, which means that in some geographies it's better, in others slightly worse. In the US, we've typically been above the 250. It is a competitive market also. I mean, it's a good market to be in, but it doesn't mean that you can ask for any price you want. I think that 250 keeps us competitive. It keeps us, you know, having a good growth profile. It gives us a good margin that allows us, when we asset rotate, to still make, you know, a good capital gain. I'd say we're relatively comfortable with that range. Above 250 on the overall portfolio. As I say, whether it's in the US, you know, with the asset rotations, whether it's in Europe, we've then been able to capture good percentages of asset rotation gains. From a question of competitiveness and trying to find this balance between returns and growth, I think that's where we feel it's a good balance. The issue that you mentioned about the margins in the past. Cost of capital has gone up substantially. And I think we, even when he was talking about, for example, his debt, you know, we used to have a cost of capital where we were financing ourselves the hybrid at 1.5%, you know, and debt was at pretty much nothing. So obviously you had much lower, you were having a good spread, but it was a lower cost of capital. Now we're having a higher spread, but let's say at the high point of the cycle. So hopefully that is a spread that if anything, it can only expand if interest rates were to come down over time. So we feel comfortable about that. Here from the room from Fernando La Fuente from Alantra. Good morning, Fernando La Fuente, Alantra. Just a couple of follow-ups, please. The first one is on the PPAs that you were mentioning in the US especially. Do you have any kind of protection clause? Because the US is a market that has proven very volatile, for obvious reasons, no? Any kind of protection clause in those PPAs that you are signing now in terms of, I don't know, permittings or whatever the current administration changes in the, during the game? The second one, it's on asset rotations. Just have your view on what do you believe it's going to be easier, between commas, in terms of technologies and countries or regions where you believe you could sell all these asset rotations and that you are targeting. Thank you so much. Sure. On the PPAs, on the protection clauses, yes, I think that's, you know, when I was talking earlier about why we also hadn't been signing PPAs in the first half of the year is because we're having those discussions around how we could protect ourselves in the PPAs, either issues of tariffs, issues of being able to walk away, for example, if there was some CP, you know, some permitting issue that comes up, making sure that we can step out of those contracts. As I say, de-risking the contracts. That's been part of the discussions that have been going on is to try to share the risk with the off-takers and protect ourselves also from, let's say, making sure we're not out of pocket, with some liability on some PPA. On the asset rotation side, I think what we've shown is that we've been able to do that across geographies and across technologies, you know, whether it's wind, solar, Europe, US. I mean, the truth is we've managed to do a bit of both, you know, a bit of everything, over time. This year is a good example of that. As I say, many portfolios in Europe, a big portfolio in the US, and all done successfully. You get different types of appetite, different types of investors sometimes in different geographies. Probably more financial investors in the US at the moment. You get quite a few strategics also in Europe. Obviously everyone likes wind, but that's also a scarce asset. You know, people like assets here in Europe very much, certainly places like Italy and France and all that, that always gets a lot of attention. I think we've shown that across the board. We are able to find sort of good buyers and good multiples. Sorry, Jorge Alonso here from Bernstein. Hi, thank you for taking my questions. The first one is a clarification on the capital gains of the asset rotations, that is only linked to the asset rotation capacity or the disposals as well. If so, if you expect some capital gains as well on the disposals. The second one is on the Ocean Winds. The main question is, why keeping Ocean Wind. In the portfolio, you are exiting or rationalizing the portfolio. Why Ocean Winds is so core for the company and what is going to be the contribution in terms of CapEx that you have to put in the plan and the contribution of Ocean Winds to the earnings of EDP, EDPR. The last one is regarding the, on the FlexGen hydro and supply in Iberia. If you can give us some more color, because I mean, normalization of hydro production is going to be material, probably maybe 2 terawatt hours, normalization of power prices as well, especially because not the wholesale price, but as well the hedges that you had in the past. If you can, guide us, I mean, how can you really offset that big impact on that? Is it through supply or simply, I mean, the pumping is providing much more probability or the CCGT plants? Thank you. Okay. Capital gains mostly coming from asset rotation. We're not assuming. That's one on OW. We have a stable long-term partnership with Engie. There's even a lockup associated with a part of that. It is a stable partnership. I would keep it at that and say that if you can get good projects, they give you good money. It's just a question about staying disciplined on those projects and making sure that it's delivering what you expect to deliver. We're not taking risks that we're not comfortable with. In terms of contribution to CapEx and to earnings, maybe then you can get that. I'd say with OW, it's, it's, let's say it's the partnership that we have for offshore. It did open us, open up a new technology. I think it's been interesting to also follow that. We've had some great projects there. You know, for example, the French projects we're talking about, double-digit equity IRRs. I mean, super attractive. You know, we had Moray, super attractive project, and we, you know, got a huge windfall on the, let's say on the, you know, when the energy crisis came up. I think it's given us also some positive surprises over time, the offshore business. We just need to make sure we're managing that from a risk perspective. On FlexGen and Hydro. Actually, on the slides, I think one of the slides we had, we had already that normalization effect. I think it is closer to one and a half terawatt hours, if I am not mistaken, in terms of delta, for example, for 2025. In terms of prices, again, if memory serves me right, we are going from 70 to 64. That is sort of the type of range. We are already assuming a certain normalization in the numbers that we are giving you. What we are saying is on a normalized basis, you are seeing the unwinding, let us say, of that retail piece, of, let us say, the ancillary services being passed on. You are seeing sort of that flexibility piece increasing. You have actually an increase on the integrated margin on a normalized basis, going forward. Again, we tried to decode it for you on the slide. If you need, we can then go in deeper, offline. Yeah, we do not. Just to clarify on the offshore, in the plan, we are considering about EUR 0.8 billion. That is the combination of, you know, kicking off the construction of the project in Poland, some final equity contributions to the French projects, which are finalizing construction, and then in 2026, we will have the equity bridge loan repayments for the Moray West project in the U.K. Altogether, which is the biggest chunk of that, the EUR 0.8 billion. All in all, that is the EUR 0.8 billion. Pedro, I am afraid I referred to the presentation about the secured capacity. Out of the five gigawatts, two gigawatts are secured. The rest will come. Sorry. I see [Gravier Holly] from Deutsche Bank. Thanks. Just a question on the, on the gains. You know, I think in 2023, you achieved gains over investments of over 60%. This year and last year, I think it was closer to 10%. And in the plan, it's greater than 15%. What's the reason why we're not seeing that return to higher numbers? 'Cause I think from 2026 onwards, your, I thought you were selling vintages again where we're at, you know, there's higher returns that you've achieved. Thanks. Talking about the 15% capital gains. It's a great question. So I think two things to bear in mind. One, it's more, you, we're going to have more US, which has a higher CapEx. And so if you think about it in terms of absolute, let's say take a, a simple example, but if you had €200,000 per megawatt gain, if it's on a €2 million. Euro per megawatt CapEx, that's 10%. If it was on a EUR 1 million per megawatt hour, that would, per megawatt, that would be a 20% gain. The fact that you have a bigger CapEx base means that the percentage ends up being a bit lower. The second thing to note is that there's a lot of tax equity. Obviously in the U.S., you have tax equity. The gain is really, if you take out the tax equity, our net equity in is lower. If you do that percentage on your net equity, effectively, it's a higher percentage. Let's say the fact that there's a more bigger skew to the U.S. ends up distorting a little bit that metric. I mean, in terms of underlying, let's say in this case, dollars per megawatt of gain, it's still a pretty healthy gain. Okay. We have there Alex from Bank of America. Morning. Thanks for taking my question. Just one follow-up actually on Ocean Winds and another one on tax equity. On Ocean Winds, I think you were talking about extracting value, but can we assume that you're keeping the current perimeter as it is, i.e. no more further sell down perhaps of your stakes in Ocean Winds? Just a follow-up on the previous question, how much earnings are you expecting incrementally from Ocean Winds by 2028 compared to today? Then the second question on tax equity, similar on earnings, just wondering, given that you're deploying more capacity in the US and there's more, I think, ITC being contributing, how much income from tax credit should we expect in that income from institutional partnership that you've got still consolidating, I think, at the EBITDA level? I think you had a guidance for $450 million for this year. What would it be in 2028? And just a clarification on how much of that flows to net income. I think there's nothing in the free cash flow because you've monetized that, but just a clarification on that. Thank you. Okay. Okay. On OW. I think I've talked about the discipline, in terms of the no sell downs. You're talking about at the top co or you're talking about, because in the projects we'll continue to do sell downs of stakes. You know, we recently announced, for example, the sell down of one of the French projects to Allianz. We will continue to sell down at the project level. At the corporate level, we have no plans to sell. On the tax equity side, we've given some visibility on that. I think we even put in the appendix, we put in a specific slide on that. I think the biggest jump in terms of the contribution of tax equity income at this point was from 2024 to 2025, because you had a big, you had almost 2 gigawatts coming in from the US, at the end of 2025. That is reflected, sorry, in 2020, end of 2024, that is reflected in the 2025 numbers. Again, if memory serves me right, I do not think there is a very big increase from 2025 versus 2028. The big jump was from 2024 versus 2025. Again, I think we have given some visibility to that and also in the appendix. Yeah. On that 450 reference, that is going to be around 500 across the years on the plan. There is, you know, the jump, as Miguel said, was to 2025. From here onwards, it is not, also because there is some, you know, we sell some of the assets. That basically is sort of stabilizing around the 500. You know, the cash in was upfront. The moment you commission the project, you lock in the tax equity, you know, ITC, PTC, and basically you have that. Where we do have is that some of the financial costs, and this is actually quite relevant from moving from PTC to ITC, because in the organic cash flow, actually there is an improvement because some of the financial costs that we still bear over 10 years on the PTC-based transactions, they do not exist on the ITC base because basically we just, you know, it's much more shorter. There is actually an improvement in the organic cash flow coming from reducing the financial cost on the tax equity structures. I think you asked a question as well on the contribution to earnings from Ocean Winds. I would say, you know, we do, it will range somewhere between $30 million-$50 million. Some years it will depend on if there is an asset rotation on one of those projects or reducing, minority portion from an Ocean Winds perspective, then it may pick up. So it, depending on, you know, when that happens, it might have a pickup, but give or take somewhere between the $30 million-$50 million. I think we have here a question from Zach from Jefferies. Hi, thanks for taking my questions. I have three. Firstly on repricing, I think you shared some information on the slides about the extent of the repricing impact from 2029 onwards. Are you able to share what the length of the repricing contract would be, during the, during that time? Then secondly on power prices, I'm thinking about the 25% roughly of merchant exposure you have on 2028. I know you assume some upside from wholesale power prices in the US, but if you think about the potential kind of like where power market fundamentals are in the US, there's an argument to be had that maybe power prices in the US could go up even further. I was wondering if you were able to provide any sensitivities on US power prices. I think at the end of the slides, you provide sensitivity to pool prices, but not necessarily US power prices. Finally, just I think a clarification on Jenny's question about impairments. I'm not sure if you addressed it, but when it comes to the EUR 1 billion of disposals, are you expecting any kind of impairments or is the message from you guys that, you know, we've done what we need to do from this year onwards and going forward, you can expect, you know, the streamlined business to not have any more of these kind of like negative speed bumps. But yeah, thank you. Yeah, thanks. On repricing, I think the length of the contracts that we've been seeing are typically 10 years when you get them sort of extended, but obviously that's something to be discussed ongoing. At least the data point that we have was like a 10-year contract. Bear in mind that often this is post the end of the PPA and therefore, you know, if the useful life is 30 or 35 years, you also can't extend it too much because then you, you know, bump up against the end of the project life. I'd say that that's sort of, I would assume that that's more or less the length of the contract. In terms of the merchant, post 2028. I mean, yes, for sure. We've seen sort of, you know, a lot of also independent analysis pointing that there could be a, let's say, a surge demand. If the generation is not increasing, you get a push up in prices. We are seeing that. Also sort of in the capacity, the revenue assurance, I mean, in some of the markets, and I'm sure you've seen that as well. What we did say is that we've got about 4 terawatt hours that could be coming, let's say, there are merchants in that period. That typically we go on hedging forward. As we get closer to that time, you know, we will be on hedging at whatever prices at the time. If they're higher, even better. Let's only be contracting on the PPA. What about the merchant exposure? That's the 4 terawatt hours, I think, is the merchant. It's 12 terawatt hours post 2030. That's the volume of merchant that we have in the US. You know, of PPAs that have already expired or that sort of are in hedging, hedges that, you know, will also go on expiring. It's the energy that we can play around with in terms of future power prices. On the disposals, I mean, we're not assuming gains, we're not assuming impairments, but we'll run processes and, you know, the price will be what it'll be. I think our focus here is really to just maximize value that we get from either getting out of certain markets or certain businesses and redeploying that capital back in. At the moment we don't have neither positive or negative. We're not assuming anything. We're just saying, let's refocus. I think we have your last question from the room from Sky London from Redburn. Thanks, guys. First question on flex gen prices in Iberia. You mentioned Duck Curves, and the impact of solar, deeper troughs, high peaks, et cetera. Ultimately, what this means is your hydro generation can capture prices above base prices at peak times. How do you see those capture price abilities changing as more and more solar continues to be added to the grid? Can you provide some details around what assumptions are embedded within your forward guidance for the integrated business? Secondly, battery storage, you mentioned very good returns in the US tolling agreements. You also noted that battery CapEx is around half the US in Europe. Can you talk a little bit about your European battery plans? Is this more of a 2029-2030 thing, or is there a particular reason why batteries are not a bigger part in the term mix? Thanks. Yep. Okay. On flex gen, I think I actually put up a slide in the presentation which talks about the realized price that we expect, or premium that we expect to get from the hydro. It is about 20%. I think it's gone from like 10%, 15%, 20%. That was on the left-hand side of one of the slides, you've got that data point. Then you've got the hydro pumping, which has increase in volume of hydro pumping and an increase of the spread. I think, based on those two data points, you should be able to get to a relatively good approximation of the value from, let's say, both on the realized price of hydro and also on the ancillary services from pump storage. On storage, great question. I mean, we have a lot of debate internally about batteries in Europe, particularly in places like Iberia, for example, where you've seen, you know, really high penetration of renewables. It's great that we have the storage, the pump storage. I mean, it's been, you know, fantastic asset, but you know, why hasn't, why haven't batteries taken off? The simple reason is that there hasn't really been a business case for it yet. There aren't capacity payments in a lot of the markets. If they start introducing them, as I said, you know, we're expecting Spain to introduce them in 2026 and Portugal probably in 2027, you start seeing sort of a, the batteries, I mean, at least in our case, we're not going to invest in batteries just based on a pure arbitrage because that can get competed away very quickly. It should have a certain amount of regulated, certain regulated piece or other revenue streams to make the business case work. That exists in places like the U.K., exists in some places, in, for example, in the U.S. Italy and Poland have also come out with some schemes which now are incentivizing batteries. We are looking at that and we have been participating in some of those auctions. I think you will see that begin to develop. It is not a major part of our plan, but I would say it is an upside to it. I have some very bullish people on the team who believe a lot that that will happen. We are, you know, keep looking at it, looking at the business case and just making sure we can get comfortable with the risk return profile. I would say it is probably a piece that we believe will happen. We are not incorporating in the plan yet. We will have time to address just two final questions from the web from Alberto Gandolfi from Goldman Sachs, who was not able to be here today with us. Hope he is better. The first question comes from, what do you think is the outlook for data centers in Europe and what is the business opportunity that brings to EDP? I mean, I think Europe is clearly behind the US in terms of the buildout of data centers, but we do see movement. One of the first things I think I talked to you about was the one example, let's say, that we have in Portugal, of that 1.2 gigawatt, 10 terawatt hour data center that is being built up in six phases. They're already on the second phase, moving on to the third. Things are happening. There's a second data point I could point to, which is the partnership we did with Merlin, also in Portugal, the 100 megawatts. You know, we're actually doing 100 megawatts behind the meter. We're actually direct line into the data center. That's something that's being worked on. Looking at another opportunity near Madrid that's also happening. We're seeing movement, obviously maybe not, not of the same scale, at the same speed that we're seeing in the US. When I talk to a lot of these guys, one of the things that they say, which is, you know, quite interesting, is that, I mean, the world's becoming more protectionist, more fragmented. People will want to control their data. I'm sure you've heard comments also, even by European politicians talking about Europe doesn't want to be a digital colony of the US. There is a mindset at the moment in Europe that, and also because of the Data Protection Act, you need to store some of this data in Europe. Again, I don't know if some of you guys saw the news flow when the Amazon data center went down in Virginia and people weren't able, you know, lost their WhatsApp in Spain. It's like, guys, we're depending on a data center in Virginia for the WhatsApp in Spain. How does this work? I think there's this realization that we need to build up capacity in Europe as well, and that will drive some of that data center demand also in Europe. Then, we'll certainly see a lot of people betting on that and sort of taking positions on that, and that should flow through also to us. The final question was around potential for acceleration of net, also from Alberto Gandolfi, potential for acceleration of net profit growth of EDPR post 2028. What would be the drivers that we see? I mean, the drivers for EDPR, we talked about them to a certain extent. It would be the megawatts, additional megawatts that you bring in and the repricing. I think those are the two key drivers. I mean, EDPR at the end of the day is a relatively simple business. It's, you know, installed capacity times a net capacity factor. It gives you a certain generation times a price. You either have more megawatt hours or you have a better price. That is what drives the net income at the end of the day. Obviously, you need to manage your costs, financial costs, OpEx, need to be best in class in that. What is going to drive the top line is either volume or price. One of those two, I mean, to see that acceleration, you need to have one of those two moving. It is a good time for it. I think we conclude the Q&A session with this question from the web. Miguel. Listen, thank you very much. Thank you for your patience. Thank you for coming here in person. It is great to see you. I think we have an interesting story. I think we are in a much better time to be talking about this. Originally, as you know, we were thinking about doing this at the beginning of the year, but I think the right decision was to do it now. You know, we can give you credibility on the framework for distribution. We can give you credibility in terms of the flex gen and the ancillary services. I think that's stabilized, and we can give you much more visibility, certainly on renewables growth going forward. I think it's a good moment. I think there's a lot of excitement, a lot of enthusiasm, a lot of potential. We obviously have to manage the next couple of years, but I think it's going to be an interesting time. Thank you very much for coming, and I hope to speak to you soon. Thank you.