Hello, and welcome, everyone. Thank you for joining EDPR first half '26 results conference call.

We are pleased to have you with us today, our CEO, Miguel Stilwell d'Andrade, and our CFO, Rui Teixeira. They will walk us through the key financial highlights of the period and share insights into our strategy.

After the presentation, we'll open the floor for questions. You are welcome to submit them via the conference chat or ask them directly over the phone.

With that, I will now hand it over to Miguel Stilwell d'Andrade to begin the presentation.

Thank you. Thank you, Miguel, and good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you for attending our first half 2026 results conference call. I'll start off by highlighting some of the key operational and financial metrics of the semester.

If we go to slide three, I think we can safely say that EDPR delivered a great set of first half results. We had recurring EBITDA reaching €1.033 million, up 8% year-on-year, or 12% if we exclude FX, and recurring net profit reaching €183 million, increasing 33% year-on-year, or up 43% excluding FX.

This performance was supported by solid operational execution. A couple of points here, we added gross capacity of 1.8 GW in the last 12 months.

This supports a generation increase of 4% year-on-year to 22 TWh. The average selling price stood at €52 per MWh, so that's broadly resilient despite lower prices in Europe and and the FX impact in the US.

On the side of efficiency, our efforts continue to deliver measurable impact. We had a recurring core OPEX decreasing 2% year-on-year.

We recently signed two asset rotation transactions in Italy and in the US. I'll talk a little bit about that later on.

Also, I wanted to mention that the transaction we announced earlier this quarter for the sale of our Brazilian operations to EDP for €1.5 billion, that will have a closing expected in the fourth quarter of 2026. That's not in these numbers here.

This strengthens This transaction strengthens the quality of our portfolio. It increases the share of EBITDA generated in A-rated countries from around 90% to more than 95%, mostly concentrated in the US and Europe.

Overall, as I said, a strong set of results, and we're delivering resilient earnings. We're executing consistently, and we're taking advantage of growth opportunities in core low-risk markets.

If we turn to slide four, I wanted to update you on two recent data points that reinforce what we've been saying about the US market. The message is very clear.

Electricity demand is accelerating, and wind, solar, and battery storage continues to be the fastest and most competitive technologies to meet that demand. If we look at the latest outlook from the US Energy Information Administration, power demand is expected to grow at a CAGR of around 2.3% between 2025 and 2027.

If you look at the chart on the left, it's clear that most of the 203 TWh of additional generation needed over that period is expected to come from wind and solar, namely 185 TWh, or around 90% of the total. As the coal capacity continues to retire and electricity demand keeps growing, renewables remains the most cost-competitive solution and, importantly, the fastest to deploy.

I think this is something we've stressed often and it's extremely important, because it's not just the fact that it's competitive, but that you can actually get it on the ground in the next couple of years, which is when you're actually seeing this increase in in supply, and so it helps also contain costs and and actually provide that sort of resilience to the system. On the right-hand side of the slide, we've included some of the key takeaways from Lazard's latest report.

It's published earlier this month. You can see that onshore wind, utility-scale solar, and solar paired with battery storage, they all entail significantly lower LCOEs, and also shorter lead times than most conventional generation such as combined cycles and and nuclear.

Taken together, all of this reinforces the fact that we've been defending for a long time that renewables will continue to play a central role in meeting growing US electricity demand, and it provides strong fundamentals to our disciplined growth in this market. If we move to slide five, following the approval of the One Big Beautiful Bill in July of 2025, EDPR has secured 1.5 GW in the US through PPAs and build-and-transfer agreements.

These projects, they're supported by a diversified mix of offtakers. They have an average PPA price of around $65 per MWh, and average unleveraged project IRRs of approximately 10%.

Here I just wanted to highlight that this growth follows the selective investment framework that we introduced in the business plan, with strict risk-return requirements and a strong level of contracted cash flows before capital is committed. For the US projects secured since the One Big Beautiful Bill, the average IRR minus WACC spread is around 290 basis points, above let's say the target that we had in the business plan, and contracted NPV is at around 90%, well above the target threshold set out in the in the Capital Markets Day last year.

Our recently announced asset rotation transaction is a great example of this new US vintage and the value we're creating through selective investment decisions. The project that we rotated and that we announced earlier this week was the first one to reach FID, final investment decision, following the approval of the OBBB.

It's 384 MW of solar collocated with batteries, and we've agreed on the sale of an 80% stake. Transaction implies an enterprise value of approximately $800 million for 100% of the project, so that's equivalent to around 2.1 EV per MW.

That compares well with the transaction also that we signed last year in 2025 for wind, solar, and batteries in in the US as well. Very importantly, and I really want to stress this, it shows our ability to crystallize value through active portfolio management.

We're expecting gains of more than 40% of invested capital, significantly above the more than 15% average target established for this 2026 to 2028 period. So 40% of invested capital, the project isn't completed yet, and so I think it's a fantastic return and IRR on this investment.

I think it's it's a clear proof of our strategy in action, and we expect it to be the start of a new phase and new vintage for our projects in in the US. It also showcases really the disciplined investment approvals, the fast execution, and the active asset rotation working together to maximize shareholder value across the portfolio.

If we move on to slide six and still staying on the US, again on the market fundamentals, the strong energy demand we're seeing is supporting sustained increases in PPA prices. We have the market PPA prices continue to rise in 2026.

You can see that on the right-hand side. It's true that PPA prices are increasing, but despite this increase, wind and solar continue to be the most competitive generation additions because the other sources are increasing as much or more than what we're seeing here.

All in all, a favorable environment for new contracting, but also recontracting opportunities. EDPR has 1 GW of PPAs under active discussion, and 6 GW of safe-harbored wind and solar projects with CODs between 2025 and 2030.

Our US pipeline already exceeds 20 GW, with 50% in MISO and PJM, which are some of the regions that have sort of the highest demand growth and the greatest amount of of potential for for new generation. We also are continuing to strengthen our domestic content procurement strategy, we've diversified the supplier base, we're improving execution, resilience, and and visibility.

We also see upside from existing assets, life extensions, repowering with tax credit renewal, and these repowerings also have typically lower CAPEX because they don't need to rebuild everything from scratch, and you also have the repricing potential based off of these new PPA prices. We already have around 600 MW in marketing stage.

Finally, we have around 2 GW of powered lands for data centers, including 1.4 GW with good visibility, mainly in ERCOT, MISO, and SPP. That gives EDPR also a strong position to capture diversified set of opportunities beyond the current plan, beyond 2028.

Now let's move to slide seven and and look at some of the recent developments in Europe. Just spending a little bit of time here.

First, the European Union has recently announced the EU Electrification Action Plan. This should drive a meaningful increase in power demand over the coming years.

It creates an indicative target of 46% electricity share in the final energy consumption by 2040. We're talking about really a big drive to electrify the economy.

At the same time, we are also seeing a clear effort across Europe to address one of the key bottlenecks for renewable development, and that's permitting. We've talked a lot about that in the past.

We're actually seeing concrete steps being taken, namely in places like Portugal and Poland. Additionally, across Europe in general, we're seeing larger, more diversified auction programs, including new storage support mechanisms, capacity remuneration schemes designed to incentivize flexibility and and long-term investments.

Clearly good developments for the sector, although obviously still room for improvements in the remuneration frameworks, but we are seeing steps being taken, and I think that's been a a welcome change versus some of the past. Just going into a little bit more detail, Italy just released the largest battery procurement program in Europe.

Spain's capacity mechanism has recently been approved by the European Commission. Portugal's upcoming storage auction is expected in September.

France is also moving ahead with renewable auctions, including a new solar PV tender framework. Overall, as I say, a broader shift from purely volume-driven auctions towards frameworks that also consider system value, resilience, sustainability, and longer-term deliverability.

All of these frameworks, they're also increasingly supporting hybrid and storage solutions, as as renewable penetration increases, the value of combining wind, solar, and batteries becomes obviously much more evident, both from a system perspective and from an economic perspective. For EDPR, this creates a, a fantastic opportunity for hybridization and and storage integration.

The example we show on the right-hand side illustrates exactly this point. By adding solar and storage to an existing wind asset, it's possible to increase the utilization of existing infrastructure and and unlock additional value creation without a lot of development risk.

Actually, we announced this today, the well we announced a hybrid project today in in Spain as well, the Lamillas project, with wind, solar, and and batteries. It's a single connection point.

The battery system's already started testing and injecting energy into the grid, and so it's the final step of a project that really integrates these three technologies in a single operating platform. I think it's a a great example of of how we're, taking advantage of our existing platform.

Key takeaway, Europe not only increasing demand for renewables, but also improving the framework needed to deliver them: better permitting, more diversified auctions, capacity mechanisms, storage support. I know we've been pressing hard over the last quarters and and years on these issues, but we are seeing some concrete steps being taken to to improve this.

Definitely we are well positioned to grab these opportunities if they meet our investment criteria. If we move on to slide eight, let's talk a little bit about asset rotation, because I think this is definitely something which is has an impact not just on our P&L and and balance sheet, but it I think it just goes to show the structural value of the projects that we are investing in.

Far this year, we signed two asset rotation transactions in Italy and in the US, very attractive transaction multiples. So €1.9 million enterprise value per megawatt multiple, total enterprise value of around €900 million, assuming all transactions at 100%.

All of these transactions, or both of these transactions, they result in more than 40% gain over invested capital, clearly showcasing the value that we're creating here. This is a market test, this is not an Excel spreadsheet or a theoretical IRR exercise.

This is real cash value creation. Proceeds expected to be concentrated in the second half of 2026, and we continue to have other transactions in the pipeline, we'll expect to close those in the second half of '26 or or first half of '27.

In relation to the disposal of our operations in Brazil, so that was signed in in May '26, transaction covers 1.7 GW, enterprise value of around €1.5 billion, expected to increase the weight of EBITDA in A-rated countries to over 95%, as I mentioned earlier in the presentation, expected to have a positive impact of around €20 million on a 2027 net profit basis and then around an EBITDA reduction of €100 million on a post-transaction basis. Overall, I think between the asset rotations in Italy, the US, the sale of the Brazilian operations, it's the focus on maximizing returns, crystallizing value, and reallocating capital towards lower-risk growth markets.

Moving to slide nine, and just before I pass it over to Rui, upgrade. I think it's important to remind that, we had a strong execution in the first quarter, and we'd already upgraded our 2026 EBITDA guidance.

We're now further upgrading the guidance to between €2.2 to €2.3 billion of EBITDA on the back of higher visibility on asset rotation gains, which we now expect to be at the high end of the range at around €0.3 billion. Looking at the year so far, execution continues to evolve according to plan.

Looking at the 2026 to 2028 period, we've already secured around 3.4 GW, so that's around 70% of our '26-'28 target additions, and that includes obviously 100% of our '26 target, which is already under advanced construction, and around 80% of 2027. Very important to note that these projects continue to be secured at very attractive returns and under the same disciplined investment framework we discussed earlier and which has led to the value creation on these transactions that we just announced.

All in all, we continue to de-risk the delivery of the business plan while keeping capital discipline and a focus on high-quality markets. Now just stop there and pass it over to Rui to walk you through the financial results, and then I'll come back for closing remarks.

Thanks.

Thank you very much, Miguel. Good afternoon to you all.

Let's just go into the numbers in the first-half results. Going to slide 11, we delivered a very solid first half of the year.

The average installed capacity increased 4% year-on-year to 20.5 GW, and this is mainly driven by the additions in the North America as well as in Europe. At the same time, we continue to actively reshape the portfolio.

Around 0.9 GW of asset rotation and decalling, this is in line with the business plan. Therefore, as a result, electricity generation increased 4% year-on-year to 22.1 TWh, combination of higher average capacity in operation and partially offset by this perimeter change driven by the asset rotation.

Moving now to revenues, electricity sales decreased 2% year-on-year to €1.14 billion, reflecting a normalization of prices in Europe and the depreciation of the US dollar. I think it's important to highlight that when we exclude FX, revenues increased by 2%, as higher volumes offset the decrease and this normalization of the average selling price, which declined to €51.8 per MWh, again, mainly in Europe, that's 11% down year-on-year, while in North America average selling price increased in 3% or by 3% in local currency.

Good performance on the US, obviously driven by higher demand, and that normalization effect that I mentioned in Europe. Just to quickly summarizing the key drivers for revenues by geography: Europe impacted by lower average price in Iberia, but also below-average renewable resource, as well as lower capacity year-on-year following the asset rotation and the deconsolidation in Spain, Italy, and Greece.

North America increased €20 million year-on-year, stronger growth in local currency supported by volumes and improved prices. South America increasing year-on-year mainly reflecting the contribution from higher average selling price, continued improvement in output.

Also a quick comment on APAC, also showing a positive contribution due to higher volumes. Overall, the key takeaway is that generation of volumes are growing as a result of the business plan execution, while price reflected that normalization and FX impacts.

If we now move to slide 13, I'd like to touch on efficiency. First half '26 recurring core OPEX decreased by 2% year-on-year both in nominal terms and when accounting for the FX, depreciation, and inflation adjustments.

These reflect obviously the continued execution in the efficiency strategy. Core OPEX per average megawatt declined by a further 5% year-on-year to €40,000, bringing the cumulative reduction over the last 2 years to approximately 15%, and the OPEX per gross profit ratio improved to 27%, a small 0.1 percentage point improvement year-on-year.

These results they reflect a more efficient and flexible O&M strategy, continued cost discipline, internal organization aligned with the revised growth outlook, and scaling of digital and AI capabilities across the group. All this in a context where EDPR is growing and delivering its growth targets.

I think it's remarkable for what the teams have been doing in terms of improving efficiency of the operations. Now on slide 14, recurring EBITDA reached €1.03 billion, up 8% or 12% up year-on-year if we exclude FX.

Looking at the main drivers, electricity sales were lower, as discussed previously; tax equity revenues increased by €42 million, supported by solar additions that benefit from the ITCs, with an increase of 0.8 GW year-on-year in North American installed capacity; core OPEX decreased by €7 million, reflecting the efficiency improvements and cost discipline I've just described; asset rotations reached €66 million in the first half of the year, mainly the Italian portfolio transaction that was closed, and that represented an increase of €54 million year-on-year. From a regional perspective, growth was mainly driven by North America, while Europe was impacted by that price normalization.

Overall, the €73 million increase in recurring EBITDA was driven by the tax equity revenues, asset rotation gains, continued efficiency improvements, and these more than offset the lower electricity sales and higher other net costs. Now on the financial results, they remained broadly stable at around €243 million.

Lower net interest costs, supported by a €0.5 billion reduction in average net debt and a 10 basis points reduction in the average cost of debt, were offset by lower capitalization of financial expenses. Giving just a bit more color on the financing profile, around 85% of debt is with fixed interest rates, 66% in euro, 24% in US dollars, and 10% in other currencies.

In terms of maturities, we maintain a long maturity profile, with over 85% of our debt maturing from 2028 onwards. Moving now to slide 16, during the first half we invested €1.2 billion, comprising approximately €0.7 billion of CAPEX and €0.5 billion of financial investments, this is mostly on the Ocean Winds.

This was partially offset by €0.2 billion of organic cash flow and €0.6 billion from asset rotation, tax equity, and other items, including the Greek asset rotation that was completed in the first quarter. The main asset rotation, tax equity, and Brazil disposal proceeds are expected to be concentrated in the second half of this year, and that will support expected reduction in net debt by year-end.

On net profit, recurring net profit reached €183 million, increasing 33% year-on-year or 43% when excluding Forex. The increase was supported by higher EBITDA, including the higher asset rotation gains, and an improved tax result with an effective tax rate of 20% in recurring earnings.

This was partially offset by higher depreciation associated with the capacity additions, also higher minorities following the sale of the 49% stake in the Pioneer portfolio in the fourth quarter of last year. Excluding asset rotation gains, underlying net profit reached €117 million, which is broadly stable year-on-year if we exclude FX.

Finally, just to add some light on all of the non-recurring adjustments recorded in the first half, let me just go through quickly the main items. These items had an immaterial impact in EDPR's reported net profit, with a net impact of €1 million, -€1 million.

This is completely immaterial. There are a few noteworthy adjustments across the P&L.

At the EBITDA level, we recorded a positive adjustment, and again, I remind this is just non-recurring, but again, at EBITDA level a positive adjustment of €23 million, mainly reflecting the reversal of 2025 losses on trade receivables in Vietnam, and this is more than offset by a €61 million provision related to also in Vietnam, a retroactive adjustment of pre-2024 tariffs. This relates to an expected agreement with the Vietnamese government regarding the tariffs of some of the plants.

At the depreciation and amortization level, we recorded €39 million of non-recurring charges, mainly related to accelerated depreciation of wind assets in US and net impairments, primarily in US and South America. These items also resulted in non-recurring tax impact of €58 million and a €18 million impact of non-controlling interests.

Taking all of this together, the overall impact in EDPR's reported net profit for the period was, again, as I said, immaterial, -€1 million, 0.5% of the recurring net profit. On a reported basis, net income doubled year-on-year, reaching €184 million.

With this, I would now hand over to Miguel to closing and final remarks. Thank you.

Thank you, Rui. Let me just conclude on slide 19 with the key messages on execution and outlook.

First, very comfortable with the 2026 targets and delivering the 1.5 GW of capacity additions for this year, so that's on track. Our efficiency efforts are definitely paying off, and Rui mentioned that and all the work that's been done by the team, OPEX down 2% year-on-year in the first half.

Two asset rotation transactions announced, and now we have more visibility on the asset rotation gains for the year, we're upgrading the guidance to €0.3 billion for the year, and that leads to the upgrade in the EBITDA guidance for the €2.2 to €2.3 billion range. That's the first point on the target.

Second, visibility for 2027 and '28 is improving. We have 1.9 GW of capacity additions secured.

We have 2 GW under commercial discussions, and already 80% of the 2027 target secured. We also see an upward movement in forward electricity prices in the US and Europe since November '25, and the disposal of Brazil is expected to have a positive impact of around €20 million in the 2027 net profit and reduce net debt by €1.5 billion.

Third, on the post-2028 opportunities, they're becoming increasingly visible. The demand growth in the US and Europe supported by data centers and electrical vehicles continues to underpin the need for renewables and batteries, and that remains the most competitive technology with quick delivery.

Additional opportunities from wind repowering, batteries, hybridization, PPA repricing, powered lands for data centers, really a lot of options, I think, that we have to create additional value. All in all, in summary, EDPR delivering on the current business plan, improving medium-term visibility, and positioning itself to capture attractive opportunities beyond 2028.

I just wanted to also take this opportunity to share that we plan to update the market on post-2028 outlook in the second quarter of 2027. In the second quarter of next year, we expect to come back to the market to update you based on what we will have done in '26 and obviously '25 as well, and also how we're seeing '27, '28, and hopefully give you guidance also for future years.

With all of that, thank you, and I'll move it back to Q&A. Miguel.

Thank you, Miguel. We'll start with the questions that came from the web.

We have several questions. We'll try to pass the main ones.

Questions from Jorge Alonso from Bernstein, Beatrice Giannoni from Mediobanca, Filipe Rosa from Mediobanca, Olly Jeffrey from Deutsche Bank, Pablo Cuadrado from Kepler Cheuvreux, starting on EBITDA guidance upgrade. Beatrice from Mediobanca and Jorge Alonso from Bernstein: Question is essentially, regarding the upgrade of asset rotation gains and recurring EBITDA guidance for '26, how do we see the impact of this upgrade on recurring net profit expectations for 2026?

Great. Thanks, Miguel.

The guidance is we've now pointed to €2.2-€2.3 billion. I think we have very good confidence and visibility on the asset rotation gains.

As I mentioned earlier, should be in the region of about €300 million, and that reflects the Italian transaction, which is already in the first half, of around €61 million, the US transaction signed this week has a material gain. We gave an indicative number of around 40% plus of let's say of value over CAPEX, but the exact number will probably only come out by the end of the year.

In any case, we expect it to be very material. Then we have several other transactions that are progressing that we expect to be announced in the next few weeks or months, I'd say that that's all on track.

We don't give formal guidance on recurring net profit. We never have.

Obviously, an upgrade in guidance on the EBITDA has an impact also on the recurring net profit expectations. We are comfortable with the consensus recurring net profit for 2026, around €450 million to €480 million.

That's been coming up over the last couple of weeks and months. On the underlying net profit over the second half of '26, we also see some marginally positive development for the rest of the year.

I can mention a couple: higher electricity prices in Europe, just given all the geopolitical unrest there is, stronger US dollar, and we also have the capacity additions contribution in the last months of the year. Bottom line here is we're comfortable with the consensus for recurring net profit 2026.

Thank you, Miguel. Next question also from Beatrice from Mediobanca.

How do we see the evolution of net debt by 2026 year-end? It's Rui.

Thank you, Miguel. Thank you for the question.

We keep the net debt 2026 guidance in line with what we said in the first quarter earnings call. Lower year-on-year, below €8 billion.

We have good visibility on the asset rotation, tax equity proceeds that will be concentrated in the second half. Then note that we'll have the closing of the disposal of the Brazilian operations, that is also expected late in 2026, with an overall €1.5 billion positive impact, of which already €0.6 billion are reflected in the first half net debt given the deconsolidation.

Having said that, then we are also managing for value, and with some flexibility, some disposals that potentially will be deferred into 2027. Just to highlight that again FX exposure here also has a potential impact, depending on how US dollar evolves, a strong dollar would have a negative impact, also a positive one on the FFO side.

All in all, maintaining the guidance that we provided in the first quarter of the year.

Next question is regarding taking consideration the lower tax rate that we are reporting year-on-year. How do we see the effective tax rate for the rest of the year and going forward in terms of assumptions of the business plan?

Thank you for the question. The recurring effective tax rate, as I mentioned, the first half was 20%.

This benefits from the timing of the asset rotation, as some of these transactions are tax-exempt. I would say we've seen this type of tax rates on recurring numbers in the past.

As we look forward, given again that some of the asset rotation transactions we are expecting, I would say that it should be below the 20%, high-mid teens. I would say probably in line with the market consensus.

We have then some questions around data centers and all the opportunities that are rising. If we see additional business opportunities in terms of partnerships, colocation of generation assets, or powered land, of course, more relevant in US in the case of EDP Renováveis?

Maybe a couple of comments here just in general on the data centers. First, it's an opportunity we're taking very seriously.

The team's spending a lot of time on developing options around this. It's clear that data centers are a major structural driver of electricity demand, and that's underpinning the renewables expansion, just in general it's good to have higher demand coming from the data centers, because that leads to more generation.

It's true also that we're finding opportunities not just in terms of PPAs, but also behind-the-meter solutions and powered land options that we're exploring. As some of you may know, we operate more than 100 renewable sites located in 20 states in the US, we have a wide presence in the US, in some cases with a very good overlap with data center development sites, and that places us in a good position to leverage the potential for either powered land or colocation deals with some of the data centers, and that's what we're exploring.

Our most advanced powered land projects in the US includes around 400 MW project with load connection rights already secured in ERCOT, but then we also have an additional 1.4 GW with good visibility in MISO and SPP, and those are part of the over 2 GW of powered land projects that we have under analysis. There could be good opportunities here for either colocation with existing or new renewable generation.

We're exploring those different options. Obviously, as soon as we have anything concrete, we'll get back to you and provide that visibility to the market.

We have then a question at your Capital Markets Day in November you provided 2028 targets in terms of EBITDA, in terms of recurring net profit. How do we see these targets as of today?

Listen, we definitely see positive developments and prospects for 2028. As I say, we'll certainly come back to this in more detail if we do an update to the capital markets in second quarter of next year.

Just in terms of some highlights, what I'd say is that capacity additions secured are evolving well, and eventually there could be some upside for the 2028 capacity additions, namely in the US, so that's something we're working on. Second, I think in terms of the asset rotation gains, we had a target for 2028 of around €0.2 billion.

That's below the €0.3 that we're considering for this year. We've clearly seen a great amount of demand for these type of transactions and good pricing.

That's also something that we'll bear in mind when we're thinking about 2028. Another point is just that over the last 6 to 9 months, electricity forward prices, they've moved up in both Europe and the US, obviously we'll see how that develops over the next couple of months, but that's been also positive news.

Finally, I'd say just that the disposal of Brazil, that implies the deconsolidation of around €100 million of EBITDA, but it's earnings-enhancing in '27, '28. That will adjust slightly these targets for '28, but on an earnings level it should be positive.

Maybe I'll stop here, but let's say we're obviously continuing to work on it, and over the next couple of months we'll get back to you at the beginning of next year, as I said.

We have then some questions around the post-2028, in terms of further investment opportunities, if we see more visibility today than what we had at our CMD, and how do we see the evolution of that investment opportunities post-2028?

The previous question was on let's say 2028 targets, this is post-'28, we didn't give specific targets for post-'28, as you know. Just generally what I can say is very much in line with what I've said.

What was valid for '28 is also valid post-'28. Strong demand going well past '28 driven by the electrification and the execution also of the data center in the various different markets.

The positive news we're getting around the wind power permitting, namely repowering of projects, so that could be a great opportunity to increase competitive clean power generation in the US. Again, that would be by our estimates post-2028, as you know.

We haven't included anything in our business plan until '28 in onshore wind. Another point is just the new long-term remuneration schemes for batteries in Europe, with remunerating ancillary services, capacity auctions.

This could significantly improve the risk-return profile of these projects, and I think we're well positioned to benefit from that. We've also been dedicating ourselves to development of battery opportunities and options, collocating it with some of our existing projects.

All of these are different options that we're building up, which could be sort of a post-2028 or sources of additional growth.

In order to cover the questions on the phone, covering just one last question from the web: Do you think that you have the right capital structure to face a potential upward trend on investment opportunities in renewables and batteries in US and Europe over the next few years?

Thanks, Miguel. We've been getting this question quite often, and on a more recurring basis over the last few weeks and months.

Been very clear. Our strategy has been very much to focus on value over volume, making sure we are doing the right investment decisions and being very strict about the risk-return criteria, and it's very easy to get carried away.

I think the value of doing this is seen in the gains of the asset rotations that we're doing, clearly we are doing something right in terms of the investment decisions that we're taking. Financial leverage has not been a constraint for good investment opportunities, because as you've seen, we're able to then rotate these projects with good returns.

What we need is to be very comfortable that we are creating value so that then we can rotate them and so balance sheet hasn't been a restriction. Having said that, obviously EDPR needs to keep solid credit rating ratios.

We don't have a credit rating, but need to have standalone solid credit ratios. We believe that what we have here in terms of our business plan, it's a fully funded business plan.

It allows us to continue to grow. We have the flexibility through the asset rotations and from operational cash flow to continue to fund this and to develop these options for the future.

We'll go now to our first question on the phone from the line of Arthur Sitbon from Morgan Stanley. Arthur, please go ahead.

Hello. Thank you very much for taking my questions.

The first one was on your market update that you mentioned will be in Q2 next year, or by Q2 next year. It's in a bit less than a year now.

What will you obtain in additional visibility between now and then that will make you more comfortable to provide guidance in the medium term so next year rather than, for example, doing it now? Are there key milestones that will allow you to have that additional visibility, and what are those key milestones?

That would be my first question. The second one is on slide 19.

I've seen that you put the data center powered land additional opportunity in the category of post-2028 opportunities. I was wondering if that meant that you think 2026 and 2027 will be too early to have any of these development materializing.

Last, very quick question. You said you were comfortable with consensus between €450 and €480 million of net income, but I think consensus includes asset rotation gains that are closer to €200 million than €300 million, I just wanted to have a bit more color on that if you can help by any chance.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Arthur. On your first question, obviously when we're in the second quarter of '27, we'll have perfect visibility on what happened in '26, and we'll also have very good visibility on the megawatts secured for '27 and much greater visibility also for 2028.

In second quarter of '27, we'll be 18 months out from the end of our projections. I think by then we'll already be looking at additional megawatts that we may be starting to market for '29 and 2030, and so I think in that sense that is a difference in terms of visibility that we'll have at that time versus where we are today.

That ties in also to your second question. I think in terms of things like powered land, etc., we may have some options even in the short term to create value and to crystallize value in terms of powered land already in 2026, but obviously in '27 we'll have more visibility about what we can do more structurally for the future.

Obviously, in Q2 of '27, we'll also have better visibility in terms of power prices, for example, for '27 and also for '28. That will be already more locked in.

In general, obviously with 9 months of additional information and 18 months out from the end of the forecast period, it'll be much easier to give you solid guidance on '28 and to extend it beyond that. On your third point, on the consensus, the 450 to 480, so that does include already capital gains.

Different people are assuming different things, but we'd already guided for higher capital gains in the previous results call. What we're doing today is reconfirming towards the upper end of that guidance, but let's say that was already incorporated.

If you look at the evolution of the consensus over the last couple of months, it's already increased significantly. I think by confirming the consensus as of today, it's already a significantly higher level, which is already incorporating sort of that previous range towards the higher end of that range that we were seeing.

Okay?

Thank you very much.

Thanks.

Thank you, Arthur. Next question comes from the line of Pedro Alves from CaixaBank.

Pedro, please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon, Miguel and Rui. Thank you for the presentation.

A couple of questions. The first one, more specific on the Spanish portfolio and the performance in this quarter.

Something that caught my attention was the fact that the Spanish platform has been loss-making for two consecutive quarters at EBIT level, and there was no particular one-off that you have identified. Clearly, declining capture price is playing a role here, but also OPEX have increased despite lower megawatts installed versus last year, and you've actually benefited from the suspension of the generation tax.

Can you please clarify why this direction in OPEX in the Spanish portfolio? Then, still related to the Spanish portfolio, probably more of a reflection and the role of Spain within the EDP Group.

One of the motivations for EDP buying Brazil from EDPR was managing renewables and client in an integrated fashion. Given the anticipated baseload demand step-up in Iberia, namely from data centers, and your existing hydro and energy management client platform within EDP, could a similar logic apply here and lead you to revisit basically your energy management approach, and with this, I mean EDP integrating EDPR's Spanish generation and batteries into a broader energy management business rather than running Spain as a standalone renewables book?

Thank you. Okay.

Thank you, Pedro. I think in relation to the first one, and that's subject of us coming back with some more detailed information, but essentially I think it's driven by lower generation and lower year-on-year prices.

On the OPEX side, I'd have to check exactly if there was any specific detail or sort of major correction that was needed to be done on the portfolio, but I'd say a big part of it was just driven by the lower generation that we had and the year-on-year prices. We can get back to you with a more detailed analysis on that.

On the second question, I would just take a step back and just remind you that when EDP Renováveis was set up, it had the exclusivity for doing wind and solar globally, with the exception of Brazil. Brazil was always a little bit of an exception, because in the past Brazil was listed as well.

Let's say there was always that commitment that the renewables there would be managed between EDP Brazil and EDP Renováveis. In Iberia, it's always very clear that there was a clear separation between EDP Renováveis and EDP, sort of the rest.

Doesn't mean that we don't have an arm's length relationship in terms of energy management, but so far we don't believe that it was necessary let's say to replicate what we did in Brazil with Iberia, and I think that was sort of implied in your question. We've been managing EDP Renováveis on an arm's length basis in Iberia, but obviously trying to optimize the energy management to the best extent possible.

I'm just being told here actually in relation to Iberia that apparently there were some additional costs on the OPEX. Oh yeah, okay, that probably makes sense.

The beginning of the year, if you remember, we had all the extreme storms, and so there were several costs associated with that which may be incorporated there. We also had 110 MW less year-on-year in Spain versus the past.

Again, we can get back to you, but it feels like that OPEX thing may be related to that extraordinary event that we had at the beginning of the year.

Thank you, Miguel.

Thanks.

Next question comes from the line of Jenny Ping from Citi. Jenny, please go ahead.

Thank you very much. Two questions from me, please.

Firstly, just going back to your slide nine, you talk to '26-'28 5 GW of targets with 70% already secured and having that visibility. I was wondering, presumably '27 visibility is higher than '28 as we stand.

How are you feeling about where consensus sit right now at €2.2 billion EBITDA, €500 million also recurring net profit, given that you've probably got quite high visibility for '27, especially given asset rotations are also better? I understand you have to come back later for beyond '28, but some '27 sense of direction would be helpful at this stage.

Then a second question, just going back to the Vietnam write-downs. Can I just check, I assume this is in part related to your plans that you announced at the CMD last year to close some of the smaller regions?

Are there other regions where we should be expecting this type of impairments, write-downs, provisions coming through, because I certainly think the market's slightly spooked by another write-down after what we saw in Colombia, quite keen to understand that a bit better. Thank you.

Jenny, I'll take the second one first, but listen, it's very clear. Vietnam is a very simple case.

They're great megawatts, operating well, good PPAs. We had been making a provision, because last year the the Vietnamese government or or utility was wanting to renegotiate the PPAs, and so we took a provision in 2025.

This year, we are we have much better visibility on the final outcome of that, it's pending final final confirmation. Essentially, we unwound that provision that we had in '25 and in the beginning of '26 because we came to the conclusion that they weren't going to sort of impact going forward.

They're just going to make a sort of one-off corrective to a 2024 calculation that they had. We unwound the provision in '25 and '26, and we included a provision for let's say for the 2024 retroactive.

With that, Vietnam should be closed, obviously pending final confirmation, but to the best of our knowledge at this moment, it is a closed issue, and with that, Vietnam should be fine. It's it's has no risk of impairment, it's it's very cash-flow positive, it's the assets are operational, there's absolutely no issue there.

In relation to other regions, we don't have any other thing anything remotely remotely similar to, you mentioned Colombia, but to be very clear, we have nothing remotely similar to that. Okay?

I don't know if that that helps. Sorry, on the first question, on the 2027 visibility, so the what as far as I can tell, we're not well, we're not giving any additional information, I think, for for '27 and '28 now.

As I mentioned earlier, we can give some qualitative sort of views on how demand is growing, power prices, stuff like that, but we're not actually changing any targets now, although obviously we have a a positive outlook in general. Consensus is generally assuming an increase in '27, I think, in net income.

For the moment, I wouldn't sort of want to make any other statements on that. I think it's it would be premature at this point.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Yeah. Thanks.

The next question comes from the line of Alberto Gandolfi from Goldman Sachs. Alberto, please go ahead.

Thank you, and good afternoon. My first question is on the comment, Miguel, you made on net income earlier.

A very simple math. If I look at the net income recurring in first half, and then I add roughly €250 million capital gains that are missing, I'm getting very close to €450 million, which is the bottom end of the consensus range you mentioned.

Are you trying to tell us there's going to be zero underlying net income in the second half? If not, isn't consensus short by about €100 million, maybe even more?

Because your comment sounded very negative, I think. There's lots of people on this call that are now thinking if I need to adjust higher up asset rotation gains and consensus is okay, I need to cut numbers on an underlying basis.

You reported great numbers, and I think the impression that we're having is that net income underlying needs to come down. The second question is on the United States.

I was wondering if there's any sensitivity you can give us to IRRs, if the level of IRRs were to remain at the current level, what would be the upside to your 2028 numbers, what is uncontracted that could benefit from maybe, yeah, potentially 50 to 100 or maybe even 150 basis point increase in IRRs? The last question is, right now you gave us a plan until '28 which is not flattering to you, because this is when you're trying to reduce net debt, right?

What is the net debt to EBITDA basically you end up in 2028, and what do you think is a sustainable level? I'm just trying to gauge here what could be the CAPEX increase post-2028, which to me sounds relevant, and I just want to see if you can help us with the building blocks when we produce our forecast.

Thank you. Okay.

Thank you, Alberto. I don't think there's anything I said on this call that should be interpreted as negative.

On the contrary, I I started off by saying I think we had a great set of results and and we're optimistic and we're upgrading the guidance for the year, in that sense we're very positive. That's point number one, and let's be very clear about that.

Net income, first, the underlying EBITDA is obviously lower in the summer, but that happens every year. The underlying is consistent for the second half as with the first half.

I I don't know exactly didn't quite follow your math, but if you assume a normal underlying for for the second half plus the capital gains, you you should get to that sort of order of magnitude of of the consensus. Listen, if we're then positively, if we can positively surprise, that that's great.

I definitely was not, and I'm not, trying to be negative. On the contrary.

If you want to follow up with IR, we can then go into more details on the calculations of that. The second point on the US IRRs, again if I understood correctly, I mean the IRRs of these projects are fantastic.

We're talking about, I talked about the 290 basis points, the 10% IRR yields. On this asset rotation that we did, which is let's say the first one that we approved last year of the so it's a a vintage, a good vintage, and it is fantastic capital gain, I mean absolutely fantastic.

If we are able to keep investing at this and we on these levels and we, we have been and we have been taking those investment decisions, I think that should be a a very positive let's say flow of of asset rotations for the next couple of years. I didn't quite understand the the contracted part in relation to this.

So '27 and we're closing projects for '27 and we'll be closing over the next 6 to 12 months probably projects already for '28, and we expect to be closing them sort of at these IRR levels and with these sort of type of of return. I think you can do the math in terms of the asset rotation gains, but you can also then do the read-across for the value of of the assets that we do keep on our balance sheet.

On the on the net debt, Rui, do you want to take that?

I can take this one, Miguel. Thank you very much, and hi, Alberto.

What we presented at the CMD was a 3.2 times net debt to EBITDA for EDPR in 2028. Obviously, this does not include the impact from the sell-down of the Brazilian, it's mechanic, and we'll update you also, but I think we gave you the numbers.

It's pretty much €100 million less at EBITDA, and about €1.5 billion less at net debt when it's fully closed. It's basically just running that adjustment.

Sorry, do you mind if I follow up 1 second? I really don't get the first point.

Sorry, on net income, my point was, H1 you reported 183.

That includes 60 61 of capital gains, Alberto, right?

Correct. We're missing €240 million of cap gains.

If I just take H1 plus the capital gain guidance, I get to 423. For you to be okay with consensus, you must be expecting €25 to €60 million of underlying net income from EDPR in the second half.

Is that reasonable, 25 to 60 million? That sounds to me extremely low.

Listen,

I'll just do the math off the top of my head, but if I do 183 minus the 60, 120 times 2, 240, 240 plus 250, you get to that sort of type of range. I'm just doing this off the top of my head, but I don't think that's far off.

No, but that's a great math, Miguel, because that's 240 underlying plus 300, which you just gave us as asset rotation guidance, makes 540.

About 300. Okay.

You have the tax. You have pre-tax, Alberto.

So 540, you feel comfortable?

Okay.

You have the tax and post-tax, okay?

The tax is what, 5%?

No. I wish.

Depends on the geography.

Okay. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you.

There is a tax element there. Okay.

Okay?

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Yeah.

Thank you, Alberto. We go now to the last question to finish the call, from Gonzalo Bordona from UBS.

Gonzalo, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, everyone. Couple of questions on my side.

One quick clarification, to see if I understood correctly. You are already basically at the €0.3 billion asset rotation guidance/target for this year with the transactions you've announced.

You mentioned earlier you're working on several other transactions that may come or not, I guess, in the next few weeks/months. Are you expecting more transactions to come within this year, contributing to capital gains within this year, or is that a realistic possibility, or do you expect deferring, given that you are already kind of above your initial target, to 2027?

That's the first one. Then the second one is more of a conceptual question regarding the US market.

You seem to be kind of tying in already all the capacity additions for 2027, not much for 2028 if I understood correctly, but you have 6 GW of safe-harbor capacity. Given that the lead times for obviously nuclear, but also for gas power generation, new generation sources in the US is now well into the 2030s if not later, is this market practice standard, no one is really securing contracts for '28, '29, and onwards at this point, and has that changed in any way since all of this started on data centers particularly?

Thank you.

Hi, Gonzalo. On the first point, it's very straightforward.

One thing is signing, which we are already getting into the second half of the year, the other thing is closing and when we recognize capital or asset rotation gains. The fact that we sign things over the next couple of months, the gains may be only booked in the next year.

That's on the first point. Because obviously there are a series of conditions precedent that need to be met, etc.

The usual, as there's a time lag between signing and communicating and when we actually close the transaction. On the second point, I think here we are typically closing PPAs for projects that's 12 to 8, well, 18 months ahead.

We are not doing further than that because obviously we want to close the PPAs and we also want to close the costs associated, we typically like to close the CAPEX simultaneously or relatively simultaneously with the PPAs, because you don't want to be with an open PPA without having locked in the CAPEX, because that was one of the issues that happened I think in the past to many companies was they had the PPA, they hadn't locked in the cost, and then suddenly there was a change in the market conditions, interest rates or inflation, etc. To close in CAPEX, you typically can't do it more than 18 months ahead or 18, 24 months ahead.

It's not like we're going to be closing PPAs for, for example, for '28 or '29 and being able to lock in what is the CAPEX for those periods. That's why these things typically go hand in hand, and we go on locking in both the revenue side and the cost side to de-risk the project.

We also de-risk them from the permitting side, and that's what gives sort of this lead time of 18 to 24 months. That's why we don't sign PPAs for further ahead.

Does that make sense? I think that was essentially your question, right?

That's perfectly clear. Thank you.

Thanks.

With this, we close the Q&A, and I hand over to our CEO for final remarks.

Final remarks. First, we have great momentum, very optimistic, we're upgrading the guidance.

I think let's make that very clear. We're very happy with the way things are going.

We're seeing good movements both in the US and in Europe in terms of those dynamics. We're seeing good momentum also on the asset rotation, I think very optimistic about that: good vintages, good projects, very strong let's say data points showing that.

Good commercial momentum also on the PPAs. Gonzalo just asked about that.

We go on locking them sort of 12-18 months ahead, which is why we already have all of '26 and big part of '27. Over the next 9 months, we'll be locking in also 20 the rest of '27 and '28.

Data centers in the US are definitely a big value driver in terms of just creating demand and higher PPA prices, higher merchant prices, so that's a structural tailwind which we see there for the next couple of years. Battery storage in Europe and certainly in Portugal, as I mentioned, there's already concrete steps there, but more generally in Europe, I think is also a strong let's say tailwind, and we're actually seeing concrete steps being taken there, after many quarters where things were not moving that much, I think here we are actually seeing movement.

All in all, I think honestly good first half, we expect to have a good second half, and then as I said, we're working also on then updating our guidance so in the second quarter of next year we can come back on that. I'll stop there.

What I'd say is for some of you we will be talking again tomorrow early, [laughter] so in a little while. For those of you that I don't speak to, and just wish you good holidays if you do take some holidays, and then we'll catch up on your return post-holidays.

Thanks very much. Talk to you tomorrow, some of you.