Orsted Aktie

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Ørsted Interim Report for the First Quarter of 2026 Conference Call. I'm Sergen, the Chorus Call operator. [Operator Instructions] And the conference being recorded. [Operator Instructions] At this time, it's my pleasure to turn over to Group President and COO, Rasmus Errboe; and CFO, Trond Westlie. Speakers, please begin.

Hello, everyone, and thank you for joining today's call.

As the world enters its second energy crisis in only 5 years, it is clear that dependence on imported fossil fuels comes at an unacceptably high price for society. Recent events in the Middle East have increased volatility in global energy markets and led to higher energy prices threatening to affect both growth and disposable income. And even if hostilities are rapidly brought to a halt, we can expect the global energy supply and energy markets to take a long time to normalize.

Energy security has become crucial to ensure the resilience and sovereignty of nations around the globe. This is particularly the case for Europe, where the vulnerability and costs associated with dependence on fossil energy imports are unsustainable. The solution is at hand, increase electrification of industry and transport, create a coherent European energy system and accelerate the build-out of renewable energy, not least offshore wind.

Over the past years, we have advocated for strengthened investment certainty for offshore wind through supportive regulatory frameworks. We are now pleased to see positive and concrete changes to policies and regulations, both at regional and national level. With the offshore wind investment pack from January 2026, 9 heads of state agreed on a coherent approach to the build-out of up to 300 gigawatts of offshore wind in the North Sea by 2040, together with industry and transmission system operators, of course.

Concrete changes to regulatory frameworks have taken place at national level, including in the U.K., where the budgets for new offshore wind projects in the recent allocation round 7 were increased. In Denmark, a contract for different (sic) [ difference ] scheme was introduced for the upcoming auction, and we are also seeing a shift towards the so-called CfDs in other European countries, including Belgium and the Netherlands.

At Ørsted, we will continue to work with governments and industry to provide solutions to enable the acceleration of renewable energy. To this end, we launched a paper titled Facts over Perception: The Real Value of Offshore Wind at the recent Wind Europe Conference in Madrid. In the paper, we outlined the benefits that renewables and in particular, offshore wind bring to Europe, and we clarify that an electricity system based on renewables is significantly more affordable than the fossil fuel-based alternative. We show that renewables with offshore wind as a significant component can reduce annual fossil fuel imports by more than 30% of 2024 import levels.

The paper also shows that offshore wind together with other renewables can reduce total European electricity system costs by up to 30% by 2040, as the integration costs of solar and wind are small compared to the large savings from reduced use of fossil fuels in power generation.

And finally, the paper shows that an investment level into offshore wind in line with the ambitions outlined in the offshore wind investment pack can cut annual carbon emissions in Europe by approximately 20% compared to 2023 levels.

In Ørsted, we will contribute by continuing to deliver on our business plan and become a more focused, competitive and stronger company that is ready to selectively invest in the most value-creating opportunities over the coming years to remain the global leader in offshore wind.

Let's continue to Slide 5 and an update on the strategic priorities and operational performance for the first quarter. We continue to progress on the 4 strategic priorities that we introduced in the beginning of 2025. Our first priority is to strengthen our capital structure. And with the completion of the rights issue in 2025 as well as the signing and closing of the transactions in our partnership and divestment program during '25 and early '26, we have delivered strong progress on this.

In late April, we closed the divestment of our European onshore business, and this will be reflected in our accounts for the second quarter. Likewise, we still expect the divestment of a 55% stake in our Greater Changhua 2 project to close in the third quarter of 2026 following the commissioning of the Greater Changhua 2b and 4 project.

Our second priority is to deliver on our 8.1 gigawatt offshore wind construction portfolio. We have achieved significant milestones during the quarter, which includes the delivery of first power at Revolution Wind as well as a successful installation of the first turbines at Sunrise Wind. I will shortly go through the details of the construction progress across the portfolio.

Our third priority is to ensure a focused and disciplined approach to capital allocation, where our focus going forward primarily will be on offshore wind in Europe and select markets in APAC. With the measures we have taken to strengthen our capital structure and financial foundation, we are in a position to pursue new value-creating opportunities within offshore wind.

Our fourth priority is to improve our competitiveness, and we are progressing as planned on numerous measures. This includes the initiatives within our trading and revenue function as well as our generation organization. In addition, we are delivering according to plan on our announced adjustments to our organization, so it will become more efficient and more flexible.

Turning to the operational highlights of the first quarter. I am pleased with the operational performance. Our EBITDA, excluding new partnerships and cancellation fees amount to DKK 9.5 billion for the first quarter, which is an increase of more than 10% compared to the first quarter of 2025. This was driven by ramp-up generation in offshore wind and also slightly higher than normal wind speeds. The performance was also supported by the good availability rates within our offshore business, which stood around 93% for the quarter.

The renewable share of generation stood at 98%, slightly lower than the level for the first quarter of 2025 due to higher gas usage at our power stations following the colder weather conditions.

When it comes to safety, while there was an increase in our total recordable injury rate of around 11% in the first quarter, we remain on track to deliver on our target for the full year. Safety remains a top priority for us and our employees, and we continue to strengthen our safety commitments through targeted initiatives and sharing of best practices with suppliers, all aimed at preventing incidents and bringing our people home safe every single day. We have consecutively reduced our total recordable injury rate over the past 4 years, and we will continue working towards reducing it again this year.

Let's turn to Slide 6 and an overview of our construction projects. I will cover the more advanced projects individually and in more details as usual on the next slides, while putting a few remarks on the remainder of the construction portfolio here.

For Borkum Riffgrund 3, we are continuing the commissioning of turbines with 80% of the turbines having produced first power. Following adverse weather conditions for commissioning works during the first quarter, combined with ongoing unplanned grid outages from the transmission system operator and grid curtailment, the commissioning and testing of the turbines have progressed slower than planned and the full commissioning of the project is now expected in the third quarter of 2026. All foundations and turbines are installed and with the high share of turbines that have delivered first power, combined with the higher-than-assumed power prices, the slight commissioning delay only has a marginal financial impact.

For Baltica 2, the project continues to progress as planned and has, as of last week, achieved a significant milestone with the installation of the first monopile foundations. With the solid progress during the past quarter, the degree of completion has increased to 30%, up from 25% last quarter. This includes further progress in the fabrication of foundations with all foundations for turbines and offshore substations completed and nearly half of the turbine foundations ready for load out at the Harbour site. The manufacturing of the structures for the offshore substations is complete. Tests are ongoing for electrical equipment and all 4 top sites will be transported to the site for installation in the second half of this year.

Fabrication of the export cables and the array cables are also progressing as planned. The onshore buildings are finalized. Majority of electrical equipment are in process of being installed and the onshore export cable installation is on schedule. In the coming period, the installation work of turbine and substation monopile foundations will continue.

For Hornsea 3, we have made significant progress. We have commenced the installation of turbine foundations, pulled the export cable onshore to meet its onshore counterpart and successfully installed the first of the project's 2 offshore converter stations. With these achievements, the project is now approximately 25% complete, up from 10% at the fourth quarter of 2025.

As we have noted in the past, the project is dependent on timely connection to the transmission grid in circumstances where several renewable energy projects are currently under construction. We have collaborated closely with National Grid Electricity Transmission and also National Grid Electricity System Operator, NESO. Regarding the timing of the grid connection in order to keep first power and commissioning on track. However, National Grid have informed us of a grid connection delay, which impacts our critical path by up to 2 months, resulting from National Grid's enabling and reinforcement works at the Norwich Main substation, where Hornsea 3 is due to connect to the U.K. transmission system.

While we have been able to absorb the majority of the delay within the project's contingency, we now anticipate first power in Q1 2027 and commissioning in the 6-month period between Q4 '27 and Q1 '28. We will continue to work with National Grid as they work to minimize the delay and mitigate any further delays from occurring and impacting the schedule.

We expect minor financial implications as it is primarily a shift of ramp-up generation and slightly higher project costs that are absorbed within the typical variance of project budgets during the construction phase. Remaining construction work continues to progress, both onshore and offshore with other key milestones on schedule.

Turning to Slide 7 and an update on our Greater Changhua 2b and 4 project in Taiwan. With the progress achieved during the quarter, the degree of completion is now at 80%, up from 75% in Q4 '25. The project ensured further progress during the quarter as the installation of array cables has been completed and the cables have been terminated. At this stage, 38 of the 66 turbines have been commissioned and are producing power and the commissioning works of the remaining turbines is ongoing.

The project remains focused on the installation and energization of the export cable, which will resume works to replace the export cable for the Greater Changhua 2b section. Onshore works related to this is ongoing and the replacement work offshore will commence later this quarter. The project remains on schedule for commissioning during Q3 2026.

Turning to Slide 8 and an update on our Northeast program, starting with Revolution Wind. During the first quarter, the project continued to progress and achieved a significant milestone as the project achieved first power in March. The project has currently installed 60 of the 65 turbines, and we intend to install the remaining 5 turbines. The project is assessing all available options to complete turbine installations safely and efficiently.

With the progress achieved during the quarter, the degree of completion has now increased to 94%, up from 87% in January '26. At this stage, the project continues to focus on progressing commissioning activities towards full commercial operations in the second half of 2026.

Turning now to Slide 9 and an update on the progress at Sunrise Wind. During the quarter, the project has continued to make progress and achieved an important milestone as the first turbines have successfully been installed. Of the 84 positions, a total of 5 turbines have been installed.

In addition, the installation of the export cable is nearing completion and the far shore section of the export cable was pulled into the offshore converter station and connect -- and joined to the mid-shore section after completing nearshore installation in the fourth quarter last year. With the progress achieved during the quarter, the degree of completion has increased to 47%, up from 45% in January 2026.

In terms of fabrication progress, all turbine foundations remaining to be installed have now been fabricated and are either loaded onto installation vessels or transported to storage ahead of installation. All nacelles, all towers and all blade sets have also been fabricated with only a low number of blade sets awaiting final painting, which will be completed later this year.

On the onshore substation, the second of the 2 circuits have been energized and the commissioning continued to progress according to schedule. In the coming period, the project will continue to progress the installation of turbines and finalize the burial of the offshore export cable.

In addition, installation of turbine foundations will continue as the time of year restrictions lift and the installation of array cables is planned to start during the quarter as well. The project is expected to start commissioning of turbines later this year.

With this, let me hand over the word to you, Trond.

Thank you, Rasmus, and good afternoon, everyone.

Let's start from my side on Slide 11 and the EBITDA for the first quarter of '26. And as always, unless I state otherwise, the numbers I refer to will be in Danish kroner. In the quarter, we had a strong operational performance and delivered EBITDA, excluding new partnerships and cancellation fees of DKK 9.5 billion, which is an increase of more than 10% compared to same quarter last year.

Let me walk you through the main developments. For our offshore business, the overall site's earnings came in DKK 700 million higher compared to last year. The wind speeds in the quarter were slightly higher than the norm and significantly higher than the first quarter of '25. In addition, our earnings benefited from higher power and ROC prices. These effects were partly offset by trading results that despite a good performance over the quarter, were lower than last year as well as step-downs in subsidies at Gode Wind 1 and 2 and Borkum Riffgrund 2.

Earnings within existing partnership increased compared to last year, mainly related to construction agreements at Borkum Riffgrund 3 and Hornsea 3. The other costs within offshore improved mainly from lower fixed costs. In our onshore business, earnings increased by approximately DKK 200 million compared to last year. The increase was primarily due to sale of an early-stage development project in the U.S. onshore and sale and leaseback of land at 3 operational projects located in the U.S. Most of our U.S. onshore projects are built on land leased from third-party landowners, and this transaction is viewed as an optimization of the U.S. onshore portfolio. With our existing partners, we will continue to own and operate the projects.

Within Bioenergy and Other, earnings in our combined heat and power business decreased by approximately DKK 300 million, driven by lower earnings from ancillary services. As a result of increased market entries and auction changes for ancillary services, we see higher competition, which is driving prices downward and lowered the volumes we have sold. This change also means that contribution within the segment will expectedly will be lower going forward.

Let's turn to Slide 12. In the first quarter of '26, we incurred a noncash impairment loss of DKK 1.4 billion across our U.S. offshore and onshore assets, driven by increase in the long-dated U.S. interest rates. On our net profit, the quarter totaled DKK 2.6 billion. While we had a higher EBITDA, the net profit was impacted by 2 noncash accounting impacts being the impairment loss that I just described as well as the tax effect. The main tax effects are a deferred tax equity liability at Revolution Wind and Old 300 BESS as we received initial tax equity contributions during the quarter. The tax effect of that totaling just short of DKK 900 million.

We expect to monetize the majority of the tax credits for the Revolution Wind project via the transferability market, and we will, therefore, not see further impacts on our tax from the Revolution Wind tax credit monetization. On the tax elements, for more detail, I refer you to Note 10 in our quarterly report for more details.

Adjusted for impairments and cancellation fees, our return on capital employed came in at 8.6%, a decrease compared to last year due to a higher capital employed. The reported ROCE came in at 4.6%.

Turning to Slide 13 and our net interest-bearing debt and credit metrics. At the end of Q1, our net debt amounted to DKK 21.3 billion, representing an increase of DKK 2 billion during the quarter. Cash flow from operating activities include contribution from our operational earnings as well as taxes paid and changes in other working capital. This also includes a tax equity contribution related to Revolution Wind as we entered into a tax equity structure with a partner for a portion of the project's tax credits.

Divestments include the sale of a development project in the U.S. onshore and sale and leaseback of land in the U.S., as mentioned before. Our gross investments amounted to DKK 2 billion, reflecting the continued investment into our renewable construction projects.

Our credit metric, FFO to adjusted net debt stood approximately at 42% at the end of the first quarter, which is well in line with our target of more than 30%. The increase is driven by an increase in funds from operation over the last 12 months, the proceeds from the rights issue and closing the Hornsea 3 transaction. At the end of the quarter, we had a total liquidity reserve of more than DKK 115 billion.

Finally, let's turn to Slide 14 and our outlook for '26. With the strong operational performance in the quarter, we maintain our full year EBITDA guidance, excluding new partnership and cancellation fees of more than DKK 28 billion. We still expect the offshore business to come in higher than last year, the onshore and Bioenergy earnings in line with 2025. On CapEx, we also maintain our gross investment guidance for '26 of DKK 50 billion to DKK 55 billion.

And with that, we will now open for questions. Operator, please?

[Operator Instructions] First question coming from Harry Wyburd from BNP Paribas.

I'm afraid it's a bit of a catching one on Iran. So very clear and I think probably shared by a lot of people that Iran is going to provide a significant boost on electrification, which is supportive.

But aside from that, what other effects are you ready for or expecting from the conflicts; and 2, in particular that I'd be interested to hear about. One is, given your portfolio, your hedging and some of the changes you've made in the past to the way you hedge, what exposure would you have to the changes in power prices that you've seen in your regions since earlier in the year?

And then also probably more importantly, how ready do you feel for the inevitable disruption and inflation that's coming in a few months' time? Obviously, that's something that you've perhaps changed your processes around over the last few years. How confident can we be that you would be able to weather not just cost inflation in your supply chain, but also physical disruption and shortages and so on?

Thank you, Harry. So let's take them one by one. If we take the supply chain angle to your question first, we -- the ongoing crisis in the Middle East has a marginal impact on our supply chain across the projects that we are currently constructing. We -- of course, fuel costs are going up, et cetera. But if you look at the totality of the project economics in our 6 projects under construction across 3 continents, it is a marginal effect.

If you look at the power prices, as you also partly hinted to, our business model is basically that we have a very high degree of regulated earnings. And we also hedge to a large extent, the remaining power price exposure we have in our portfolio. So that also means that we have a sort of marginal upside from the power prices spikes that you see across sort of Europe in particular right now. Power prices are now roughly double the level that they were at before the crisis. But again, it doesn't have a meaningful effect on our portfolio simply because of that we have regulated earnings, we have CfDs and corporate PPAs in our portfolio.

Then, of course, on a longer horizon, we, as everybody else, are, of course, looking out for and are sort of considering additional potential disruption, inflation, et cetera. And it is something that is sort of clearly manageable for us with the exposures we have and also something we, of course, can take into account when we decide to move the new opportunities forward. So it is something that we are prepared for.

The next question comes from Peter Bisztyga from Bank of America.

Yes. Can I sort of ask you to sort of maybe expand on the other aspect of that question vis-a-vis electrification. We have this AccelerateEU document from the European Commission a couple of weeks ago. Is there anything concrete in there from your perspective that could be specifically beneficial to your business and offshore wind? Or is it just sort of kind of rehash of previous EC documents? And what kind of would you like to see in EC commentary regarding this whole acceleration of electrification process?

Thank you very much, Peter. Yes, you are right that what the second energy crisis in 5 years makes very evident in our view is the need for a significant ramp-up of renewables across Europe for affordability reasons, for sort of strategic sovereignty reasons, et cetera. So that's obviously very, very clear.

And we also are starting to see very good progress on the regulatory front. You could say Europe are truly sort of at its best when they are under pressure. We saw it in the beginning of this century on the financial crisis. We've seen it on COVID. We've seen it on Ukraine. And we're also, in our view, seeing it now.

I think the North Sea Summit is a good example of that, where you saw 9 member states standing shoulder to shoulder committing to a build-out of up to 300 gigawatts of offshore wind towards 2050. And on top of that, we also see improved regulatory frameworks across several of our key markets, U.K., Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland. And then we are, of course, looking out for Germany in the coming months.

Specifically on the AccelerateEU that you are alluding to, in our view, it rightly places electrification and renewable deployment at the center of Europe's energy security and competitiveness agenda. And this sort of continued focus on grids interconnections and also cross-border infrastructure that is part of the AccelerateEU plan is exactly what we would like to see to sort of install investor confidence in sort of this significant deployment of renewables. That is what we need to see. We need basically predictability.

If you just take one factor and then I'm done on grids more specifically, grid investments in Europe need to double in our view to around DKK 100 billion per year going forward, which will mainly be driven by growing demand and also an aging -- aging our European grid. So that's sort of roughly 75% of the investments, and then partly by increased solar and wind integration as part of the energy mix, that is roughly the remaining 25%. So this massive investment in grid, we are sort of seeing as a need to have, and therefore, we also appreciate the AccelerateEU.

The next question comes from Lars Heindorff from Nordea.

It's more specific on your own activities. You addressed it in your opening remarks about Borkum Riffgrund and Hornsea, and I know there's a compensation for the delay in Borkum. But for Hornsea, just to be clear, you think you mentioned that it was insignificant, but it's still 6 months delay. Just out of curiosity, will you bear the burden for that delay in terms of grid connection for Hornsea 3? Or how is the structure of that deal?

Lars, just to be clear, it is not a 6-month delay. So what is -- so the facts are that on the back of the sort of dialogue we have had with National Grid, which, by the way, have been sort of good and open and constructive. We have decided to adjust our expectations for COD of Hornsea 3 with up to 2 months.

So therefore, when you look at what we are sort of communicating, we are basically saying that instead of having an expectation for COD sometimes during H2 2027, we have to be cautious, updated the guidance so that you can expect COD sometimes during Q4 '27 and Q1 '28. So we have moved it, you can say, with 3 months. But as I said, we expect up to a 2 months delay.

And just to be clear, the financial impact on the business case, if you will, here, is assessed to be minor for us. Everything that is within our control is moving forward exactly according to plan. And then, of course, you can expect sort of minor impacts to the earnings profile between '26, '27 and '28. But again, as of now, assessed to be manageable and assessed to be minor.

And then you had an additional question. And it is -- and that is in terms of sort of who bears the burden. It is a developer risk. It is us who bears the risk of delays on grid in the U.K. That is the framework we have. That is the same for all developers, and it has been like that for as long as I can remember.

The next question comes from Alberto Gandolfi from Goldman Sachs.

I wanted to ask you, when do you think you'll be in a position to actually materially step up investments? When can you deploy capital? Is it when Sunrise starts operations? Or do you think this could be done a bit earlier because you sense perhaps a change in stance by the U.S. administration, considering that it is not a pre injunction and considering that there have been deals on seabed. So can you maybe talk about growth in the context of pending regulatory risk in the U.S.?

Thank you, Alberto. So yes, first of all, we have firm ground under our feet on our capital structure. As you know, we have delivered on our plan. It is one of our 4 strategic priorities. The equity raise went as planned. We have outperformed on our farm-down program, raised DKK 47 billion relative to the more than DKK 35 billion we had expected. And we have farm-down under our feet on our capital structure. We are -- part of it all along has, of course, also been that we are putting ourselves in a position where we can invest, and that is also the case now.

So that will mean that if you look at Europe as an example, there is no doubt that you are starting to see a rather significant step-up in relevant offshore wind opportunities with the right frameworks in our core markets. And we will, of course, assess them one by one with a razor sharp focus on value more than anything.

I don't guide sort of specifically on volume because it's not the way we think we focus on value, and we will only move forward what we believe is where it needs to be in that regard. But we are there and we are ready to selectively invest in our core markets.

Then specifically with respect to sort of the U.S. regulatory risk that you are alluding to, I would say we move forward here as planned ever since day 1 of this situation, if you will, we have had a focus on -- we've had a legal track, we've had a dialogue track, and we are focusing on delivering on our construction across 2 projects. And I am satisfied with the fact that they are both moving forward exactly according to plan with degrees of completion now of 94% for Revolution Wind and 47% for Sunrise.

So of course, we have made a 3-year turnaround plan for us that we are 5 quarters into the plan. We will continue to deliver on the plan quarter-over-quarter. And of course, when we come out on the other side, we will, of course, have even more headroom to invest should the right opportunities be there.

The next question comes from Mark Freshney from UBS.

Trond, I was intrigued when you mentioned that you've got some tax equity done on Revolution. We spoke about this before. There are some stop orders still technically in place on the U.S. projects, which may make it more tricky. And I understand that there's about DKK 25 billion that you would hope to get through ITC credits. Can you give us any more color on the quantum of what you've managed to do on Revolution and the confidence you would have on tax equity there?

And if I may ask a question on the U.S. onshore business. It seems that I think you've got some BESS under construction. and some European projects under construction, which will go with the transaction that you announced. But it seems that onshore business has very, very little under construction and some of the opportunities, U.S. onshore are very good in solar and BESS. So can you talk about what might be on the horizon there and growth in that business?

Well, Mark, thank you for that. When it comes to the tax equity plan, we are following it as we have been planning for quite some time. So the agreement with the partner came in just before first power as it needed to be. And we are progressing with the plans. And will start the -- to sell the transferability during the remainder of the year.

So -- but when it comes to your numbers on the DKK 25 billion estimate, we have just started with Revolution, which is the smaller part of this. Sunrise will then ramp up during the year and will probably not come into effect late this year or beginning next year. So that's really the plan as a result of the development of the projects.

Coming then...

It seems like you're very well progressed with the plans and you've made excellent progress. Is that fair?

Well, I think we have made the progress that we expected to do. We are, of course, dependent on the market and the market reception relative to find buyers for the transferability. So the political uncertainty in the U.S. still prevails. So yes, we have come to the position and we have planned to be more. And as a result of the uncertainty, we believe that's a good place to be.

And Mark, on the U.S. onshore, just sort of the facts first. So we have an operational portfolio of 6 gigawatts, roughly 3.5 gigawatts wind and 2.5 gigawatts solar and battery. And right now, we have, as you also alluded to, we have Old 300 BESS, 250-megawatt battery under construction. And then earlier during Q1, we COD better wind.

And if you look at it from a development pipeline perspective, we have 6 to 7 gigawatts of capacity that will meet the [ IRS ] definition of qualification through 2029. So a very good and very solid business that continues to deliver for us. And in terms of sort of a forward-looking perspective, we do have a couple of mature projects in our development pipeline that we could very well decide to move towards FIDs during 2026.

And then as you know, we have, over the past 9 months, completed a process of uniting and separating out the U.S. onshore business. So basically making it a stand-alone organization so that we can drive value through lower overhead costs and reduced global and U.S. complexities and also more clear governance. So we are in a good place on our U.S. onshore business.

The next question comes from Ahmed Farman from Jefferies.

Yes. I had a similar question to one of the earlier ones about sort of the medium-term opportunity and the CapEx plan.

On your Slide 34, you have listed almost 7 offshore wind tender auctions that are in 2026. Could you just help us a little bit sort of say a little bit about which one of these are sort of most relevant for Ørsted, where are you best positioned? I would have thought Taiwan, but we would love to hear a little bit more around -- get more color around your positioning into some of these auctions.

Thank you, Ahmed. So at the risk of sounding a little bit annoying, I typically never give any indications as to which tenders we plan to participate in. I prefer to have that conversation after the tender results has come out, and that is still the case.

So if we talk about it more sort of from a framework perspective, the framework in Denmark is sort of twoway CfDs capped, but twoway CfDs, it's a core market. The framework in the Netherlands and Belgium are also moving towards CfD, also part of our sort of European -- core European focus. As you also alluded to, there is a tender coming up, I believe it is in Q3 in Taiwan, also a market that we are active in. And obviously, we will also assess that like we assess the others.

And on top of that, we also have sort of an expectation that during 2027, you would see a significant pickup in relevant tenders in Germany, very likely based on CfDs as well, which we believe is the only right way forward here as well. So you are starting to see across our core markets quite a few relevant tenders for us. And then, of course, the U.K., we have moved -- as we have talked about a few times, we have moved Hornsea 4 back into development. We are moving that forward well and according to plan, and we will be able to participate with that project should we decide to do so from AR9 and onwards. And in addition to that, we are moving forward our other pipeline opportunities in Korea, in Australia, Isle of Man, et cetera. So we are moving our pipeline forward.

The next question comes from Dominic Nash from Barclays.

I'm going to ask a question about decoupling gas and power prices, which I think is a theme going across the whole of Europe. And I'd be interested in your take on the initiatives that we are seeing on potentially adopting carbon -- changes in the carbon price like we've seen with the CPS in the U.K., but potentially elsewhere, whether or not you see further decoupling initiatives in other markets and so clearly on the U.K., where we've had the -- we're going to be -- we have a consultation in the coming weeks. What your thoughts are on the impact of decoupling and of potential CfDs on your brown energy prices in your [indiscernible]?

Thank you very much. So of course, we have noted the debate on sort of decoupling across several of our core markets. And of course, if you just take a fact, if you take Italy as an example, I believe the power prices in Italy during Q1 were around DKK 130 per megawatt hour. And I believe that gas was the price setting technology 89% of the time.

And then if you look at Spain, same period of time, I think the energy prices were around DKK 42 per megawatt hour on average across the first quarter. And here, gas is only price setting at 15% of the time. So of course, we -- of course, we understand the dialogue in some of these markets.

That being said, we do not expect any updates regulatory in our key markets. We also think that there was a pretty firm perspective from the European Commission. It's obviously also a trade-off also between creating the necessary investor certainty. And we do not believe it is the right path forward to change some absolutely essential fundamentals in the power market due to spikes.

The way to solve the affordability challenge for the longer term is to switch the energy system in Europe towards a much larger degree of renewables over time. That is the cheapest solution for society rather than changing the marginal pricing system.

The next question comes from Rob Pulleyn from Morgan Stanley.

I just return to the question of future growth. You obviously mentioned quite a few tenders there, Rasmus. We also talked about onshore. Given, of course, you're executing on a large amount of projects, and I think it's fair to say Ørsted has used a lot of its seabed acreage outside of the United States. Should we also be considering that you may pursue different ways of finding future growth, i.e., would you be open to consolidation farming into other projects, seeking new markets? I noticed you mentioned Australia or outright M&A to restock the growth pipeline given your balance sheet capacity. I'd love to hear the thoughts.

Thank you very much. Our approach to growth within offshore wind is basically split across 3 buckets. And the main bucket, no doubt, when we look forward is actually going to be through tenders because for the reasons you also alluded to that we have discussed on this call that we do see tender frameworks moving very much in the right direction, including an increased willingness to pay in our core markets. So that is -- that is by far -- that is a very relevant growth avenue, probably by far the biggest.

On top of that, we obviously also have a proprietary pipeline. You also alluded to it. We have a proprietary seabed in the U.K. with Hornsea 4. We have it in Korea. We have it in Australia that you also alluded to. So we also have proprietary seabed, and that is also an avenue that we will continue to pursue.

There are also, as an example, in the U.K., there is the next lease round coming up next year also tendering out seabed. I mentioned a few other opportunities also before. So that is also an avenue for us.

And of course, the last one is, you can say, project-by-project M&A. If we do that, we only do it where we can see the value. Obviously, and you should not expect us to sort of go in at projects that are very mature. So it would just be another way to doing development in -- potentially with partners.

From a -- as we have also talked about a few times before, from -- also from a risk management perspective going forward, you can expect that us -- they will, to an increasing extent, be going into partnerships when we develop offshore wind.

The next question comes from Louis Boujard from ODDO BHF.

Maybe just a follow-up on this M&A topic and the potential for partnership. You mentioned in the possibilities to seek for future growth with different projects in which you have already some options, but there is also upcoming option that could be expected eventually in France with some option in terms of partnership. Is it an area that you would eventually look at in the next few months? And is something that where you could eventually find some opportunities going forward considering that in the past, it was not necessarily your core markets?

Thank you, Louis. We will, of course, continue to monitor all offshore wind markets in Europe where we see strong bottom fixed opportunities. And then we will decide on an individual opportunity, taking into account the value and the potential pipeline fit. That is as far as I can take it in terms of new opportunities within Central Europe.

The next question comes from James Carmichael from Berenberg. Cut off line. Okay. Next question comes from Richard Alderman from BTIG.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Just following up on Rob's question just now around different M&A or investment opportunities. Equinor management today in the call earlier on this morning described themselves as a long-term industrial holder, a happy long-term industrial holder of their 10% stake. But -- in a slight change of tone from what they were saying at the full year call, they mentioned 3 times that the offshore industry is in need of consolidation. How do you see that statement in terms of your thoughts around the overall industry?

And as opposed to sort of answering the question that people keep asking around the market around the potential for merger in the long-term, could you consider maybe asset swapping or pulling assets into structures that might create value for you in terms of servicing or operations, cost savings, et cetera?

Thank you, Richard. Richard, I don't want to speculate about potential future M&A asset swaps, consolidation, et cetera. What I can say is that our focus is to deliver on our plan. As I said before, we are sort of 5 quarters into the turnaround, and it is going quite well, and I am very satisfied with the progress we have made.

We are also very pleased to have Equinor as a key shareholder, and we have a very good dialogue with Equinor like we have with all of our key shareholders. So that is basically as far as I can take it. I don't want to speculate in consolidation. I think already now you are seeing that there are fewer relevant players, if you will, on offshore wind in Europe as I see it right now. So the field has already narrowed in the last 3 to 4 years.

Next question comes from Deepa Venkateswaran from Bernstein.

It is a follow-up on some of the markets with upcoming tenders. So more specifically, I wanted to check about South Korea, you have a project Incheon, but I wasn't very sure if it was advanced enough to be eligible to participate in the upcoming auction? Or is this, in your view, further out auction?

Similarly, on Taiwan, more of a clarification. I understand that there's like a floor price of $70 per megawatt hour. But then if you want to price above that, then you need a PPA. And I believe people have been struggling with PPAs in Taiwan. So I just was interested in hearing your comments on these 2 markets.

Deepa, thank you very much. So if we take them one by one, Korea, the short answer is no. We will not -- we don't have any plans to participate in the tender that is ongoing right now. It is too soon for us. We have been granted an electricity business license, it is called an EBL to develop an offshore wind project off the coast of Incheon of up to 1.4 gigawatt. And it's actually moving forward quite well and according to plan. We have completed site investigations, and we are progressing permitting activities so that we can participate in future offshore wind auctions in Korea.

And then as part of that, we have entered into MOUs with KOEN and POSCO for the project and thereby sort of laying the foundation for an equity partnership that would combine our experience and expertise also with KOEN's deep knowledge of Korea's power market. And then with POSCO, it will be to explore opportunities or we have explored opportunities of supplying high-strength steel, et cetera, for the project -- for the EPC part of the project. So you can say the development is moving forward according to plan, and we will assess this once relevant like we do in our other markets.

And then in Taiwan, you are right that it's a bit of a -- how should I put it? It's a bit of a hybrid market. It is a PPA market, but it is a market where you can enter into long-term PPAs that have sort of very similar sort of characteristics with the CfD. We have been quite successful in our own view on the projects we have in Taiwan in entering into long-term corporate PPAs with TSMC. And we, of course, assess, as always, the depth and the pricing and the robustness of the PPA market in the countries we are in. We also do it here, and we are not sort of as such concerned on that part going forward.

If I could just follow-up. Why have so many projects in Taiwan not gone ahead recently, not yours, other people, and they're all saying they're not getting PPAs. So I'm just wondering, is there a disconnect?

Deepa, I don't think it is for me to opine on why other people are not moving forward with their projects. That doesn't feel right.

What I can say is that if we look forward, the tender framework that is being put forward in Taiwan for the upcoming round is sort of based in a way also where local content is a smaller part of it, et cetera. But it is not for me to speak on other people's behalf.

As far as us, the construction for our project is moving forward according to plan on Changhua 2b and 4, and that was also the case broadly on Changhua 1 and 2a. So I think that's as far as I can take it.

The next question comes from James Carmichael from Berenberg.

I think I am not sure I have never -- I was just wanted to go back to the Italian power prices that you referenced. I think it's DKK 130 per megawatt hour. Obviously, quite high when compared to the Spain example. But I guess if I was to put the AR7 prices in there, they'd be towards the top end of the range.

So just -- I know you've guided to 30% cost reductions over the next sort of 10 years or so. But just wondering if there's anything that can be done in the near term to bring offshore wind costs down and obviously [indiscernible] power prices.

Yes. And just to be clear, we are not active in Italy. It was just an example to basically show the impact of renewable penetration relative to gas in terms of the effect of what is the price saving technology in a given market.

But in terms of what is needed to bring down the cost for offshore wind, it is predictability. It is predictability on volumes. It is predictability on tender frameworks. It is standardization, and it is a commitment also from the industry to deliver.

And I do we see -- I do believe that we see actually quite a bit of all of that right now. As an example, on the supply chain front, just the last 3 years, you have seen investments in European supply of around EUR 14 billion across ports, vessels and manufacturing. And you're also seeing companies, including Ørsted, who are strategically focused on being there and build offshore wind in Europe. And I think you have more examples of that. So those are some of the drivers to basically bring down cost for offshore wind towards 2040.

The last question comes from Mark Freshney from UBS.

Sorry, my question has just been answered.

Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, that was the last question. I would now like to turn the conference back over to Rasmus Errboe for any closing remarks.

Thank you all very much for joining. We appreciate the interaction. We appreciate the interest. And as always, if you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to reach out our IR team they will, of course, be here to answer them. Thank you. Stay safe, and have a great day.

Welcome to this Ørsted Q4 2025 Earnings Call. [Operator Instructions]

The conference must not be recorded for publication or broadcast. Today's speakers are Group President and CEO, Rasmus Errboe and CFO, Trond Westlie, Speakers, please begin.

Hello, everyone, and thank you for joining today's call. 2025 has been a defining year for Ørsted. We have taken significant steps to solidify our financial foundation and improve the robustness of our business. At the outset of the year, we stepped away from our long-term capacity ambitions and established 4 strategic priorities to secure a more focused and competitive [ Ørsted ].

We have sharpened our strategy to focus on maintaining our global leadership position within offshore wind with an emphasis on our core markets in Europe and select markets in APAC, where we have a distinct competitive advantage and can leverage our unique offshore wind capabilities.

As the global leader in offshore wind, we will continue working with governments, industry and investors to strengthen the conditions required to support future offshore wind development. At the recent North Sea Summit in Hamburg Monday last week, Governments in our core markets demonstrated their willingness to strengthen these conditions when they signed the Joint Offshore Wind Investment Pact for the North Sea's alongside the wind industry and transmission system operators. The pact will turn the North Sea into the green power plant of Europe, reaffirming 300 gigawatt of offshore wind capacity by 2050 and charting a path of more evenly distributed offshore build-out between 2031 and 2040 with up to 15 gigawatt installed capacity per year in Europe, which includes a sound investment framework for offshore renewables through mechanisms such as national and cross-border 2-sided contracts for difference.

This will unlock massive investments in Europe in the coming decades and is a giant leap towards powering Europe with renewables, secure and cost competitive electricity. Further, the agreement between the Danish and German government to develop the Bornholm Energy Island will strengthen energy security and deliver enough affordable electricity to power the equivalent of more than 3 million German and Danish homes. The agreement reached at the North Sea Summit are very positive framework developments for future offshore wind opportunities in Europe. And with our focused strategy on offshore wind in Europe, we are ready to invest in the build-out. Throughout 2025, we have executed on our 4 strategic priorities, and these will remain our focus over the coming years. Let me go through our progress across each priority.

Our first priority is to strengthen our capital structure, and we have delivered significant progress on this during 2025. A key part was the completion of the rights issue, and we are thankful for the strong support we received from our shareholders. The completion of the rights issue supports our target of a solid investment-grade rating, and it is -- and it has reinforced our ability to realize the full value potential of our existing portfolio and capture future value-creating offshore wind opportunities. As part of the updated targets presented in connection with the rights issue, we plan to secure more than DKK 35 billion in proceeds through our partnership and divestment program across 2025 and 2026.

The transactions signed during 2025 and early into this year amount to around DKK 46 billion in proceeds, and we have thus exceeded our projections and finalized the program ahead of our expected time line. Pending closing in 2026 of the transactions already signed related to Greater Changhua 2 and our European onshore business, this includes the closing of divestments related to stakes in Hornsea 3, West of Duddon Sands and 3 U.S. onshore projects. Another important element in supporting our capital structure and financial foundation is the continued performance of our operational portfolio. Despite wind speeds below the norm throughout the year, we have delivered DKK 25.1 billion of EBITDA, in line with our guidance.

This is mainly driven by an increase in the availability across our offshore portfolio due to strong performance every single night and day by our generation team. Our second priority is to deliver on our 8.1 gigawatt offshore wind construction portfolio, and we have seen significant progress across the portfolio throughout 2025. Some of the major milestones achieved include the commissioning of Gode Wind 3 as well as delivering first power at Borkum Riffgrund 3 in Germany. And in Taiwan, we have completed the installation of turbines and delivered first power at Greater Changhua 2b and 4.

In the U.S., we have progressed well on several installation scopes, including completing the installation of all 3 offshore substations for our 2 projects. All of these milestones are delivered under complex and dynamic conditions and are attributable to a strong risk and execution management by our EPC organization and our project teams. I will shortly go through the continued construction progress in detail. But first, I want to touch on the lease suspension orders that our 2 offshore -- U.S. offshore projects, Revolution Wind and Sunrise Wind received from the U.S. Department of the Interior, BOEM, requiring the projects to suspend all ongoing activities on the Outer Continental Shelf for the following 90 days. Both project companies pursued litigation in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia separately, including motions for preliminary injunctions against the orders while the lawsuits over them proceed.

Revolution Wind's motion for preliminary injunction was granted on January 12, 2026, and Sunrise Wind's motion for a preliminary injunction was granted on February 2, 2026. Both projects have subsequently resumed work of the halted activities while their lawsuits over the orders proceed, and we are determining how it may be possible to work with the U.S. administration to achieve an expeditious and durable solution. Our third priority is to ensure a focused and disciplined approach to capital allocation, always prioritizing value over volume with a strategic emphasis on offshore wind opportunities in Europe and select markets in APAC.

During the year, we demonstrated this disciplined approach in relation to Hornsea 4, which we are now reconfiguring for potential future development. The decision was taken prior to incurring significant breakaway costs, and we continue to hold the seabed lease, grid connection and key permits. In November, we secured the rights under the Irish tender to develop the 900-megawatt fixed bottom offshore wind farm Tonn Nua, alongside with our partner, ESB. As a potential final investment decision will not be until early 2030s, this is an early-stage opportunity and the project needs to be assessed and matured through our stage-gate process, including meeting our value creation criteria. Finally, on our fourth priority, we have also taken steps in improving our competitiveness with the announcements of significant adjustments to our organization.

Due to the sharpened strategic focus of our business going forward and the fact that we'll be finalizing our large construction portfolio in the coming years, we will adjust our organization accordingly to become more efficient and flexible.

Let's turn to Slide 5, where we'll talk through some of the operational highlights for the full year. First, I am pleased with the operational performance with our EBITDA, excluding new partnerships and cancellation fees amounting to DKK 25.1 billion for the full year, driven by strong availability rates within our offshore business, which stood at 93% for the full year. This ensured a material earnings contribution and is an increase of 5 percentage points compared to last year. Also, we delivered a net profit of DKK 3.2 billion, primarily driven by the solid operational performance in the year. For several years, we have had a target that renewables should consist of 99% of our generation by 2025.

And I'm very pleased that we reached this ambition or this ambitious target in 2025. The increased share of renewable was driven by the closing of our last coal-fired CHP plant in the second half of 2024. Furthermore, 2025 was the year where we became the first energy company to complete a green transformation of its own energy production. We have reduced Scopes 1 and 2 emissions intensity by more than 98% since the beginning of our transformation in 2006.

We will continue our decarbonization journey focusing on reducing our upstream and downstream carbon emissions to deliver on our 2040 net zero target. Lastly, with our continued focus on safety, we reduced the total recordable injury rate to 2.5 in 2025 that we reduced our total recordable injury rate, and we continue to strengthen our safety commitments through targeted initiatives and sharing of best practices with suppliers, all aimed at lowering the incident rate and bringing our people home safe every day.

Let's turn to Slide 6 and an overview of our construction projects. I will cover the more advanced projects individually and in more details as usual on the next slide, while putting a few remarks on the remainder of the construction portfolio here. For Borkum Riffgrund 3, all offshore installation works have been completed. The grid connection has been commissioned by the transmission system operator and was announced ready for first feed in early Q4 2025. First power was achieved early December according to plan. Turbine commissioning is ongoing and progressing according to schedule, and the project is expected to be fully commissioned towards the end of Q1 2026.

For Hornsea 3, construction is progressing according to schedule. The onshore works at the landfall cable route and converter stations remain on track. For the offshore scope, the project will be using 2 HVDC offshore converter stations. The first platform is undergoing final equipment installation in Norway, which is progressing well. And the second platform arrived in Norway from the fabrication yard in Thailand in December to complete the same final works.

Our turbine and foundation installation partners have taken delivery of their new build installation vessels, and we have started offshore activities preparing the seabed for export and array cable installation. We continue to closely monitor a number of items related to the delivery of the project. This includes the schedule of the project's grid connection, where we are working closely with National Grid on our onshore grid connection works to support commissioning this year. Further, we continue to focus on manufacturing of turbine monopile foundations to ensure they are delivered according to plan, enabling us to commence installation in spring 2026. The manufacturing has started as planned and 2 suppliers have started to deliver completed monopiles, the first of which have arrived in seaport ready for mobilization.

There are multiple suppliers contracted for the scope. And if relevant, we can utilize the flexibility gained from this to mitigate risks should they occur. Next steps in the project will be the commencement of the main offshore installation activities, starting with the installation of the offshore export cables, the first offshore converter station as well as foundation installation. For Baltica 2, the project is progressing on schedule as we move towards offshore construction. There has been good progress in the recent quarter, and the degree of completion has increased to 25%, up from 15% last quarter.

This includes further progress on the manufacturing of the 4 offshore substations and further fabrication on the turbine foundations with 48 of the 111 turbine foundations fabricated at this stage. The fabrication of the export cable has also commenced. For the onshore substation, majority of the equipment have been delivered to the sites and onshore export cable installation is on schedule, supporting timely grid integration milestones. The project team is focused on ensuring progress of the transmission system, fabrication of the key components and the onshore and offshore substations. Next steps are the preparation of the seabed ahead of turbine foundation installation, which is planned to start during Q2 this year. The installation of the offshore substations will also start towards the end of this year.

Turning to Slide 7 and an update on our Greater Changhua 2b and 4 project in Taiwan. With the progress achieved during the quarter, the degree of completion is now at 75%, up from 65% at Q3. The project achieved a major milestone during the quarter as the installation of turbines was completed for the project. At this stage, 17 of the 66 turbines has been commissioned and are producing power and the commissioning works of the remaining turbines is ongoing. The project remains focused on the installation and energization of the remaining array cables.

At this point, 57 out of the 66 array cables have been installed, and it is the expectation that the remaining array cables will be installed during the first quarter. Also, the project will resume works to replace the export cable for the Greater Changhua 2b section. Onshore work related to this is ongoing and the replacement work offshore will commence during the summer. The project remains on schedule for commissioning during Q3 2026.

Turning to Slide 8 and an update on our Northeast program, starting with Revolution Wind. Despite offshore construction being on pause for 3 weeks due to the suspension order, Revolution Wind continues to make progress, and the degree of completion has increased to approximately 87%, up from 85% in Q3 2024 -- 2025 sorry. During the quarter, all remaining array cables were installed. The export cables, interlink cable and both offshore substations have now been energized. At this stage, 59 of the 65 turbines have been installed. In the coming period, the project will focus on completing installation of the remaining turbines and continue ongoing commissioning activities. First power for the project is expected within weeks.

Turning to Slide 9 and an update on the progress at Sunrise Wind. During the quarter, despite offshore construction being paused for 6 weeks due to the suspension order, the project has made progress illustrated by the degree of completion increasing to 45%, up from 40% in the third quarter.

The first installation campaign of turbine foundations has been completed according to plan with 44 of the 84 turbine foundations installed. Onshore construction and commissioning are progressing well. The onshore portion of the export cable has been installed and jointed and the nearshore section of the export cable was successfully installed. In terms of fabrication, all turbine foundations, array cables and the remaining sections of the export cable are now complete.

All turbine towers and nacelles have been fabricated and the majority of blade sets have been fabricated with the remaining sets progressing according to plan. In the coming period, the project's focus is on resuming halted activities with safety as a top priority. This includes the offshore installation of the mid and far shore section of the export cable. The project is working diligently to maintain the installation schedule, which includes first power in the second half of this year and commissioning of the project in the second half of 2027.

Turning to Slide 10 and an outlook for our deliveries in 2026, to focus on delivering on our strategic priorities over the coming years as this will improve our financial foundation and ensure that we can compete from a position of strength for new offshore wind opportunities in our core markets. Specifically, in 2026, we will continue to have a very significant focus on our generation and ensure that we deliver in line with our expectations. We will be commissioning more than 2.5 gigawatts offshore wind capacity across 3 continents.

And for the remainder of our construction projects, we will continue our efforts building on the solid progress achieved during 2025. We will assess new opportunities within offshore wind across 3 avenues. First is on the auction and tender front, where there are several relevant opportunities for us to assess during 2025 in our core markets. And from 2027 and onwards, we are expecting a material step change in terms of the number of auctions. Second, we will continue maturing our proprietary pipeline and bring the projects forward if the value creation is there.

And thirdly, we continue to assess the potential for any project-specific collaborations. Those will remain the buckets that we are looking for when we think about offshore wind growth and filling our pipeline for the back end of this decade and onwards. And we will prioritize value over volume. To support this, we will further progress on measures to improve our competitiveness. This includes the initiatives within our trading and revenue function as well as our generation organization. In addition, we will deliver according to plan on our announced adjustments to our organization, so it will become more efficient and flexible.

With this, let me hand over to you, Trond.

Thank you, Rasmus, and good afternoon from me as well, everyone. As always, unless I state otherwise, the numbers I refer to will be in Danish kroner. And then let's turn to [ Slide 8 ] and the EBITDA for '25. For the full year, we had a solid operational performance and delivered EBITDA, excluding new partnerships and cancellation fees of DKK 25.1 billion, as Rasmus previously said. And this is in line with our guidance for the year.

Let me walk you through the main development. For our offshore business, the overall site earnings came in DKK 500 million higher compared to last year. This was driven by higher availability rates, ramp-up generation for Gode Wind 3 and compensation at Borkum Riffgrund 3, leading to an increase of approximately DKK 1.5 billion. This was, to a large extent, offset by the lower wind speeds, lower earnings by approximately DKK 1 billion compared to 2024. Earnings within Partnership increased compared to last year as negative effects in '24 were not repeated to the same extent in '25. For other costs in Offshore, there was an increase primarily driven by changes in cost allocation methodology with no impact to the total EBITDA.

In our offshore business -- onshore business, sorry, earnings increased by approximately DKK 200 million compared to last year. The increase was due to the ramp-up of generation at Sparta Solar, Eleven Mile and Mockingbird, partly offset by the farm-down of the same projects. Within Bioenergy and other, earnings in our combined heat and power business increased by approximately DKK 300 million, driven by the higher achieved prices and improved spreads, only partly offset by lower generation.

Earnings in our gas business increased by approximately DKK 300 million, mainly driven from our offtake contract with the Danish Underground Consortium and its ramp-up production from the Tyra field. The negative effect from other was mainly due to a provision for severance payment relating to the rightsizing of the organization initiated in the fourth quarter. The total impact of severance payment and provision amount to approximately DKK 750 million in '25 and covers the period of the executions in '25 through '28.

Let's turn to Slide 13 and our guidance for '26. For the full year of '26, we expect an EBITDA more than DKK 28 billion. Let me go through the expected drivers for the different segments. In our offshore business, overall earnings are expected to be higher in '26. Our offshore site will benefit from ramp-up generation of Greater Changhua 2b and 4 and Revolution Wind and Wind speeds in line with historical averages, whereas 2025 was below historical averages.

This is expected to be offset by lower market prices, lower earnings from trading activities and subsidy step down for Borkum Riffgrund 3 as well as Gode Wind 1 and 2 stepping out of subsidy, leading to expected sites earning to be in line with the '25 level. We expect earnings from existing partnerships to increase compared to '25, mainly driven by construction agreement at Hornsea 3. Within our offshore business, we anticipate lower expense project development costs as well as lower fixed costs. For our onshore business, we expect earnings to be in line with '25. This is driven by the ramp-up of generation from new assets, offset by divestment of European onshore business, which we expect to close during second quarter this year.

For our Bioenergy segment, we expect earnings to be in line with '25. The gross investments for '26 are expected to amount to DKK 50 billion to DKK 55 billion, which is in line with our previously expected investment level. Furthermore, our committed capital of approximately DKK 145 billion for the period 2025 throughout '27 remains unchanged as this already accounts for the planned divestments of the European onshore business.

Let's turn to Slide 14. In the fourth quarter of '25, our EBITDA, excluding new partnership and cancellation fees amounted to DKK 8.1 billion, which represents an increase of approximately DKK 500 million. This was driven by the offshore business, where earnings increased compared to last year due to higher wind speeds as well as lower fixed cost levels. Our net profit for the quarter totaled a negative of DKK 3.4 billion. This was impacted by the negative noncash EBITDA impact from the closing of the Hornsea 3 transaction and the impairment that have been recognized following the lease suspension orders to our 2 projects in the U.S. as well as the sale of our European onshore business. As part of closing the Hornsea 3 transaction, we have recognized a noncash impact of DKK 4.8 billion to reflect the accounting net present value effect of the asymmetric distribution structure.

The impact was rebased upon closing as the project was slightly less advanced compared to our expectation at the time of signing. The underlying transaction structure and valuation remains the same. The lease suspension order have resulted in increased costs due to anticipated extension of contracts for both our projects, leading to an impairment of approximately DKK 600 million in the fourth quarter of '25.

As part of the decision to divest the European onshore business, we have reassessed the book value of the segment. In previous acquisitions of the business, we have recognized goodwill in our accounts. And as part of the decision to undertake the divestment, this has been written off, leading to an impairment of DKK 1.6 billion. Adjusted for impairments and cancellation fees, our return on capital employed ROCE came in at 8.4%, which is a decrease compared to last year, driven by an increase in capital employed. The reported ROCE came in at 5.4%. We had expected that '25 ROCE would be lower than the ROCE in '26 and '27.

However, it has come in lower than expected, primarily driven by the impairments relating to the suspension order on Revolution Wind and Sunrise Wind and the impairment of goodwill related to the divestment of Ørsted's European onshore business. Our target for average ROCE for '26 and '27 is to be around 11% and above 13% for the period '28 to '30 with the expected improvement of ROCE in '26 and '27, primarily driven by increased operational earnings coming from the commissioning of the projects that we are currently constructing.

Let's turn to Slide 15 and our net interest-bearing debt and credit metrics. At the end of Q4 '25, our net debt amounted to DKK 19 billion, representing a decrease of approximately DKK 64 billion during the quarter, which was primarily driven by the proceeds received from the closing of the rights issue. Cash flow from operating activities include contribution from our operational earnings as well as payments related to both the divestment of 50% stake in Hornsea 3 transmission assets and the construction agreement that was entered into as part of the divestment. For the divestments, this includes payment under the SPA agreement relating to Hornsea 3 divestment as well as the divestment of a stake in Badger Wind U.S.

Our gross investments amounted to DKK 15.1 billion, reflecting the continued investment into our renewable construction projects. Our key metric -- our key credit metric, the FFO to adjusted net debt stood approximately at 43% at year-end, reflecting a significant increase compared to previous years. The increase is primarily driven by the proceeds of the rights issue and the closing of Hornsea 3 transaction and is currently well above our target of 30%.

And finally, let's turn to Slide 16 and focus on our divestment program. With the closing of Hornsea 3 transaction as well as the signing of our Greater Changhua 2 farm-down and the divestment of our European onshore business, we have successfully delivered on the partnership and divestment program, which we announced as part of our second quarter '25 update. We had a target of delivering proceeds of more than DKK 35 billion across the announced transactions.

And with securing proceeds of assets around DKK 46 billion, we have now ensured strong delivery on this. In combination with the completion of the rights issue, this is a significant contribution to the strengthening of our capital structure, and it will ensure that we have a robust financial foundation throughout the coming years. Also to pursue new value-creating opportunities while we are delivering on our construction program.

Upon completion, our projects will ensure significant contribution to increasing our financial headroom. With this, we have reduced our dependency on divestments of operational assets and we will now be able to undertake a more value-accretive and flexible approach to partnerships and farm downs going forward.

And with that, we will now open for questions. Operator, please?

[Operator Instructions]

The first question comes from the line of Harry Wyburd from BNP Paribas.

It's on the North Sea agreement or the Hamburg agreement. Could you help me draw a line between the commitments that were made there, which are obviously huge and the money that you expect to be put behind the CfD auctions. So I guess anyone who's familiar with AR7 will be -- you're familiar with the concept of the pot size. I believe that governments in Europe or around the North Sea will put a big pot size behind these CfDs given affordability constraints?

And have you had any informal commitments from governments on whether they are willing to put a lot of money behind the CfDs that would be able to procure that many gigawatts? And then maybe as an add-on to it, there was a 30% cost reduction commitment in that agreement as well. Where would you see those cost reductions coming from? And I presume it's not just hoping for lower interest rates. Is this coming from the supply chain? Is this coming from OEM manufacturers? Is this coming from your processes? Could you give us some color on how you would deliver that cost decrease?

Absolutely. Harry. There is no doubt that the agreement that was made between the 9 heads of states in Hamburg last Monday, we are very pleased with that agreement. Not sort of one thing is, of course, that the governments stand shoulder to shoulder and commit to up to 300 gigawatts by 2050. That's sort of one thing. I think the more important part actually is that as opposed to previous agreements made on this one, the 9 countries involved are a bit more specific about the how is this actually going to happen. So it is by tendering out up to 15 gigawatts of offshore wind every single year from 2031 to 2040 and 10 of the 15 gigawatts are expected to be with CfDs. That commitment provides 2 things to the industry. It provides certainty about a more linear build-out. So basically stepping away from the more lumpy build-out and less coordinated build-out that we have seen in the last years.

And what it also provides is the right sort of frameworks in terms of how to tender out offshore wind, i.e., a consistent approach centered around CfDs across all the 9 involved states. So that -- those 2 things combined, Harry, in our view, provides the necessary predictability for the industry, which is exactly what we need to again break the curve and bring down cost. As you rightfully point out, the commitment from the industry has been to reduce levelized cost of electricity by roughly 30% towards 2040. And it is coming from this predictability. It drives significant investments in the supply chain.

The European supply chain has already invested, I believe, more than EUR 14 billion in the last 3 years across manufacturing vessels and ports. And that brings you to roughly 10 gigawatts. And then if you go to 15 gigawatts as is now set out, it's sort of roughly EUR 10 billion more. Those divestments -- sorry, those investments will provide sort of cost down on the supply chain. And obviously, also the predictability will make it easier for the developers to also enter into framework agreements and also, you can say, deliver the projects that has been won. So that is what's going to drive down the cost again towards 2040.

And then for the second part of your question on sort of the pot size, we would have to see what comes out in the individual auctions in the coming years, the same way as you have seen in the U.K. But I would, as an example, just highlight the agreements that has just been made in Denmark -- between Denmark and Germany, where the cap or the budget set aside for the 3 gigawatts of offshore wind between Denmark and Germany is around DKK 140 billion committed by the Danish and German government split roughly with 30% to Denmark and 70% to Germany. So this is just an example about the commitments that we are starting to see here.

The next question comes from the line of [ Christian ] [indiscernible] from [indiscernible].

So my question is on your farm-down program where all transactions have now been down. But sort of reflecting on them, I would claim that some of these transactions have lowered the financial transparency given the increasing level of noncash EBITDA as a consequence of these transactions. I understand why you've had to do this, but I'm just curious how problematic you consider this movement and not least, if you are to consider further divestment transactions in the future, should we expect you to go sort of back to the old model, which were more simple?

Well, part of the proceeds coming from these transactions is, of course, paying for some of the equity value, but some of them are also a part of our working capital like the OFTO. So it goes into the operating cash flow. And as a result of the accounting rules, making sure that we actually apply to those, we also have to address that. So I do think that we have been very transparent in telling how the sort of the split between our expected more than DKK 35 billion were divided into the 3 major and the other smaller divestments. So as of now, Hornsea 3 has provided us with DKK 10 billion, of which DKK 4 billion is proceeds and a bit more than DKK 6 billion is on the working capital.

On the onshore U.S. transaction, it is DKK 5 billion in proceeds. On the EU onshore, it's short of DKK 11 billion in proceeds. The Changhua transaction, which we're going to close in Q3 this year. It is, of course, an asset value of DKK 16 billion. And the reason for having that asset value is, of course, because we are consolidating the full project until COD and then we deliver the full package to Cathay. And then West of Duddon Sands of DKK 4 billion. And that asset value of all those transactions is DKK 46 billion. Going forward is really we expect -- well, we do not have any concrete plans as of now. And we do believe that in case we are doing transaction, we will, of course, inform them about the content of this transaction, depending on the structure of the transaction every time.

We now have a question from the line of Peter Bisztyga from Bank of America.

So a question on your growth profile towards the end of this decade. Once everything is operational, hopefully, in 2028, I presume any new projects that you might win in offshore auctions over the next couple of years won't be operational until after 2030. So there's going to be a window of like 2 or 3 years where you're just building up unproductive capital without kind of any new earnings coming in. So I'm just wondering, first of all, how do you think about that? And given your planned divestments have exceeded your target by a sort of fairly material amount. I'm just wondering if that gives you flexibility to accelerate investments, for example, in U.S. onshore solar and battery or something like that to fill that growth gap. So interested in your views on that point, please.

Absolutely. Thank you, Peter. A few reflections. I think, first of all, important to emphasize that we as you also allude to that we are very much in a position now on the back of the successful divestment program that Trond talked about and the successful capital raise last year. And we are in a place where we have the financial robustness to pursue value-accretive offshore wind opportunities in our core markets. And we are seeing quite a few opportunities already during 2026. As we talked about before, sort of there is a tender coming in Denmark.

There is a tender coming in the Netherlands. There is a tender coming in APAC. And when you get to -- in Taiwan, and you also -- when you get into 2027, you are starting to see a significant pickup. So that is sort of one avenue for future growth for us, one potential avenue. Another one is obviously also to move forward with the projects that we already have, the more proprietary projects. We talked about sort of Hornsea 4 as an obvious example that we'll be able to bid in from '27 and onwards.

And then at the same time, as I also alluded to before, we are also pursuing, you can say, project-specific collaborations where relevant, all to further fill up the pipeline on the other side of the build-out that we have right now. You are right in the sense that we will see a drop in our gross CapEx from in '28 relative to the levels we are at now. That is quite clear, which is also why we have put the measures in place in terms of having a more flexible and rightsized organization to manage that dip, if you will.

We are quite sort of bullish on the long-term projections for offshore wind in our core markets and the growth for the longer term. You talked about sort of unproductive CapEx and so on in the years towards the back end of the decade. And you also mentioned U.S. onshore. Just reminding us about our capital allocation principles. So it is to make sure at all times, we have a robust capital structure. We honor the dividend commitment. We intend to honor the dividend commitment by paying out first time in 2027 on the back of '26. Bucket #3 is value-accretive growth. And then bucket #4 is, of course, potential rebalancing towards our shareholders.

Those are the principles that we have and we have had for a while, and we intend to follow them. We continue to invest in our U.S. onshore business. We -- as we have said before, we have separated out now to be more of a stand-alone business. We finalized that in October last year. We are right now constructing 2 projects in U.S. onshore, 500 megawatts in total. And we will continue to develop the business, but you should not expect a rebalancing of CapEx, as you alluded to before, our key strategic focus is offshore wind in our core markets, i.e., in Europe.

The next question comes from the line of Jenny Ping from Citi.

Actually, my question was fairly similar to Peter's with really the pivot more to your point around project collaboration. I just wondered whether this actually meant in order to fill in the back end of the decade growth profile, you would be open to buying into projects that other people have won that's already kind of getting to -- have got CfDs, et cetera, that's getting to FID stage that would deliver back in the decade just to keep the momentum of the growth.

And then just along the same lines in terms of the balance sheet, I'd be very keen to understand the opportunity to releverage the U.S. projects. Obviously, you're making very good progress in the delivery of that. Is it the case that these projects we shouldn't even think about the opportunity to project finance them and take equity out before reaching COD? Or are banks actually starting to warm up as you deliver the construction?

Thanks a lot. Jenny, I will take the first part and then leave the U.S. project financing question to Trond. So we are pursuing growth across 3 buckets. It's tenders and auctions in one bucket. It is developing our proprietary pipeline in another bucket. And then the third one is, as you alluded to, to potentially enter into agreements with other developers potentially about projects. There is a significant backlog right now of offshore wind projects in several of our core markets. And we have that as we -- which is not new, we have had that for a while, 1 of the 3 buckets that we are potentially pursuing.

That being said, you mentioned sort of momentum of growth. It is important just to reemphasize that we will be patient. We will be patient and we will always prioritize value over volume. And we have -- we are setting ourselves up in a way where we have and are sort of able to cater for a slight dip in our construction activity towards the back end of the decade. But we do believe there are quite a few opportunities out there across the 3 buckets in terms of future growth.

When it comes to the balance sheet effects of the U.S. projects, we have -- when we sized the rights issue and also deciding on the farm-downs and the sales proceeds, -- we did not -- we made sure that we had enough capital not to plan for project financing before COD in the U.S. That has been a major element to this to make sure that we have the financial solidity as well as the liquidity in place to make sure that we can continue constructing on our 8.1 gigawatts. Having said that, the timing of project financing when it comes to those projects is, of course, dependent on the political uncertainty and how the financial market in the U.S. and also elsewhere, but mostly in the U.S. looks at certainty of those projects coming into play. So it will be an opportunity for us at some point in time, but we have not planned or concluded on that time.

Okay. Sorry, just to be clear, so M&A is on the table under this bucket of project collaboration?

Project level, yes.

We now have a question from the line of Deepa Venkateswaran from Bernstein.

It is somewhat similar to the previous questions, but it's probably a more philosophical question. So in the past, Ørsted was always a lead developer, you farm down to financial players. You haven't done too many projects with other industrial players, but we know many of them are looking for partners. I think Vattenfall said that they're looking for partners for their German offshore project at BASF -- have, and we know SSE, for example, will be looking at these. So where do you see from a perspective of value creation Ørsted kind of coming in as perhaps the -- maybe not in the driver's seat, but as a secondary partner, would those sort of transactions be okay with you? And yes, or is there any commitment that you need to be the lead developer operator constructor of these projects? I think that's my question.

Thank you, Deepa. So in terms of market by market, I would rather say our focus is on the core markets that I -- that you know that we are focusing on. So the U.K., Denmark, Poland, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, that continues to be the case. And then again, we have the 3 buckets that I mentioned before. It becomes too speculative for me to sort of get into what kind of potential partnerships it could be that is a bit premature.

But in principle, would you be okay with building something with another industrial player?

The answer will be the same, Deepa, that it becomes a bit too speculative for me to talk about potential future collaboration models.

Next question comes from the line of Alberto Gandolfi from Goldman Sachs.

It's Alberto Gandolfi. I just wanted to talk about growth, but from a slightly different perspective and a bit more granularity. The first one is how much capital do you feel comfortable in committing in the next 18 -- 12, 18 months given the lingering risks around Sunrise, just in case we still have another move and appeal by the administration, the court case is pending. And while you are talking about offshore, in particular, would you mind telling us how many gigawatts you could potentially bid for in these regions?

There's a very good slide where you talk about all these countries in Europe and Asia. So how many gigawatts in terms of permitting leases could you potentially bid for if you wanted to? And if you can tell us, given you talk about value over volume, how do you define value? Is there an absolute IRR we should be thinking about given where the cost of capital is today? Do you think you need to now put more contingencies? So can you tell us how we should be thinking about risk, quantity and returns?

Thank you, Alberto. So sort of 3 buckets in your question, maybe partly overlapping in my answer. So first of all, you're saying what kind of capital are we comfortable committing considering the situation we have in the U.S. I'm not going to put out any numbers here. What I can say is, and Trond can, of course, elaborate here, that we have our CapEx -- committed CapEx program towards '25 to '27, and we have DKK 145 million in total. And we are still there across our projects. And then we have -- as we also talked about, we have completed the farm-down program.

We have completed the equity raise. So we are in a position now where we have a robust balance sheet. part of sizing the equity raise was to be able to withstand the regulatory uncertainty that we are also now seeing unfolding in the U.S., but also to deliver on our business plan. But I'm not going to put out a specific CapEx number, which is the same reason for why I'm also not going to put out a specific gigawatt number because this is exactly what we -- where we have changed our approach, if you will. So we're not chasing gigawatts. It is value over volume.

You will remember from the beginning of the year that we -- one of the first things we did after I took over was that we canceled our 2030 targets in terms of gigawatts -- because our focus is on value. And as I said before, we do believe that the opportunities are out there. On value, you said sort of how do we define value. We have -- our value criteria are unchanged in the sense that we guide that it is 150 to 300 basis points on top of our cost of capital. We stand by that. And then at the same time, internally, we obviously also look at the absolute IRRs of the projects that we are considering moving forward.

But we only guide externally on the 150 to 300 bps on top of our cost of capital. And then, of course, when we look at value, we also look at the flip side, which is risk. And we have -- we are carefully assessing risks in our opportunities that we are looking at. We are looking at the breakaway profiles of the opportunities. We're looking at the farm-down, potential farm-down risk as we also talked to as part of putting Hornsea 4 back to development. So those are some of the things we look at when we assess new opportunities.

We now have a question from the line of Ahmed Farman from Jefferies.

I have a sort of broad question on the 2 U.S. projects, but with a few sort of subsegments. So last year, you provided us an estimate of the remaining CapEx to be spent in the second quarter. So sort of the first question is, could you just remind us where that is? Could you remind us on the timing of the monetization of the ITC for Revolution Wind? And then Rasmus, you referenced expeditious and durable solution, trying to sort of find that in your sort of -- in your strategy. I would be interested if you could elaborate on that point further.

Thank you, Ahmed. So I will take CapEx and the durable solution and then leave ITCs to you, Trond. So yes, just to reiterate, the remaining CapEx for us the share across Revolution Wind and Sunrise is around roughly DKK 35 billion. So basically, you can say broadly unchanged relative to what we have said before. In terms of the dialogue track, as you indirectly alluded to, so we have -- we are focusing on 2 things here in the U.S. One is obviously to finalize construction of Revolution Wind and Sunrise as fast as well and as safe as possible for our colleague.

And the construction is actually progressing quite well across both despite sort of taking into account that we have been out for 3 weeks on one and roughly 6 weeks on the other. But I can, of course, talk much more about that construction progress. The other part of the work we do is on seeking to, via dialogue, see if there is a path for a more expeditious and sort of a durable solution across the 2 projects. I will follow the same line as I have had before here. I don't want to go into the content of dialogues we may or may not have with other developers, with the administration, with suppliers, et cetera. But we are pursuing still 2 tracks.

On the ITC element, the element on the ITC and what we expect is the money to come in sort of a year subsequent to COD. And that's sort of the planning phase that we are looking at.

The next question comes from the line of Mark Freshney from UBS.

If I could just drill down a bit on to the ITC. My question is, is it possible to monetize the ITC and do the transactions with the bank while the lease suspensions are still in place. So do you need those lease extensions removed to get the -- I think it's like DKK 25 billion from both of the construction assets in '27 and '28. So that's my first question. And just secondly, it sounds -- standing back, it sounds like we're now focusing on growth beyond the 5 construction projects. Given the kind of opportunities you've laid out and the kind of optimism, and given the need to maintain a strong balance sheet, can we infer that the dividend payout ratio will be sort of low, potentially somewhere around where it was at the time of the IPO, which I think was about DKK 2.5 billion.

When it comes to the ITC, I would probably answer you, Mark, in 2 different ways. When it comes to the tax equity part, it is still a good market there in the onshore sector. And there is no differential really relative to tax credit where they come from. So when it comes to that, having said that, there is, of course, the political surroundings in this uncertainty as well as the legal elements as you talked to about the suspense orders and so forth. So yes, there is, of course, elements here that we are discussing with investors.

But the progress of this is continuing as we have planned. But as you allude to, there is uncertainty parameters that we need to contain or address during the course of the way. But as of now, the progress is there. There's no sort of nothing hindering the process, except for, of course, that we to have to cater for those elements. On the dividend side, we will not, at this point in time, give any guidance on the levels as such. We will come back to that in due time. But as of now, it's too early for us to expand on where that level is going to be starting to be paid in '27.

We now have a question from the line of Casper Blom from Danske Bank.

A question regarding the ramp-up of Revolution and Sunrise Wind. You mentioned, Rasmus, that you expect the first power from Revolution within the first next couple of weeks and with Sunrise, you say in the second half of this year. Can you give any kind of guidance to how much you expect to squeeze out of these 2 projects this year? And maybe a percentage of how much power you expect to generate compared to how much it will be when these projects are fully up and running? Any flavor to the impact that the projects will have on this year's earnings would be very nice to have.

Thank you, Casper. I, of course, see what you're doing, but I'm not going to guide on sort of EBITDA at the project level for '26. But I can give you sort of a little bit of color of sort of where we are and then leave it for you to make your own assessment. So on Revolution Wind, as I said, we have now installed 59 out of 65 turbines. We expect first power, as I said, within weeks.

We have energized the export cable. We have energized what is called the interlink cable, energized the offshore substations and also the onshore substation. So therefore, you can say moving forward quite well. But more details about sort of remaining installation and ramp-up, I cannot give. Our guidance remains that we expect COD for the full wind farm in the second half of 2026 and the ramp-up within week -- and the first power within weeks, as I said.

On Sunrise, again, we also here do expect first power this year. But again, what -- and what we have stated in recently is that we would expect for it to be in October. 2026 and then COD by second half of 2027. And also Sunrise is progressing according to plan. We have sort of the fabrication progress is going quite well. We only have 7 sets of turbines left and so on and 44 out of 84 foundations installed, offshore substation installed, onshore converter station, 90% done, energized onshore cable 100% done. So it is moving forward according to plan despite the setbacks we have received.

The next question comes from the line of Olly Jeffery from Deutsche Bank.

Just asking about a different topic. Could I get an update on the Elsam related case, which has been ongoing for a while. I think the amount there potentially liable for is DKK 4.4 billion, depending on how that court case outturns. When do you expect -- can we expect a judgment this year? And if so, do you any time lines on that? Is there a kind of date for when we will get more information on how that turned out?

Well, the Elsam case has been there for quite some years. So it has been a long way to go. When the case was up last time on the final ruling on the main case, that was back in, I believe, 2017 or '18. We did win that. Subsequent to that, there are, I think, around 1,100 small cases that has been added up to this case coming up. And the case has started up now. It is the amount that you have said. We have disclosed that both in the rights issue and it's also in the annual report. We do not have any provisions for this. We do have a view that it will end up as it has been ended up before. But the case is ongoing, and we expect to have an answer or a decision here midyear somewhere. And then again, just to be clear on that, the decision made this time may be appealed by both parties.

We now have a question from the line of Rob Pulleyn from Morgan Stanley.

The remaining question I would like to ask is, given obviously lots of interest in your future partnerships you mentioned and also the market is very interested in potential collaboration with your Norwegian neighbors. And to leave to park that particular topic, there is a related one is that, that particular neighbor has a U.S. project and pipeline as well. And so from a high level, could you talk to whether you would be interested in increasing your exposure in the U.S. market at all?

Thank you, Rob. So yes, you are right that sort of with respect to Equinor that we are -- we continue to be pleased having them as a shareholder. They were very supportive at the capital raise. They are a 10% shareholder, and we have a very good dialogue with them. We have no expectations whatsoever to increase our exposure to offshore wind in the U.S. Roughly a little less than a year ago, shortly after I took over, we adjusted or we basically came adjusted our strategy for [indiscernible]. And one of the things we did when we came to the U.S. was to refocus to basically only focusing on finalizing the 2 projects we have, Revolution Wind and Sunrise Wind on the offshore side. We maintain the leases we have. And we sort of continue to comply and we have them for sort of optionality, but we have no expectations to acquire new projects in the U.S.

The next question comes from the line of James Carmichael from Berenberg.

Just first one, just quickly on the 2,000 headcount reduction that you mentioned. I was just wondering if you could say how many, if any, of those occur naturally, I guess, as part of the European onshore disposal, how many effectively go over to CIP with that asset base? And then just while we're talking onshore, just wondering if you could maybe remind us of your commitment to the U.S. onshore business given the strategic focus on offshore and Europe that you talked about.

Thank you very much. So if we take the people aspect first, as you -- just as a reminder, we communicated in October that we would be reducing our -- the number of people working for us towards the back end of 2027 with roughly 2,000 positions. We are moving forward according to plan in that regard. And we have said goodbye to around 500 colleagues in the back end of last year. And the 200 -- and it is -- on top of that, it is roughly 200 people who are employed in our Europe onshore business, and they will all transfer to the new buyer and is included in the reduction that I talked about towards end of 2027.

It is very important to me that we continue to treat all of our employees, those staying and those leaving in the best possible way. And I believe we are -- then the other part of your question was sort of what is our commitment to our U.S. onshore business. We are moving forward according to plan with our U.S. onshore business. It is going well. We have separated it out as a separate unit, as I mentioned before, effective from October last year.

And the business is going well. We are moving forward projects. We have right now roughly 500 megawatts under construction, 1 wind project, 260 megawatts battery wind in MISO and one battery, 250 megawatts in ERCOT. And then on top of that, we have 6 to 7 gigawatts of capacity that meet the IRS definition of qualification through 2029. And we have this development portfolio consisting of a mix of solar, wind and storage, slightly more weighted towards solar in the near term. So moving forward well.

We now have a question from the line of Louis Boujard from ODDO BHF.

Maybe remaining a little bit on the efficiency measures. I think that you mentioned that you recorded also DKK 600 million of cost of implementation. Is this the total cost of implementation for the redundancy measures that you plan? Or shall we forecast additional costs going forward? And on top of it, I think that you mentioned as well that you are taking some initiatives into the trading and revenue division or activity. I would like to see -- to know if you could provide eventually some example of where you could eventually make some improvement on this topic in order to reach and to converge towards the DKK 2 billion savings that you previously mentioned?

Thank you, Louis. You asked 2 questions, and we were simply not able to get the first part of your question, but it sounded like it was for Trond. But I will answer the latter, the second part, and then I would ask you to ask the first one more time. Sorry about that. It's a little bit of a dotty line. So you asked about trading and revenue and examples and so on in terms of the efficiency measures that we are talking about.

So just as a reminder, as part of the rights issue, we communicated that we expect DKK 0.5 billion to DKK 1 billion of incremental EBITDA from '27 and onwards full year effect. And sort of a few examples. One is increased value from selling and buying certificates. Another one is increased activity day-to-day in today, day ahead. Another one is more third-party origination of PPAs, 3 examples. Our focus is on our core, which is power in Europe. So you should not see this as us increasing our risk appetite across gas or elsewhere, but we focus on our core. But those are a few examples of where we see the uplift. And then I would have to ask you to ask the first one more time.

Yes. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to reask the first question. So the question was about redundancy measures and potentially, I think that you mentioned DKK 600 million of cost that you have recognized in Q4 regarding indeed the rightsizing of the company. And I was wondering if you could confirm if it is the total cost that should be expected for the redundancy measures or if there is other additional costs that we could expect in '26 and eventually 2027?

Thank you, Louis. It's good to hear the question. Yes, it's -- just to recap, what we say is that we have approximately DKK 750 million charged in '25 for rightsizing and restructuring. Of that, the provision is slightly more than DKK 500 million of that and the DKK 200 million to DKK 250 million is what is cost relative to the rightsizing effects that we did in '25. Accounting rules has its limitation relative to providing for restructuring and how concrete they have to be. So I would say that we have catered for the ones that we have decided and have clear sight on how to do. There might be some additional. We do not, as of this point, see it as significant. But of course, as we go along and look at the road map towards '28, it might come up, but we will be transparent on it.

The next question comes from the line of Dominic Nash from Barclays.

The question I've got is looking at your 30% cost reduction in wind costs by 2040, I believe. Do you think that, that's achievable without a Chinese supply chain? And could you let us know how advanced you are in discussions with sort of Chinese providers of turbines and offshore wind products and where you think that puts you relative to your -- the competitive disadvantages and advantages against your sort of developer peers?

Thank you, Dominic. So in short, the first part of your question, yes, I do believe that the European supply chain is able to deliver on the commitments put out Monday last week. The European supply chain is quite robust. And only the last 3 years, it has invested more than EUR 14 billion across 20 European countries in the supply chain, 50% roughly on manufacturing, 20% in vessels, 30% in ports.

And with the predictability that is now sort of there from the North Sea offshore wind investment pack, we do expect to see further ramp-up from the supply chain, roughly EUR 10 billion required to get our numbers to get to 15 gigawatts per year, and we believe that, that is possible. As for our own sort of approach. We are a global company present across 3 continents, and we do operate in a business with a global supply chain.

And of course, the robustness and diversification are important priorities for us, and we do assess different technologies and suppliers. And when we do it, we do it based on quality, technological maturity, capability, ESG, regulatory, et cetera. And -- and we do also follow the development in China on the turbine side, as you are alluding to as part of our normal market sort of surveying. But we have no projects in our portfolio or in our pipeline using Chinese turbines. So we are following the development in the market like any other developer would do. And as I expect also most of our colleagues are.

Sorry, can I just follow up? Apologies. I know that probably like a second question, but it's similar. I presume that if someone were to use Chinese products in the North Sea and it were seen to be cheaper, that once that's been sort of derisked, then other developers would follow them? Or do you think they'll still remain the European supply chain?

That becomes a bit too speculative for me, Dominic. I think my -- our view is, as I stated before, I can best speak on our own behalf.

We now have a question from the line of Ingo Becker from Kepler Cheuvreux.

First, I have a question, please, on your DKK 35 billion divestment. I think you broke it down before in terms of the total program, but I'm interested in the balance sheet date with the view of your fiscal year-end balance sheet, how much of the DKK 35 billion has been cash effective booked in the balance sheet and how much is left in the cash flow statement?

There's a DKK 12.5 billion figure which would mean DKK 22.5 billion cash effective would be left, but I'm not sure that's the right way of looking at it. And my second question would be on your '28 EBITDA. I know you have not given guidance, but you gave us a helping hand last year by helping us with the likely composition of that number and the consensus made out of this, something like DKK 37 billion. Not asking you to confirm that DKK 37 billion. But if we assume for one second that DKK 37 billion is the right figure, does this change with the proceeds moving from DKK 35 billion to DKK 46 billion, taking potential accounting effects into account. So would the EBITDA still be the same? Or would it change?

When it comes to the cash effects, what I would -- it's basically it's basically Changhua and European onshore that has not been a part of the cash effects per the end of '25. So if you look at the debt effects going forward, the effects that's going to happen, it's 2 elements on Changhua. It's because we have 100% of the assets until COD. When we sell off 55%, we will, of course, deconsolidate the project and the project has then approximately DKK 20 billion in debt. So that debt will be then deconsolidated as a part of the transaction.

In addition to that, there will be approximately DKK 5 billion in proceeds. And then in addition to that, it's around DKK 10 billion coming out of Europe onshore sale when it closes. That is the 3 elements of the sort of the transaction elements that is not included per year-end '25. When it comes to the '28 numbers, we have not guided on those numbers. So I will, of course, not take your hypothesis as a starting point.

What we can do is that we are still saying that the numbers is between [ 11 ] and [ 12 ] for the 8.1 gigawatts for the first full year EBITDA effect of those projects. And relative to have an understanding of the elements, we also said during the capital increase, we said that the U.S. projects is around DKK 4.5 billion of that. The DKK 4.5 billion consists of approximately around DKK 1 billion for Revolution, our 50% ownership and our 100% ownership of Sunrise is about DKK 3.5 billion. So just to be clear that we can reiterate those numbers for the full year -- the first full year of the COD year for those projects.

Ladies and gentlemen, that was the last question. I would now like to turn the conference back over to Rasmus Errboe for any closing remarks.

Thank you all very much for joining. We appreciate the interaction and the interest. And as always, if you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to reach out. Our IR team will be here to answer all of them. Thank you. Stay safe, and have a great day.

Welcome to this Ørsted's Q3 2025 Earnings Call. [Operator Instructions] Today's speakers are Group President and CEO, Rasmus Errboe, and CFO, Trond Westlie. Speakers, please begin.

Hello, everyone. During the third quarter of the year, we have continued our focus on the execution of the 4 strategic priorities that we presented in February. These will continue to be the core focus as we execute on our strategy.

Let me start by going through our progress across the 4 priorities. Our first priority is to strengthen our capital structure. And with the completion of the rights issue in early October, we have taken a significant step on this priority. The rights issue strengthens our financial foundation, allows us to focus on delivering our 6 offshore wind farms under construction, provides the financial robustness to manage the ongoing challenges and uncertainty as well as the financial strength to pursue upcoming attractive opportunities within offshore wind. I am very pleased and grateful for the strong support that we received from our shareholders in the rights issue, including from our majority shareholder, the Danish state.

Also, we announced on November 3 that we have entered into an agreement with Apollo to divest a 50% ownership share in both the project and associated transmission asset for our 2.9 gigawatt Hornsea 3 project in the U.K. The total value of the transaction is approximately DKK 39 billion, and the transaction supports a further strengthening of our capital structure and marks a significant milestone in our partnership and divestment program.

Another important element in supporting our capital structure is the continued performance of our operational portfolio. Even though wind speeds have been below the norm thus far in the year, we have delivered DKK 17 billion of EBITDA for the first 9 months of the year, which is mainly driven by the increase in the availability across our offshore portfolio due to strong performance every single day by our generation team. We remain on track to deliver earnings in the range of DKK 24 billion to DKK 27 billion for the full year.

Our second priority is to deliver on our 8.1 gigawatt offshore wind construction portfolio. And we continue to make good progress across the projects, which upon completion will contribute with an annual EBITDA run rate of DKK 11 billion to DKK 12 billion. I will shortly go through the construction progress details. But first, I want to mention the stop-work order, which Revolution Wind received in the U.S. during the third quarter, instructing the project to hold offshore activities, pending completion of the Interior Department's review required by the executive order issued on January 20. Revolution Wind continues to seek a complete resolution, both by engaging with the U.S. administration and other stakeholders as well as through legal proceedings. As part of the legal part, the project filed a lawsuit and sought a preliminary injunction, which was granted on February 22 by the court while the lawsuit is ongoing. The offshore activities have resumed and since then progressed well.

Our third priority is to ensure a focused and disciplined capital allocation, always prioritizing value over volume, where our focus going forward primarily will be on offshore wind in Europe and select markets in APAC. As part of these efforts, we will move towards a more flexible partnership and financing model in order to improve value creation and ensure risk diversification. On this basis, we recently entered into a memorandum of understanding with KOEN and POSCO for our 1.4 gigawatt Incheon offshore wind project in Korea. The aim is to explore cooperation on joint development, construction and operations, including potential equity participation.

Finally, on our fourth priority, we have also taken steps in improving our competitiveness with the announcements of adjustments to our organization. Due to the sharpened strategic focus of our business going forward and the fact that we will be finalizing our large construction portfolio in the coming years, we will adjust our organization accordingly to become more efficient and flexible. Once all efficiency measures have been implemented, the annual cost savings are expected to amount to approximately DKK 2 billion from 2028. The cost savings related to these efficiency measures have been incorporated into our business plan.

Let's turn to Slide 5, where I will talk through some of the operational highlights for the first 9 months. First, I am pleased with the operational performance with our EBITDA, excluding new partnerships and cancellation fees amounting to DKK 17 billion for the first 9 months. Despite the fact that wind speeds have been below the norm so far this year, our strong generation performance ensures we remain on track towards delivering our full year guidance of DKK 24 billion to DKK 27 billion of EBITDA. This is mainly driven by high availability within our offshore business, which stood at 93% for the first 9 months. Compared to same period last year, this is an increase of 7 percentage points and thus ensured a material earnings contribution.

Market-leading performance of our 10 gigawatt offshore wind fleet is a key priority for us, and we are progressing several measures within our generation organization to improve our output and lower cost base through portfolio and operational efficiencies, technological innovation, standardization and generation excellence. During the quarter, we also made progress on the renewable share of our generation. For several years, we have had a target that renewables should consist of 99% of our generation by 2025. And this has been the case during the first 9 months of the year. The increased share of renewables was driven by the closing of our last coal-fueled CHP plant in the second half of 2024, which marked another important milestone on our decarbonization journey.

Lastly, our continued and relentless focus on safety have continued, and the total recordable injury rate for the first 9 months of 2025 is at 2.5, which is in line with our target. This remains highest priority for us, and we are continuing an internal program across the full organization, which is intended to further increase training, safety awareness and management focus, all aimed at lowering the incident rate and bringing our people home safe every day.

Let's turn to Slide 6 and an overview of our construction projects. I will cover the more advanced projects individually and, in more details, as usual on the next slides, while putting a few remarks on the remainder of the construction portfolio here. For Borkum Riffgrund 3 in Germany, we have installed all foundations and turbines. Commissioning of the grid connection for Borkum 3 has started according to plan. We expect first power before the end of the year, and the project is expected to be commissioned towards the end of Q1 2026.

For Hornsea 3 in the U.K., construction is progressing well. The onshore works at the landfall cable route and converter stations have progressed in line with the schedule since last quarter. For the offshore scope, the project will be using 2 HVDC offshore converter stations. The first platform is undergoing final equipment installation in Norway, which is progressing well. And the second platform completed its scope in Thailand and is currently in transit to Norway to complete the same final works.

We have continued with the offshore activities where we completed the removal of unexploded ordinances across the whole site during the third quarter. We continue to closely monitor a number of items related to the delivery of the project. This includes the installation schedule of the project's grid connection where we are working closely with National Grid on our onshore grid connection works to support planning of our commissioning next year. Further, we continue to focus on manufacturing of turbine monopile foundations to ensure it is delivered according to plan, enabling us to commence installation in 2026. The manufacturing has started as planned, and there are multiple suppliers contracted for the scope. And if relevant, we can utilize the flexibility gained from this to mitigate risks if they occur.

Next steps in the project will be commencement of the main offshore installation activities in early 2026, which start with the installation of the offshore export cable as well as monopile foundation installation. In Poland, our Baltica 2 project is moving ahead according to schedule, and we are progressing the first phases of the construction work. In the third quarter, we have continued construction work at the onshore substation site, which includes the installation of the first part of the export cable. The manufacturing of turbine foundations is progressing well with 22 completed so far. The manufacturing of the 4 offshore substations is progressing and manufacturing of the offshore export cable started mid-October. With this progress, the degree of completion for the project has increased to approximately 15%, up from 10% in Q2.

There are a number of items for the installation schedule that we are closely monitoring. This includes progress on the manufacturing of the 4 offshore substations and fabrication progress of the key components for onshore and offshore substations. We remain on track for earliest possible sail away mid-2026 from Vietnam for the 4 offshore substations. Progress on the turbine installation harbor in Poland is still on track. We are closely engaged with contractors and regulators to ensure that we progress according to the current schedule. Next steps are preparing of -- preparation of the seabed, sorry, ahead of turbine foundation installation, which is planned to commence during mid-2026.

Now turning to Slide 7 and a more detailed update on our Greater Changhua 2b and 4 project in Taiwan. Overall, the installation of the remaining scopes of the project has made good progress during the quarter. Greater Changhua 4 has commenced generation, and this will continue to ramp up as more turbines get energized during Q4 of this year. For Greater Changhua 2b, the damage to the export cable means that we will only be producing power again from mid-2026, once the damaged export cable has been replaced.

Looking at installation during the quarter, we have made progress across several scopes. This includes the installation of turbines where 58 turbines of the total 66 positions are now installed, and the rest are expected to be completed by end of 2025. We have installed array cables for 50 of the 66 positions, and we have mobilized additional vessels during the quarter to strengthen the installation progress or process of the remaining cables as weather conditions are expected to be more challenging during the winter season. With the progress achieved during the quarter, the project has now reached a degree of completion of approximately 65%, up from 55% in Q2. The focus of the project remains on installation of remaining turbines and array cables as well as replacing the export cable for the Greater Changhua 2b section.

Turning to Slide 8 and an update on our Northeast program, starting with Revolution Wind. During the quarter, the project has made good progress as we have completed both the installation of the replacement monopile for the second offshore substation as well as the installation of the offshore substation itself such that both of the projects, 2 offshore substations are now installed.

On turbine installation, we continue to make progress as we have now installed 52 of the 65 turbines for the project, and array cable installation has commenced and is progressing well. With progress achieved during the quarter, the project has now reached a degree of completion of approximately 85%, up from 80% in Q2. The project continues to progress on a number of scopes that are critical to the delivery of the current schedule. For the onshore substation, we are continuing to progress construction activity according to the current schedule. We remain on site to manage the continued installation of the project and expect energization of the onshore substation early next year. For turbine installation, we will continue to monitor the installation rate closely as we enter into the winter season where weather conditions impact speed of the installation rate. First power is expected during first half of 2026, and the project remains on track for commissioning in the second half of 2026.

Now turning to Slide 9 and our Sunrise Wind project, where we have also continued to see good progress across the different scopes. We have completed the installation of the project's single offshore converter station in September and continued the installation of turbine foundations with 50 -- sorry, 44 of the 84 positions installed now. This work will soon be paused as planned due to time of year restrictions of when turbine foundations can be installed and will be resumed when next installation season starts in the spring. The turbine installation will commence following completion of turbine installation Revolution Wind. For the onshore substation, the commissioning works are progressing according to plan with installation of nearshore section of the export cable expected in the coming months.

With progress achieved during the quarter, the project has now reached a degree of completion of approximately 40%, up from 35% in Q2. The focus remains on the items that are critical to delivery on the current schedule. The fabrication of remaining turbine foundations is progressing according to plan, and we expect to have all remaining turbine foundations completed by the end of the year. On the export cable, we have completed the final factory acceptance tests for majority of the sections, with the final ones expected to be completed by end of the year. And we will start the installation of the nearshore section at the end of this year as well. We continue to manage the risks related to the installation of the project, and we remain on track for commissioning in the second half of 2027.

With this, let me hand over the word to you, Trond.

Thank you, Rasmus. And good afternoon, everyone. As always, unless I state otherwise, the numbers I refer to will be in Danish kroner.

So before covering the third quarter development, let's go to Slide 11. And I want to start with our announcement from Monday. As we have entered into an agreement with Apollo to divest 50% stake in our 2.9 gigawatt Hornsea 3 offshore wind farm in the U.K. The transaction balances the key objectives for partnerships and divestments with an emphasis on capital management and represents a major milestone in our funding plan. The transaction supports further strengthening of our capital structure and ensures significant progress on our partnership and divestment program. The total value of the transaction is approximately DKK 39 billion and around DKK 20 billion of the total transaction value will be paid upon closing of the transaction. The remaining amount is expected to be paid under the construction agreement upon achievement of certain construction milestones.

In terms of our targeted proceeds of more than DKK 35 billion across '25 and '26, it is the DKK 10 billion received under the SPA agreement, which counts towards this target. The total transaction value covers the acquisition of 50% equity stake -- equity share -- ownership share, sorry. And the commitment from the partner to fund 50% of the payment under the EPC contract for the wind farm and the offshore transmission costs, assets. The upfront noncash EBITDA effect of the transaction is in line with the expectation outlined in the prospectus of the recently completed rights issue and including the other aspects of the transaction such as the expected earnings under the construction agreement and service contract between Ørsted and the project. The expected EBITDA impact of the transaction is broadly neutral over the lifetime of the project.

With that, let's turn to Slide 12 and the EBITDA for the quarter. In third quarter, we realized an EBITDA of DKK 3.1 billion. Let me walk you through the main developments for the quarter. For our offshore business, the overall earning came in at DKK 2.2 billion. The earnings from sites decreased, driven by lower wind speeds and step-down in subsidy levels from all the wind farms as well as lower power trading earnings. This was partly offset by full contribution at Gode Wind 3 compensation for Borkum Riffgrund 3 and higher availability rates across the portfolio.

Earnings on existing partnership decreased as a result of updated costs for array cable installation for Greater Changhua 4. Over the summer, there were challenges -- challenging weather conditions, including a typhoon, which slowed down our planned installation speed. As a result, we have, during third quarter, strengthened our setup for the installation of the remaining array cables by mobilizing additional vessels. This has led us to revise the earnings that we expect under the construction agreement. As communicated earlier, we did not anticipate any material earnings under the construction agreement. So taking into account the strengthening of the installation setup and costs relating to extending the installation period leads to an impact in our accounts. Following this revision, the business case continued to have a comfortable headroom.

Other costs, which includes unallocated overhead and fixed costs as well as expensed project development cost increased compared to last year, in line with our expectation. Part of the increase is driven by a change in our cost allocation methodology and does not impact the total EBITDA. This cost reallocation is reflected in our full year guidance for '25. For onshore, the EBITDA decreased by approximately DKK 200 million, primarily driven by lower wind speeds, which were partly offset by ramp-up generation from new assets.

Within bioenergy and other, earnings from our combined heat and power plants were higher than last year, driven by higher power prices. Earnings in our gas business increased slightly driven from -- driven by higher offtake volumes. We did not enter into any new partnerships in the third quarter of '25.

Let's turn to Slide 13. In the third quarter, total impairments amounted to DKK 1.8 billion. The impairments primarily relate to our U.S. offshore projects and are driven by higher tariffs and increased cost as a result of the stop-work order for Revolution Wind, partly offset by decrease in long-dated U.S. interest rates. The impairment related to higher tariffs amounted to DKK 2.5 billion, in line with the range that was included in the prospectus released in connection with the rights issue. This amount reflects recent changes to the U.S. trade policies, including the increased tariffs on steel and aluminum.

The impairment related to the stop-work order amount to DKK 500 million and is also in line with estimates that was included in the prospectus in connection with the rights issue. This reflects the higher cost for both Revolution Wind and Sunrise Wind due to extension contracts needed to complete the installation of the projects. These effects are partly offset by a reversal of DKK 1.3 billion due to the decrease in long-dated U.S. interest rates, leading to lower WACC level across our U.S. offshore and onshore projects.

Our net profit for the quarter totaled a negative DKK 1.7 billion and was impacted by both the decreased earnings as well as the impairments. In Q3 '24, net profit amounted to DKK 5.2 billion, of which DKK 5.1 billion were related to a reversal of a provision related to Ocean Wind. Adjusted for impairments and cancellation fees, our return on capital employed came in at 10.2%, which was a decrease compared to last year, driven by the higher capital employed. The reported ROCE came in at 2% and was impacted by the impairment recognized over the last 12 months.

Let's turn to Slide 14 and our net interest-bearing debt and credit metrics. At the end of Q3 '25, our net debt amounted to DKK 83 billion, an increase of approximately DKK 16 billion during the quarter. The increase was predominantly driven by gross investments of DKK 15 billion into the construction of our renewable project portfolio. The contribution from -- of our operating earnings in our cash flow from operating activities was more than offset by costs relating to the construction of transmission assets in the U.K. as well as seasonally in other working capital items. This was also the case for the same quarter last year. As the rights issue was completed on 9th of October '25, the proceeds of approximately DKK 60 billion will accordingly be reflected in our accounts by full year.

Also, subject to the closing of the transaction before the end of the year, the proceeds from the Hornsea 3 transaction will likewise be included in the net debt numbers. Finally, the project financing package for Greater Changhua 2 were closed in July, yet had no impact on net debt as the proceeds received were matched by a corresponding increased debt. Upon closing of the planned equity divestment of the project, the asset and associated project financing package is planned to be deconsolidated, which will then have an impact on the net debt position.

Our credit metric, FFO to adjusted net debt stood approximately at 14% at the end of the third quarter, which is a slight decrease compared to the previous quarter. The higher funds from operation in the 12-month rolling period was offset by the increase in adjusted net debt. The metric will expectedly increase to well above target of 30% in the next quarter as the incoming proceeds from the rights issue and closing on the Hornsea 3 transaction will be reflected in our accounts.

And finally, let's turn to Slide 15 and look at our outlook for '25. With our solid operational performance for the first 9 months and heading into a quarter with seasonal higher wind speeds, we reiterate our full year EBITDA guidance, excluding new partnership and cancellation fees of DKK 24 billion to DKK 27 billion. We also maintain our gross investment guidance for '25 of DKK 50 million to DKK 54 billion. The gross investment guidance is sensitive to milestone payments being moved between years and the level of tariffs. We continue to follow the development regarding potential tariffs and other regulatory changes, particularly affecting the U.S. and are continually assessing any possible financial and wider impacts.

So with that, we will now open for questions. Operator, please?

This concludes the presentation, and we will now open for questions. This call will have to end no later than 15:30. [Operator Instructions] The first question comes from the line of Kristian Tornøe from SEB.

Yes. So my question is about the expected lifetime of your offshore wind assets. So with the Hornsea 3 transaction, the other day, I understand you are looking at up to 35-year lifetime of this asset. So previously, you've been talking more to a 25-year lifetime of your offshore wind assets, which at least what I've been using in my model. So my question is essentially what would be the appropriate lifetime we should apply to our valuation of your offshore assets?

Well, on the lifetime of the capitalized investments that we have from the starting point, we do use just short of a 25% year depreciation. So the economic value of that is, of course, we use the short of 25-yard -- years depreciation. When it comes to the business case as such and the lease period, that is sort of a different aspect. And that's what is included in the agreement that we have been clear, very transparent about with Apollo. And that, of course, the lease is a long period. And as a result of that, the business case is, of course, longer than the economic value that we capitalize as a start, basically, due to maintenance programs, repowering possibilities and so forth relative to the long lease of the area. So that you have to probably distinguish between how we capitalize, how we depreciate and also how we actually see the business case.

The next question comes from the line of Harry Wyburd from BNP Paribas.

Can I focus on the Hornsea 3 sell-down? So thank you for the call yesterday where you educated us a bit about the cash flow profiling. My question is, given that Apollo have the rights to the majority of the cash flow in the CfD period and given that you have the majority -- there was the rights to the cash flow after that, have we opened up a new thread of book value risk or volatility here? Because presumably, you might review the NPV of those cash flows in terms of time depending on discount rates. And also your future reversion power price assumptions for the project. So is this something where we should expect some book value updates on a quarterly basis going forward? And if so, can you give us any kind of sense as to how material those changes might be relative to the other sort of impairment pluses and minuses that you typically put through over the quarter?

And then an allied question, when we're modeling cash flow, we're all looking to 2028 when you got all these projects up and running. And perhaps now that the rights issue process is over, maybe you could throw in a bit of a guide for 2028 EBITDA guidance might be, given that's really the key year when everything is up and running. But should we apply a haircut to that for cash flow given that, as I understand it, the majority of the cash flows in that year would be going to Apollo?

Then -- well, let's take the first one first. When it comes to the sort of the uncertainty of the fluctuations on the starting point of the provision that we actually do going forward on the sort of asymmetry, yes, it is correct that we have to evaluate that every quarter. Those evaluation will come as today's rules in IFRS. Those adjustments will come under the financial income line.

Second part of this is, of course, that since we have both payable and receivable in this, there is an incorporated hedge as a result of that in addition. So I would not -- so in essence, yes, there will be elements to this being sort of adjusted every quarter. We do not expect that to be significant. And we are presenting that under IFRS rules today. It will come under the financial line.

On the outlook of '28, we will not do an update on the '28 expectations so soon after the rights issue and the prospectus that we issued. We will, of course, comment more back to that and be more granular when we come to the yearly update in February.

Okay. And the comment on the cash flow haircut. I think actually in the first years of the projects, I think it was -- for 3 years, it was 50-50, and then thereafter, it reverts to 70-30 in Apollo's favor. But should we be making a cash flow adjustment? Is that how we should be thinking about it? We need to reduce a little the EBITDA you report on a proportional basis to reflect the fact that you're getting less of the cash flows in the short term. Is that the right way to think about it?

Well, that's going to be the difference between the P&L -- the EBITDA P&L and the cash flow statement. So of course, in the P&L statement, that will, of course, and the adjustment that we're making right -- the loss adjustment we're making right now, will, of course, be reversed under the EBITDA. But of course, in our operational cash flow statement, we'll, of course, address that and be very specific of the noncash elements within it.

We now have a question from the line of Dominic Nash from Barclays.

A couple of questions, please. Second one should be quite quick. The first one is on utilization levels of your offshore wind. You always quote output, but I believe you don't give us an update on the actual potential output pre-curtailment. And I was wondering what sort of level of curtailment are you sort of seeing in your offshore fleet? And what would that do if we were to adjust for sort of likely proper underlying output capability?

And the second question is a simple one here, dividend policy. You've got -- you're not giving any sort of firm numbers yet. I think in 2026, you're going to start paying a dividend. Consensus, I think, in Bloomberg is DKK 4 per share. Are you happy with that consensus number?

Thank you, Dominic. On the sort of the utilization levels that you talk about, we don't guide on specific curtailment of our offshore wind farms -- of onshore/offshore containment of any nature. We -- what you can see is that we have delivered a very solid availability performance during the year. 93% park -- or sorry, production-based availability for the first 9 months and 94% for Q3. So therefore, I'm very, very pleased with the underlying performance, but we don't guide on the curtailment levels. And also just reminding you that there are different frameworks in different countries for curtailment. And as an example, in Germany, we are compensated for the vast majority of curtailments from the onshore grid.

As for the dividend policy, we have confirmed for a while now that we expect to pay out dividend again by 2027 for accounting year '26. We will stick to that. But we will not comment on the level of the dividend.

The next question comes from the line of Mark Freshney from UBS.

Rasmus, if I could pick you up on some comments you made about a month ago at a conference. You mentioned that there were 2 tracks to managing the stop order on Revolution. There was the legal track and there was the negotiated settlement, the dialogue track. Clearly, there was -- your big shareholder announced some deals with the U.S. Department of Defense. Clearly, a negotiated settlement that would protect Sunrise and Revolution would always be preferable to winning in court. So can you make any comments on how that -- those negotiations may be proceeding?

Mark, thank you very much. You are right. We are pursuing 2 tracks. One is the legal track where we received the injunction on the 22nd of September that allowed us to go back to work. And then the other track is a dialogue track with the relevant people in the administration. I -- it is not sort of my approach, Mark. So this is the same as it has been all along and that is that I don't go into details about the conversations that we may or may not have in terms of making a deal. Our focus is to get to a, you can say, complete solution for Revolution Wind, where we still have the stop-work order claim outstanding.

Our focus is on the projects, and I am pleased with the progress that we have seen in terms of construction on -- across both Revolution Wind and Sunrise where we have seen that we have completion increasing from 80% to 85% on Revolution Wind and from 35% to 40% on Sunrise Wind, including the installation of all the substations. So that is really where we have our focus.

I respect that. And if I may have a follow-up just on the credit rating. I mean, I think S&P were waiting for the transaction that we saw yesterday. Can we expect some news on the rating? And does your modeling suggest that the Hornsea 3 farm down gets you where you need to be on that S&P tripwire, so to speak?

Well, Mark, we are aware of the comments or the statements that S&P made in their update on their rating in August. And of course, we expect them to be more comfortable as a result of having managed to actually sign this agreement and basically following our time line as both signing and closing before year-end. So hopefully, it will have some effects. We are a bit uncertain about the interpretation evaluations of S&P because they are sort of the odd man out in the 3 ratings that we do have. So we just have to refer that sort of evaluation to them, Mark. I'm sorry.

We now have a question from the line of Alberto Gandolfi from Goldman Sachs.

I guess the first part is perhaps more for Trond and perhaps the second for Rasmus, it's on capital structure and capital allocation. So the first part of the question is following the DKK 20 billion you're going to receive from the transaction and you announced this week and the rights issue technically in the 9 months, you're basically debt free. And of course, the company remains cash flow negative. But I guess my question -- the first part of the question is, is your balance sheet now fully derisked? And is there any scenario where you see the risk of having to implement incremental measures to avoid the downgrade to junk? I'm just thinking, for instance, if the U.S. project never start, can we say that even in that scenario, your balance sheet is now okay?

And the second part of the question is that if you can elaborate on the first, I guess, then the question would be if the U.S. projects start to contribute, then you could say that in '28, your FFO to net debt is incredibly strong. So can you tell us how you are beginning to work for the repositioning of Ørsted at that point in time? What's your priority? Is organic growth at that point because you need to start winning awards in the next 12, 18, 24 months, I guess? Or is it more wait and see to see what happens in the United States?

Well, I'll take the first one on the capital structure. I think your numbers is fairly correct relative to where we are and where we're going to be at year-end. So in starting to say that, of course, a lot of the discussion during the rights issue has been, of course, the downside risk relative to what's going to happen in the U.S. And we have been sort of elaborating a lot about that because of the stop-work order and the sort of the risk of getting more stop-work orders.

I do think that along with the rights issue, we have explained the reason why we thought the DKK 60 billion was the right number. We have communicated that we expect this Hornsea 3 transaction to be signed and closed during the year. So that has been a part of our base case all the time. The downside risk is, of course, that things may happen of uncertainties in the U.S. that we cannot sort of put a probability or an estimate on.

But as we have said all along, we have committed so much money into the projects of Sunrise and Revolution that closing it down is not really a good case for us because our commitment cost is almost as high as the total cost of the project. That is why we have looked at these structures and also the capital raise in this context. It is hard now to see situation that we will come into a -- that we will be downgraded into a noninvestment grade. So the scenarios you need to develop to actually get us there is now, of course, much more difficult when we have the Hornsea 3 in place.

So over to you, Rasmus.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Alberto. Yes. So I think probably 2 parts to the answer on repositioning of Ørsted on the other side of '28. First part is, Alberto, that it is for us to deliver on our plan. That is really our main focus. We have a plan with -- centered around 4 priorities to have a robust capital structure, to construct our 8.1 gigawatt of offshore wind projects in the best possible way, to stay focused and disciplined on capital allocation, always prioritizing value over volume and then also improve our competitiveness.

And if you sort of look at our progress across the board on -- across these 4 priorities in Q3, you can see that, that is really where we focus. So the best way, in my view, to position us for '28 and onwards is by delivering on our plan. We will be in a very, very different position, and we will be able to meet the market from a position of strength at that point in time when we deliver on our plan.

Second part is sort of how do we then think about 2028 and onwards. You talked about different kinds of sort of growth measures and what is out there. We are -- remain very bullish about the prospects for offshore wind in Europe in particular. We see the rebasing happening in the market. And the growth pockets for offshore wind in Europe, in my view, span across 3, if you will. One is, of course, the centralized tenders. There are -- '26 is probably going to be a little bit on the low side in terms of numbers of tenders that are being put out there, but then from '27 and onwards, it would take a bit of a step change. So that is one pocket that we could pursue.

The other one is, of course, to mature our proprietary pipeline. And then the third pocket is more -- I would not call it inorganic, but a more, you can say, project-by-project collaborationships or M&A. Those are and basically have always been the pockets that we are looking for when we think about offshore wind growth, but we will be patient, and we would prioritize value over volume.

Rasmus, you've been so interesting that can I ask a follow-up? I appreciate if you say no.

Go ahead.

I'm very -- this is all very clear. I'm just very intrigued by the comments you made about refocusing on Europe and potentially openness, project-by-project M&A. Would this also include potentially bigger platforms? I think it's no secret that probably lots of people on this call are thinking about the offshore portfolio of Equinor that would take out a competitor. And at that point, your balance sheet is very strong. Would this be an option worth pursuing, you think?

That is not in our plans.

The next question comes from the line of Lars Heindorff from Nordea.

The first one is regarding the correlation between EBITDA and operating cash flow. You had a few questions about this already, so maybe it's sort of a follow-up. But you've been guiding for '25 to '27 operating cash flow of DKK 50 billion. If we take the midpoint of the EBITDA guidance this year and then the minimum guidance that you've been providing for '26 and '27 that will add up to DKK 86 billion of EBITDA in the same period and a conversion ratio, which is less than 60%.

So how should we think about the correlation of -- between EBITDA and operating cash flow going forward? First and foremost, in -- up and until '27, and I think given the development in Hornsea 3 and the first 3 years with a 50-50 split, that should be fine. But beyond that, that's maybe too far out. But just to get a sort of sense for what you expect in terms of operating cash flow for the coming years? That's the first part. And then the second part, just a housekeeping, which is, Trond, you mentioned the Changhua transaction. How much exactly would that impact the net interest-bearing debt for this year?

Very well, on the operational cash flow relative to the EBITDA, there are 3 sort of buckets of elements that comes into the difference. It's the taxes paid. It's the reversal of noncash tax equity in EBITDA, and it's basically a working capital after changes. That is the major bucket. That's the 3 buckets. And then there is, of course, ups and downs relative to working capital changes that goes in there. But those 3 elements, taxes paid, reversal of noncash tax equity in EBITDA and working capital after changes is the 3 elements that really drives the bridge between the DKK 50 million and the EBITDA element. So that's those elements.

When it comes to the Changhua 2b and 4 and the transaction, we still have the ambition to sign the transaction during the year. But since we're not able to close the transaction during the year, that there will be no transaction as such. So there will be not debt reduction as a result of that. So the statements that we have made earlier when it comes to the DKK 35 billion of the proceeds guideline that we have for '25 and '26, we have the DKK 7 billion that we did before half year. We now have the DKK 10 billion from Hornsea 3. And then the 2 outstanding elements is the around the -- short of DKK 20 billion left. And that's basically evenly divided between the Changhua and the EU onshore transaction. So -- and as I said, Changhua will not be closed during the year, so no effect.

Okay. And just a follow-up on the first part, which is the conversion between EBITDA to operating cash flow. Is that fair to assume that when you get to '28, which will be the first year, at least as we look right now without any offshore CapEx, that you will have still the same relationship, which is around slightly below 60% cash conversion from EBITDA to operating capital flow?

I need to get back to that -- on that because the DKK 11 billion to DKK 12 billion coming out of the 6 projects is not going to be evenly divided as a result of how much of tax equity that comes into that gross up. So not quite sure I can guide you on that right now.

We now have a question from the line of Deepa Venkateswaran from Bernstein.

I wanted to quiz you a bit on what the Equinor CEO has been saying about offshore wind and Ørsted, where he's been talking about new business models, the need for consolidation and industrial cooperation with Ørsted. What are your thoughts on any cooperation with Equinor and what form and over what time line? So that's the question. If you can't answer that, then I have another question, which I'd like to ask.

I will give it a go, Deepa. Thank you very much. So I think first of all, we are, of course, very pleased with the support that we continue to receive from Equinor as the second largest shareholder. We have no doubt about it. And of course, I have also noted the comments that you are alluding to. Our focus right now -- my focus right now is to deliver on our plan, is to deliver on our strategy quarter-by-quarter centered around the 4 priorities that I mentioned before. I -- of course, as any responsible management team, if you look further out in time, of course, you will look at all options that would improve value for your shareholders, no doubt about it. I am confident that we still have a very well-suited business model for offshore wind.

The next question comes from the line of Jenny Ping from Citi.

So 2 questions I have are somewhat linked. Firstly, just on the negative construction EBITDA that you printed in 3Q that you say is linked with the Greater Changhua 4 project. And given some of the cost overruns that you highlighted, are we expecting this to be this magnitude effectively until the close of the project at COD in 2026, so DKK 300 million, DKK 400 million negative each quarter?

And then just linked to that, I guess, going back to the Apollo deal, Rasmus. Clearly, this is a fully EPC wrapped project, which you will take on any overspend and any delays risk. So what sort of comfort can you give to the investors that this project has been operationally derisked as we go into the full construction phase to minimize any of the delays and overruns, which ultimately will be borne by Ørsted?

Just taking the negative of the construction agreement provision that we made in the third quarter. That is, of course, the full amount of loss that we expect to have on the construction agreement on Changhua 4. So it's not a repetitive element. It's an estimate of the full loss on the construction agreement.

Jenny, and as for Hornsea 3, you are right that the way we have done the CA is, you can say, our normal model where we wrap sort of parts of the construction risk the same way as it is also our normal model on the OMA part where we do O&M for our partner. We are progressing very much according to plan on Hornsea 3. It's, of course, a very big project, 197 positions. But it is in our core market, and it is in a zone that we are comfortable working with. Some of the things we have been focused on in the beginning from a construction risk perspective, if you will, are going quite well. The onshore converter stations and the cable landfall is progressing. That is a key focus point for us, also making sure that we get -- that we can deliver and also National Grid can deliver on time. We have no reason to believe not to.

When we get to that point in '27, monopiles has been a key focus for us. We have now sufficient robustness on the supply chain for that project on the monopile side. We have sort of roughly a handful of monopile suppliers on the project, SeAH, EEW, Haizea, Steelwind to name a few. And we have a great deal of flexibility in terms of making sure that if one is not exactly on time, then someone else can deliver. And we are starting to see monopiles being produced with a couple of them. So that is very much on track.

Half of the export cables have been produced, the offshore monopile installation will start in Q2. And also, as I said before, the 2 offshore converter stations are progressing according to plan, 1 already in Norway from Thailand, the other 1 on its way. One thing that we and I have been focusing on, and that's my last point, Jenny, from the very beginning has also very much been on installation vessels. We have 3 installation vessels that will do the work on Hornsea 3. And 1 of them is now done here in September. So during Q3, that is very good. The other 1 is working on other projects. So 1 of the 2 turbine installation vessels, the Wind Peak is now working for Sofia and on the East Anglia THREE. So that is all fine. And then the last 1 is being produced, and we expect for it to be done by the end of the year. So I would say across the board, construction and thereby construction risk is progressing according to plan.

We now have a question from the line of Jacob Pedersen from Sydbank.

Just a question for me regarding Baltica 3. You still have it as a part of your pipeline in offshore in your presentation. What is the status on this project? And will it play any role in bridging the standstill in new installations after 2027? Or will it be more attractive for you to go into other [ auctions? ]

Thank you, Jacob. Baltica 3 is a project that we jointly own. As you know, together with our partner, PGE. We continue to be very, very pleased with that partnership, and we are also moving forward with PGE on Baltica 2. As you know, we put Baltica 3 under reconfiguration a few years ago now. And the reason being that we didn't see sufficient value as the project stands in our portfolio to move it forward. That is still the case. The project is under reconfiguration. And we will only move it forward if we see a significant improvement in the value. So it is one of the options that we have in our portfolio. But as I said before, it would also have to stack up against the other opportunities. We are very strict on value over volume and also on capital discipline and allocation. So that is what I can say about Baltica 3 right now.

Okay. If I may, a second one, just housekeeping. The rights issue cost, will we see that in financing costs during Q4? Or is it already in the Q3 numbers?

It will come in the Q4 numbers. But having said that, there was a good estimate in the prospectus. So I think you can -- if you want to have an estimate, you can use that.

The next question comes from the line of Olly Jeffery from Deutsche Bank.

My first question is that my understanding is that Judge Lamberth [ and Revolution Wind -- so ] Judge Lamberth, who put in place the preliminary injunction is likely to be writing a detailed opinion, which we haven't received yet. I mean if the Trump administration were to appeal the injunction that will most likely happen after that detailed opinion is being written. Would you agree with that broad assessment?

And then the second question is just on the Section 232 investigation into wind components. Has there been any development on that? And are you able at all to say if were to lead to further tariffs, would that be of any material consequence in terms of impairments? Or is that not such a risk key?

Thank you, Olly. I can take the appeal, and then I will leave the tariff question to Trond. And I will be quite brief, Olly. I don't want to speculate in potential legal outcomes and whether or not something will be appealed. And if so, when. We rely on the injunction that we received on the 22nd of September by Judge Lamberth. And we were immediately back to work, and that is very much our focus. But as I said before, we are pursuing 2 avenues still, the legal track and also the conversation track. And our aim is to get a complete solution for Revolution Wind.

Just to be clear, firm -- or have a clear view of where the tariff goes in the U.S., it's quite difficult. So -- but what we have taken into consideration is, of course, the June 4 announcement, the 19th announcement and the 21st announcement. That means that we have looked at the inquiry of the specific imports for wind turbines and associated parts. We have included more than 400 items that they have included on the list. As such, we have also considered the 50% level. And that is really the elements that we can do as best estimate as of now. And that is what we have included in our best estimate that gets us to the DKK 2.5 billion of impairment effect in the third quarter.

We now have a question from the line of Roald Hartvigsen from Clarksons Securities.

On gross investments, you keep your DKK 50 billion to DKK 54 billion guidance unchanged, and given that you've already spent about DKK 40 billion so far this year, the low end of your guidance would suggest only an additional DKK 10 billion for the last quarter, which is like quite a material step down compared to the DKK 15 billion this quarter, especially given the fact that reported CapEx figures historically have been quite high in the end of the year quarter and that the full Hornsea 3 project will still be on your books, I guess, at least part of the quarter or so. So can you help us reconcile the expected drop in the investment level from the third quarter and give some color on what assumptions are embedded in especially the lower end of the gross investment guidance range here?

I do think that you had to take the full guidance into perspective, basically DKK 50 billion to DKK 54 billion. And that if you take the upper number, it's actually going to be around the same number in gross investments in fourth quarter as in third quarter, if you take that as a sort of a possibility. Having said that, I think the important element to this is not necessarily the timing whether the payment is done the 20th of December or the 10th of January.

The important thing is that our investment level for all the 3 years is around DKK 145 billion, as we have said earlier. We expect that to be DKK 50 billion to DKK 54 billion this year. And that means that it's going to be sort of in the DKK 50 billion range for the 2 consecutive years of '26 and '27. So I think it's important not to sort of be razor sharp on 31st of December. But our best guess as of now and the sensitivity we have relative to timing of payments at the year-end is between DKK 50 billion and DKK 54 billion.

The next question comes from the line of Rob Pulleyn from Morgan Stanley.

Lots of questions already answered. So if I may just ask something a bit nitty-gritty. On Slide 23, I noticed some of these numbers have changed since 2Q. So when we look at the 10% ITC bonus, sensitivity impact, Sunrise and Revolution now add up to DKK 6 billion. And previously, I think that was DKK 4.6 billion. And the sensitivity to a 50 basis point move in WACC is now DKK 2.1 billion and previously, it was less. I'm just wondering what was going on there? And if I can just ask a clarification from earlier because the audio was a bit crackly. Did you confirm you hope to announce the deal on Changhua 2 in 2025? I know you answered that you expect to close it in 2026. But is the disposal still going to happen this year?

When it comes to the Slide 23, the reason for changes is, of course, changes in some of the CapEx levels. So the elements, I don't have the sort of the gross numbers in the top of my head. So you have to contact IR to actually get the more detailed level in that. When it comes to the Changhua transaction, yes, we still have the ambition to sign the deal during this year and then close it when we have COD in the third quarter next year.

We now have a question from the line of David Paz from Wolfe.

Just wanted to follow up on Revolution Wind. Just 2 quick questions; a, is the DKK 5 billion, has that been updated since August in terms of the remaining investment? I think that was your share. And then b, what of those 3 items you've listed, onshore substation, the remaining turbines and the array cables, which are the -- would you say they're like first and last? In other words, like what is the critical path, I guess, if you can just give us some color, particularly given the comments on the onshore substation being substantially complete, just what gets you to second half 2026 COD?

When it comes to the CapEx on Revolution, yes, our total CapEx -- our 50% share of the CapEx is DKK 20 billion. And as last quarter, we had spent about DKK 15 billion of that. So the remaining DKK 5 billion for us, DKK 10 billion in total for Revolution has sort of been paid during the time. And basically -- but I think it's more important that we have come so far on the Revolution that the commitment we have on the whole value is there. So whether we have paid it or not, doesn't really matter relative to the timing of the -- it's more the timing of things.

And with respect to the critical path for Revolution Wind, it is still the onshore substation that is on the critical path. It is moving forward well, as I said, on both the turbine installations with 52 and on array cables with 41 out of the 65. So -- and we -- as I said, we expect energization of the onshore substation early next year. But the reason that is still on the critical path is that following the energization of the onshore substation, you then basically go area by area in the wind park, starting with the export cables, then on to the offshore substations and then the turbines in terms of the electrification and the hot commissioning of the turbines. And that takes -- that brings us into our expectations for COD. so still on the critical path, the onshore substation.

We have a follow-up question from the line of Mark Freshney from UBS.

Just regarding security of some of the subsea cables, we know that there's a lot of work being done at the industry and government and NATO level on protection of those cables. But from your perspective, have any of your subsea cables being knowingly sabotaged? And when you think about that at board level as a risk to the business, how are you tackling that from your own internal perspective?

Thank you, Mark. Mark, as I'm sure you can appreciate, I will not be super granular on this question. So I'm not going to comment on sort of impacts on individual cables and what have you. What I can say is that you can say, security and working with the governments and also you mentioned NATO before, is something that has been part of the way we do development in Europe for a very long time. Governments are asking for conversations and solutions for defense coexistence, and we see very good cooperation between the relevant authorities in the markets that we are in and also the sector, including us to develop successful mitigations from a coexistence perspective. That is as far as I can take it in terms of defense.

We have a follow-up question from the line of Dominic Nash from Barclays.

It's actually on Hornsea 3 and the numbers announced sort of yesterday, I just need some clarification on them, if you can help me out, please. So could you work out whether my math is right, you basically said that you've spent DKK 20 billion to date. Apollo are paying you DKK 10 billion for what you spent today, so fine. You also say you're doing DKK 70 billion to DKK 75 billion of CapEx still to go for the project, so DKK 90 billion to DKK 95 billion in total. And you say about 1/3 of that is transmission, I think. But you then -- if you then take Apollo's DKK 39 billion contribution and DKK 10 billion has been used for buying into the project for historics, at least DKK 29 billion remaining, how does that DKK 29 billion fit into the DKK 70 billion to DKK 75 billion still to go at 50% ownership? And on that, I think the transmission might be the one that's a bit odd, is that in or out of the amount of cash that they're paying into? And is that the sort of debt associated with it? Or have you got some other way of getting that one financed?

Dominic, just a starting point for -- it's a bit difficult to follow sort of your math over the phone. But I think one material element in your math is that DKK 70 billion to DKK 75 billion is the total project and not what is remaining. But I do think that if you take the rest of your math together with the IR, I think they will be better of guiding you through it.

We have a follow-up question from the line of Deepa Venkateswaran from Bernstein.

So the question I have is on the legal process in the U.S. for Revolution Wind. So the stop-work orders allowed you to start construction, seems to be going well. What happens if you finish constructing the project, but you've not resolved the underlying challenge of the stop-work order? Can you start already selling the power and so on and energize? Or will it kind of come to a standstill? And in some scenario, I don't know if you lose the appeal at a later stage after 1 or 2 years, will you then be forced to decommission? I'm just thinking about what happens given that now you are constructing and so far, the legal process might take much longer to settle -- might take longer than your construction time line. So if you could just elaborate on those scenarios.

Thank you, Deepa. I would be brief. The impact of the injunction relief allows us to continue the project, to continue constructing and also to produce power.

We have a follow-up question from the line of Lars Heindorff from Nordea.

Very fortunate to be after Deepa's question because it's also regarding Revolution Wind. Now you got the stop-work order on the 22nd of August. You got the injunction filing on the 17th of September. That is now 47 -- sorry, 49 days ago. And if I'm correct, you have installed roughly 7 turbines in that period. You have 13 turbines left to install for Revolution Wind. How long do you expect that will take?

Thank you, Lars. So the guidance we gave on progress is that we basically guide on COD. But of course, it is also -- as it always is, it is also relevant when you install all the turbines and also when you can have first power and that we expect during H1.

But is it fair to assume normally, I think installation of vessels taken 2 -- 1.5, 2 days and then maybe winter period, it will be longer, 4 days, something like that. Is that a fair assumption?

Lars, I look forward to telling you about the construction progress on -- when we are done with the year. And there I will be very specific about how far we have come on the turbine installation as well. It is moving forward quite well right now. But of course, we are also entering a period with more uncertainty on the weather. But right now, turbine installation on Revolution Wind is going really, really well.

We have a follow-up question from the line of Rob Pulleyn from Morgan Stanley.

Yes, sure. May I ask on the onshore U.S. business. I know this is a bit different to the vein we've had so far. During the rights issue process, you talked about effectively separating this out legally and financially into its own stand-alone entity. Is that still the case? And any further strategic plans for this given, of course, there is a somewhat shortage of power in the U.S. and quite a lot of optimism around that market?

Thank you, Rob. You are right that we have progressed our separation of our U.S. onshore business. And as of 1st of October, our onshore business has become a separate business unit reporting into our global development chief. And the Americas onshore business will then continue to focus on development and operations of the projects within the U.S. We have a pipeline of 6, 7 gigawatts of projects with capacity that meets the definition of sort of IRA qualification through 2029. And there are envelope opportunities in the market. And also the 2 projects that we have under construction. So Old 300 BESS in Texas and also Badger Wind in North Dakota are moving forward really well.

Ladies and gentlemen, that was the last question. I would now like to turn the conference back over to CEO, Rasmus Errboe, for any closing remarks.

Thank you all very much for joining. We appreciate the interaction and the interest as always. And if you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to our IR team, who will be here to answer all of them. Thank you very much. Stay safe, and have a great day.

Please go ahead, sir.

Hello, everyone, and thank you for joining today's presentation. In connection with the release of our results for the second quarter this morning, we are announcing the plan for a fully underwritten rights issue, which is expected to amount to DKK 60 billion in gross proceeds, and that is supported by our majority shareholder, the Danish State. The rights issue is intended to fulfill an incremental funding requirement, which has arisen following our decision to discontinue the divestment and associated nonrecourse project financing process related to our Sunrise Wind project in the U.S.

With the rights issue, we will strengthen our capital structure to cover for the full ownership of Sunrise Wind and provide the needed financial robustness and flexibility for the execution of our strategic plan as announced in February and position us for future growth? While we do not take this decision lightly, it is based on a comprehensive assessment of our options, and we have no doubt that this is the right decision for Ørsted and our shareholders and puts us on the path to maximize shareholder value going forward. We are very pleased with the support from our majority shareholder.

Before going through the details of the planned rights issue, let me turn to Slide 5, where I will talk you through some of the operational highlights for the first half of 2025. First, we are pleased with the operational performance for the first half of the year, where our EBITDA, excluding new partnerships and cancellation fees amounts to DKK 13.9 billion. We remain on track to deliver our full year EBITDA guidance of DKK 25 billion to DKK 28 billion despite the lower wind speeds in the first half of the year.

During 2025, we have made solid progress within our construction portfolio. I will cover the progress in more detail in a few slides, but would like to highlight that we have achieved first power on t Greater Changhua 2b and 4 in Taiwan, finalized the installation of turbine foundations on Revolution Wind in the U.S. and likewise, initiated installation of turbine foundations at Sunrise Wind.

Through our partnership and divestment program, we have secured DKK 7 billion of proceeds from divestments. And likewise, we closed the project financing for Greater Changhua 2, raising approximately DKK 20 billion for the 632-megawatt offshore wind farm. The availability across our offshore portfolio in first half of the year was 92%, which is a significant increase compared to the same period last year, primarily driven by the fact that we last year were resolving issues with the electrical infrastructure on the export transmission cable on 2 offshore wind projects.

Our global share of generation was at 99%, in line with our target. Our total recordable injury rate increased to 2.7, slightly above our target of 2.5. To ensure improvement of our safety performance, we have launched an internal program across the full organization, which is intended to further increase training, safety awareness and management focus, all aimed at lowering the incident rate and bringing our people home safe every day.

Let's turn to Slide 6 and a status on our 4 strategic priorities that we shared as part of our full year 2024 results and which will continue to be our key focus in delivering our business plan. The first priority is to strengthen our capital structure. While the rights issue obviously will be an essential component of this, we have also taken several measures through lowering our build-out ambitions and reducing our investment program. During the first half of 2025, we progressed these measures as we closed divestments related to stakes in a U.S. onshore portfolio and our West of Duddon Sands project and also closed the project financing package for Greater Changhua 2.

The project financing package is supportive for the overall project returns, and I'm pleased that we received a very strong support from both international and local banks as well as export credit agencies, which shows that there is a healthy appetite to support premium assets. Furthermore, the continued earnings contribution from our operational portfolio is an important part of strengthening our capital structure, and I'm pleased with the performance that we have seen in first half of 2025.

The second priority is to deliver on our 8.1 gigawatt offshore wind construction program, and we have reached a number of significant milestones during the first half of the year. By delivering on our current construction portfolio, we will almost double our installed offshore capacity by end of 2027, which will further solidify our position as the leader of the industry.

Our third priority is to focus and sharpen our capital allocation with a disciplined and patient value over volume mindset. This emphasis led us to discontinue the development of Hornsea 4 in its current form. While we are currently reconfiguring the project on a different time line, we continue to view the long-term fundamentals for offshore wind in the U.K. as strong, and we see an attractive potential for the future deployment of Hornsea 4 as we continue to hold the seabed rights, grid connection as well as a development consent order for the project.

Our fourth priority is to improve our competitiveness. We have taken several measures during the first half of the year, for instance, through a restructuring of our organization and the addition of new members to our executive management team such that we with the Chief development -- Chief of Development, Construction and Generation now have the full life cycle of an offshore wind project reflected in our executive leadership team. In addition to these, we continue to introduce efficiency measures and rightsize of our organization, which I will talk more into shortly.

Turning to Slide 7 and an update on the progress on our construction projects. We continue to deliver on our offshore construction program according to plan. On Borkum Riffgrund 3, we have installed all foundations and turbines and are currently awaiting the grid connection from the German transmission system operator. In the interim, we are receiving financial compensation from the TSO for the delay in grid connection. The TSO grid converter offshore installation is finalized in the meantime. First power is expected towards the end of this year, and the project is expected to be commissioned in the beginning of 2026.

On Greater China 2b and 4, we achieved first power in July and have continued to make further installation progress. At this point, we have installed all of the turbine foundations more than a month ahead of schedule and likewise, installed more than half of the turbines. Furthermore, we have successfully energized the onshore substation. However, we have had to update our expected installation schedule driven by a slow start to array cable installation and delays in the delivery of turbine blades.

Therefore, we now expect 1/3 of turbines to achieve first power progressively during Q1 '26. While we do not expect any material financial impact to the business case as a result of this development, we are, of course, assessing options to mitigate and reduce the delay. Altogether, we expect the commissioning of the section related to Changhua 2 by the end of 2025 and commissioning of the full project during first half of '26.

The project continues to focus on array cable installation and managing any potential schedule implication caused by the weather conditions and will, in the coming period, continue to progress the installation of turbines, export and array cables. Turning to an update on our Northeast program in the U.S., starting with Revolution Wind, where we have continued making good progress and remain on track for commissioning in the second half of 2026. We have made progress on the construction of the onshore substation as well as the installation of monopiles and turbines.

During the quarter, we have completed the installation of all turbine foundations and have installed nearly 70% of the turbines. The progress made during the quarter has increased the degree of completion to around 80%. The project continue to progress on a number of scopes that are critical to the delivery of the updated project schedule. In June, damage to one of the installation vessels [indiscernible] was identified and thus a need arose for the vessel to go into harbor for inspections.

The inspection and repair work were carried out efficiently by the team over the course of 5 weeks, and the vessel has since returned to service at sea. There is no expected impact to the commissioning of the project. We expect to complete the installation of turbines towards the end of this year. And once complete, we will subsequently commence the installation of turbines for Sunrise Wind.

For the onshore substation, we are continuing to progress the equipment installation according to the updated schedule. We remain on site to manage the continued installation of the project and expect energization early next year. The monopile for the offshore substation that was not suitable for use because of seabed resistance was successfully removed in the quarter. The installation of the new monopile will take place in the coming period and the installation of the offshore substation is scheduled to take place in the coming period as well, utilizing the already contracted installation vessels that are undertaking work at Sunrise and Revolution Wind.

We remain on track for commissioning in the second half of 2026. Turning to the other part of our Northeastern program, our Sunrise Wind project, where we have also continued to see good progress across the different scopes and remain on track for commissioning in the second half 2027. The degree of completion for the project remains around 35%. And while it is only a slight increase since Q1, it is important to note that the metric reflects a combination of scheduled progress and financial spend and thus, as such, not necessarily capture all the progress achieved during the quarter.

In fact, the project has made solid progress according to plan as we have started the installation of monopile foundations with currently more than 13 turbine foundations installed. This work will continue throughout the current installation window, where we will also initiate the turbine installation once completed Revolution Wind. The project's focus remains on a number of items that are critical to delivering the project on the updated schedule. The fabrication of monopiles is progressing according to plan and will continue throughout 2025, which is when we expect to have all foundations completed.

As mentioned, we have commenced the installation of turbine foundations and will continue this work over 2 seasons due to the time of year restrictions of when they can be installed. On the export cable, we continue to see good progress on fabrication as 2 out of 3 sections are completed and final one being near complete. Final factory acceptance testing is expected to be completed in September. On the jacket structures for the HVDC, it has passed the final phase of the quality control and been loaded on to transport vessel and is on track to be installed later this year. We continue to manage the risks related to execution of the project, and we remain on track for commissioning in the second half of 2027.

At our Hornsea 4 project in the U.K., the construction continue to progress as planned with the onshore work to build the converter station and cables on track. The offshore scope is underway, focusing on preparing the export cable route following the completed removal of the unexploited ordinances. We are working closely with suppliers to manage the ramp-up and delivery of components to be installed offshore during 2026 with fabrication and monopiles being a key focus.

There are multiple suppliers contracted for the monopile fabrication and if relevant, we can utilize the flexibility gained from this. Further, we are also closely monitoring the installation schedule of the project's grid connection. As there are a number of renewable energy projects under construction in the same area for the grid connection, we are also working closely with National Grid such that we can maintain current expectations for first power and commissioning of the project.

Construction work for the co-located battery storage solution is planned to start during the second quarter of this year. In Poland, our Baltica 2 project is moving forward ahead -- or excuse me moving ahead according to schedule, and our collaboration with our partner, PGE is working really well. We are progressing the first phases of the construction project. And in the second quarter, this included continued construction work at the onshore substation site and cable route preparation onshore and offshore as well as progress on the manufacturing of the offshore substation and monopile fabrication.

We are closely following the fabrication progress of the key components and taking the necessary mitigation actions, for instance, for the offshore substation, where the project is managing various items related to design alignment, defense and security. We remain on track for earliest possible sailaway mid-2026 from Vietnam for the 4 offshore substations.

The progress on the installation harbor in Poland is still on track and with float in the schedule. We will continue progressing in the fabrication, cable route preparation and also finalized cable design to initiate the cable manufacturing. We are closely engaged with contractors and regulators to ensure that we progress according to the current schedule. Finally, the project is undertaking regular site visits with our partner to secure high focus on site.

Lastly, the construction of our onshore projects across Europe and U.S. continue to progress according to plan. With that, I will now turn to Slide 8 and cover how the use of proceeds from the rights issue will strengthen Ørsted's foundation. First, it is intended to enable us to fund the full ownership of the Sunrise Wind project on our balance sheet following the discontinuation of the farm-down and financing processes that we had progressed for the project. Secondly, the rights issue will strengthen our foundation and secure an improved capital structure, which is required to unfold our business model and optimize the value of our operational assets and construction portfolio.

Thirdly, it is intended to enable a more value-accretive and flexible approach to timing of partnerships and divestments. And finally, it is intended to ensure that we are strongly positioned to pursue the most attractive offshore wind projects going forward in our core markets. Altogether, this results in the proposed rights issue of a size of DKK 60 billion by way of a fully underwritten rights issue.

Let me go through each of these components in detail, starting with Slide 9 and the developments around the farm-down and the associated project finance processes related to Sunrise Wind. As mentioned previously, we continue to see good progress in terms of construction of the project and delivery according to schedule. As part of the financing of the project and our business plan, we have decided to pursue a divestment of a stake in the project and to pursue a nonrecourse project financing package, including a tax equity bridge loan for capital management purposes.

Up until April 16, 2025, we had progressed the project financing process, which at that point in time was very well on track with oversubscription of the entire debt package. We were also well progressed in negotiations with relevant equity investors. However, following the stock work order on Equinor's Empire Wind project, the perceived risks of the U.S. offshore wind market among investors and banks increased significantly. This extraordinary and unprecedented development, which arose unexpectedly and was outside of our control, impacted our dialogues during recent months, where investors involved in the equity process substantially increased their required risk protections and return requirements and the banks involved on project financing ultimately were not able to continue the process under current market conditions without material risk protection, including recourse from Ørsted as parent company.

Based on these developments, we decided today to discontinue the process as it is not possible to complete the partial divestment and associated nonrecourse project financing of Sunrise Wind on terms, which will provide the required strengthening of our capital structure and support our investment program and business plan. As a result of this, a significant additional incremental funding requirement is needed to cover for the lack of proceeds from both the equity divestment, project finance package as well as incremental CapEx requirement following our decision to assume full ownership of the project throughout the construction phase.

The combined effect of these developments has led to an incremental funding requirement of around DKK 40 billion across the period 2025 to 2027. Despite these developments around the funding of Sunrise Wind, the project is, as said, moving forward well with an absolute return level on a life cycle basis that remains at the mid-single-digit level we have communicated before.

Turning to Slide 10 and a walk-through of why a strong capital structure is required for Ørsted's business model to optimize the value of our operational and construction portfolio. For us to leverage our business model and optimize execution, a strong capital structure is a prerequisite. Given the nature of our capital-intense business, where we are developing, constructing and operating large complex infrastructure assets with long duration, we have numerous counterparts across trading, suppliers, partners and lenders.

To ensure that we have the optimal conditions to operate the company and create most value for our shareholders, our counterparty arrangements require that we have a strong capital structure. If that was not to be the case, there are a number of clauses and triggers that would negatively impact our business operation and execution. Towards both incoming asset partners and suppliers, we would be required to increase risk protection, thus it was in the terms on which we can enter into partnerships and agreements. A weaker capital structure and consequently lower credit rating would also require that we post additional collateral related to trading and hedging activities as parent company guarantees would not be sufficient.

And furthermore, it would reduce our access to favorable terms for funding activities. For these reasons, we remain firmly committed to maintain a robust capital structure with a targeted solid investment-grade rating. Turning to Slide 11 and the financial flexibility that the rights issue will provide. As part of the initiatives already taken to strengthen our capital structure, we had a sizable divestment program at a point in time where conditions for divestments have been challenging due to the macroeconomic conditions and updated views on offshore wind as an asset class.

Under these conditions, we have, as planned, delivered almost DKK 30 billion of proceeds over the past 18 months. Going forward, and once we have delivered on our key ongoing transactions, which Trond will come back to, we will be able to take a more value-accretive and flexible approach towards the timing of partnerships and divestments and lower our dependency on farm-downs below 50% ownership of operational assets to fund our business plan, thereby also lowering the execution risk. Retaining a larger share of projects operational cash flows supports our capital structure long term.

Turning to Slide 12 and how the rights issue can support our positioning in the growing European offshore wind market. While the rights issue is aimed at securing our funding requirement and strengthening our capital structure for the period 2025 to 2027, it would also solidify our long-term financial position and thereby strengthen our ability to pursue the most attractive offshore wind opportunities from a position of strength.

Despite the headwinds that offshore wind as an industry has faced in recent years, we continue to see a very strong outlook for the technology, particularly in Europe, where electricity demand is projected to more than double by 2050. Europe must secure its energy future by ensuring affordability, decarbonization, competitiveness, increased energy independence and strategic autonomy. Achieving these goals requires a safe, sustainable and reliable energy system, one that meets rising electricity demand through a diverse mix of clean energy technologies.

Offshore wind remains essential to this transition as it reduces reliance on fossil fuel imports, stabilizes energy prices, strengthen energy security and resilience and delivers large-scale, cost-efficient wind power. Across projections of future energy mix in Europe by 2050, offshore wind is expected to deliver between 20% and 25% of future electricity generation. This would correspond to a capacity between approximately 300 to 500 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity, which is a very significant increase from the current installed level of around 37 gigawatts.

In the near term, we are also seeing signs in terms of improved industry conditions. To give a few examples, we have, over the past 3 years, seen investments of more than EUR 5 billion in increasing the European manufacturing capacity. Also, the challenging viability of projects have reduced the appetite for developers in recent years, which demonstrates that remaining developers see a need for improved business cases and revenue certainty via contract for differences.

When we look at the market-specific conditions, we are also seeing encouraging signs. In the U.K., the CFD contracts have been extended from 15 to 20 years in new tenders. In Denmark, the government has responded promptly following the auction end of last year and has switched to CFD in a new accelerated tender. In Poland, they have adjusted CFD frameworks to reflect the shift in market fundamentals. Netherlands is planning to adjust framework conditions to better reflect market fundamentals. In Ireland and Belgium, we are also seeing a push towards CFD tenders.

Lastly, Germany is considering changes to their framework. And just last week, we saw no bidders in the market-based auction. We remain firmly committed to offshore wind as a focused, disciplined and competitive leader of the industry. As stated repeatedly, we will continue to employ a focused and disciplined capital allocation framework, and we will pursue new offshore wind opportunities once the risk return equation for new projects is sufficiently attractive. The rights issue, combined with the initiatives that we are presenting today will ensure that we will be well positioned to pursue future value-accretive opportunities.

Let's turn to Slide 13 and go through the key measures that we are taking to sharpen our focus and competitiveness. At current, we are significantly growing our portfolio and will almost double our installed offshore wind capacity by 2027. For our future capital allocation, we will have a strategic emphasis on offshore wind in our core markets in Europe and select markets in APAC. For projects in the U.S., we are fully committed to complete installation of our Northeastern program, so Sunrise and Revolution Wind. We will scale back further development projects to focus only on retaining the value and strategic optionality of our offshore lease areas.

We will continue to be very financially disciplined in the way we decide to allocate capital. We will uphold our return requirement of 150 to 300 basis points, which is based on fully cost-loaded life cycle perspective, including all development overhead and decommissioning costs while not taking into account potential benefits from farm-down gains or leverage. The strategic emphasis on offshore wind has implications for our remaining business area. Within our onshore business, we have initiated a process where we are exploring a potential full divestment of our European onshore business, in line with the increased focus of our core offshore business activities.

Similarly, we have decided that our U.S. onshore business will hold a degree of strategic flexibility going forward that can be used to optimize the value of the group's overall portfolio. This means that the U.S. onshore business will be granted a higher degree of autonomy and independence going forward. Our U.S. onshore business has a strong foundation and continue to deliver attractive earnings and operational cash flows. Within our Bioenergy business, we are also focusing our activities as we will not pursue further carbon capture tenders in the immediate future.

In addition to these decisions, we are also introducing measures and initiatives to increase our competitiveness and cost efficiency. First, we are making investments into our trading and revenue business that will optimize the value from our growing operational portfolio. This is expected to contribute an expected incremental EBITDA impact of DKK 0.5 billion to DKK 1 billion annually from 2027 and onwards. Secondly, we are taking several measures within our generation organization to improve our output and lower cost base through portfolio and operational efficiencies, technological innovation, standardization and generation excellence.

With our current initiatives, this is expected to drive incremental annual cash flow improvements in the range of DKK 2 billion to DKK 2.5 billion from 2027 and onwards, approximately half of which is expected to have EBITDA impact. Finally, we are in the process of rightsizing our organization throughout 2025 and 2026 to lower our cost base as we are aiming to design an organization that reflects our current build-out and is more flexible going forward. We expect to provide further information on these initiatives towards the end of the year.

Let's turn to Slide 14, where we'll cover our capital allocation principles. First, it is key for us that future investment decisions will be taken within the parameters of strong capital structure with a targeted FFO to adjusted net debt above 30%. We see this as the right level for us to ensure that we can maintain our solid investment-grade rating. And as I have described, it is important for our business model and the value we create from our construction and operational portfolio. Regarding dividend, we remain committed to reinstate dividends for the financial year 2026 with payout in 2027. We fully appreciate the importance of dividend to our shareholders and reiterate our commitment to reintroduce it.

Lastly, we will only pursue opportunities that meet our strict value creation criteria. We have already illustrated this commitment with our decision to discontinue development of Hornsea 4 in its current form. We will continue with our disciplined value over volume mindset and only pursue new opportunities once the risk return indication for new projects is sufficiently attractive for us. Based on the committed capital of DKK 145 billion through 2027, the projections of our credit metrics indicate a significant increase in our investment headroom beyond 2027, which we look to utilize governed by the strict capital allocation principles that I just described. This implies that the projected financial headroom will be utilized for value-creating offshore wind investment opportunities or alternatively shareholder remuneration. With that, let me hand over the financial update to you, Trond.

Thank you, Rasmus, and good morning from me as well. Before going to the numbers of the business plan, let's turn to Slide 16 and walk you through the key developments of our EBITDA in the second quarter. For the second quarter, we realized a total EBITDA of DKK 6.6 billion. And when I refer to numbers, they're all in Danish kroner, except otherwise stated. That is slightly higher than last year. Excluding new partnerships and cancellation fees, we realized an EBITDA of DKK 5.3 billion, and that is the same level as for Q2 of 2024.

For the offshore business, earnings came in around the same level as last year. Earnings from sites increased by more than DKK 400 million, driven by ramp-up generation at Gode Wind 3, compensation related to Borkum Riffgrund 3, higher availability rate as well as higher pricing on green certificates and inflation-linked subsidies. This was partly offset by the impact of lower wind speeds. The decrease in other costs within the segment primarily relates to cost reallocation, which does not impact the overall earnings for the business. In our offshore business, earnings increased by DKK 200 million, driven by ramp-up generation from new assets and sale of components.

Within Bioenergy and Other, earnings increase mainly driven by higher achieved offtake prices and offtake -- and increased offtake volumes. For new partnership, we recognized an EBITDA gain of DKK 2.8 billion relating to divestment of a 24.5% stake in the West of Duddon Sands project. For cancellation fees, the total amounted to a net loss of DKK 1.5 billion. This related to the decision to discontinue development of Hornsea 4, which led to a negative EBITDA impact of DKK 2.9 billion. This was partly offset by a positive impact of DKK 1.3 billion from various settlements and other contract payments relating to the Ocean Wind 1 project.

On a related note, we have now virtually worked our way through the contract settlements related to ceasing development of Ocean Wind 1, and we have ultimately managed to settle on better-than-assumed terms for more than DKK 9 billion in total. Turning then to Slide 17, an update to our investment programs towards 2027 following the planned rights issue.

Our guidance on gross investments continue to reflect our share of the CapEx that we have committed to our ongoing construction projects. Compared to our previous guidance of DKK 130 billion of committed CapEx, the increase of approximately DKK 15 billion relates to the incremental CapEx from increasing our ownership share in the Sunrise Wind project throughout the entire construction phase as well as higher anticipated costs due to the imposed tariffs in the U.S.

As shown on the graph, part of our CapEx outlook is realized during the first half of 2025. So the incremental CapEx requirement is around DKK 120 billion. Of that, around DKK 110 billion is expected to be deployed towards the installation of our 8.1 gigawatt offshore construction portfolio and the remainder will be used for construction of our projects within onshore and Bioenergy business.

Turning now to Slide 18 and an update to our partnership and divestment program. Since we launched the acceleration of our farm-down program, we have, except for Sunrise Wind, progressed according to plan. With the planned rights issue, we will reduce some of our planned activities and only execute on selected number of divestments to optimize value creation. Across '25 and '26, we now expect to secure proceeds of more than DKK 35 billion across a number of transactions.

We have already secured almost DKK 7 trillion of proceeds this year by closing of a transaction of a stake in the U.S. onshore portfolio as well as the divestment of the stake in the West of Duddon Sands project. The additional proceeds are expected to come from a small number of transactions, but primarily from partial divestments of our ownership shares in the Hornsea 3 and Greater Changhua 2 projects.

In addition to this, as Rasmus also mentioned, we have launched the sales process for a potential full divestments of our European onshore business as part of our strategic prioritization. We have made good progress on both the divestment process in Greater Changhua 2, which is progressing according to plan. Regarding Hornsea 3, as of today, we are well progressed with the preferred bidder. As we have said over the past quarters, it is a buyer's market, which we see reflected in the return requirements from the potential incoming parties.

We are always looking to optimize our divestment according to our 3 objectives. And for the potential divestment of Hornsea 3, capital management is particularly important consideration given the scale and the fact that it is in the relative construction -- early in construction phase as we speak.

Compared to the previous target of DKK 50 billion to DKK 60 billion of proceeds in '25 and '26, the main adjustments relate to the removal of the previous expected farm-down of Sunrise Wind and removal of some divestments below 50% ownership in operational assets. Going forward, we will have a more value accretive and flexible approach to timing of partnerships and divestments, which will be driven by value optimization rather than funding requirements. Hence, we lower our dependency on divestments as a funding tool. In this regard, we now plan to undertake the entire financing on Sunrise Wind ourselves and we will reassess our stake in the project at a later stage depending on the development of the market conditions.

Turning to Slide 19 and our earnings projections towards '27. For our EBITDA, we continue to see earnings growth towards 2027, mainly driven by commissioning of the projects we are currently constructing. For 2025, our guidance range on EBITDA remains unchanged despite the lower wind speeds in the first half of the year, and we expect EBITDA for 2026 to be about DKK 28 billion and for '27 to be above DKK 32 billion. For 2026, we adjusted our EBITDA expectation downwards, driven solely by a change of the expected timing of the farm-down of Greater Changhua 2 project as we now assume to divest the stake early in the year compared to previously assumed towards the end of the year as well as the removal of anticipated earnings from the construction agreement for Sunrise Wind.

For '27, the EBITDA growth compared to previously -- previous years is driven by ramp-up generation and commissioning of new projects towards the end of the year. Also, there are benefits from trading and revenue initiatives, optimization of generation as well as reduction in organizational cost included. For the return on capital employed, we expect to be average around 11% for the period '25 to '27 and more than 13% for '28 to '30. Compared to the ROCE for the same period on the previous guidance, the impact is coming from higher investments following full ownership of Sunrise Wind, which lowers the ROCE with approximately 2 percentage points over the period '25 to '27. Hence, the average ROCE for the period '25 to '26 would be around 13% if we exclude the increased capital employed, which we will incur due to the full ownership of Sunrise Wind.

Towards '27, the investments undertaken in our large construction portfolio are impacting the metrics significantly as the average capital employed for construction projects not contributing to earnings during the period is expected to be DKK 50 billion. To put this into perspective, our capital employed at the second quarter is around DKK 165 billion.

Turning to Slide 20 and our sources and uses towards '27. As Rasmus covered, the discontinuation of partial divestment and the associated financing process for Sunrise Wind led to an incremental fund requirement over the period '25 to '27. To ensure that we continue to have the right level of capitalization throughout the coming years, we have concluded that the total rights issue of DKK 60 billion will ensure this. We continue our work on farming down major fully owned projects. With the planned rights issue, we will, for the period towards '27, significantly strengthen our liquidity position.

With the combination of our existing liquidity reserve, the proceeds from the planned rights issue, the future expected cash flow from operation and tax equity proceeds for the coming years, we will be able to fund the remainder of our construction portfolio without the need for any further divestments, thus ensuring that we have a full backup plan for the coming years. It is important to note that the rights issue is addressing the challenges of -- to our capital structure and the headroom within our credit projections.

Financial headroom within our credit projections reflects the investment capacity above our targeted FFO net debt levels for the given period. To ensure we continue to stand by our commitments also in the coming year, the rights issue will fully address the adverse impact to the headroom following the adverse development relating to the Sunrise Wind divestment.

Going then to Slide 21 and the outlook of our performance beyond '27. Once we have completed our sizable construction portfolio by '27, we will be in a financially strong position. First, we will start to have the full earnings benefit from the completion of the build-out. Once our current offshore construction portfolio is fully commissioned, these projects will annually contribute with around DKK 11 billion to DKK 12 billion of EBITDA in Ørsted's accounts. Secondly, our return on capital employed is expected to increase above 30%, on average between 28% and 30%. This is expected either through investment into higher return projects or from lower capital employed due to a lower investment level. The exact level will depend on utilization of projected financial headroom.

Finally, we expect to see an increase in the financial headroom, which will provide flexibility to pursue the most value-accretive investment opportunities under a disciplined approach or alternatively lead to shareholder remuneration. The planned rights issue will significantly derisk our trajectory towards a more financially strong position. So to deliver on these elements, our top priority will be to continue delivering on our construction portfolio.

Turning to Slide 22 and a summary of our business plan. What we expect to deliver in the midterm earnings growth is based on installed renewable capacity of 27 gigawatts by 2027, all of which is based on projects currently in operation and are more than 8 gigawatts construction portfolio. This brings in line of sight of EBITDA growth towards '27, where we expect an EBITDA above DKK 32 billion. Our expectation of return on capital employed is around 11% for the period '25 to '27, which is impacted by the incremental CapEx requirement from constructing Sunrise Wind under full ownership.

As I just mentioned, we expect this number to increase beyond '27, where average return on capital employed is expected to be above 13% in the period between '28 and '30. We will uphold strict capital discipline and continue to target return requirements of 150 to 300 basis points on a fully cost-loaded life cycle perspective. We reaffirm -- we affirm our intention to reinstate the dividend for financial year '26 with payout in '27. And finally, we remain committed to continue our work on reducing greenhouse gas emissions across Scope 1, 2, 3.

Finally, on my part, let's turn to Slide 23 and the key parameters on our rights issue. The rights issue provides preemptive subscription rights for existing shareholders. The targeted proceeds is DKK 60 billion, and it is supported by the Danish state for its 50.1% pro rata share of the capital increase. The remaining part of the rights issue and the expected proceeds are fully underwritten by Morgan Stanley & Co. International. Next step will be to host an extraordinary General Meeting where the Board will authorize the rights issue. This is expected to take place on September 5. Once authorized, the prospected -- prospectus will be released, and the transaction is expected to close during the first half of October. And with that, I will hand back to Rasmus for closing remarks.

Thank you very much, Trond. Let's turn to Slide 25, where we summarize the presentation. We continue to solidify our leading position with offshore wind with our more than 10 gigawatts of capacity in operation and more than 8 gigawatts of capacity to be commissioned over the coming years. We hold an attractive operational portfolio that continues to deliver solid, predictable earnings, and we are initiating measures that will further improve the value of the portfolio for generation excellence and revenue optimization.

We are continuing to progress the installation of our more than 8 gigawatt of offshore wind construction projects, which provide clear line of sight and significant earnings growth in the short term. We are further sharpening our strategic emphasis on offshore wind towards core markets in Europe and select opportunities in Asia, where fundamentals are in place for sufficiently value-accretive growth. With the planned rights issue, we will enhance our financial flexibility and solidity, which will support higher value retention in partnerships and divestments.

Finally, we will continue to apply a disciplined capital allocation with strict prioritization of value over volume. Our objective financial headroom will be applied towards value-accretive offshore wind opportunities or alternatively shareholder remuneration. With that, let's turn to Q&A. Operator, please.

[Operator Instructions]

Our first question comes from Harry Wyburd from BNP Paribas.

So I'll keep it to the allowed one. Can we just do an inventory of what you gain from doing the rights issue? So this is what I have, but maybe you could fill in if I've missed anything. So you're going to keep 100% of Sunrise now so you get more earnings from that. You're going to do less farm downs, so more projects at 50% rather than lower, and you've got an optimization of your trading revenue and some operating cost improvements. And -- have I missed anything there? And is that all in the 2027 EBITDA guidance?

And could you -- and I guess given that so many projects are starting up in the second half of 2027, what would we be looking at for 2028 EBITDA? So you mentioned DKK 11 billion to DKK 12 billion from the under construction projects. How much of that DKK 11 billion to DKK 12 billion is missing in 2027? And obviously, the reason for the question is one of the lower bounds for your share price is going to be your sort of full EBITDA, EV/EBITDA as in 2028. So if you could help us roughly see where full EBITDA will be in 2028 with all the projects up and running, that would be very helpful.

Thank you, Harry. So 3 things. First of all, you are broadly right about what we gained from this. So as said, it is 4 things. It is the situation on Sunrise Wind, it is to make sure that we have a strong capital structure so we can unfold our business model. It is to enable a flexible and more value-accretive approach to farm-downs. And it is very much to increase the financial robustness and flexibility going forward so that we are very well positioned to lead -- continue to lead the way on offshore wind in Europe where we believe that the long-term fundamentals are very strong in our core markets.

Then on your point on '27 and '28 guidance, as I hear you. So we don't give guidance for EBITDA in 2028, we have communicated, as you have seen today. But of course, the DKK 11 billion to DKK 12 billion that are coming of EBITDA from our 8.1 gigawatt construction projects, of course, gives you some feeling for what is coming. Remember, that is a full year effect from 2028 and onwards. And as you are sort of trying to sort of work that in your model, then of course, you should take a look at the projects that are expected to be COD by the back end of 2027. So Sunrise Wind and Hornsea 3 as examples, where, of course, with Sunrise Wind, our EBITDA contribution will be very significant because we assume to do that on a 100% basis. So that gives you some feeling, Harry, for the EBITDA, but we only -- we don't guide on '28.

And maybe just have one last stab at the question. Would you be able to tell us how much of the DKK 11 billion to DKK 12 billion is from projects that are starting up in 2027 or even give us a rough share of the DKK 11 billion to DKK 12 billion that's coming from Sunrise and Hornsea 3 and Baltica 3?

No, Harry, we don't guide on EBITDA on individual projects. We believe that with the DKK 11 billion to DKK 12 billion we have put out, we feel very good about, you have a very good feeling for the incremental value that you will get from the construction portfolio that is ongoing.

The next question comes from Peter Bisztyga from Bank of America.

Peter Bisztyga here from Bank of America. My question was on the execution risks remaining to your new business plan. It strikes me there's kind of like 2 big ticket items here that I was hoping you could comment on. So one is Hornsea where if I heard correctly, down to sort of one preferred bidder, the sort of press reports suggesting that other bidders have pulled out. So wondering what the risk that process could pull through or take longer than you'd indicated to the rating agencies. And then the other big one is actually completing the construction of your 2 U.S. offshore projects. Are you 100% comfortable that the U.S. administration cannot block either of those projects now that Empire Wind was given -- or is allowed to restart. And what contingency is there? What sort of plan B is there if either of those things pull through?

Trond, why don't you take Hornsea 3 first and then I take construction of U.S. projects.

I will do that. When it comes to the progress of the farm-down on Hornsea 3, as we said, we are in the preferred bidder stage, and that is according to the time line that we have been having all along. And of course, we don't comment on the content of those negotiations. But the only reason why we have come with this news is, of course, the situation in the U.S. that has triggered this. When it comes to all our other farm-downs, they are progressing as we have planned. So nothing sort of in addition of comfort I can give you there, but there's no news other than being on plan on the Hornsea.

And with respect to the construction of our Northeast program, so Sunrise Wind and Revolution Wind, the construction is moving forward fully according to plan as we set it out in February. So we are at 70% of the turbines has been installed on Revolution Wind, 34 array cables, all foundations, except for the remainder on the offshore substation, onshore substation progress on track.

So our focus now on that project is installation speed. It's the onshore substation and obviously also the last monopile. Same for Sunrise Wind, moving forward fully according to plan, 13 foundations installed. The offshore substation is ready for sale out mid-August expectedly. All export cables are also produced and ready for sale out. 35 of the monopiles has been produced and are progressing and so on. So the progress on both projects is moving forward according to plan, and we expect, as said, COD of Revolution Wind in '26 and COD of Sunrise Wind in '27.

And with respect to the regulatory environment that you are alluding to, at this stage, we have no indication of a similar decision or stop work order against our Northeastern U.S. program. And I'm not going to speculate about potential regulatory changes that are outside our control. Our projects have completed multiyear reviews have followed all state and federal procedures, and we remain 100% committed to the continued construction of our program. And with respect to the last part on your -- on the buffer, we, of course, have addressed the tariffs in our business cases, Trond can come back to that, and then we believe we have sufficient contingency in our plan.

And as I mentioned here in my presentation, we do have the necessary funds available now to actually fund all our projects. And as a result of this, basically, if for any reason, there are sort of postponements or time lines or elements to that, we have the necessary funds available.

The next question comes from Kristian Tornøe from SEB.

I'm going to sort of continue a bit the same line because if I understood you correctly, then after the Empire Wind [indiscernible] equity investors and project financing providers willing to take on the risk that so much Wind was facing. So with this DKK 60 billion rights issue, you are now asking your shareholders to take this risk instead essentially. So just a bit more elaboration on, I mean, what buffer you have to cope with this risk after the equity issue, especially the DKK 45 billion in remaining CapEx for these 2 projects, DKK 20 billion buffer that you get from the rights issue in your capital structure, would that be enough to cope the risk on the -- on this remaining CapEx? And similarly, should the Northeast projects be maturely delayed on the commissioning, how will that impact your exposure just net debt for 2028?

Yes. Thank you, Kristian. I can start, and then I would pass it on to Trond. So overall, we believe that with the capital raise that we are putting forward now, you will have a very robust foundation for us, which also means that we can cater for, as Trond also will have alluded to, we can cater for relevant uncertainties to our business plan, including relating to the 2 projects in the U.S.

And when it comes to the risk element to this, we do have -- as of now, we do have the 100% risk of the Sunrise Wind project. When we have discussed the possible farm-down of the Sunrise risk, it was, of course, an important element of having risk mitigation. What we have experienced in the negotiations after April is, of course, that, that is not possible at this stage relative to the market conditions. And thereby, we need to mitigate that risk going forward. And looking at that, this is the result of that. And basically, that is part of what we -- or the main part of what we're trying to address here.

And then just maybe my last part on the sort of step-up in the FFO to adjusted net debt. I mean, will there still be a step-up if Sunrise doesn't start to produce in '28 plan?

So it's a little -- you are breaking up a little bit, Kristian, at least on my line, but I hear you basically say whether there will be a step-up in our FFO metrics in '28 despite a potential delay of Sunrise Wind. So a little bit hypothetical, but that's the way I hear and the answer is yes.

The next question comes from Rob Pulleyn from Morgan Stanley.

Could I just ask a couple of questions on the, shall we call it the process. So the EGM, September 5, maybe this is a very technical question, but why is there a delay? If you could talk a little bit around that? And also, could you share any conversations you've had with the credit rating agencies around the equity raise and new financing plan, i.e., was this proactive from Ørsted or was this reactive to credit rating agencies contacting the company, obviously, given the situation in the U.S.

Thank you, Rob. Two questions. I can take and you can supplement Trond. So on the process towards the EGM, this is a standard according to Danish corporate law. There is simply a notice period from when you convene the general meeting. So when we convene the general meeting now, then we would be able to have it on the 5th of September. So it's not a delay. As such, is the way Danish corporate law works.

And then with respect to your question on the rating agencies, we have had a good constructive dialogue with the rating agencies, as part of leading up to the day-to-day and as we also continue to move forward the Sunrise Wind divestment, but with an increased risk on the transaction. We -- it was, you can say, proactive from our part and a good constructive dialogue.

The next question comes from Alberto Gandolfi from Goldman Sachs.

I just wanted to ask you on the net debt. Consensus is DKK 75 billion for the year. However, it's never quite clear what is gross, what is net. Is there any way you can guide net debt post rights issue for year-end or pre rights issue for year-end? Because I wonder if now that you don't sell Sunrise, maybe the DKK 75 billion, is it okay? Or should the starting consensus net debt be more DKK 85 billion, DKK 90 billion. It makes a huge difference for valuation. And as a side note, if you allow me, I'm sure you've done the calculation. So are you telling us that maybe walking away stopping Sunrise would have been more expensive than doing what you're doing today, which is really raising half of your market cap. I know it's a 2-part question, but if you could answer, it would be very helpful.

When it comes to the net debt, I don't have the actual net debt in my head right now, Alberto. So I'll refer that to the IR that can actually give you that. Of course, in the annual report note, you will find the net debt structure. But as we see it now that the capital increase of the rights issue will, of course, help us by the DKK 60 billion. But when it comes to the exact number as of now, we -- I have to refer it to IR.

And with respect to Sunrise Wind, Alberto and the -- as I hear you, the decision not to walk away from the project -- with the project that is so far progressed, 35% constructed, it is by far the most value-accretive option to move forward with the project. As you know, when you execute an offshore wind project, the vast majority of the construction cost to your suppliers are committed at the point of FID, so where you lock in pricing of equipment and so on. So therefore, in that sense, you are obviously very much locked in at FID. And then also remember that construction of the project is going well that we are looking at a life cycle IRR of mid-single digit and that the forward-looking IRRs are very attractive.

The next question comes from Mark Freshney from UBS.

I was most intrigued by the slide where you point to cost reduction plans and so forth. Can you clarify the number you mentioned, which I believe is DKK 2 billion to DKK 2.5 billion. Is that in addition to the existing cost reduction plans that I think were committed to 1 and 2 years ago. So my question is what's new and what's not new? And further to that, you talk about trying to extract more value from trading. As I recall, it was problematic with some of the trading in the U.K. and some of the losses that you have made 2 to 3 years ago. So what's changed there with the potential to make profits that you couldn't make in the past?

Thank you, Mark. So just as a starting point, there are 3 elements, if you will, of our competitiveness and efficiency approach. One is the rightsizing of our organization that we have talked about before. And to that end, to answer your question directly, we have delivered on the numbers that we have previously put out. And the way you should think about it is that we will continue to rightsize our organization throughout '25 and '26 to match the flexibility required and the new business environment we are in. But we are not putting numbers to that today, we will expect to return, as we have said, throughout 2025 with more information by the end of the year.

With respect to the DKK 2 billion to DKK 2.5 billion that you are referring to, I take that to be the initiative around generation. As I said before, we have recently appointed a new Chief Generation Officer, Godson Njoku, who is reporting to me and the team. And we are moving forward really well with various initiatives in our generation business to improve our competitiveness. It is efficiencies. It is portfolio -- different portfolio approach, vessels, et cetera, innovation, all to cater for the fact that we, during the coming years, will have a portfolio that is close to double the size of what we have today, which obviously brings opportunity for cost improvements.

And then the third leg is on trading and revenue that you also alluded to. So the DKK 0.5 billion to DKK 1 billion of EBITDA expected from '27 and onwards is basically coming from, you can say, 3 components, mainly, it is increased value from selling and buying certificates. It is increased activity day-to-day, the intraday and day-ahead markets and also third-party origination of PPAs. Again, due to the fact that we have a larger portfolio and also, again, with a focus on our core business, which is power and offshore wind and not in any way that would increase our risk appetite that is not commensurate with our business risk, sort of our approach to our core business model.

The next question comes from Lars Heindorff from Nordea.

It's on the CapEx and also in that relation to the EBITDA guidance, the CapEx of DKK 145 billion that you guide. We're having this discussion before. It is a gross or net number? And the reason why I ask is that how much have you assumed in terms of farm-downs that are included in those DKK 145 billion? Will it be fair to assume that you have taken in 50% farm-down of Hornsea 3?

And maybe also you can indicate at what point of time, you have earlier stated that it will probably be in '25, but if it's later, I assume that then the -- there will be even less CapEx contribution or not contribution, but CapEx to Hornsea 3. And also in that relation, the 11% to 12% EBITDA guidance, is that assuming 50% farm-down of Hornsea 3 and also Changhua? Is that fair to assume?

Just taking the CapEx first, Lars. The DKK 145 billion is the number from 1st of January '25. So you have to take out the number that we have spent so far, so the DKK 25-ish billion. So we're down to DKK 120 billion from now on. And what we have said is DKK 110 billion for the construction projects or the construction portfolio of offshore and about 10 billion on onshore and Bio. So I hope that clarifies the number. It's our share. It's not the gross share. we -- as we have said, we do expect to farm-down Changhua and Hornsea 3 with the 50% level and the EBITDA coming from these projects is anticipating that we come down to the 50% level on these or around the 50% level on these assets.

Okay. But just on the CapEx side, Trond, it doesn't really answer my question, sorry. But I mean, you said the split, I can read that between on and offshore, but how much of that still is there sort of a -- I don't know if you can mention a gross number because I assume that the DKK 145 billion also includes some kind of farm-down of both these 2 projects that we just talked about.

That is correct. So it is assuming a farm-down from the period that we expect the farm-down to happen.

Yes. And what time frame are we talking about?

Well, basically, as we have said, and as I said on the EBITDA guidance on '26, we expect the Changhua 1 to happen in the beginning of '26. And we have not been concrete on the Hornsea 3. But of course, it is in process. So it's not going to be -- we expect sort of the progress on Hornsea 3 to happening as planned, but we haven't put down a date on that.

The next question comes from Jenny Ping from Citi.

Can I just come back to the equity raise and the farm-down sort of interaction between each other. Obviously, the EUR 8 billion is quite a sizable number. And I just wondered why are you still pursuing a sell-down of Hornsea 3 and Taiwan, given the admission that it's very much of a buyer's market as we stand. Given the size of the raise, why not pause those and push forward with those once they've derisked as operating assets? And then secondly, along with that, just in terms of, you mentioned U.S. being a stand-alone autonomous unit. Is the intention still to sell it when the market conditions improve? Or what do you mean by a stand-alone autonomous unit?

When it comes down to the capital management and the capital planning, the element going forward is, of course, in consideration also with the dialogue that -- and inputs that we have got from the rating agencies. And so we are going on and pursuing those kind of measures. Even though we say it's a biased market out there, there is also a risk mitigation and a capital management aspect to this because as you know, Horsea 3 is a big project, and we need to make sure that some risk mitigations as well as the management is on its way.

And with respect to your question on U.S. onshore, Jenny, so as I said, we have initiated a process of basically uniting and also separating out our U.S. onshore business, which means, as you point out, that it will become a more stand-alone organization. We do this because it will drive value for that business through lower overhead costs, say, reduced global and U.S. complexities and also clear governance.

It's important that we have -- to note that our current U.S. onshore business with 5.6 gigawatts of installed capacity is a well-run, attractive business and it's quite accretive to our earnings and also positive for our capital structure. And just to be clear, we have not at any point in time, indicated that we would exit that business. But on the offshore side, we are saying that we will focus on our execution projects, Revolution Wind and Sunrise.

Sorry, just a follow-up on the first part. I guess what you're saying is that the credit rating agencies are requesting or requiring your Hornsea 3 farm-down. But is it fair to say if you don't get the price that you want, the equity raise will be sufficient to fill the gap for a farm-down later on? Sorry, just to be clear on this point.

No. But the element is, of course, that the rights issue will, of course, put it in a better position relative to the valuation. But as I said in the beginning and during the presentation, the capital management is an important element when it relates to the Hornsea 3. And of course, if we're not doing any farm-downs, even though we have the funds available, it will definitely put a very heavy pressure on our FFO to net debt in this period. And that's what we're trying to avoid.

The next question comes from Casper Blom from Danske Bank.

A question relating to the comment Rasmus gave a couple of times that the rights issue will also give you some muscle and flexibility to pursue the most attractive projects going forward. You're in a position right now where you are constructing a lot towards 2027, quite a spending spree and then it slows down. And there are no big CapEx planned as it is right now for '28 and onwards.

Now let's assume that you saw opportunities. When would you need to sort of secure an award in order for that to be something that kicks in, in '28? I mean if -- we've often heard that the time lines in offshore wind are very long. So how long can you wait to get something that you can construct in '28? Or is it more realistic to assume that there can be a couple of years vacuum with no big construction going on in Ørsted? If you could sort of elaborate a bit there?

Absolutely. Thank you, Casper. So first of all, important to emphasize that we believe, as I've said a few times, very much that there is a very strong outlook for offshore wind in particular in Europe and also very much that there is a rebasing happening in the coming years. So investments in the supply chain, as I talked about, and also that, frankly speaking, many -- look, there is a rebasing happening right now in the market. At the same time, you will see, I believe, around 110 gigawatt of centralized tenders coming in our core markets alone in the coming years so U.K., Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Ireland, Germany and Poland.

And then on top of that, we have our proprietary portfolio, Hornsea 4, an example that I talked about of, I think, around sort of 10, 11-ish gigawatts, U.K., Poland, Ireland, Belgium. So therefore, there is plenty of opportunities for us to perceive -- sorry, to go for a sufficiently attractive growth in Europe for the long horizon. But remember that we will only do that if we see the value there and if -- and we are not in a hurry in any way.

I, of course, fully acknowledge, as you also allude to that there is a likely scenario where we could have a couple of years with fewer or no CODs towards the back end of this decade, sort of a year or 2 or what it ends up being. And this is obviously clearly manageable for us. We are in this for the long run. We are rightsizing our organization. As I talked about, we are becoming more flexible to manage this than we have been historically. So that is the way we think about it. It will be a value over volume, we will not pursue opportunities just to sort of fulfill a hole in the pipeline, if you will.

If not today, then maybe at a later point, it would be really interesting to hear how you protect the capabilities in Ørsted and your knowledge base if you actually come to a point where there are no construction projects going on, just as a comment.

Absolutely, Casper. Remember also the construction time line for projects in our construction business that you also -- there are also a lot of time spent also on the development. And as you would allude to before, the development cycles and the construction cycles for offshore wind are long. So we are not concerned about retaining the capabilities we have in Ørsted. We have a unique team with a unique capability across all elements of the life cycle of a wind farm. And this is, of course, something that we will continue to focus on that we always retain the very best people.

The next question comes from Dominic Nash from Barclays.

One question for me, please, would be a follow-up on the terms for the rights issue, if that's okay. You say that the terms don't get published until September. But you say that it is underwritten and that you have the support of your majority shareholder. But could you please give us some color on a couple of things, please. Firstly, what's the cost -- financial cost for undertaking this capital increase? And is the underwriting -- is there a price -- has a price been agreed? Or will it be set in a month's time after the share price moves that we've clearly seen today?

And a sort of quick follow-on on your majority shareholder. I think there's a thing on Bloomberg saying that the government is supportive, but it's conditional on other shareholders. I just wondering if you could add some color to that one as well.

Thank you. So why don't I take the latter first, and then you can talk about the technicalities on the rights issue, including the undertaking and so on. So to Dominic, just to be absolutely clear, we have the full support from the Danish government as stated earlier today. So the Danish government will subscribe for their pro rata share of the capital raise. And then the remainder will obviously be to all the shareholders based on the preemptive rights. And then to the extent that is not used, then of course, as we have also said, then it will be fully underwritten by Morgan Stanley. So that is that. And then on the...

On the cost side, that will be disclosed in the prospectus when we issue that subsequent to the 5th of September. When it comes to the details, those commercial terms have been agreed. So it's not like it's sort of a floating element, but we will not disclose those numbers. We have benchmarked those cost elements towards the market of placements with around the 10, 15 comparable transaction happening in Europe. So we're very comfortable at the cost level.

So could I just follow up, does that mean that the underwritten price has already been agreed?

No, but the cost of doing it has been agreed. And it will be disclosed. So the pricing will happen just after the prospectus is issued.

Okay. All right. So the lower the share price falls, the risk is that the lower the underwriting price becomes and...

I wouldn't speculate on the actual pricing as of now.

The next question comes from Ahmed Farman from Jefferies.

I just wanted to come back to the overall plan where you have the equity raise, but then also there a disposal program and then execution of Sunrise Wind is going to be critical.

I wonder if you would give us some sort of a sense of what should we expect on, let's say, disposal program for 2025 and where you expect Sunrise Wind to be by the end of this year in terms of its progress? Or would you say that there is enough -- with this equity raise that there is enough headroom that the timing as to when the disposal program is delivered from a credit rating perspective doesn't really sort of matter too much. So whether it's by December '25 or mid-2026, that sort of this, here there's quite a lot of headroom in the program. So that's one question.

Second question is, anything you can say about sort of market conditions around European onshore Wind assets that would be helpful to hear your perspective on interest for such assets.

I can take Sunrise and European onshore, but why don't you start on with...

When it comes to the headroom, Ahmed, it's actually -- as -- when we finish the rights issue, we, of course, have timing-wise, much more headroom relative to the timing elements of certain things. So I would say that, yes, there is no sort of fixed metrics of having to be done by year-end, not having to be done by year-end when it comes to the credit metrics. It's more sort of a continuous over time element. But of course, I cannot say when or how they will evaluate the different elements. But I'm comfortable that the rights issue DKK 60 billion will give us enough headroom on the timing on the execution of different elements.

And Ahmed, on the Sunrise Wind, so basically, how do we -- your question on how do we -- where do we project the project will be by the end of the year. The project is, as I have said, moving forward according to plan. The degree of completion is going up as we have expected and rounded to 35% as we have said. And we are pleased that we are now -- we have now installed 13 out of the 84 foundations. So again, the project is moving forward well according to plan on the construction side.

And then with your question on the market conditions for Europe onshore, the process we are running, I assume, we are in the middle of it. So therefore, I'm not going to give too much detail, but just say that it's a very, very good platform we have. It's a very capable team, and we are not concerned in any way about the liquidity or the debt in the M&A market for a platform of that nature.