Elia Group Aktie

Good morning. Thank you for joining us as we present Elia Group's Full Year Figures and have a look at what 2026 will bring for the Group.

I'm joined today with our CEO, Bernard Gustin; and Marco Nix.

Good morning.

Good morning, both. Before we start, please take a moment to review the on-screen disclaimer. It contains some important information you should take note of. And as always, the slides will be and the script will be published on our live stream afterwards.

Bernard, I'll let you kick off.

Thank you, Stephanie. I want to start by saying how proud I am of what we've achieved this year. Three achievements stand out. First, we secured financing for significant growth and reestablished market trust. When I took on this role, there were questions about our capacity to fund ambitious growth and deliver on our promises. Addressing this was my main focus. And I'm pleased to say that we are back on track.

Second, we delivered operationally investing EUR 5.2 billion in CapEx this year, more than triple our historical annual average. And third, we are attracting exceptional talent. Despite challenges, people want to join us because they see Elia Group as a place to make a real difference and help build the energy infrastructure of the future. That tells me we have the right people and the right vision.

Thank you, Bernard. Before Marco takes us through the financials, let's have a look together at the major highlights that defined the year.

[Presentation]

Well, 2025 was indeed a year marked by major milestones, collective achievements and moments that shaped who we are and where we are heading. When it comes to project execution, 2025 was a year of real tangible progress. In Belgium, we continued to advance on several strategic infrastructure projects that form the backbone of the country's future electricity system.

Ventilus and the Boucle du Hainaut, both critical missing links in connecting large volumes of offshore wind and reinforcing Belgium's North-South transmission corridor progressed through key regulatory and construction milestones. These projects are essential for integrating the Princess Elisabeth zone, strengthening system reliability and ensuring Belgium can transport renewable energy efficiently across the country.

BRABO III also entered its final stretch, further reinforcing the Antwerp region and enhancing cross-border capacity with the Netherlands. The construction of the Princess Elisabeth Island also continued to advance steadily. The installation of the concrete caisson made solid progress with 11 of the 23 caisson already installed at the sea. And the remaining units are ready for deployment as soon as weather conditions allow it. This brings Belgium another step closer to achieving its decarbonization targets.

And in Germany, we also saw real progress. On SuedOstLink+, one of the country's most important North-South transmission corridors with permitting moving ahead and technical preparation advancing, the project is now getting much closer to implementation. At the same time, offshore progress stayed on track. We successfully completed the cable laying for Ostwind 3, the link for the next wave of wind projects at the German Baltic Sea, securing future capacity to integrate more renewable energy.

And on Bornholm Energy Island, Germany and Denmark signed a landmark agreement for 3 gigawatts of offshore wind connected through new hybrid grid links to both countries. It's a major step forward future toward future cross-border offshore grids in the Baltic Sea and support Germany's vision for a more meshed and resilient offshore system. We also put 2 new high-voltage lines into service, each over 100 kilometers, boosting our transmission capacity and strengthening stability across key parts of the German grid.

So overall, it was a year of strong delivery with our teams moving forward the strategic projects, but at the same time, congestion is becoming more visible. As more renewables connect to the system, and that's a good thing, our consumption patterns also evolve and that is putting pressure on our grid. And this isn't just a Belgian or a German challenge, it's a European one. Our recent study on storage shows just how quickly the landscape is changing. Storage and batteries, in particular, will be a cornerstone of the future system. But equally important is the question, how, where and when storage operates.

Today, the current wave of connection request isn't always a healthy growth. We are seeing a huge number of speculative projects across Europe. In Germany alone, TSOs are facing requests equivalent to the load of 100 million households. That's not sustainable. It strains the grid, dodge the queue and delays more mature investments that society actually needs.

This is why we advocate for a new approach. We need to prioritize system relevant mature projects and move away from a first come, first serve logic that is now being exploited and risk driving up cost for all consumers. This is where the EU grid package helps set the direction. It supports anticipatory investment and clearer rules so that flexibility, renewables and storage can work together as aligned pillars of a sustainable, affordable and secure system.

And another key factor for our long-term investment needs is the right regulatory frameworks. Based on what we know so far about the German regulation, we welcome BSR's ambition and its recognition that the full package matters for investors. However, the draft framework still does not provide the balanced and internationally competitive returns needed to attract the level of capital required for the grid expansion.

Key adjustments are still necessary, particularly on return on equity level, debt cost coverage, OpEx predictability and the effectiveness of the incentive schemes to ensure the framework truly supports the unprecedented investment effort ahead. We remain committed to constructive dialogue to help shape the final determination that safeguards investments capability and supports Germany's long-term energy goals.

To speak about 50Hertz goals, we will now share a short video from the CEO of 50Hertz, Stefan Kapferer, on the progress made and the milestones still ahead of us.

With a new focus on resilience of the energy infrastructure and affordability of energy transition, it became clear in 2025 that an overarching responsibility for the electricity system is urgently needed. This can only be delivered by companies like Elia Group with 2 national TSOs, ETB in Belgium and 50Hertz in Germany.

In 2026, 50Hertz will once again invest a record high amount of money in additional grid infrastructure, substations and new connections for consumers, EUR 5.1 billion. So affordability of the energy transition will be key. We have to harvest efficiency potential, and we have to take care that only those projects are included in the next grid expansion development plan, which are really needed to make the energy transition happen.

And to finance these challenges, the current review of the regulatory framework in Germany has to deliver an internationally competitive return on equity to guarantee that the engagement of the investors will be the same also in the upcoming years.

2026 will be a year in which significant regulatory developments and grid planning milestones emerge in both our countries, giving us much more clarity on the investment landscape and its associated returns.

To build on that, I'd like to turn to the CEO of Frederic Dunon. He will walk us through the challenges and opportunities shaping our next steps.

Discussions will begin on our regulatory framework for the period '28, '31. Two major objectives are at stake. First, to ensure that market parties have the right incentives to allow safe and efficient system development and operation. And second, to ensure that Elia has a financial and human means to realize the plans approved by the authorities.

The design of our '27, '37 federal development plan will be at the center of attention of our authorities. Indeed, it will define the boundaries of possible futures in terms of energy, industrial and economical policies. Whereas development plans were seen in the past as an administrative process, it is now well understood that they are the foundation of our major society for the coming decades.

Now that we've looked at Belgium and Germany, let's shift to what's happening internationally.

As you know, we took a minority investment in energyRe Giga at the end of 2023 with a clear understanding that this is a long development cycle model and that progress would not be linear. Since then, the U.S. environment has evolved. At federal level, the current administration has created uncertainty for offshore wind with slower permitting and approvals while at the same time, many states continue to actively push for grid expansion.

In parallel, the U.S. power system is facing rapidly rising electricity demand driven by electrification and data centers, which reinforces the structural need for additional transmission capacity. Last year, we also saw the acceleration of the phaseout of the wind and solar tax credits. This puts pressure on the developers to bring the projects forward and required adjustments in project structures and portfolios across the sector.

Against this backdrop, we have taken a disciplined approach, prioritizing value protection over speed. As a result, contributions from energyRe Giga to the Group results will come later than initially expected, but we remain supportive of the investment and of its long-term strategic rationale.

As we already flagged at our Q3 results, Clean Path New York faced a setback. For SOO Green, the picture is more positive. Permitting is close to completion and land acquisition is largely secured. Finally, the offshore project, Leading Light Wind is, as you know, currently on hold under the present federal administration.

Translated in financials, this means the group recognizes an impairment on its U.S. assets of EUR 99.1 million. This consists of 2 elements. On the one hand, a EUR 70.8 million write-off on the energyRe Giga portfolio, an additional provision of EUR 28.3 million, reflecting the group's remaining commitment to invest USD 150 million to reach its 35.1% ownership stake.

Let me remind you that this impairment is a noncash and reflects a prudent reassessment of, on the one hand, value and timing, and it's not at all a change in our discipline or our financial strength. Our exposure remains well controlled. Our commitments are fully manageable within our balance sheet, and we retain flexibility on the pace of future capital deployment.

Thank you, Stephanie. Let me now elaborate on some of the headline figures for '25.

We delivered strong progress across all fronts in 2025. Our 5-year CapEx plan remains fairly on track. We invested EUR 5.2 billion, EUR 1.4 billion in Belgium and EUR 3.8 billion in Germany. As a result, our regulatory asset base expanded to EUR 22.6 billion. Our hiring drive in '25 was also a success. We welcomed again more than 760 new employees, strengthening our operational capabilities and supporting the growth objectives we laid out during the Capital Markets Day.

On the operational side, system performance remained outstanding. Grid reliability reached 99.9% in Belgium and 99.8% in Germany, positioning our TSOs among the most reliable grid operators in Europe. These figures highlight our continued focus on operational excellence and the effectiveness of our investments in technology, infrastructure and talent.

In terms of financial results, the group delivered a strong performance with net profit attributable to Elia Group shareholders of EUR 556.6 million. This corresponds to an adjusted return on equity of 7.3% and earnings per share of EUR 5.51 per share.

As shown on the slide, we indeed had a busy year on funding as well. We proactively secured the funding needed to support our strategic priorities in Belgium and Germany. We executed a well-diversified financing program across entities and instruments, reflecting the greater flexibility we have embedded into our funding strategy.

A key focus early in the year was strengthening the balance sheet. We completed a EUR 2.2 billion equity package, which reinforced our capital base, broadened our strategic partnerships and provided significant financial flexibility.

On the debt side, we raised EUR 3.6 billion in green financing through loans and bonds and both Elia and Eurogrid issued their first EU-labeled green bonds, an important milestone that broadened again our investor base and reinforced the central role of sustainable finance within our capital structure.

At the start of the year, Standard & Poor's reaffirmed the credit ratings of all entities. We also strengthened liquidity, bringing the total available funds at year-end at EUR 11.9 billion, which underpins our prudent risk profile and supports our investment-grade ratings. Overall, the group's investment plan is backed by a robust financial framework designed to maintain its current ratings, ensuring continued strong access to capital markets and providing funding flexibility.

Finally, the group is progressing on the various options of the funding toolkit as outlined to the market. Elia Group delivered strong operational and financial results reflected in a sharp increase in adjusted net profit. These figures excludes material one-offs and reflects the group's underlying performance.

Adjusted net profit rose by 39.8% to EUR 716.5 million, driven by CapEx execution, higher equity remuneration and solid operations. Additionally, the third segment benefited from the first time of a tax benefit linked to the application of tax consolidation in Belgium.

Germany remained the largest contributor, delivering just over 60% of the group adjusted result. Belgium added around 38%, while nonregulated activities and Nemo Link contributed EUR 5 million, including EUR 33.4 million in one-off adjustments, the reported net profit reached EUR 683 million. After noncontrolling interest and hybrid costs, net profit attributable to Elia Group shareholders increased by 32% to EUR 556.6 million.

On this slide, we show that the reported figures include several nonrecurring items, both in Germany and in the nonregulated activities. We adjust for those to show the underlying performance. Starting with Germany, the reported net profit includes a EUR 46.5 million deferred tax impact. This relates to the revaluation of deferred taxes following the planned reduction in the German federal corporate tax rate from 15% down to 10% between the years '28 to '32.

Turning to the third segment. There are 2 main adjusted items. As said by Stephanie, the U.S. impairment amounting to EUR 99.1 million negatively. On the positive side, the tax consolidation had a positive impact due to the application of the Belgium tax consolidation mechanism and linked to the tax periods prior to '25. It is there of a one-off effect, not reflected of a recurring tax benefit. After adjusting for all these items, adjusted net profit amounts to EUR 716.5 million at Group level.

The RAB remains the core driver of the group's regulated remuneration. Supported by the execution of our investment program, Elia Group's RAB increased by 22.5% year-on-year, reaching EUR 22.6 billion at the end of '25, up from EUR 18.5 billion in 2024. This increase reflects the acceleration of major infrastructure projects in both Belgium and Germany that are critical to integrating growing volumes of renewable generation, reinforcing cross-border capacity and strengthening the overall system resilience. These investments ensure we can deliver the energy transition at the lowest societal costs, while contributing to Europe's long-term energy autonomy.

When we look ahead, we expect an average annual RAB growth of over 20% for the period '24 to 2028, supported by around EUR 21.6 billion of cumulative CapEx over the next 3 years. As we have invested EUR 5.2 billion across our Belgium and German grids, the impact on our funding metrics remains well under control. Net financial debt increased by around EUR 1 billion, bringing the total to EUR 14.1 billion.

This limited increase reflects the successful capital increase and the fact that a large share of our investment was funded through operating cash flows. Our average cost of debt rose slightly to 2.9%, and the portfolio remains very well protected from interest rate volatility with 98% of our debt held at fixed rates.

Finally, our credit profile remains solid. Standard & Poor's reaffirmed our BBB rating with a stable outlook, underscoring the resilience of our financial structure and the strength of our funding strategy.

As this concludes the group overview, let me guide you through into the segments, starting with Belgium.

In '25, adjusted net profit rose by 27% to EUR 272 million. This was mainly driven by a EUR 30 million increase in fair remuneration, reflecting continued RAB growth, higher equity and improved risk-free rate to 3.2% Incentives were up slightly by EUR 1.1 million. Beyond the regulatory result, the outcomes was also influenced by IFRS restatements.

These were mainly driven by higher capitalized borrowing costs from the larger portfolio of assets under construction as well as tariff compensation for the costs linked to the capital increase. This compensation is recorded as equity under IFRS, but these costs are fully passed through to the tariffs under the embedded debt principle. In total, the Belgium segment delivered a return on equity of 6.2% for the year.

For Germany, the adjusted net profit rose to EUR 439 million, up 42%. This strong performance is the result of several key factors. First, asset growth continues to be the biggest driver of the result, combined with imputed depreciation and cost of debt coverage. This was further supported by a slight increase in the allowed equity remuneration on new investments, reaching 5.7% for the year.

On the cost side, the onshore OpEx outperformance declined slightly by EUR 3 million. The inflation index-based year revenues helped to offset most of the operational cost increases, associated with our expanding activity footprint. At the same time, a number of offsetting effects also incurred. Depreciation increased as several major projects were successfully commissioned and brought online.

Financial costs rose due to the higher interest expenses from debt financing. This was balanced by capitalized interest during construction, which increased and interest income from a prefinancing agreement. After including a one-off deferred tax revaluation gain of EUR 46.5 million, net profit reached EUR 485 million. Considering the adjusted net profit, 50Hertz achieved a total return on equity of 11.1% for the year.

Finally, the nonregulated activities and Nemo Link segment delivered an adjusted net profit of EUR 5.3 million in '25. This performance was mainly driven by the application of group contributions for the '25 financial year, which contributed EUR 24.7 million to the result. This reflects the Belgian tax consolidation mechanism that allows to utilize a tax loss at the group level and Eurogrid International.

The positive impact followed a legislative change adopted at year-end, which removed the discriminatory treatment previously applicable when combining the group contribution regime with the dividend received deduction regime. This positive effect was partly offset by several factors, mainly higher holding company costs, a lower contribution of our consultancy business, EGI. Finally, Nemo Link contributed slightly less to the result. After taking into account net adjusted items, the net loss amounts to minus EUR 74.5 million.

Before we move to the final part of the presentation, our financial guidance for 2026, I'd like to briefly touch on the group's dividend policy.

Elia Group proposes a dividend of EUR 2.05 per share. This dividend proposal will be submitted for approval at the Annual General Meeting and is expected to be paid in June 2026.

Ending with the outlook for '26, Elia Group expects a net profit at Elia Group share in the range between EUR 690 million and EUR 740 million. In Belgium, we plan to invest around EUR 1.7 billion, delivering an adjusted net profit between EUR 290 million and EUR 320 million. While in Germany, we plan to invest around EUR 5.1 billion and an adjusted net result in the range of EUR 585 million and EUR 625 million. The nonregulated and Nemo Link segment is expected to report an adjusted loss of minus EUR 10 million to EUR 30 million.

Well, thank you, Stephanie. Thank you, Marco. Before we move into our Q&A session, let me share some closing remarks with you. Earlier this year, the Hamburg North Sea Summit highlighted the urgency of building an integrated offshore grid with European TSOs presenting a joint framework for hybrid interconnections and shared cost models capable of enabling up to 1,000 terawatt hour of clean energy by 2050.

At the same time, the Hamburg declaration committed key North Sea countries to delivering 100 gigawatts of joint offshore wind projects, underscoring that system security and sovereignty will increase, increasingly depend on collaborative offshore development rather than isolated national solutions.

Complementing this, Mrs. von der Leyen, underscored at the recent Antwerp Industry Summit that Europe's continued dependence on fossil fuels exposes industry to volatile price swings and highlighted the urgent need to reduce this exposure by accelerating the shift towards stable homegrown clean energy sources.

The current war in the Middle East underlines once again how vulnerable Europe remains to external shocks. Strengthening and interconnecting the European grid is, therefore, essential, not only to expand access to affordable clean electricity, but also to reinforce Europe's energy sovereignty and reduce dependence on increasingly unstable fossil fuel supply.

In this context, Elia Group stands out as the only international electricity transmission group in Europe, combining a multi-country footprint, deep operational presence in both the North and Baltic Seas and a public-private capital structure capable of aligning public anchors with long-term private investors behind strategic and critical infrastructure. This combination is exceptionally unique in our sector and precisely what Europe needs in these troubled times.

Our leadership is most visible in our flagship hybrid interconnector portfolio, the first of its kind in Europe and the foundation of tomorrow's meshed offshore grid. Kriegers, yes, thinks and acts on European scale. Together with Energnet, they already have put the world's first hybrid interconnector Kriegers Flak into operation. Furthermore, together with Denmark, they will realize Bornholm Energy Island, unlocking large-scale offshore wind in the Baltic Sea and connect through hybrid HVDC links.

And in Belgium, Princess Elisabeth Island and Nautilus could form one of Europe's earliest true hybrid offshore hubs, pulling up to 3.5 gigawatt of offshore wind, while interconnecting Belgium and the U.K. HansaLink, a key project of our entity WindGrid, expands this logic across new cross-border corridors, drawing private capital into offshore infrastructure at scale.

And with Nemo Link operating reliably for years, we have already proven our capability to deliver, operate and maintain complex interconnectors safely and efficiently. This portfolio is unmatched in Europe. No other player combines so many hybrid assets across the 2 strategic European sea basins under one group, not as concept, but as concrete investable projects that show how offshore wind and interconnection can be planned, financed and built together.

Thank you for your attention. Stephanie, I think we are now ready to move to the Q&A section.

Yes. Thank you, Bernard. And in the meantime, Yannick Dekoninck, our Head of Corporate Finance, has also joined us.

So let's turn to the screen. I see that our first question comes from UBS, Wanda.

Congratulations on the results and the CapEx delivery because there were some concerns last year if you will deliver.

The first question -- I mean, 2 questions to Marco. The first one is on the capitalized cost at the net income level. I mean, what was it in 2025 for 50Hertz because I couldn't see it disclosed. And what is embedded in your 2026 guidance? And also, if you could give us any rough guidance on the capitalized cost until 2028, that would be much appreciated. It's a very hard to model item.

And the second question is on the S&P. As you said, back in September, S&P confirmed the rating, but they also said that the Elia Group consolidated business risk has marginally increased. And they raised the FFO to net debt threshold by 100 bps. And they also assume that your CapEx post-2029 will moderate. So does a higher FFO to net debt requirement worry you when thinking about CapEx plan or funding beyond 2028?

Maybe start with the technical question then on the capitalized borrowing costs. It's indeed something we are mindful of in the figures of '25, which are subject to disclosure finally, with the annual accounts at year-end, there's a part close to EUR 90 million considered in the German figures. So what is a noncash result contribution. So -- and that puts a little bit 11% into a certain perspective as, of course, this is being included in the 11% guidance.

For the future growth, it's indeed linked to some degree with the investments to be taken. However, it's not linear simply as we try to limit the impact to some degree, and it's being connected to a relatively short period between 2 milestones of the projects, where I must admit that that's a little bit hard to model in the future. But I assume on one hand, that the IFRS standard is subject of a change, which might help us then in the future to limit that impact. However, it will grow. And as a rule of thumb, potentially, it's good to look into the investments in the year being taken compared with the previous year, how it will be growing in the year '26.

So what should we -- what is embedded in your guidance because your guidance for 50Hertz was running much, much above consensus?

In the guidance of 50Hertz, it's a similar area, so between EUR 90 million and EUR 100 million. So that's currently what we have embedded there.

And then...

So then on the FFO to net debt. So currently, after the capital raise, we feel rather comfortable, in particular, with an eye on the liquidity position the group currently has. So therefore, we are not in a rush. Of course, we are looking into the horizon beyond '29. But as we stated, it's subject of the new CapEx plan, which is still under development as both the grid development plan in Germany and the federal development plan in Belgium is still under construction, if you want to say it like this.

And as this is the underlying combined with the regulation of our future capacity in funding and of course, in remuneration, that is a necessary input for our funding plans. And of course, the rating will play a significant role in there as, of course, we don't expect that the growth will stop and taking that into perspective, there's a solid investment-grade position being needed to fund the investments in the future as well.

Thank you, Wanda. Let's go to the next question. I believe it's from Bank of America, Julius.

I have 2. The first one is on German regulation. So in the draft methodology that came out in December, I think the BNetzA for now ruled out the concept of a return on equity adder. But I believe since then, you've and the other TSO have provided some evidence why there should be an adder. So if you have any update, do you still believe that this could come in the final methodology? Any update on the reception that would be quite useful.

And then the second question is a little bit more high level. But if I look out to like beyond the summer and towards the end of the year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think at that point in time, you should have the new Belgium returns, the final methodology in Germany and a good idea on the grid development plan in both countries. Could there be a point in time where you will upgrade the market -- update the market on your investment plan and maybe roll forward to 2030 with the new CMD? It would be useful to know.

Maybe starting from the last question and then developing to the other ones.

Our expectation will be more towards year-end or beginning of next year to have that clarity as there are some specific aspect that you name a few of them in the regulation, but on the CapEx plan as well. To name a few, in Germany, that will be the total amount and the sequence of the offshore grid connections, which will play a big role in our CapEx program, or the question on overhead lines versus cabling in the big DC corridors. And that will, of course, change significantly the means being needed to realize that CapEx program. And this debate, to be fair, is still open. So there, we do not see really a landing zone for the time being.

A little bit the same in Belgium with the Princess Elisabeth Island and the DC components or the interconnector there. Even though government will potentially take a position then in the second quarter, you do see kind of delay in that decision-making as this was originally being foreseen in March. So therefore, likely that it's more towards the end of the year where we have that kind of clarity.

So on the point you mentioned in regards to the framework, in the conference, BNetzA hosted, they stated a little bit that they are not convinced yet on an adder to the return on equity. That's still a subject of a discussion, at least they opened the door for, and we provided some evidence that this is being needed. But it's fair to say there's an ongoing discussion on that one. What is, first of all, a positive sign that the door has not been closed. But so far, it's not being drafted in any adjustment of the determination of the return rates for the future.

Thank you, Julius. Are there any other questions? I do not see -- Temi. Good morning, Temi, please go ahead. We have you here with us.

Congrats also on the results presentation this morning. I've got a couple of questions, but I'll keep it to 2. One is just clarity on your 2026 net debt expectations. If you can provide an update on that, that would be very helpful.

Clarity on the Belgian regulatory time lines in terms of the consultations, but also the final determinations.

And then finally, it seems that you've had strong operational delivery in Belgium and Germany, '24, '25, '26, you've raised the guidance above consensus expectations. And I'm just wondering whether you might consider revisiting your '24 to '28 guidance in terms of returns and when maybe you might consider that?

Maybe net debt, I will take. So on net debt for '26, we expect to land with the CapEx that we have announced at a net debt of around EUR 19.5 billion. So that's what we are targeting for in '26.

On Belgium regulation, there's a relatively straightforward path being published. So there will be a public consultation on 14th of April, if I'm not -- 17th or mid of April.

[indiscernible]

Mid of April. So happy to invite you to comment on that one once it is being out there and a final determination in the course of quarter 2. So end of half year, there is likely a robust visibility how the scheme will look like.

And in terms of guidance?

Guidance, I think we still stick to the guidance which we have given as the growth is still intact with the double-digit percentage growth on the EPS and on the net results to the shareholders and around, as you have seen in the past, the 20% growth on the RAB. So that's quite consistent to each other, even though the guidance for '26 seems to be a little bit higher than the expectation, if you make it linear, but that comes from some of the aspects, which are not that fully linearized as we try to optimize the results, of course, as we can.

And in connection with commissioning, for instance, we might have one or the other year an outliner and '26 seems to be one of them as a couple of significant investments come to commissioning, which gives us a favor in particular, in Germany.

The next question will come from Piotr from Citibank.

I have a couple of questions. So the first one I wanted to ask you about this financial result in 50Hertz. So in your disclosures, you also point out apart from increased capitalized interest, you point out to accrued interest from the developer of an offshore platform of EUR 28 million, plus EUR 10 million from discounting effects on long-term provisions. So just wanted to understand, can you please explain on this first item what it really means? And is there any change on these numbers between '25 and '26? So I'm trying to get a bridge between '25 and '26 financial item. Is it just capitalized interest going up and these things disappear? Or how shall we think about these items?

And second question, I wanted to ask you about your actual performance. So in your Slide 20, sorry, Slide 19, you said that the net income of ETB increased by EUR 1 million because of incentives. I was under impression that the incentives should grow in line with RAB with the size of the business, but it doesn't seem so. So can you please tell us how do you assume the incentives increment between the '25, '26?

And likewise, you don't disclose incentives for the 50Hertz. I think there are some outperformance. So can you also say like operationally, do you improve -- or do you keep like a size of outperformance in line with the business growing with RAB growing or that basically the incentives and outperformance becomes bigger -- smaller relative to the size of RAB and so on. So these were 2 questions.

Okay. Maybe taking the first one on the wind farm contract, which we closed. So there's a nearshore wind farm at the German coast, which is being connected by 50Hertz in an AC technology. And for efficiency reasons, we agreed on to share the platform with the wind farm developer so that not both needs to have a platform being erected, what saves costs for both sides. And it's more or less a 50-50 split there.

As the wind farm developer pushed back for some of the costs to some degree, and we had a relatively long-lasting negotiations on that one. We finally agreed on that the funding costs, the financing costs of this chunk, which is related to the final agreement, and which will be borne by the wind farm operator are being out of the regulatory sphere. So that's something the 50Hertz and Elia Group can keep finally.

And the number you referred to is the accumulated interest income over the periods once we started that construction. So the effect itself will remain, but the order of magnitude will potentially go down as this is a kind of loan agreement, which is related on one hand to the size and the second to the scheme where there's some flexibility on the wind farm operator side once they are paying us, then, of course, the interest connected to the outstanding exposure will be lower in one of the years.

And as this wind farm will likely be -- the connection of the wind farm will likely be finished in '26 and the wind farm operator will potentially commission its assets then beginning of '27, despite the fact that there's a 15 years period on that contract, there might be some changes over time in the payment scheme as the flexibility is on the wind farm operator.

So that's a little bit long explanation. It's relatively complex matter, but likely that there will be an interest income over a certain period of time with different kind of order of magnitude.

Okay. And maybe, Piotr, on your question on the incentives in Belgium, it's indeed correct that they increased by EUR 1 million compared to last year. And it's indeed correct that they are, to a certain extent, correlated with the RAB, but as well, they are -- they have in the regulation a maximum amount that you can have on certain incentives. So that's one element.

And some of the incentives are a bit, I would say, binary between 0 to 1. If you remember last year, we had a cable issue linked to the availability of the MOG in '24. So we had no incentive at that year. This year, we have a full incentive, a full maximum amount. So that gives a little bit why you don't see exactly that linear evolution on the incentives. Nevertheless, I think we had a solid operational results where incentives remain quite important to the overall result in Belgium.

Let's now turn to Deutsche Bank, Olly.

Two questions from my side, please, like everyone else.

So the first one just is on CapEx. Now I appreciate that you need to wait for the grid development plans to give a precise view on future CapEx for '29 onwards, and that's more likely to impact presumably CapEx in the 2030s. Are you able to give kind of a high-level view in Germany of kind of the broad level of increase you think might be likely given that most of the changes to the grid development plan are probably going to impact in the 2030s. Any insight you can give there would be helpful.

And then secondly, just on funding the plan from '29 and onwards. I know obviously, you don't want to be precise about this. But could you say, is there a credible scenario where you think you might be able to fund CapEx in '29 and 2030 without the need for equity using the rest of your equity toolkit with the hybrids and opening up the capital structure of some of the TSOs potentially? Any views on that would be great.

Taking the first one, it's still, as we said, a little bit too premature to lay out a number. So if you take the total volume, which is currently as a price tag being seen on a total grid development plan in Germany, you can compare the EUR 320 billion, which was the number in the last grid development plan, which the EUR 340 billion, which is currently the number connected to the most likely scenario. It's not chosen yet, but that gives a little bit the view that likely the outcome will be rather the same with an eye on EUR 345 billion in terms of euros.

However, there will be a kind of different allocation on that one. And that what makes it that's hard for the time being really to say the CapEx is further growing or going down at a certain point of time. As, of course, only part of the EUR 340 billion are connected then to 50Hertz to the Elia Group. So as a rule of thumb, it was 20% all the time.

But the spread over 20 years is a difference than the spread over 10 years. So that's -- I mean, that's the simple math. And as the former government was quite in a rush to complete or to set very ambitious targets, which partially have been out of reality, the current government is more pragmatic in that view, and that's a little bit what still the debate is on.

And on the funding?

On the funding, I mean, we have full flexibility now. So that's currently what we are going to execute. That's all our options are valid. We are working on further optionalities as well. But please, as we don't have the CapEx numbers currently in place, we do not want to give guess how we are continuing to fund the growth in the future at this moment.

Nor do we have the regulatory framework set in place?

Yes, it's a bit early...

So I think it would be a bit too early. But thank you for the questions. I see the next questions will come from ODDO, Thijs.

A couple of questions. Do you still require probably an additional EUR 2 billion of equity? And can you confirm that you still aim to raise this via in principle, EUR 4 billion of hybrids?

Second question is on your Energy Island and the DC connectivity there as well as for the U.K. connector. The HVDC cost price was too high. Any reason in your view why HVDC pricing now should be lower?

And third is on the North Sea offshore wind projects targeting 15 gigawatts installations by 2031. What can we expect as impact for your CapEx from that plant compared to what we currently are installing on the North Sea?

Yes. Maybe starting with the first one. Our toolkits provide us flexibility, and we stated that it can be both hybrid -- the hybrid capacity potentially being sufficient at this point of time, while another option is to open the capital on one of the subsidiaries and/or finding structural solutions to help us funding the growth. And that's still something we are closely monitoring.

And there's a couple of key elements to be considered and criteria's in the decision-making, once is timing. Another one is, of course, cost of capital. Third one is execution to name a few of them.

And as we have a strong liquidity position and of course, the credit rating is comfortable as well. So we are carefully looking for the best solutions there. And once this is being decided, it can be both extremes. So both elements of the toolkit would gives us the credit in total, so it has the potential. However, it could be a combination as well depending on the point of time where we make the decision.

On the Princess Elisabeth Island, I would say that, first, it was the right decision to postpone the project because, as you know, at the time, we were really in a very heated market on the HVDC component.

However, the teams have been working on updated design. We have also some very good discussion between U.K. and Belgium on how to best share the cost and the benefits of the project. And I hope that in the coming weeks, months, we can come with a solution that fits with the original objectives, while being more reasonable from a cost point of view. We see that the HVDC technology remains an expensive technology, but we also see that the heat that we had a few months ago is a little bit lower.

On your North Sea approach, which actually the Princess Elisabeth Island is a subpart of. As I explained in my conclusion, I think we are really, as Elia Group extremely well positioned being the only transmission group having a portfolio of assets already in our base today. But of different nature because we have the Belgian port on the North Sea. We have the projects on the Baltic Sea with Windanker's. But we have also with our subsidiary, WindGrid, a project called HansaLink. And the advantage, of course, of this setup is that it's a setup where you can also use financial players who can help the financing of the project.

So I'm not going to preempt on the decision of Europe. I think, by the way, we see with what's happening now in the Middle East that it's high time that we reduce our dependency on gas and that offshore wind in the North and the Baltic Sea is a critical element in there. We will see how Europe will evolve in -- and the grid package already goes that direction, but how they translate that into a series of projects.

But I think what's interesting is that Elia by its strategic geographic positioning, by its current portfolio of projects, but also by its setup where we can leverage financing capital at different levels is very well placed to play a role in there. And already in our current portfolio of projects and in our current asset base, we have projects on both seas in the North and in the Baltic Sea.

Are there -- yes. I see the next question coming.

And also from my side, compliments for the good results and outlook, of course.

Yes, on the -- I'm still going to try on the North Sea, and thank you for the answers so far. But looking at the ambitions and with the involvement of TSOs as well in these kind of framework ambitions that were published, a step-up to 15 gigawatts already in 2031 and for a number of years, even a decade. And now looking at your CapEx approaching EUR 7 billion.

So let's say, connecting all these gigawatts already upfront or preparing for that upfront and for a number of years to come. Is it fair to say that, yes, maybe previous assumptions on EUR 7 billion being the higher end of forward CapEx. Is that something that we need to reassess to a larger number, higher number? That's my first question.

And the second one is on CapEx, and it's a great achievement that, of course, you met the expectation after the -- I think the questions that were raised at the midyear presentation. What should we expect for 2026? Will it be a more balanced picture of the EUR 6.8 billion or also 1/3, 2/3, maybe some guidance there.

I will take the first one and let the team go for the second one.

I think the guidance remains the same. So we are on EUR 7 billion CapEx because we are talking on a series of projects that we know. Then we will have to see how the developments happen, and we will be looking at it as you do. And according to the developments, of course, Elia Group wants to position itself on these developments. But I think then there will be also another way at looking at it.

And I think from the European standpoint, from the political standpoint, we will have also to think of the tools to make sure that we can reach those developments without having always a direct impact on the balance sheet of the TSOs. And that's where I say with some of our tools like WindGrid and so, we are very well placed to test those type of model. We will also have to see what Europe does in terms of SAF funding and other conditions.

So just to say, within the current framework, we are in the current guidance, and there is no reason to change. Of course, we remain attentive and opportunist of what it would develop. But I think then there would be other ways of looking at the thing and not directly in the CapEx of a TSO, which will be one of the topic to manage if we want to reach this great ambition, but also needed ambition when you see the situation of Europe.

And maybe to complement, we published recently a paper then which could be a way forward in the future to fund in particular the far offshore wind farm developments and the connection to that one mainly via hybrid interconnectors, where we are facing several constraints to go ahead there, and that could be an element with the so-called WSPV concept, which helps both on one hand to unlock a little bit resistance in one or the other countries.

And secondly, combine the forces with giving some securities by public authorities like European investment banks, for instance, and combining with private capital to fund that in the future, as Bernard rightly said, it's questionable whether all TSO can absorb simply these big request of capital in the future.

In regards to our CapEx program, it's likely that you will do see a heavy loaded second half year again as this is, on one hand, a little bit in nature as during the summer, most of the construction is being made. And then, of course, we usually account for the progress once a certain milestone has been reached, and that's likely more in autumn than in spring.

And the second one is that at least in Germany, gives us a favor to have that backloaded profile. As usually, you get remunerated for the average of the year while -- for the capital cost as well. While, of course, the later you will have it, the bigger the gain could be. And that's something which we have seen in the results as well as, in particular, the difference between the real funding costs and the funding costs, which are being embedded in the grid fees gives us a favor to some degree and contributes to results, too.

And let's go to Wim from KBC.

Yes. I hope you can hear me.

Very well.

Yes.

All right. Also congrats from me. Lots of questions have been asked. I just want to throw in some add-ons.

If I want to come back to the financing, the equity raise potential, and I understand regulatory framework has to be put in place. Can you give an idea, suppose that if you want to do something like an ABB like in '24, EUR 0.5 billion, if that's possible, what you need to do, whether you would need to have some kind of Board's agreement first, if that's a possibility simply because the share price has rallied quite a lot. It's more than doubled since the last capital raise. So how you feel about that?

Then smaller questions on the dividend. I think in the past, you said that, that would go in line with inflation. I think it stays more flat now. Is that also the outlook for the future? I completely would agree that would make sense as well.

And then lastly, more like a general question and something that we've seen in the U.S. where the government has asked big tech to -- yes, basically pay via some kind of taxes to upgrade the grid because obviously, we know that, that demands a lot of investments to accommodate all the hyperscale investments.

So just your view, is that something that could be possible in Europe? Obviously, things move a little bit slower. But if there's anything that you can say just in order to kind of divert the pressure that we have seen and the pushback from industry and consumers on -- yes, obviously, offloading a lot of the investments via the energy prices. So those are my 3 questions.

Maybe I can tackle the dividends, if you like. We indeed gave a dividend or proposing a dividend of EUR 2.05. But what you need to take is as a basis is actually the EUR 2 because when we did the capital increase, we actually restated the dividend. And if we were to increase the dividend on a restated basis, it would be close to EUR 2, but we did not want to pay less than last year dividend. So we have increased it slightly. That has been our rationale for the EUR 2.05.

And we do see that as a strong signal that the investment in the Elia Group is a value-accretive one and the dividend payment is one of the elements there. So that gives some certainty that our growth path is intact.

Regarding the ABB, what do we need to have in place for that? First of all, yes, we will have to have an authorized capital in order to do such a transaction. But we -- as Marco already highlighted today, we are not looking to use any nondilutive -- we are looking to use nondilutive options. And I think there, we have enough flexibility. The way forward would be towards the future to bring back unauthorized capital, put that in place, and that are the first steps that we need to take.

And on the U.S., well, first of all, it reminds us of the potential in the U.S. We have a little bit of a setback at the moment, but we are convinced that over the long run, we know the situation of the grid in the U.S. It's certainly not at level with the AI ambition that the U.S. has and the battle of AI will pass via a strong grid. So I think it's good that we are positioned in there. It will take a little bit more longer than expected, but I'm convinced that the potential is the same because the grid becomes a critical asset in every region of the world that want to electrify.

The debate, of course, is who needs to pay, and we see the investments that the hyperscalers are doing and all things relative, the investment in the grids are indeed a fraction of the investments they are generally doing. So the idea to make them contribute is a political decision where it will be difficult for me to take a position, but it's clear that we've seen in our countries that the development of AI and data centers is representing a certain burden on the net, burden on the consumption.

And I think at some point, there are 2 positions that need to be taken. The first one is what do we want in terms of industrial development and where do we give the priorities in terms of segments, AI, data centers versus general industry. And then how do we make sure that the general consumer is not hampered by a consumption that is not responsible for. So I think I don't know what is the exact recipe, but the direction is certainly a direction to investigate.

And maybe to complement on that one, on one hand, there are multiple congestions on all these connection requests. So funding is one. So in Germany, for instance, the consumers are not paying for the direct connection. It's indeed then the applicant. On the other side, we do see that the grid is heavily loaded and simply that makes a congestion in connecting a new device to the grid. So as this is something we need to be careful of as well to protect our people in doing the works there.

And last but not least, it's not all the time that visible how mature the project is. And our lead time, it's fair to say, are still longer than the ones from this developer. And as they want to go in a staged process usually with extending the devices which are consuming them at the stage, but we are designing the -- yes, the connection only once. So that's all the time a little bit mismatch in the planning horizon. That's something which we need to work on commonly to make sure that we do see how mature the project is that we can give some access being granted and we can rely on that one as well as, of course, we want to prevent that we invest in an area where nothing is going to happen.

As we honestly have seen in Germany with the ship industry as Intel canceled the big factory in an area of Magdeburg, and then the TSO was forced to bring down the commitments in that area. However, the land has been already being acquired. So that's a mismatch, which we need to be careful on as, of course, we need to protect then the final consumer, as Bernard rightly says, that we are not socializing cost of the industry, yes. That's a little bit what we are in.

But it's clear that AI needs the grid, but the grid also needs AI. And we will also -- and we are really developing an AI strategy and developing -- we are already using a lot of AI, but we want to accelerate there because AI is also a way to solve some of the bottleneck issues that we have today. So it's really a very close relationship, both ends.

Let's now move to Juan from Kepler.

I have 2, which are more of a follow-up, if I may. The first one is on guidance. Can you please confirm that you have no additional hybrids included on your 2026 guidance? And on guidance as well, what is the targeted return on equity that you have on Belgium and Germany within the guidance that you've given, especially on Germany as is substantially above expectations?

And the second one is on the U.S. impairments. What are your expectations now in terms of the timing and size of the expected earnings contribution that you expect in the region going forward? If you can give us more clarity on that, that will be helpful.

You take the hybrid?

I think in the guidance that we have given is a guidance that takes into consideration multiple options that we have in the funding toolkit. So we do not exclude -- to be clear, we do not exclude a hybrid issuance, but the guidance that we have published this morning takes into consideration multiple options.

Now in terms of return on equity, as you know, we are not guiding specifically on the return on equity for a specific year. We have guided on the return on equity over the period, over the regulatory period, both in Germany and Belgium. So that's still something that we are targeting for, knowing that you could have certain variability year-over-year due to important one-off effects like we had this year. That's also why we have been very clear on what that one-off effect was in Germany.

So to remind you, the average guidance which we have given was between 7% and 8% in Belgium, while in Germany, it was 8% to 10%.

Yes. And on the impairment?

Did we miss one?

Yes. I think on the U.S. impairment on the timing, when we could expect a positive contribution, but that one is a little early to say today because there's still a lot of uncertainty on when those projects and how and when they will materialize, but that's more towards the end of the decade, I would say.

Yes. And it's clear that, as you know, we have 3 projects, the project on Clean Path, New York, which is a line in New York, didn't pass some regulatory approval, what we call a priority transmission project, but it doesn't take away that New York needs an extra transmission line. And so we will use the assets to participate to further project development. So there, we believe we are rather facing a delay.

You know the uncertainty that exists today in the U.S. about the offshore and things can turn very quickly one way or the other. So our strategy there is to secure the assets that we have in place. We have already the leasing rights on this project, that's Leading Light Wind. And on SOO Green there for the moment, that's a project that, as Stephanie explained in the presentation, continues on its path of the different regulatory hurdles. And so there, for the moment, there is no reason to review the project.

So as you say, we are rather delaying in time. But as I said to your colleague just earlier, I'm convinced that the fundamentals stay and at some point, somebody will see that these projects are heavily needed.

So in the '26 guidance, there's no positive contribution being expected to make that clear.

Thank you, Juan. Let's now turn to Alberto from Exane.

Congratulations for the results. A couple of follow-ups from my side. The first one is regarding the German regulation. Maybe if you could -- based on the like already published consultation papers, if you could quantify what are your expectations in terms of ROE and WACC based on the current consultation papers and what else is needed? So maybe if you could give us some guidance of what will be your expected level of returns in order to get the competitive returns that you need for being competitive in the equity markets?

And the second one will be regarding the potential update to the market, the potential Capital Market Day. You have said that maybe by the end of the year or beginning of 2027. When do you know that we will have more visibility if this is happening or if we can consider as confirmed or it's still pending?

I think maybe I'll start on the Capital Markets Day. That's still very much pending. As Marco clearly said, there are still a lot of moving factors. We don't yet have clarity in Germany. And also in Germany, the final elements will only be defined somewhere in 2027. So that's why we cannot fix to a date somewhere in the future.

So next to that, we also have grid development planning that is ongoing in Belgium, in Germany. Those time lines aren't super fixed neither. So this will be something, I think, towards the end of the year, we will have more clarity on. So I do not expect us to really do a CMD still this year.

So to come to the German regulation, if you really look into the paper, even though it's heavy reading, I would say, it's for the time being, for our perception, more a description of a structural approach while the ingredients are not being flagged yet. And even though a WACC model could be something comparable, but the big debate on the cost of debt coverage is not finished yet. So that's still ongoing, but a rating adjustment is being made, which kind of reference rate is being used.

These elements are still pending. That's why it's a little bit too early really to say what the outcome could look like, and we previously discussed equity or return adder for the TSOs, what is still in the discussion, which is not in yet. So I would say we are not there yet with that what we assume BSR could deploy.

However, our clear target is not being worse than today. And if you take the return on equity, which we disclosed and take off all the accounting items, there's still a return rate above 8.4%, which is, if you want to name it, a kind of cash return.

And as BSR already said, the total package matters, that's something we are requesting, and that's something which we are targeting to get out of it. Which elements shall we put in place. There, we have some openness. So if there's an incentive being put in place, which gives us an order of magnitude lending there, we are fine with it as well. We are happy to get challenged in terms of our operations. But so far, it's not really clear. So therefore, we are hesitating to give a guidance what it could give for the time being.

Thank you, Alberto. Let's now -- I see Olly, you have some further follow-up questions? Can you hear us, Olly?

Yes. Just one follow-up question, please. Going back to the discussion on the capitalized interest within the guidance for '26 at 50Hertz. Is that -- which is noncash. Is there anything else within that '26 guide 50Hertz that is noncash in addition to the capitalized interest that we should know about? Or is that the only item?

I wouldn't say it material. There is -- now we come a little bit in great territory as we assume commissioning, which gives us a full depreciation in the revenues, there's a cash connected to that one, while the depreciation is lower, the real depreciation, which we are recording in that year. So for us, it's a cash item, which contributes to the results as well.

While the capitalized borrowing cost is a noncash item as this is reverted later stage. So -- and therefore, I would keep it on that one, knowing that, of course, the example which I raised could give us a favor in the results of next year as well. And as I said, if you only linearize that, the result would look a little bit outstanding compared to that linearization in line with the CapEx, which you otherwise would compute.

And maybe if I can complement it, Marco, for those that have been following us for a couple of years, you see that we also have sometimes discounting of interconnecting provisions or interconnected income. As you know, you -- sometimes have spike in the forward rates that has an impact on those long-term provisions. That's not something that we estimate or take into account in the guidance as such, but that's always something that can happen. We were confronted with that a little bit at the end of Q4 of this year, where the interest rates started to move up. But that's not something that we can -- that we have a control on. That's not something that we can steer. So there, we have a neutral approach. But in the actuals, of course, that can have an impact.

And what was the impact of that in the '25 results from that movement at the end of Q4?

I think at the end of Q4, we had a net impact of EUR 22 million that was coming from this discounting of provisions.

Thank you, Olly. If there are no further questions, let's wrap up today's presentation. First of all, a big thank you to all the teams who have contributed. Thank you, Bernard, Marco, Yannick.

Thank you, Stephanie.

And thank you for joining us today. Have a nice day, and see you soon.

Good morning. Thank you for joining us today for the presentation of our half year results. You're most probably feeling the same way that we are the first 6 months of the year have flown by. And let me start by introducing you to today's key speakers, Bernard Gustin and Marco Nix, CEO and CFO of Elia Group. Welcome to both of you.

We'll kick off today's presentation by looking back at the group's most important highlights from the past 6 months. A lot has happened both at Elia Group and across Europe's electricity sector more widely. And one of the most prominent examples that come, which is on screen now at Green now. It contains important information that you should take note of. And as always, today's slides and the full script will be published online shortly after the live stream came to an end.

The first highlight I would like to take you through is Elia Group's successful completion of a EUR 2.2 billion capital increase in April. The following video features the ring the bell ceremony in Brussels.

[Presentation]

And green is definitely a good color, Bernard Gustin. The capital increase was your first big milestone as a new CEO of Elia Group and the equity raise followed quite a difficult period for the company. Can we say new shares, new beginnings?

Well, I would say that this is absolutely the case. Since the announcement at the beginning of March, our stock price has increased significantly, and that's a clear signal from the market. And just as important is how we structure the capital increase. By combining a private placement with the launch of a rights offering, we achieved three key objectives. Firstly, through the private placement, we secured the support of high-quality investors who carry a deep level of expertise in the sector and can support the long-term growth of the group. This includes our reference shareholder, Publi-T/NextGrid, and new international players such as ATLAS Infrastructure, along with the Future Fund, CPP Investment and BlackRock.

Secondly, we significantly strengthened our balance sheet, giving us a clear defined set of tools and the flexibility to finance our growth in the lead up to 2028.

And thirdly, we struck the right balance between attracting new investors while allowing existing shareholders, including retail investors to participate. And this helped us to minimize dilution and maintain broad support. So in a summary, the capital increase was a key step towards safeguarding our financial resistance. And it ensures that we can continue to invest in our grid and strategic projects at the pace that society requires.

Let's stay with the Brussels Stock Exchange for a moment because this year marks the 20th anniversary of Elia Group's initial listing. We managed to dig up an old picture of that moment and the initial listing took place at a price of EUR 28.75 per share. So over the past 2 decades, Elia Group hasn't just grown as a company. We've also consistently created value for our shareholders. Marco, can you provide us with some numbers?

Since our listing, Elia Group has delivered a total annual return of about 10.5%. This achievement combines two things: an average annual share price increase of around 6.5%; and over EUR 1.95 billion in dividends returned to our shareholders. Value creation lies at the core of Elia Group strategy. We have a strong track record, one we can be proud of and one we are determined to build on.

Yes. And we can also be proud of some other key milestones we celebrated during the first half of the year. Let's start by taking a look at our offshore projects.

[Presentation]

Focusing in on the Belgian North Sea. At the beginning of June, the Belgian government confirmed the launch of two tenders relating to the development of additional offshore wind capacity in the Princess Elizabeth zone with tender covering 700 megawatts and the other covering 1,400 megawatts. However, no decision has yet been taken about the development of the third offshore wind concession zone, which the previous government decided on. Bernard, now this is clearly a complex puzzle, I would say. How can this type of policy uncertainty be handled at Elia Group?

Yes, sure. Well, the decision taken by the Belgian government regarding this new capacity constitutes an important policy update. And as you said, it confirms that the two first concession zones will carry a combined capacity of 2.1 gigawatt. As the video just demonstrated, we have already started building the AC infrastructure needed to connect these two new offshore concession zones to the transmission grid.

Moreover, the government's decision also confirms the importance of building an additional interconnector between Belgium and the U.K. So we now have to work on the most cost and energy-efficient setup for this interconnector and its potential combination with a third offshore wind farm. And as Frederic mentioned in the video, we just watched, we are actively working on this alongside our counterpart in the U.K. But we hope to have more clarity about the project at the start of next year. But we are very satisfied that the main subpart of this unique energy hub project can continue to be worked on.

And in the meantime, 7 of the island's 23 [indiscernible] have already been placed on the seabed. However, discussions about the project timing are ongoing. It is not clear whether the islands foundations will be ready by the summer of 2026 or not. Could this carry consequences regarding the European subsidy that we will receive from the Recovery and Resilience Facility or the RRF?

Yes. Europe wants to support forward-looking innovative projects. And this project clearly fits that description, but there is not much room for delay, which is something we regret given the scale and ambition of the work involved. We are working in full transparency with our government and the regulator. And indeed, we have to adopt a more cautious outlook regarding its realization.

The preparation of the construction site in Vlissingen took more time than expected. And so a more cautious outlook would help to ensure that the projects could still count on EU support. So discussions are ongoing, and we expect more clarity about this in the coming months. However, at this stage, we assume that the EU subsidy will be reduced to a pro rata of what Elia can realize by end of June '26, and that is reflected in our forecast.

Okay. Thank you, Bernard, for providing us with some additional insights regarding the island dossier. Let's now start a look -- let's now take a look at some numbers from the half year. Marco, what do they tell us?

The first half of the year was quite productive. We invested around EUR 1.5 billion, making strong progress on several of our key investment projects as demonstrated in the video earlier. This momentum helped us to deliver a net result group share of approximately EUR 270 million, driven largely by strong performances in both Belgium and Germany. None of this progress would have been possible without the dedication and expertise of our staff.

Attracting, developing and retaining talent is essential in these times of high demand for scarce technical. We continue to expand our workforce by successfully recruiting 421 new employees. This growth goes hand-in-hand with our strong focus on employee well-being, which remains a cornerstone of our corporate culture. Our health rate reached an impressive 96.3%, a clear sign that we are creating a work environment where people feel valued and can grow both personally and professionally. It's part of a positive trend we have seen every year since 2020.

From a capital markets perspective, as Bernard already highlighted, the first half of the year was a very successful period for us. Earlier this year, the group raised EUR 2.2 billion in equity. Beyond that, we took important steps to further strengthen our financial resilience across all entities.

At 50Hertz, we secured an additional EUR 2 billion in debt to support our investment plans using a mix of financial instruments. Recognizing the importance of securing liquidity in today's volatile market, we also enhanced our liquidity lines for all entities.

At the end of June, Elia Group had EUR 11.9 billion in available liquidity. Overall, these transactions show our ability to secure funding, which is essential for the group's growth.

Marco just mentioned the group's workforce. And on that note, over the past few months, Elia Group has reinforced its leadership team. Bernard Gustin took on the role of Elia Group CEO, Marco Nix was appointed as the group's CFO. Nicolas Pire and Christine Janssen were appointed as the local CFOs of Elia Transmission Belgium and 50Hertz, respectively.

And apart from Christine Janssen, the appointments involve internal people moving up to top positions. So Bernard, I think that's a strong signal when it comes to talent management and succession planning, isn't it?

Absolutely. It shows that Elia Group values the capability of its own people, and we are promoting people who already know the culture, the strategy and challenges of the company. It also shows the quality of our people. But above all, these appointments ensure that our leadership team is now fully established and firmly anchored in each of our core TSO markets.

And that's not all. These new appointments were accompanied by integration of strong independent profiles with our Board of Directors. Two new profiles have been added, Michel Sirat and Olivier Chappelle. Michel, who has an impressive track record developed in top financial roles in Europe, both within and beyond the energy sector has taken on the role of Chairman of the Audit Committee. And Olivier Chapelle, an experienced executive with broad industrial experience as CEO has joined the Nomination and Remuneration Committee. But we are also pleased to see the return of familiar faces. Pascale Van Damme was reappointed. [ Siska Vanhoudenhoven ], who previously served on Elia Group's Board from 2014 to 2021 and more recently served on the Board of our Belgian subsidiary is back with us once again. So as you can see, these Board appointments reflect our attention to diversity, both in terms of skill set and gender. This is something we care deeply about, and it will remain a key focus as we continue to develop the Elia Group organization.

Thank you, Bernard. Let's now change topics completely. Just afternoon on 28th April, a major blackout hit Spain and Portugal. While the rest of the European grid remained stable, the incident showed how devastating the impact of a large-scale blackout can be on society. And it immediately raised a pressing question, could something like this happen here?

And concerns about this possibility were significant enough that Belgium's newly appointed Minister of Energy, Mathieu Bihet, paid an immediate visit to Elia's National Control Center in Brussels. From what we know so far, the blackout appears to have been triggered by voltage management issues. A European expert panel is currently investigating the root causes of the blackout and a full report about the incident is due to be published in October. Voltage control is indeed becoming a key focus in electricity systems that carry high shares of renewable energy. And there will undoubtedly be lessons to be learned from the incident and mitigating measures are already being prepared. Our experts will tell us more in the next video.

[Presentation]

Blackout is a powerful reminder that electricity grids are the backbone of modern societies. Bernard, as [ Birman ] said in the report, is it really a wake-up call?

Sure. It's a major crisis. But as we say also never let crisis go to waste. So of course, no one wants to go through something like this. But when it happens, it reminds us just how crucial our electricity grids are and how important it is to make them strong and resilient. So it's normal that people are asking questions about the cost of the grid investments, but then something like this comes along, and push it in all perspectives. Investments are important for the grid stability, for our country's energy security and for a system that can handle shocks. So yes, we need to stay mindful of the cost. At the same time, we shouldn't lose sight of the value that grid investments deliver. They are essential if we want a future-proof grid.

And some people immediately suspected that it was a cyber attack, a reaction that reflects today's tense geopolitical context. Bernard, how is Elia securing its critical infrastructure?

Well, we are the operator and owner of critical infrastructure. Physical and digital security are, therefore, top priorities for us. So during the first half of the year, we made progress on our security strategy, working closely with national and European authorities to protect critical energy infrastructure. But we also strengthened our partnership with the police, civil protection units and international partners such as NATO to safeguard our physical assets. Security in all its forms is and will remain a nonnegotiable priority for the group.

And of course, the details of these measures are strictly confidential.

Keeping the lights on at all times is also the central theme of Elia's adequacy and flexibility study, which was published in June and covered the period 2026, 2036. It was Elia's fifth such study aimed at ensuring that Belgium always has enough electricity to cover the level of demand. It demonstrates how electrification and digitalization are triggering a transformation of the Belgium electricity system. Bernard, what are the key findings of this year's study?

Well, firstly, the rate at which electrification is occurring in Belgium will push the level of demand beyond the level of available capacity from '28 onwards. However, the capacity remuneration mechanism called CRM remains a cornerstone of Belgium's adequacy strategy. It keeps vital thermal capacity online while driving investment in a new low-cost carbon -- new low-carbon assets.

Secondly, flexibility is becoming critical on both the demand and supply side for managing increasing volatility and periods of oversupply. By unlocking end-user flexibility, a double win is created for consumers, lower system costs and lower electricity bills.

Finally, to complement the capacity secured by the CRM and close the supply gap in the long term, additional levers should be applied such as the extension of nuclear units or the construction of new units, an increase in offshore wind capacity, cross-border interconnectors or a structural reduction in demand.

While this is a Belgian report, it's also highly relevant at group level. We are seeing similar trends and challenges in Germany. So it gives us an opportunity to tackle them in a coordinated way across the entire group.

Thank you, Bernard, and I strongly recommend anyone who is interested in a detailed breakdown of the results to take a closer look at the study on our website.

Before we take a more detailed look on our half year results, Marco, could you give us an update about the potential upcoming changes in the regulatory framework for TSO in Germany?

Yes, for sure. The German regulator, the BHR is in the process of updating the entire regulatory landscape for both electricity and gas networks. For the next regulatory period, starting in '29, we are seeing a shift towards a more dynamic cost-plus model. This new approach acknowledged that our operational and capital costs change rapidly. So rather than fixing parameters for 5 years as carried out in the past, the framework will allow for annual adjustments based on actual needs and investments. That's a positive step. Expert level discussions have already begun and 50Hertz is currently preparing several position papers to contribute to the ongoing discussions about this new approach.

So far, the BHR has only published key points and first drafts. So when can we expect more information about the actual return figures, Marco?

We anticipate that the draft framework for the TSOs, so the transmission system operators will be available by the end of '25, with the final decision expected in the first half of '26. After that, the BHR will continue working out the technical details up until '28. So it's very much a step-by-step process. At this stage, it's too early to speculate about concrete numbers. That said, it's encouraging that we are closely involved in the discussions that are being held about the changes. We are making sure our voice is here, especially when it comes to advocating for competitive market-based returns that reflect the scale and strategic importance of our good investments.

There's been talk about harmonizing the returns from existing and new assets. Can you tell more about this?

The BHR is proposing a WACC remuneration model with a single return level on the equity for all assets, independent when the investment has been taken, removing the current distinction. That brings clarity, which is helpful for long-term planning. The cost of debt will be further adjusted annually to reflect actual market conditions. This again aligns with the shift towards a cost-plus model. The regulator wants to better link financial parameters to real-world developments. So to sum up, I would say we are cautiously optimistic. The new regulatory framework is still work in progress, but the direction we are headed in is constructive.

That's for Germany. What about Belgium?

We are still in the current 4 years tariff period that runs from '24 to the end of '27. Discussions with the federal regulator, the crack for the next period will start in early '26. Elia will prepare the file carefully to be able to fulfill its societal mission, including the rollout of our ambitions investment plan for the energy transition.

Thank you, Marco. Yes, we haven't talked about our activities in the U.S. And as you probably know, Elia Group via its nonregulated activities holds a minority stake in energyRe Giga projects, an independent U.S. developer of renewable generation and transmission projects. And that brings us to the Trump administration that just rolled out a new fiscal policy, the so-called Big Beautiful Bill. And this cut support for renewables and introduces extra costs and restrictions on clean energy projects. So Bernard, does this impact our U.S. activities?

Well, before diving in it, it's worth noting that Elia Group's exposure to the U.S. market is still very limited compared to our other activities. But that being said, in a nutshell, the new policy accelerates the phaseout of tax credits for clean energy. So yes, there is generally less support for renewables going forward. The broader impact of this Big Beautiful Bill should be manageable for us because our focus in the U.S. is now on transmission infrastructure, which isn't directly targeted.

As for our current portfolio of projects, the fundamentals remain solid. But as said, it's clear that these projects will take more time to move forward, so we'll need to show a bit more patience than initially anticipated. And let's not forget the big picture. The U.S. still has a huge structural needs when it comes to electrification, both for the heavy industry and the increasing electricity demand for AI and data centers. So it means more electricity, more transmission lines will be needed.

Okay. Thank you for sharing this update, Bernard. So let's now turn to the full update of our half year financials. Marco, take the floor.

Thanks, Marleen. Elia Group delivered strong results with an adjusted net profit amounting to almost EUR 26 million. That's an increase of 49% compared to last year. In Belgium, we delivered solid results supported by a growing regulatory asset base, increased equity and a higher return on equity. In Germany, 50Hertz performed strongly, driven by asset growth and higher floating rate returns since '24. However, this was partly offset by lower contributions from the nonregulated segment and Nemo Link. Although the operational performance of Nemo Link remained outstanding, its contribution was kept by the regulation. Furthermore, the funding costs of the holding increased. The net profit attributable to Elia Group shareholders increased to almost EUR 270 million. This is based on solid progress made on our investment plans with approximately EUR 1.5 billion invested in both our Belgium and German grids during the first half of the year.

At the same time, our net financial debt was reduced by around EUR 1.5 billion. This was mainly driven by the successful completion of our capital increase in April as well as the fact that a significant portion of our investment program was funded through operating cash flows. The average cost of debt slightly rose by 10% -- 10 basis points to 2.9% as Eurogrid proactively tapped the capital markets in the first half of '25 while reimbursing the maturing debt. Finally, I'd like to highlight that our Standard & Poor's credit rating remains unchanged at BBB flat with a stable outlook, confirming the resilience of our financial structure.

Yes. That covers the group results. You already mentioned the good results for Belgium. What are the key drivers behind those results?

Indeed, Belgium delivered solid results with an adjusted net profit rising by more than 30% to almost EUR 130 million. This growth was primarily driven by higher fair remuneration from asset growth and increased equity following the capital increase as well as an improvement in the underlying risk-free rate, strongly operational performance with increased incentives, thanks to the timely commissioning of projects, maximum availability of the modular offshore grid and reduced reservation costs for ancillary services. A one-off tariff compensation linked to the capital increase. This compensation is recorded as equity under the IFRS. But as you may know, these costs are fully passed through to the tariffs. Finally, the higher capital borrowing costs supported the results. These positive effects were partially offset by regulatory settlements from the [indiscernible] '24 review.

Turning now to ETB's funding and balance sheet. Following the capital increase at the group level, we injected EUR 1.05 billion into ETB to further strengthen its equity base. This step ensures that ETB is well positioned to support future organic growth in line with its regulatory framework.

On the liquidity side, we also saw a notable improvement. This was supported by an increase in its commercial paper program as well as the additional cash received following the capital increase.

Looking at the debt profile, the weighted average debt duration stands at 6.6 years and the average cost of debt remained stable at 2.5%.

Yes. And now let's shift to Germany. We see a significant increase in 50Hertz adjusted net profit for the first half year of 2025. What are here the main factors, Marco?

We are pleased to report that the adjusted net profit rose to EUR 207.5 million. This strong performance is the result of several key factors. First, asset growth continues to be the major driver of the results. The expansion of both onshore and offshore infrastructure led to EUR 94.7 million increase in the remuneration. Additionally, we also changed the regulatory estimate for intra-year onshore investment remuneration, which is now reflecting a pro rata share of the full year expected CapEx rather than the actual CapEx spend. This change enhances comparability and better reflects the economic reality of our investment cycle, given that a substantial portion of the CapEx will be spent in the second half of the year.

For the first half of the year, this change had an impact of EUR 28.1 million year-over-year and will disappear until year's end. Second main factor on the cost side, inflation index-based years revenues helps to offset most of the operational expense increase. That said, some offsetting effects also occurred. Firstly mentioned depreciation as several major projects were successfully commissioned and brought online. And second, financial costs rose primarily due to the higher net interest expenses from debt financing. However, this was partially mitigated by interest income from a prefinancing agreement with an offshore wind farm developer. Furthermore, capitalized interest during construction increased due to our ongoing investment activities too.

Yes. Having reviewed 50Hertz results, let's turn now to its financial position.

On the liquidity side, we took several proactive steps to ensure funding flexibility. In early '25, we tapped EUR 200 million from existing bond issued in '24. We then issued EUR 800 million green bond with a 12-year maturity and a 4.06% interest rate. At the same time, we reimbursed a EUR 500 million bond that matured. We fully drew down a EUR 1 billion green loan under the KfW Climate Protection Program syndicated with 12 banks to support our offshore projects. This loan carries an attractive 3.0% interest rate. As a result, our average cost of debt rose slightly by 10 basis points to 3% by the end of June '25.

We continue to maintain strong liquidity buffers. All EUR 3.9 billion in backup facilities remain undrawn. We also established a new EUR 750 million commercial paper program, enhancing our short-term funding flexibility.

And just to bring this section on the equity side to a close, while the total equity remained broadly stable, I'd like to highlight that EUR 1 billion in proceeds from the capital increase earmarked for Euro grid GmbH will be pushed down and evenly distributed throughout '25 and '26 to support our investment program in a phased and efficient way.

And in addition to its regulated activities in Belgium and Germany, Elia Group also operates Nemo Link and engages in various activities outside of our regulated home markets. How does this third segment contribute to the results, Marco?

Our nonregulated and Nemo Link segment posted an adjusted net loss of EUR 11.8 million. This was mainly driven by the following factors. Firstly, a lower contribution from Nemo Link of EUR 9.2 million despite its strong operational performance. The cap mechanism limited its net impact.

Secondly, a reduced loss from energyRe Giga, which improved by EUR 1.2 million, thanks to tighter cost control. Then higher holding costs amounting to EUR 6 million, largely due to the last year's debt financing.

Finally, other items totaling around EUR 5.7 million, including regulatory settlements and lower contributions from EGI. So while last year's result was positive, this year's performance reflects a combination of lower interconnector income, higher financing costs and regulatory adjustments.

To bring my presentation to a close, we reconfirm our outlook. we expect to deliver a net profit at Elia Group share in the range of EUR 490 million to EUR 540 million for the whole year '25. In Belgium, assuming a 10-year OLO rate of around 3.1%, we anticipate a net profit between EUR 255 million and EUR 285 million and plan to invest EUR 1.5 billion throughout the year.

In Germany, with a base rate of around 2.5%, we expect a net profit between EUR 380 million and EUR 420 million, supported by a planned investment of around EUR 3.6 billion.

The nonregulated segment, including Nemo Link is expected to report a net loss between EUR 35 million and EUR 45 million. This includes a positive contribution of around EUR 25 million from Nemo Link, assuming it continues to operate with a high level of availability.

As always, I would like to point out that this guidance obviously doesn't take into account any potential M&A transactions.

Thank you, Marco. Before we move on to the Q&A section, then, I would like to invite you to share some final thoughts with us. What is the focus after the summer break?

Our focus remains very clear, delivering on our CapEx program. Now that we've strengthened our financial foundation, it's all about execution, staying on budget and where possible, doing better than the budget, outperforming it, all while maintaining the right balance between affordability and emission. Our strategy remains unchanged. The energy transition is accelerating and our role as an enabler is more relevant than ever through the delivery of sustainable infrastructure, system integration and innovation. And to that end, we will continue to focus on investing in cost efficiency, exploring synergies across the group and reinforcing the resilience of our supply chains.

We're also keeping a close eye on key industry developments such as the new regulatory framework in Germany, the preparation for the North Sea Summit in Hamburg early next year. And if Europe wants to achieve energy independence, accelerating offshore wind development will be essential. And in that context, we'll be following the next steps on the Bornholm Energy Island project with great interest, especially now that the German and the Danish governments have agreed to move forward.

So we are also looking ahead to our upcoming viewpoint study on storage integration, a critical enabler of system flexibility. So in short, the second half of the year will be about delivering with discipline, innovating with purpose and staying aligned with our long-term vision.

Many plans, a busy agenda ahead, just the way we like it. So I suggest we now move on to the Q&A section. Yannick Dekoninck, Head of Capital Markets, will lead on this. And Stephanie Luyten, our Head of Investor Relations, will take us through the questions we have received so far. So Stephanie, could you share the first question with us, please?

Thank you, Marleen, and a warm welcome to all my analysts. Can I please ask you to keep it to two questions so that ask their question. We will start today with UBS. Wanda.

Two questions from me. The first one is on the EUR 20 million benefit year-on-year from the accounting change. What has triggered it? Because it's the first time I hear about it. I assume it's included in your guidance, but was it earlier choice? And can you confirm it was already included in your guidance?

The second question is a more high-level question on Germany. There was a study commissioned by the Germany's economy Ministry on the plan to assess whether the current scope of grid expansion is still needed. So does it pose any risk to your 2024, '28 CapEx plan? How much of your CapEx until 2028 is basically set in stone so it won't be changed? And how in your view -- I mean, there's a lot of discussion about the energy use, the cost of the electricity for the end user in Germany. How the regulator can change your CapEx plans?

Okay. Thank you, Wanda. I think on the EUR 20 million question, Marco, I think that's definitely in your area and potentially also on the CapEx.

Happy to take it. So as we said that the EUR 20 million is a temporary effect. We changed the treatment on an intra-year basis to show a more stable progress compared to the final expectation how much the CapEx volume is going to be. And based on the CapEx volume, we then calculated the connected return as the regulatory treatment is usually based on a full year consideration on the average, and that's something we reflect as well.

So the guidance itself for full year is not affected at all. It's only changed the presentation during the year, and it's now aligned. And yes, it was our choice in that regard as we've seen that it's a kind of common standard in usage, and we aligned with the treatment, which we already applied in Belgium on that one. So that's a little bit a better presentation, a fair presentation within the year, but it doesn't change anything on the year-end.

So that's on the accounting one. On the CapEx itself, we can confirm that the CapEx plan is intact. So the volume which we have announced for the period '24 to '28 is still the plan which we are following as on one hand, all discussions which are around the political spheres are more hitting the horizon beyond the '30s to some degree. And we already committed more than 70% of the remaining CapEx program until the end of '28. So -- and we are fully on track to deliver what we have promised. So short term or midterm, there is no impact on the CapEx plan at all.

So -- and our goal will be to deliver that what we have promised and that's connected to that number. So no change on the mid-run. In the long term, it's, of course, a discussion which you might have followed in terms of affordability, how future big DC corridors, for instance, will be executed, whether it will be still undergrounding cables or an overhead line and there's a cost difference between both. And that's a discussion which is up and running, but these projects come to commissioning mid of the 30s or even later. So there is no immediate impact on our CapEx plan. So we reiterate the planning which we have given.

Basically, going forward, we should assume a better seasonality in your 50Hertz net income, right? There shouldn't be like there should be less swings between the years.

That was the purpose, yes.

Thank you very much. Let's now go to Virginia from Santander.

Yes, I had two questions as well. First of all, on the grants you had been mentioning that potentially you need to pro rata from the EU on the possible delays on the foundations. I wanted to know how much grants you had assumed initially in your business plan to better understand what this could mean. And second, on the capital raise you have implemented, which you still have not put any of the equity into 50Hertz, I understood. And you said it will be done along '25 and '26. Just wanted to know how much will go actually in '25 for the modeling purposes.

So I will propose that I take the question on the grant and then the capital increases, Marco. So for the grant, we received initial amount of EUR 99.7 million from the fund, and that was linked to a construction of the island by June '26. So as you've seen in the movies, we are progressing quite well, but it's likely that it's not fully finished. And so the grant will be reduced pro rata to the completion of the island. Nevertheless, all in all, it will have a very limited effect on our results, considering the amount, which was EUR 99.7 million initially. On the capital increase, maybe Marco, there you can give guidance.

Happy to take it. So as pointed out during the presentation, there's EUR 1 billion designated to inject in a German subsidiary. Last year, we injected EUR 600 million in total, commonly KfW and Elia Group. So with our 80% around, it was EUR 480 million, and that's the order of magnitude you can expect. So it will be more or less equally being split between the 2 years. So '25, almost EUR 500 million and '26, again, the same portion that we can deploy capital in an efficient way in that subsidiary as, of course, KfW is a partner on our side, which appreciate the kind of stability and visibility on that injections too, and that was the agreement which we made.

Let's now go to Morgan Stanley, Harry.

Maybe two from me. Firstly, on the German review that is currently ongoing. So appreciating there's limits to how much you can say here, but obviously, lots of interest. We've obviously had some color from the DSO review to some of the changes on the period, the cost of debt and the arithmetic mean. But as we think about what you are targeting for an all-in ROE, I mean, there's a comment in your slides talking about additional kicker. I mean how significant could that be? And what do you need as an all-in ROE to make the whole package investable? So that would be the first. And then secondly, as we think about the German rate potentially moving to this cost-plus model, can you remind us on your historical outperformance, how much of that came from OpEx outperformance and how much of that came from the additional leverage?

Yes. Maybe I'll start and then let Yannick to complement on the second part. And what we do see is indeed a trend to more simplification, a trend to reduce risk for us, and that's something we appreciate. So that's First of all, something we do see that the regulator is acknowledging that we are in a different situation than 10 years ago. So that's something which we do see positive.

On the other side, it's fair that with the WACC model, of course, the concentration on the return and the cost of debt is relatively high. So there's a huge visibility on the returns, which is still a political discussion as well. And of course, by taking off options to outperform, that will be connected to a relatively huge lift up there. There are on the other side, discussions to reintroduce other incentive schemes. How big the allocation between two is, it's really early stage as we are currently in a discussion on ideas what could be incentivized and what order of magnitude that could bring to the returns. And that's a little bit determining what kind of return rate is then something the BSR has put in place. So apologize that we couldn't give more color at this stage in that regard. But that's the situation we are.

As we said, we hope to have more clarity until end of year how the structure will look like, not being said that, of course, the ingredients has been set there. To have a look backwards, I think the operational outperformance was around -- in Germany was around 1% depending on the year on the return on equity and the leverage is 1.5 percentage depending on the year as well. So these two factors helps us to lift up the return rates in the past. But it's fair to say that with the cost-plus model, a part of that will disappear and needs to be replaced either by reflection in the return rate or in something else, some incentives to be put in place.

Let's go now to Deutsche Bank.

So my two questions, please. First of all, on the grid development plan for 2025, there's an initial view being given on capacity for 2045. Obviously, nothing really yet on investment. But do you see there being an opportunity or do you think the CapEx envelope is expected to be spent on the grid potentially increased or decreased? The capacity numbers seem kind of similar on the middle scenario.

And the second question is coming back to incentives for the next regulatory period. I understand there could be incentives around dispatch ancillary services and grid expansion. Are you able yet from your view of the initial paper to discuss that in a bit more detail at all or not yet?

I think it's again more questions directed to Marco.

Yes, I'm happy to take it. So maybe I'll start with the last one on the incentives as this is a good connection then to the question before. As I said, we are currently more in a kind of brainstorming, what kind of incentives can be put in place and what order of magnitude it could give. There has been shared some ideas connected to commissioning and maybe some avoided redispatch costs to be shared as a benefit for the good operator who can manage to put that in place in time or even earlier. But of course, the proof is in the pudding, so that we are still discussing then what kind of date, for instance, is being eligible. So it's rather early.

I think it's pretty clear that incentives on the energy cost management will remain one or the other way. That's something which we do see today.

That being said, order of magnitude for the bonus to be achieved is relatively low. Maybe that's something which is going to be extended. But it's a little bit guessing. It's really early to say and appreciate if you have ideas to bring it into the process. I mean there's a public consultation foreseen on several stages. And if we do see something which is working in U.K. or whatever, we are happy to take it with us to propose it to the regulator as well. And regulators, and that's good as well is open for that discussion. So they are really keen to get ideas on that one, which they can consider as a kind of part of the framework.

On the grid development plan, there's a discussion running indeed. The scenarios provide a broader spread compared to the last grid development plan, which helps to better distinguish between different scenarios. Last time, it was more or less all the time the same. And that's what you do see a little bit more distinctive now. I think for the final outcome, the change will not be that big. It will be more on the offshore side where you then can discuss whether we are still connecting the 65 to 70 gigawatt or less as, of course, the last 15 gigawatts are rather expensive and of course, less productive than the first 15.

So that could be a choice the government is going to make. And together with the regulator, we are discussing what is a useful dimensioning on that one, which is determining the costs.

It's fair to say that with the last grid development plan, we potentially have seen the peak of projects to be added into the entire development plan until '45 to become climate neutral. So now it's more the question how to put it on a time line and whether you need the residual, which is then topping a little bit the cost items at the longer end and how you are allocating it over time. And it's still a likelihood that the regulator is in the end, taking the lower scenario as the lead scenario, what is different to the past as well.

We can now turn to Citi.

I have two questions, please. So first one, I wanted to ask about your funding plan by '28. How much of the hybrids you have to issue to make your funding through to this -- to the end of the period? Or alternatively, how much of kind of how big of a stake you have to sell in the subsidiaries? And when you have to start looking at these options? I know it's a little bit early, you just find that equity. I just wanted to have a clarity of you had a EUR 4 billion equity need and it was kind of change into what you've done on the equity side plus the hybrid. So I just wanted to get the amount of what's required to get there?

And second question, I wanted to ask you about this kind of how -- when the -- if the German government changes the long-term offshore targets from a 70 gigawatt down to whatever the number will be. At what point does this affect your CapEx plan? I understand this is more like a 2030, but I just wanted to understand like what's the cadence of the CapEx could be if it's lower than how you think about it? Is it a big amount that you will not be forced to spend and so on.

Essentially, I'm aiming at, is this -- if we change the strategy on the offshore grid development in Germany now, does this mean that the tightness of your balance sheet really disappears beyond '28 because the CapEx requirement is probably gradually getting lower as a proportion to your company size?

Maybe I'll start with the offshore and then let Yannick to say about our funding position. So it's been clear that any changes in the offshore development will hit more the longer-term horizon. So we will continue to connect offshore wind farms. And recently, there has been a tender, even though not we have been affected. But it will continue for the time being. We have less than 10 gigawatts connected in Germany. next projects in the pipe, which are under construction will give an additional 15. You do see there's still a way to go even though the number will be reduced by 10 or 15 gigawatts based on the 70 you mentioned.

So for 50Hertz, it will impact potentially the portfolio by one offshore grid connection. So that's the order of magnitude we are talking about. It's, of course, EUR 1 billion investment, no doubt on that. But on the timing, it's hard to say which of that which are currently dedicated to connect by 50Hertz will be the one which is then being taken out. may be replaced by another one which originally has been thought to connect later. That's still ongoing as that we request a change in the spatial planning of the authority as well. So grid development plan gives a little bit of capacity.

And then the spatial planning is the next step to allocate it to a certain wind area and then the connection is being dedicated to one or the other TSOs. So that's a process which is still running and will be completed potentially mid of next year. So which project is then really affected, we cannot say. But that being said, it gives you a little bit of glance that we are not talking about something which we do see in the 30s already.

Good. Then on the funding toolkit, I think Bernard mentioned it with the capital increase, we created for ourselves a lot of optionality how we could further finance that plan. It's clear that hybrid could be part of that option. We have today a hybrid capacity, which allows us to close the remaining EUR 2 billion funding needs we roughly have.

And there, we are monitoring very closely how the market is evolving, and we've seen that the interest rates have come down slightly since the beginning of the year in that respect. But we also have that optionality to look on how we can strengthen the capital at our operating entities. And there, there is no clear decision that can be both in Germany or in Belgium, but that's something that we are monitoring as well without there is a firm decision on that topic.

I think it really depends on the moment we need to decide. The good luck we have is that we have the flexibility, and now we are really making sure that our toolkit allows us for all options so that we have that flexibility. And we can take the decision at the right moment, but you see that we have the choice.

Now let's to Bank of America, Julius.

Some have already been taken, but still two from me. Maybe the first one, I mean, we already talked about it, there's obviously lots of interest on the German regulation. You said it yourself, Marco, that it's moving more to a low-risk cost-plus model. Are you any way worried that there will be the argument made that low risk should also come with lower return and lower value creation? Or do you think that's not justifiable given the pace of growth? And then secondly, just like on the technical side, a lot of interest. On the Princess Elizabeth Island, what are your options to make the design cheaper? Could you change it away from a DC connection? Like what are the technical options there?

So I propose Marco takes regulation, and I think Bernard can tackle your question on the islands.

Yes, happy to do so. So what we don't expect to be clear that as this is something we perceive is understood, the return rate is nothing which is further shrinking. So I mean that's our expectation that's being placed from different players. And the perception we do have that there is an understanding that it needs to be a sufficient rate to fund the growth of all grid operators and to provide a proper funding on that one.

So from that perspective, we don't see a further pressure to push it down. However, how much the lift up could look like, that's a little bit the open question. And therefore, we will not position ourselves in guessing what the outcome will be. So -- but the clear expectation has been placed. And so far, our perception is that's understood that there needs to be a sufficient return to fund the needs for that CapEx program.

On the Princess Elizabeth Island, I think first, we need to salute the decision of the government of the fact that what is today in our CapEx plan is confirmed so that we go ahead with the first wind parks, but also that the government clearly say that an interconnector between U.K. and Belgium, a second interconnector next to Nemo is needed. And so I think this is a very important decision.

We had, as you know, a DC component so that we wanted to create a hybrid interconnector so that basically, we would have extra investment, DC investment on the island to create an energy hub and to allow a better choice according to circumstances between using the Belgian parks or using the interconnect -- the alternative to reduce the cost and to just eliminate the extra transfer that we needed to put and the DC component we needed to put on the island are different.

There are different options. The first option is just to go to a classical point-to-point interconnector next to the island, which is the first option. Of course, you don't have then the opportunity to select according to circumstances, whether you use the wind from the Belgian parks or whether you use the interconnector. However, so long we are with one interconnector, we can have the advantage of a hybrid interconnector having this interconnection being handled at the beach, if I may say so, and not on the island and not having an extra transformator, and that's something we are considering now.

Now of course, if we do that, we have all the benefits of a hybrid interconnector so long we have one interconnector. But the day we have more, the function of an energy hub is not met. You might say, well, it's in a very far future beyond '35 and beyond. But if we want to keep that option, we could still keep the current design, but then that would maybe mean and we are discussing with our U.K. counterpart, whether we could consider also another allocation of cost between the two countries because the U.K. is also interested party in this hybrid indirect connector. Of course, another allocation of cost means also another allocation of benefits. But -- so that means that also the initial design might not be completely excluded.

Now let's to Alberto from Exane.

Two questions for me. So the first one will be regarding your guidance. If I take your half year results and consider them this year, the Belgium and German pro rata is expected to be more aligned with your full year guidance. It means that you could be close to the upper side of your guidance, the EUR 540 million of attributable net income. Is it a fair assumption? Or is there any adjustment that we should consider in the second half that has not been recorded during the first part.

And my second question is regarding the CapEx profile. You are targeting a EUR 5.1 billion investments during 2025. You have only invested EUR 1.5 billion. Could you explain why there is such a big difference and how you expect in the second half of the year to invest the remaining part?

Yes. Maybe I'll start and then let Yannick to complement on the half year result, there was a relatively big impact from a settlement with an offshore wind farm developer where we took some financing costs in the past, and we are now agreed on that we are passed through the wind farm developer. That's a EUR 20 million impact on the half year result, and that's something which we do not see in the second half year. To put it a little bit in perspective.

In general, your assumption is quite logic, knowing that, of course, classically, at least in the past, we do see often a cost ramp-up in the second half of the year, which gives the first half year a little bit of favor compared to the second half as all the maintenance is being done over summer, and that's something which then plays a bigger role in the second half year, knowing that, of course, the order of magnitude is going down compared to the total remuneration as, of course, the impact on the capital remuneration is much bigger than on the OpEx in the next years.

On the cost side as well for -- maybe to complement that on the third pillar, even though the question has not been raised, it's a little bit similar as we expected second half year, some costs in the development of our win good activities, which lead us to a little bit unweighted view compared to the first half year in that regard. So on the CapEx, it's indeed the fact that the spending in the first half year is significantly lower as in the second half year. It's a little bit similar like last year, where we spent 35% in the first half year and the vast majority in the second half, even though this year, the relationship is a little bit even more unbalanced with a 30% to 70% to be spent in the second half year.

We are confident taking the progress all of our projects has been made into account, and there are significant payment milestones being connected to milestones which we are targeting to reach in the next few months that the number which we have guided on in quarter 1 is something we can reiterate and confirm. So we are confident that the EUR 5.1 billion of CapEx to be spent in the year '25 is still robust and valid and still something we are basing our guidance on.

I think then we can hear it out to Bernstein.

Two very broad issues I would like to discuss. Firstly, is the -- I mean, we know that in Germany, most likely, we will see higher headline returns, at least in terms of the allowed ROE. So consequently, Belgium may be one of the lowest in terms of remuneration in Europe. Do you expect -- I mean, you said discussions will start next year, but do you think given the history, there are high chances that actually Belgium will follow Germany, will follow other countries and consequently will increase allowed returns in the next regulatory period? That will be the first one. So how should we look at this?

And the second one on funding, obviously, equity is on the side, hybrids were discussed. But I just wonder, overall, there will be a big competition from transmission operators on debt. funding. A lot of them wants to and will issue corporate bonds in the future. So I just wonder how do you think the market will shape in terms of how broad or how deep the market is to fund transmission CapEx? Do you think it will have any impact on cost of funding and spreads? And do you think you will also need to tackle markets outside of Europe to fund your growth in the future?

Maybe starting with the funding. What is valid for the equity that we want to have a toolkit in place is valid for the debt side as well. And as we entered last year with ETB into a loan under European Investment Bank umbrella as well as in Germany under KfW umbrella that gives you a little bit of view that we're, of course, working on extension of our toolkit on the debt side either. And these are already remarkable sizes to be clear on that one.

Even that being said, we do see two trends on the Eurobond market for the time being. That's on one hand, the bond market is increasing in total volume. I think last year it was 10% compared to previous year and the stake of the utility is growing as well. That being said, we will not rely only on that one. And of course, looking in other countries, other currencies as well, knowing that there is no immediate pressure to enter into these markets, but we at least have a look at, prepare ourselves, discussing with the regulator how this will be treated as, of course, currency swaps and return rates are different, and they are not familiar with. So there is a kind of education which is being requested on that one. But that's something we are working on to have flexibility and of course, are a little bit confident that we are able to raise the means which we are needing. So some confirmation on that one, yes.

On the Belgian regulation, well, first of all, I would like to remind that the regulation is, of course, the guardian of the affordability of the energy transition, but also of the success of the energy transition. And so they are also sensible to the fact that the investments are higher than before and need to have an adequate return on equity. I also would like to remember that when we had the discussion in the last round of negotiation that led to the current ROE, we had also a significant improvement versus last time, reasonable, but significant considering also the macroeconomic environment we were operating in.

So we will have, of course, the discussion with our regulator, but you also see one of the advantage of Elia Group being present and being dependent on two regulators and not just being dependent on one because we can also on an intelligent way, make sure that we can compare the regulators and tell them what we get in the other country.

Finally, you've seen in my speech earlier today that very often, I talked about affordability and about cost consciousness and beating our budget than just meeting our budget. I think it's also our responsibility as a TSO to show that we are managing the investment correctly from a cost point of view and that these investments that we are managing well from a cost point of view are essential and necessary and therefore, given their size and their amount needs to have the adequate return on equity. So it's a discussion we shall start as of early next year.

That's why it's difficult to preempt on the conclusion. But I think given that we are attentive on the cost, given that we have a history where the returns increased in the past given the amount and the regulator is in charge of the transition as well as the affordability. And given that we have also two regulators to deal with and that we can compare the one to the other, we take this with a positive attitude.

Let's now head it to [indiscernible].

First, congrats with the strong H1 results, of course. Most of my questions, of course, already answered, but I'm curious to hear when we can get a CapEx outlook for '29 and for 2030 as well as the potential new equity requirements for those years. What is the planning there?

Well, I think from the answers we gave to the other questions, you could see that we are navigating in a world that beyond the year '28 still has a lot of uncertainty. It's positive uncertainty, but uncertainty. We are coming at the end. And just a question on the Belgium regulation. We had several questions about the German regulation. This is the basis of our remuneration. And of course, we need to be strong enough to be able to say at some point, we need to do this investment, but we need a certain level of ROE, regulated ROE to be able to do these investments.

The discussions are going on. So very difficult to move on before we have more clarity on that. The good news is that we start the discussions in Belgium as of next year. And the second one is that the Germans are clearly thinking about the new model. So we have to wait for that.

Secondly, you know that in Germany, the four TSOs are looking at the development plan. We had also a series of questions about how we see that in the near -- in a further future. We are, as Marco explained, rather certain that for the period '24, '28, whatever the decision is taken at that level, it won't affect our CapEx plan. Beyond '28, we believe that the CapEx plan will remain very strong, that the variation that will be brought will not change the world for Elia, but I think it's wise to have a better view of what will be the ambition of Germany in terms of further offshore and renewable transition before we start to have a discussion about what is our CapEx and what is the equity need that is derived for it. So that's why, for the moment, we stay on the current '24, '28 period, and we will come with a period beyond as soon as we can give you a number that is solid enough, i.e., that these uncertainties are removed.

Now I hand it over to Barclays, Temi. You still have some questions for us.

Congratulations on the strong results this morning. Two questions and one clarification from me, if I might. You noted delays on the foundation of the Princess Elizabeth Island due to the preparation taking longer than expected. Can I just confirm whether this is isolated to the Energy Island and your other projects are not likely to experience delays? That's the first one.

The second one has got to do with the German regulation. Marco, you noted some of the parameters being more linked to market parameters. Apart from the cost of debt, what are the parameters will be linked? It would be helpful to have an idea of that. And maybe the clarification. Bernard, you noted the world is changing. There's a lot of uncertainty for the outlook. In the past, you've talked about discussions with regional neighbors on cost sharing being one of the things that help you get a view on the outlook. How have those discussions evolved over the last couple of months?

Well, maybe on the delay and the last one. So on the delay, so the Princess Elizabeth Island is a specific project with a clear incentive from Europe, a subsidy for Europe, where there was a clear deadline that was in there. And we've seen that we started the work on the Vlissingen yard later than foreseen. And despite the good weather, by the way, because we are progressing pretty well, we cannot be completely finished by June 26, which was one of the condition to get the full EC fund.

Personally, I think that we should continue to have this easy fund given that basically we are moving fast and we are not coming that far away from the deadline and Europe wants to push for an energy transition. But the rule is the rule, and I think it's cautious that we reflect what is today in the subsidy we receive, the conditions, and we say we won't be ready by June 30, fully completed. So we take it pro rata as we explained earlier. But this is, of course, a specific situation to that specific project. And every project have their specific dynamic that are different from the one to the other. But here, yes, it's an isolated issue on that one, and it's a subsidy that is related to that specific project. So that's on that question.

On the collaboration, I think you relate to what we said, and it was shown also in the video of the work done by OTC. 12 TSOs have joined efforts to develop a plan to make of the North Sea, the electricity powerhouse of the future, which we believe is really important, that their collaboration is very, very important. But in that respect, we also see that the current cost allocation, which is always between 2 countries come to its limits because if we want to make for a region or for Europe powerhouse on the North Sea, we need to build some interconnectors where for some countries that are basically long in renewables, the interest is less important than for some other countries that are shorter in renewables.

And if you apply just the rule between two countries as it is today, it doesn't work. And so that's why we are working and suggesting because it's not up to us to decide with the other 12 TSO on a methodology of cost allocation to make sure that these critical investment for a region happen. And despite the fact that the benefits for one country might be less than for another country, given that the benefits are important for the whole region. And we want to propose that amongst others. That's why the Hamburg Summit next year is important. We want to propose that to the different governments during the different meetings leading up to the Hamburg Summit.

Yes. Maybe on the determination of the factors. I understood you in a way that once the framework has been set beginning of next year, then there will be a follow-up from the BSR, which explicitly put things in place which needs to be applied in the framework. And the question is then related which are these things and to you named cost of debt, of course, there's still a question whether it's a reference rate, for instance, based on a rating or more pass-through so real cost pass-through logic.

That's, for instance, a discussion which needs to be taken in a framework. And once a decision has been made one or the other day, it could then be one of the ingredients. If you go for a reference rate, then of course, they will determine a kind of logic, how to find that reference rate and put it in place for the first application in the next regulatory period. Return on equity is something which will be determined relatively late in that process, while the logic will then be a little bit derived at beginning of next year so that everybody can already make the maths to some degree, knowing that, of course, the big discussion will be all the time around the risk premium on that one. And that is something we don't have visibility yet. So this will be something which will be determined at the later stage.

And connected to the incentives a little bit similar, what is the basis for that one will be fixed just before the regulatory period is going to be start. So that this then be something we can put into the good fees. But of course, the assumption is that once the scheme has been put in place, we can, of course, make some computation what it will be about.

Coming back on the cost sharing cost allocation, I gave you the whole picture and the broad picture of OTC in the North Sea, but we are also concerned with some of our projects immediately, and we talked about the [ Balnam ] Island project, which is a very important project for us. You know that [ Balnam ] is not in Germany. So it's a collaboration between Germany and Denmark. And we are very, very happy that even if the recipe is not known yet, but the principle for Germany and Denmark to work together on a different cost allocation because there is a need that is different between Germany and Denmark is agreed. And now they will work on how do they allocate the cost not only on the transmission, but also on the parks because the generation parks are in Denmark, but will serve merely also Germany.

And so that's a typical example where we see the limits of the traditional cost allocation and where generally, we are trying to support a more regional approach. And on individual projects, we are happy. one that is very important for us, [indiscernible], we are happy to see that the two governments have agreed to work on an other formula to respect the needs -- different needs of the two countries in presence.

Let's now give the floor to Juan from Kepler Cheuvreux.

I have two follow-up questions, if I may. The first one is on German regulation. You signaled that probably returns will be kept or could go up under the new regulation. And how do you see the affordability for consumers on this framework with greater assets coming in and returns being kept or increasing when we see that there's a big push for affordability in Germany currently? And the second one is on Belgium because if I'm not mistaken, in Q1, you were expecting a 2.8% on the OLE.

Now I see that is at 3.1%. But Yannick just signaled that actually interest rates have been going down since the beginning of the year. So I would like to see better how -- what are you expecting here for the end of the year that actually rates go up for the end of the year? And how this could impact your return on equity and your guidance? These would be the two questions maybe.

Yes. Okay. Maybe I'll take the first one, and then you can take the second question. So on the regulation, I mean, it's all over Europe, the question on affordability is not specifically a German topic. So the reference we made is, of course, the determination of the 4% post-tax rate, which is currently put in place for all investments to be made prior to '23. That's, of course, something which is rather low, taking the 5.6% or 5.5%, which we are currently do see for all investment from '24 onwards or commissioning in '25, you do see there is already a difference which the BHR by itself has being seen as necessity to close. And that's what my statement has referred to.

On the affordability in connection to the return, I must admit that there's two sides of the coin, and that's, of course, understood. It's affordability for the consumer, right? There are big levers in the grid fees on that one, too.

On the other side, it's affordability for us as well as we need to spend the money and raise the money to finance the CapEx. To give it a little bit of perspective, what the government is currently working on in Germany is a kind of, on one hand, a reduction of the taxes on electricity consumption. And secondly, kind of co-financing of the grid fees of the TSOs, a little bit similar mechanism what they have applied during the energy crisis, where they finance a part of the revenue cap of the four German electricity TSOs via the state budget.

And a little bit of similar mechanism is something they are working on, which could reduce then the dispense of the energy-intensive industry as well of the consumer to some degree. And that's a little bit a kind of transitional support for the industry, knowing that, of course, it's not easy then to go out at a certain stage, in particular, if we do see a ramp-up of the consumption, what is the underlying assumption that is going to happen one or the other day due to the decarbonization and further electrification that then the relative burden is on an acceptable level.

And to bridge that period from now till then, that's something they envisage. However, taking the structure into account, it's still the case that the revenue caps of the four TSOs in Germany are consisting only of 25% infrastructure costs for the time being. Vast majority are system operating costs. So -- and the biggest buckets are redispatch costs. So curtailment on congestions. And of course, the assumption is that while increasing capacity, this congestion will go down to a certain degree, which gives a kind of counterbalance on the further cost increase. So that's a little bit the system and the argumentation which we are in. And therefore, to be bluntly, the revenues itself are not heavily impacted by the returns. It's more the depreciation and the system operation costs, which plays a much bigger role there. That being said, we are mindful of that discussion that, of course, the bill needs to be affordable for everybody.

And then for the rates, so the comment that I made was linked to the question on the hybrids. There, what we have seen compared to the beginning of the year, and we are following quite well on hybrids are performing. We've seen there for the hybrids that Elia Group would issue that there the coupon would have been reduced or will reduce. So currently, that would be in the area of 5%, where earlier this year, this was more around 5.5%. And that's why I made this comment.

Now linked to Belgium, when we made the projections on the risk-free rate for Belgium, we used the projections which were made by the federal plan office, which was initially 2.8% for the year '25. As you've seen quite recently, the Federal plan office has revised that to 3.1% which is also what we have used in the guidance and which is matching more or less exactly the average of the OLO over the first half of the year. So we are quite comfortable knowing that we have already 6 months of risk-free rate that, that will be more or less where we end up, knowing, of course, that 10% variability in the risk-free rate will have an impact in Belgium of around EUR 2.5 million on the net results.

10 basis points.

10 basis points.

Now Mafalda from Goldman.

I think most of them have been answered already, but maybe a remaining one about some -- there were some press articles recently with some comments from the German government about potentially, I mean, having a look again whether some consolidation among the German CSOs would make sense. I mean, I appreciate this might be highly theoretical, but just to understand if this is a discussion -- an active discussion with you at this stage. And even if not, what could be the potential impact for Elia?

No, I think the German government can also add up the math and see how much investment is needed if you add up the four TSOs together. What we hear and understand is that also there are huge other type of investments that are happening at the moment, especially in the defense and other areas. As you know, we've worked very, very well and closely with KfW in FCS, and I think it's a very good partnership.

And so far, we understand never say never, but we understand that it doesn't seem the priority at the moment also because they are at least -- and I talk for Elia Group and FMCG. I don't know what happened at the others, but they are very happy about the collaboration, about the way we work together and their participation in FMCG at the level where it is today. But there is no structural discussion on that topic. And I don't think, but I'm not there. I don't think it's a hot topic at the moment.

Thank you, Mal. Then maybe Dirk from ING. Dirk, you still have some questions for us.

Yes, I have some questions left. Maybe also on the Elizabeth Island. It doesn't sound like a huge delay, if I understood the comments correctly. But can you maybe confirm that the timing and start of electricity flows from the initial offshore wind projects is not at risk, as you can say and maybe judge at this point. The other question on the Elizabeth Island is, yes, maybe can you share the storyline on these variation orders and the dispute you have there? Maybe some background for us to get a view.

And the second question I have is on the supply chain more generally, also as it affected the HVDC decision and price inflation. Do you see that easing on the key components now that U.S. has more or less stopped new developments and maybe some postponements here and there in Northern Europe. Do you see the supply chains easing a bit?

Maybe on the Princess Elizabeth Island timing, I maybe need to clarify or be sure about which timing we are talking about because there are many timings. The timing related to the European subsidy is the timing to the build of the island, which I think needed to happen by June '26. It's not by June 30, '26 that we will have all the island connected and so on and so forth. So I suppose that's clear to you. And it's true that the island, and I'm talking under control of my colleague, but we are expecting that it's rather end of '26 that we should have the island completed than June '36. So that's where the delay is limited, but the rule of the subsidy is the rule of the subsidy, and that's what we apply.

In terms of the electrification and the commissioning of the first phase of the island, we are still in the timing we had foreseen. And so there, there is no reason to change that versus the last communication we had. But we are, of course, and that's a puzzle dependent on different decision. As you know, the very good news is that the Belgian government has decided to basically confirm the first 2.1 gigawatt of electric generation in there. But you also know that they relaunched a tender for the very first park, which might have an impact. So we'll have to see how things happen. It's out of our control there. So we are fine on that. But these are uncertainties we've been dealing with along the project. So that's why for the moment, we keep the current deadline as they are. And basically, we will see how it moves on with some factors that we don't control so well, which are, of course, the generation, which is not in our camp.

On the dispute, I just wanted to be sure you could clarify the dispute you're talking about. So if it is about the DC component and the difference, that's what you're referring to, which is not really a dispute because these costs were not engaged and were not even on our CapEx plan, but there was an analysis? Or are you referring on other topics?

No, I think in the half year report, there's a remark in the sidelines on the dispute. And I think it reads like a dispute with the contract.

You're talking telemedicine, right? Well, listen, there, it's also the life of projects and contracts where you can have a situation where there might be a deviation or an expected deviation in realization of the contract, and it's, I think, open and public that one of our supplier for the island has introduced -- has told us that they have difficulties to keep their budget and their timing, but we have also a contract. And so at this moment, we have discussions with them to understand how deep the problem is. But we also believe that it's important to respect the contract that we have in place. And so the discussions are ongoing, but it's difficult to bring new elements on that.

And also, as you could see in the film, at least in terms of delay of the island, maybe helped by the good weather of the moment, but it's moving quite well, given that we have already seven [indiscernible] out of the 23 in the sea. So let's see. But for the moment, no specific update that we can give on that one.

Maybe to a word on the supply chain in general, it remains tight. That's fair to say, in particular, as, of course, Yes. The reason why we stick to our guidance on the CapEx plan is simply that we all booked that to a certain degree, and that's being done all over Europe. And there's quite a heavy pipeline on the supply chain, in particular, on the elements you mentioned like HVDC leading up to the beginning of the 30s. So from then onwards, we do see some flexibility on the supplier side. So that is, of course, helpful in putting all the upcoming projects into a certain order.

From the price perspective, there's another observation we do see it's not going down for the time being, but the dynamics on the increase has been shrinking so that there is a kind of more stable territory, which we are talking about, knowing that, of course, it's still volatile due to the simple fact that on one hand, the exposure to transportation is still big and on raw material as well. And there's a fluctuation on copper, on all this stuff, which you might know, and that's still something to be handled. And of course, we are looking from a procurement side into that, whether we can protect ourselves in derisking future orders on material already, whether we want to, whether we are able to and of course, whether this is something the regulator is accepted as, of course, one or the other day, it could go the other way around as well.

So -- and that's something we do not want to expose neither. So therefore, I would say there's a quite small optimism that we are coming into territory, which is more predictable in the future for any calls of equipment and material.

Thank you very much. And I think that we are now at the end of the Q&A. I believe we all had -- all our analysts had the time to ask us questions. So thank you for that for the interesting questions. If you have any follow-up questions, obviously, you know how to get in touch with me or the team. So I will now hand it back to Marleen to round up today's call.

Thank you, Stephanie. And I would like to close this presentation with thanking some people, Yannick, Stephanie, Bernard and Marco, thank you for being here with us and for your contributions. Thank you also to our colleagues behind the scenes, Helen, Marleen and [ Rbouire ]. We would also like to thank the technical team behind the scenes. So ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us, and enjoy your summer break.