Morning and welcome to this analyst [call?] .

Here Smet, all the other gentlemen physically join us at an event at 3:00 p.m. in Ghent, a shareholder club event.

A small group for this call today. Let's start.

We are very proud to present and comment on EnergyVision's results for the first six months of '26. We did very well, and very important, none of these profits are of temporary nature or are linked to temporary price increases because of the crisis in the Middle East simply because we simply did not increase our prices.

Now the profits are structural. They are sustainable and they are here to stay.

I will start with a general overview and add some additional color. Then Jonas, our new CFO, will dig deeper into the financials.

Normally our chairman, Max Jadot, would do this so that we don't throw Jonas to the lions this soon already, but the wife of Max Jadot is giving birth at this very moment, here is Jonas with the lions. At the end, Jonas, Koen, and I will be available to answer your questions, please do ask questions.

Let me start with the key message. This was our best start of the year ever, and we see the growth accelerating going forward.

Customer satisfaction keeps increasing, and we were awarded as most customer friendly energy supplier by Test-Achats last week, that's the consumer organization in Belgium, and we see all our metrics improving. Group revenue increased by 57%, underlying EBITDA grew by more than 45%, net profit increased to €6.9 million.

We realized growth in all segments except for EPC, as was foreseen. We had steep growth in our energy supply activities, and we see further acceleration ahead.

That's why we have an upward revision of our outlook. We now foresee 35% growth of underlying EBITDA in '26 and at least 40% in '27.

90% of the 2027 underlying EBITDA is already secured based on our current portfolio of customers and assets. Our business model continues to prove its predictability.

It's highly resilient in times of crisis. We are not materially dependent on specific market circumstances, whether it be negative prices, hours of sunshine, geopolitical tensions, interest rates, or EPC order intake.

We are not dependent on those. The growth is sustainable.

As already said, our profit margins are not dependent on market crisis. They are not temporary.

They have nothing to do with Iran. What happens is we attract more customers, and they stay with us, but we do not charge them more than before the crisis.

It's not temporary profits because of the gas prices or so. We did not increase our price, but we took in a lot of new customers.

Our competitors increased their tariffs and their prices by 28 to even 60%. We did not change our electricity price at all, and our churn is particularly low.

A monthly churn of 1.3% compared to 1.8% sector average. Then if you dig deeper and you take our group purchase customers out of the picture, our churn is 0.7%.

For the sector average, if you take the sleeping customers out of the picture, and that's the customers that never ever changed energy supplier since the free market existed 20 years ago, then the sector average is more than 2.5%. Now I pass the floor to Jonas for the financials.

Yes, thank you Maarten for that. We will of course start the financial overview with the strong performance on the top-line growth of 57%.

As shown on the revenue bridge here, all segments are contributing significantly with the exception of EPC. We will come back on that in a later slide.

The main driver remains the NABE segment, so that is representing our energy supply activity, growing with €35.5 million. Noteworthy here as well is the intersegmental sales.

Those are growing with €4.5 million and are representing the increasingly capturing value of our internal growth. Also on that one, we will come back in a later slide.

If we look at the revenues per country, Belgium, the home market, is growing strongly, representing the three recurring segments being asset-based energy, asset-based mobility, and non-asset-based energy. Looking towards China and Morocco, we are having a kind of a shift in timing of projects.

Especially in China, we are having more projects throughout the year, where we were more backloaded in the past. Then there is one new other category.

This is the very first project that will be delivered for Turbulent in South Africa in Q2 2026, and it's also the only one for it. Looking at the profit and loss, the strong top-line growth, 57%, also tops down bottom-line to growth of net profit of 53.3%.

It also translates in a significant extent into underlying EBITDA growth. Noteworthy here as well is the operating cost, which represents and underlines the scalability and durability of our growth, where we keep operating costs under control significantly as well.

If we then look at the net financial debt, net financial debt against the underlying EBITDA amounts to 2.4 currently. It is represented mainly by two strong elements as shown on the graph here as well.

There is a strong performance of the cash flow, of the operating cash flow specifically. On the other hand, we have the working capital, which is increasing, which is a kind of a recurring effect at a half-year basis, an increase in battery level on the one hand.

On the other hand, we have ongoing projects which are a bit of a burden at half-years as well. Furthermore, towards year-end, we expect to remain below the 2.5 leverage ratio there.

In the next slide, Maarten will provide some more detail on the performance on the segments individually.

Yes, we dig deeper into the segments. We have asset-based energy, our production assets.

There the underlying EBITDA increased by 43.5%, and it's mainly supported by the increase and the expansion of our portfolio in sun and notably in wind. It increased up to 192 megawatt peak now, of which 37.4 megawatt is wind, and we will continue to invest in wind in the next months too.

Important to notice is that the increase is mainly thanks to, well, the strength of our business model, what we call the internal revenue, the valorization through the other segments, the intersegmental revenue. It's the improved matching of production to consumption.

We produce for our customers, and we try to match that as good as we can, and there we see a notable increase. That's what we continue to monitor for the next years too.

That valorization increased by over 170%. We also added new assets in this segment, notably storage and batteries.

For the B2B customers, we have bigger ones, for example, Ostend Airport and also in Brussels, but for residential solar owners, we added plug-and-play batteries, which is kind of a lease model. Customers can pay €12 a month and get a battery for the next 10 years, and typically they save between €30 and €40 per month by paying €12 to us.

This way we lock in these customers, and they stay with us. We rolled out the first 1,096 batteries, and in the meantime, we have an order intake of more than 2,000.

Now in the asset-based mobility, that's our charging stations, there our growth is driven by higher utilization basically, and also by expansion of the charging stations. The rollout is as planned.

We foresee 3,000 new charging stations this year as well as next year. We are on track there.

Revenues increased by 66%, and that's basically, yeah, expansion of our network and then increased utilization. That's really beyond our business plans.

We started in Brussels, for instance, that's our longest lasting charging network. We started with 200 kilowatt-hours per month per charging station.

We are reaching 1,000 now. We were at 982 in the first half of '26, still increasing.

We see similar results in the more recent networks, for instance, in [Aalter?] , but also in the public charging stations in Flanders, where we are today already above 500 kilowatt-hours per charging station per month in the first months of that concession.

Also, we keep our EBITDA, our underlying EBITDA stable, despite a very sharp decline in the market price of e-credits. That's something notable because we see in our neighboring countries that prices are increasing.

In Belgium, they are sharply declining. When we made this presentation, it was almost 40%.

In the meantime, it's more than 40% when compared to the end of last year. It's very atypical, only in Belgium, but despite that decline, we keep our EBITDA margin stable in this segment.

We move to non-asset-based energy, basically the energy supply activity. Our connection points, our points of distribution basically doubled in first half of '26, and we see further growth ahead.

Despite losing 16,000 injection points, we doubled the number of pods. Very important, most of those by now are asset-backed contracts, increased heavily, and so the group purchase contracts are more limited today, the mix gets more healthy.

Revenue is more than doubled. Growth especially in Flanders, but we also see first traction and market penetration in the Walloon region.

We see further growth in this segment because of increasing gas price, for instance. In March we had a huge spike, but in the meantime today, the price doubled when compared to March, and no one seems to notice.

We acquired the DATS 24 portfolio, so that's another 33,000 connection points, of which 26,000 started on the 1st of September, and we see further growth ahead. The underlying EBITDA margin increased from €200,000 to more than €3 million.

That's 4.6% profit margin, and we see that as very structural. Again, this is not temporary market circumstances or so.

This is not one-off events. This is very structural.

The combination of rapid customer acquisition, very low churn, and accelerating our asset-backed contract penetration and further portfolio acceleration adds to a very strong visibility for this segment as well as the recurring segments. Now the only segment that has declined is EPC, where basically we buy for third parties, we buy and sell in China, Morocco, and Belgium.

Revenue declined by 12%, EBITDA by 34%. Now it was foreseen in our budget, but still we are not very happy to see that it is realized like this as well.

We see a significant slowdown, even almost a halt, in the Aster project. Internally today we call it the disaster project because the potential was much more than was realized.

China is stable. Morocco is stable.

In our home market, Aster comes to an end with only 15 or 16% of the potential realized. We did win another public tender which has the same potential as Aster, but for charging stations, where basically all the public institutions that want can buy charging stations through us.

Now nothing is in our budget. Nothing is in our timeline because we simply don't know how much will be ordered and when.

It will contribute to the figures, but we have no clue today by how much, in our budget, it's put at zero. Now considering all this, steep growth in Belgium in our recurring segments and in the NABE segment, we are confident today to increase our outlook from 30 to 35% underlying EBITDA growth in '26 and at least 40% EBITDA growth in '27.

Now we say at least because more than 90% of the 2027 underlying EBITDA is already secured based on the existing contracts, the existing volumes, the existing customer portfolio, and the existing production assets. Now that's our presentation.

We pass the floor to you if you have any questions. Yes, Luuk.

We don't hear you. I think your mic is off.

Sorry, I forgot to unmute. Yes, good morning, but excellent results and a very impressive growth.

It also brings me to the question on your capacity. You already secured the capacity that you need for 2027, but obviously you want to grow beyond that.

Can you comment on the opportunities to add further solar and wind assets going forward? Do you see, yeah, opportunities there and also outside of Belgium?

We see opportunities both in production and consumption. In consumption, there are, well, we acquired DATS 24, and we will continue to look into that path.

Also in charging stations, we see some movements and some companies getting into trouble. On the other hand, in terms of production, solar today is very cheap.

There's a lot of solar out there, especially those with the old Flemish green certificates that come to an end, we do see some potential for acquisitions. We are still building, this year also we will build more than 30 megawatt, and solar gets cheaper and cheaper to build despite increasing price for solar panels.

We see the potential in wind as well, where we expect further leases and potential acquisitions. We monitor this very closely, and it's crucial for us to keep production and consumption in line.

We build up the wind capacity, and we will build this up faster. We need to build this up faster in order to streamline our portfolio, but also in solar we see the potential there.

Our pipeline is really well filled.

A question on the capex. Many thanks, by the way, for the KPIs that you provided.

I had a look at the capex in asset-based mobility, and the capex for the DC charging points strikes me as a bit high. It say it's more than €130,000 per points, and it probably includes some things in the pipeline that are being built, which is much higher than for the AC points, which are say roughly €2,000.

Is that because of that you have a very big pipeline of things to become active soon, or is there another reason for this difference?

In average, we want to keep our costs per charging point below €95,000. Sometimes what we do is we already build the AC infrastructure, the high-voltage cabin, and only one or two charging stations, but then over time, we will add more charging stations when they become more performant or when we see that the location is very attractive.

We already absorbed the cost of the high-voltage cabin in the first charging stations. In average, what we aim for is €95,000 or below.

Also on the KPIs, you give in a breakdown between operational and under construction. How should I read that?

Because everything that's under construction eventually becomes operational. Is the operational part just spending on things that were already performing, or because then it sounds like maintenance capex, I had a bit difficulty understanding what you mean by these two labels.

Operational is operational. We have the first kilowatt-hour that went through it.

If we say in [opbouw?] , we are still at the construction site.

Either we still have to have the technical control, or the grid operator still has to activate the connection. It's in our working capital in progress, right?

In our...

It's in our produced assets, yeah, in progress, yes.

The operational basically means that before the end of the period, it became operational, not necessarily that it had been operational at the start of the period.

Exactly. On the 30th of June, it's operational.

For the other ones, they will become operational in the coming months, or are operational by now.

Then my final question for now. You already mentioned Aster as a disaster project.

I noticed that you lost 16,000 injection points and expect no further business. Can you explain a bit what happened there, if you see any further opportunities regarding the new project if you approach it differently to avoid similar things?

We say disaster not because of the injection points. The injection points, basically that was some extra service we provided to them, but that was very low in revenues and profit margin.

The big appetite at our side was in EPC, was in building. Now it was a public tender won in 2022 for 2 years.

It got extended by another 2 years because the start was very slow from Aster's side. The maximum potential was 400 megawatt.

Aster quickly said, "Our budget is 155 megawatt." Now after 4 years, we did only 1/3 of that.

We built around 55, 56 megawatt. That's 16,000 social houses over the 180,000 social houses that exist, and of the 55,000 social houses that Aster planned to do.

We did everything we could. We even talked with the government and last year, Flemish government, but social companies still have to do the order.

We had the cheapest installation on the market, and there's a deal with the Flemish government that gives them a loan of -2% yearly interest rate for 30 years. They could buy the cheapest solar panels and take a loan of 30 years at a yearly interest rate of -2%, and still nothing happened.

For the last 12 months, we built a few megawatt. The last 6 months, we built 1 megawatt.

The coming 6 months, we will build less than 1 megawatt. It's completely stopped basically.

Then Aster published a new tender in which they wanted even lower prices, we do not participate, but we hear in the market that even for the new tender, the pipeline is almost empty. It's really a pity because social families need this.

The tenants need this, especially today with the increasing prices. The potential is there, the public money was there, the private money was there, our people were there, the negative interest rates were there, and still nothing happened too much.

It's one of the most beautiful projects in my career, and it's one of the biggest disillusions I have. That's why we call it disaster.

Luckily, in the last year, we did not take it into account in our budget, not for '26, not for '27. It's not a financial surprise, but still there's so much more potential than what they are doing right now.

Do you see it coming back in the medium term, or they may adjust their strategy?

I think Aster itself is a very small, but very good group, but they depend on the social companies that just don't move. Unless political pressure comes out, I don't see much movement.

Okay. I'll leave it for now, and maybe come back with further questions later.

I saw Christophe.

Yes. Good morning.

Christophe Samaey, KBC Securities. I'm falling in for Livio who is excused today.

I'm not as deep in the case as Livio is, but I know I listened carefully to the presentation and read your press release, and you share that 90% of the activities for next year is secured. What does that say about the remaining 10%, and can you indicate how you manage higher energy prices there, because you have been quite adamant and firm that your margin is not exposed to the high energy prices?

Yeah. It basically says if today would be the 1st of January and we don't do any new marketing or acquisitions for customers nor for production, then that would be the result, 90% of the expected 2027 EBITDA.

Of course, we still have 15 months until, or 16 months until the end of December 2027, and that means that we have all those months to convince customers to come to us, to acquire or lease wind assets, to build solar assets, etc. We are very confident to reach that 2027 target.

I'm just a little bit puzzled about the technicality, Maarten. How does it work?

The whole business model of EnergyVision is built around balancing. What if you cannot balance?

How do you manage this so that this does not have a meaningful impact on margins?

We monitor this on a daily basis. Basically, in short, the simple version of our business model is that for one customer, one residential customer, we need around 1 kilowatt, well, we change the figures a bit to be more optimal, we need around 1 kilowatt of solar and 1.25 kilowatt of wind, and we keep these in line.

One residential customer is 1 kilowatt of solar and 1.25 kilowatt of wind. We acquire assets according to the speed with which we increase our customer base.

A charging station basically, AC charging station is the equivalent of four residential customers. If we have a charging station, then we need 4 kilowatt of solar and 5 kilowatt of wind.

This way we build, and that's how we monitor this on a daily basis. There are no surprises there because it's not that 100,000 customers come in all of a sudden, that doesn't happen.

We have organic growth every week. We still see that increasing.

In normal weeks, we have around 600 customers coming in, and last week, it was more than 1,000 customers. We monitor this, and we know to cope with the speed with which we build or acquire production assets.

That's crucial in our strategy. That's something which is monitored on daily basis in order to avoid surprise there.

Okay. Then a follow-up if I may, in asset-backed, yeah, the energy sourcing mix will change going forward, historically maybe was 100% solar, and now you will include more wind and potentially hydro into the mix.

Wind and hydro, they're not behind the meter. How will this impact your margin profile going forward?

In asset-based energy, we have prices of €60 for the injected solar energy, €90 for 100% pure injection profile, and €100 for wind, so that remains. Whether it's behind the meter or not, that remains.

That doesn't change on the EBITDA of the asset-based energy segment. Now what does change is that the more we can do behind the meter, the cheaper it gets for customers.

It does not affect our profit margin, but it allows us to be more competitive when compared to other suppliers. Now this being said, we saw that all the energy suppliers increase their prices by 28 to 60%.

We did not, and you see our results. That's also for the energy that we produce behind the meter.

Great. Interesting.

Thanks for clarifying this. No further questions for me for now.

Pleasure. We move to Trion.

Morning. Morning Maarten and Jonas.

Hopefully you can hear me well. Thanks for taking the questions.

Obviously great, great numbers. I was interested in the NABE margin, because we saw that improve quite significantly.

You mentioned in the presentation that it was structural and sustainable. Could you just give us a bit more detail on why that is?

Of course, we're never satisfied, we always want more. Could that margin even go up from where we are today?

It's a margin we at least keep structural indeed. Why does that happen?

It's a combination of things. First, we move from group purchase to our asset-backed contracts.

In those asset-backed contracts, people pay a yearly fee. There's a subscription fee which does not exist in group purchase.

There for electricity, they pay between €50 and €75 per year. For gas, the same.

In group purchase, they pay zero. This adds directly into the NABE segment.

Secondly, we are much better with our trading desk in imbalances. There we had to learn a lot last year.

That's why in the first 9 months there was almost no profit in that segment, and in the last quarter, we did generate some profit. This is a structural effect as well.

Thirdly, the extra optimization can come from what we do with our assets, the curtailment or the squeezing of the charging stations. The more imbalance we see in the market, the more NABE segment could gain.

We could, of course, increase price for our customers, but for now we don't. It will not come from there, but it will come from the flexibility and the spikes in the market.

If we curtail our installations, the extra profit, on top of the €90 or €100 we have in other segments, the extra profit goes into the NABE segment. There is room for improvement in the coming years based on what happens with the energy prices on the market.

That's great. Really really clear.

The other thing, you talked also about the batteries that you have obviously with your charging stations and your bigger installations and these batteries that you have at home. For the bigger installations, obviously it makes sense in terms of optimizing your production.

Is that also the case for the batteries at home, or is this more just a loyalty thing and helping the customers to save money, or does it actually also benefit you?

Today in the short term, if it's batteries with customers where the solar panels are ours, it increases autoconstumption. Instead of 30 or 35%, it goes up to 60%.

We can sell more locally behind the meter at 20 cents instead of injecting it into the grid and gaining 6 cents. That's for the batteries linked to our assets.

Today also, retroactively, we add these batteries to all of our assets outside of Brussels. For the batteries where the residential customers are owner of the solar panels, that's just something to lock them in.

They pay €12 per month. They have more autoconstumption.

The profit is for them, but they stay with us for 10 years. Over time, of course, the batteries will help to balance the grid, and it would create extra revenue stream from the grid operators and transmission operators, but today that's the situation.

Very good. Then, yeah, my last question was just on following up on an earlier question about the mix between solar and wind.

Two points there. One, it feels like you're going faster with wind.

Is there an optimal balance between solar, wind, and I guess hydro in the future? Then with that in mind, and the question about it not being behind the meter, obviously you've had this wind-at-home trial kind of ongoing.

Any updates on that as well? Thank you.

Your last question were five questions. Let's try to answer them.

First, the balance of solar and wind, yes, indeed, we do need to speed up with wind. There's enough solar in our portfolio today for more customers.

We do not have enough wind, well, we already secured wind from the 1st of January '27 onwards, we feel very confident, but it's not yet here for this year. That's where we speed up.

Hydro, once it comes into the picture, it basically provides baseload. What would happen there is that we have hydro for the fully fixed contracts and for our ABM segments.

We have solar and wind for the fixed-variable contracts, because fixed-variable that basically gives 1,800 kilowatt-hours at a fixed price and 1,200 kilowatt-hours at a variable price. The 1,800 comes from solar and wind.

In the fully fixed price, either it could be solar, wind plus storage, or it could be hydro or biomass as an equivalent of hydro if hydro wouldn't work. That's what we will do over time.

We will keep expanding our technologies in asset-based energy in order to make sure that we increase the part of the energy that we sell that comes from our own assets. That's a very logical next step for us.

Wind at home, we are still testing it. We want to be sure that the efficiency as well as the duration and lifetime of that product is good, otherwise we will not bring it to the market.

Still testing, yet still no update there.

Great. Thank you.

Pleasure. Luuk?

A couple of remaining questions. One is you mentioned that for solar, it's the opportunities to acquire existing assets at attractive prices.

Can you indicate how much cheaper it is than building it yourself?

We build cheaper than ever. That's one.

You have these in Flanders, typically it started in 2007, 2008, where you have 20 years of green certificates. Now we are looking at the final years of that, and the Flemish government already announced that they will not give green certificates anymore when prices are negative.

That will have an impact on those installations, the value of them. Typically they are placed on warehouses where you don't have much consumption.

A lot of injection, which can become negative and no more green certificates, these assets become a problem for the owners. They have two options: either they sell it very cheap, or they have to invest in batteries or charging stations because there's no local consumption and no way to increase that local consumption.

That's the kind of assets that where the value will become very low and that we could pick up and then add into our model. It's something we will look at in the next months.

I don't know by what time those owners will understand the problem they have, but once they understand it, there are not many potential buyers.

That's indeed interesting. In your presentation, you mentioned that the revenues from EPC in China will be more evenly spread throughout the year.

Last year, you saw EPC was very back-end loaded. I'm not sure if that was just China or also Morocco.

Can you give a bit of an indication of what you expect of EPC in the second half, and if Q4 will be, yeah, still quite back-end loaded, or will it be more even between Q3 and Q4?

It will be more even now. We won't see the back-end loaded issue happening again in China.

That's also because we are working on our working capital. Basically, we told our Chinese team that the year ends on the 1st of December, they have to be sure that projects are commissioned on time and everything is paid out and everything runs fluently.

We will not see what we saw in December last year.

Okay. I was wondering because, well, Brussels is going well, Flanders is going well.

Can you elaborate a bit on your progress in Wallonia, maybe any preparations you're taking for the Netherlands?

In the Walloon region, we started in September last year. Organic growth was very small.

In the beginning, we didn't show up in the price comparison websites. Now we do, but we see that the name of EnergyVision, well, first, it's hard to pronounce in French, but it's also not well known.

People in Walloon region, they switch energy supplier less than in Flanders, Brussels, and the Netherlands. If they change, they basically choose for the known French ones: Total, ENGIE, Luminus.

We had a group purchase and now we acquired a portfolio through DATS, DATS 24, where also it has around 3,000 Walloon customers. We will do very well with these and hope that they bring their friends with them.

There the organic growth is much, much slower than in Flanders. The Netherlands, we expect to go there latest in '28 if not in '27, and that will depend on how Walloon region is growing and if we see more potential and acquisitions in Flanders.

If we do see more acquisition in Flanders, then we will first focus on those in order to integrate them well and go to the Netherlands in '28. If that wouldn't happen, then we would consider faster step in the Netherlands somewhere in second half '27.

That's

clear. Those were my questions.

Great. To be very clear, it's not in our guidance.

The Netherlands, heat pumps, all of that is not part of our guidance for '28. Any remaining questions?

If not, let me conclude by thanking you for your presence and for your continued interest, and we will continue working hard to execute our plans, and we look forward to meeting you on the 15th of October for our third-quarter trading update. Have a nice and very sunny day.

Thank you.