Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to our first quarter results webcast. Here with me, as usual, Michele, our CFO.

Let me start with our economic results. EBITDA in Q1 closed at €167 million, +16% year-on-year, benefiting from the contribution of new installed capacity and, let me say like this, from an easy comparison in terms of wind production, in light of the very weak conditions over Q1 2025.

To this extent, we can talk about the better wind conditions, but let me say, still below the historical average. That trend was already captured in our full year guidance at the time of our previous webcast in mid-March.

These positives were partially offset by lower clearing prices. The higher productions following these better wind conditions were partly compensated by lower capture price, in particular clearing price linked to short-term hedging transactions, as these contracts, as are typically executed three years in advance of the delivery date.

Therefore, in Q1 last year, value of hedging still benefited from the very high prices recorded in 2022 and 2023. It's worth noting the strong performance in the UK.

UK contributed to the EBITDA with €25 million, basically three times more than last year. This thanks to the higher installed capacity that was partly organic—I'm referring to the 47 MW greenfield we executed in Northern Ireland the second part of last year—and partly through M&A, the 73 MW wind portfolio that was acquired at the beginning of 2026 and contributing or consolidated as of the beginning of the year.

Conversely, we had a fairly weak performance in the US, impacted by exceptional weather events translating to lower wind availability, and then lower productions. There were a lot of grid congestions in the grid, and these for the price mechanism that is in the market in the US had a negative impact on capture prices.

We tend to see those events as one-off, but nevertheless they had a negative impact that we estimated at about €6 million negative, -€6 million in the quarter EBITDA. Quite substantial.

In Q1, we invested, talking about capex, €148 million, mainly related to the acquisition of the UK portfolio I've already mentioned, coupled, let's say, with the expenditures associated to our assets under construction: Italy, France, Germany. Adjusted net profit in Q1 was €61 million, up 24% year-on-year, reflecting the better operating results that I've just commented, partly offset by higher depreciation, higher financial charges, and taxes.

Net financial position at the end of March was €1.8 billion more or less, down 4%, slightly down compared to the end of last year thanks to, let me say, a very solid cash generation over the period. I'm moving now to page number 5.

Over the period, we also kept delivering on our strategy. We are progressing very well on our project pipeline, let me say, on top of the already announced assets under construction, namely the 230 MW I've already had the chance to explain during the last webcast.

Just this morning, in our board of directors, we made final investment decisions on a couple of projects that have now entered into the construction phase. I'm referring to a 25 MW greenfield wind farm in France and the revamping of 41 MW PV farm in Italy, farms because there are more than one, farms that are still under the Conto Energia scheme.

We also obtained final authorization, or so-called Autorizzazione Unica, for our largest wind repowering project in Italy, the 121 MW in Sardinia, Nulvi Ploaghe. Probably I have already said that during the last webcast, but now in the meantime, we received properly the piece of paper from the region that is the last word to this very long process to obtain this authorization.

Okay. On finance, let me say discipline continues to be one of our key strengths.

Yesterday Fitch, the rating agency, reconfirmed our investment-grade status with a stable outlook. We are quite proud of these achievements, which reflects say the appreciation for the work we have done so far.

In this regard, I would like also to mention that during the period, we further optimized our financial structure through liability management amounting to almost €500 million, half a billion euro, that was refinanced by extending maturity and improving cost of debt. Part of this refinanced debt was subscribed, as you can see the logo in the chart, by CDP, which is a state-owned key financial institution, and so something we are again very proud of.

On ESG, ERG was included in the top 5 of the electric utilities sector in the 2026 Standard & Poor's Global Sustainability Yearbook. We are also proud to have completed, together with Greenpeace, the installation of solar panels in a kindergarten in Ukraine as part of our social purpose.

As regards shareholder remuneration, you already know the EGM approved the €1 per share dividend that is going to be paid next week with a yield of over 4%, which is, may I say, a rarity within our peer group. I now hand you over to Michele for his review of first quarter results.

Thank you, Paolo, and good afternoon, everyone. Let me walk you through the quarter, highlighting the key drivers of our financial performance and underlying trends across our portfolio.

Looking at power markets, prices were lower year-on-year in almost all countries where we operate. This trend, coupled with short-term hedging fixed at lower prices compared to last year's, leads to reduction in the unitary revenues in most countries.

However, as expected, the impact on our revenues was only partial, reflecting the quasi-regulated nature of our portfolio, where a large share of volume is already secured through PPAs or CFDs. I would like to highlight the higher capture price in UK driven by our newly acquired asset in England, which benefits of Renewable Obligation Certificates incentives.

On the other hand, the trend of US wind unitary revenues reflects an extraordinary increase of the basis cost due to temporary congestions, outages, and grid constraints in the period. Moving to production, the first quarter, ERG reached 2.2 TWh of generation, 15% more than previous year.

This trend is influenced by higher windiness compared to a 2025 characterized by exceptionally weak wind condition across all Europe, but also thanks to the contribution from new capacity. This was made possible by the continued expansion of our portfolio, with roughly 90 MW of additional capacity contributing during the quarter.

In the first quarter, we doubled the production in UK, mainly thanks to the new acquisition in England and the production of new greenfield plant entered into operation in Northern Ireland at the end of the year. On the negative side, US was influenced by extraordinary weather events impacting the availability of the plant, and it compares with a first quarter 2025 influenced by very high windiness.

In conclusion, we have a quarter with a substantial increase in the European production, but that remains, in any case, below the long-term average of our assets. In this sense, not representing the full potential of our portfolio.

Now let's look at the EBITDA. In the first quarter, the EBITDA reached €167 million, a very good result if we compare it with the first quarter 2025.

Remember that, as already commented, the first quarter 2025 was affected by a windiness well below historical average in Europe. The main driver was the windiness coupled with the perimeter effect from new capacity in a more challenging price environment.

After the new acquisition in England and the greenfield plant entered into operation in Northern Ireland, UK reached three times the EBITDA of previous year. On the other hand, United States suffered the decrease in prices and the low availability of the plant.

Overall, the group recorded results higher than last year by €23 million. A comment now on investment.

In the first quarter, we invested €148 million, mainly for the acquisition in England for €115 million and for the ongoing activities on repowering and greenfield projects in France, Germany, and in Italy. These investments are fully aligned with our strategy, combining selective M&A deals and organic growth, particularly in repowering and greenfield projects across all geographies.

Let's take a look at the cash flow statement and the net financial position. The net financial debt at the end of the quarter is €1.8 billion, -€70 million versus the end of the year, also thanks to the disposal of the Swedish assets in January.

This reflects a well-balanced combination of solid cash generation from EBITDA and continued investments to support growth. Finally, here you have a snapshot of our debt structure, which has not changed in its component, as it remains largely made up of green bonds, €1.6 billion, but whose corporate loans component for €500 million has been materially improved.

In April, we finished the liability management of our 2028 corporate loans maturities and the prepayment of the project financing of our latest UK acquisition. By way of repayment of the previous loans and drawdown of new loans, including the one from the European Investment Bank for €240 million, at significantly lower margin and for longer maturities, we shifted all corporate loans beyond 2030, increasing the tenor and securing a significant saving in yearly financial charges.

We leverage on existing hedges and exploited the credit rally before the Iran war to get the most out of this exercise, which will contribute to secure ERG competitive financial charges expected at 1.8% in 2026. Cost of gross debt will remain highly competitive until 2030, having only one maturity in 2027.

Based on such financial strength, alongside our solid business profile, we got the confirmation of the investment-grade rating with a stable outlook by Fitch, which remain a cornerstone of our strategy. Indeed, high-value opportunity will be pursued consistently with our rating by leveraging on the option available to investment-grade corporate like ERG.

Thank you for your time. Now I leave the floor to Paolo for his final comments.

Thank you, Michele. Let me now conclude by looking at the guidance for 2026.

In reality, it's a very simple and quick exercise, since all our indications are confirmed. We still confirm EBITDA within a range of €520-€590 million.

For sure, some upside could come from the current energy price environment, but please also consider our exposure to merchant power is limited as regards 2026 because we have already our short-term hedging in place, we still have roughly 1 TWh of energy exposed to merchant. Capex is expected within the range of €330-€380 million.

This includes also the acquisition of the UK portfolio, and let me say, the investments that have been approved by the board of director this morning will have just a marginal effect in 2006 in 2026, as most of the payments are expected in 2027, next year. Finally, at year-end, we forecast a net financial position within a range of €1.95 and €2.05 billion, including the above capex and, of course, the cash out for the dividend.

I concluded, and we are now ready to take your questions.

Yes, good afternoon, and thank you for taking my questions. I have three.

My first question is on the operational performance. First quarter was good as you commented, and representing almost 30% of your midpoint guidance, was wondering what prevented you from upgrading it, and which elements do you see as critical to eventually reach the upper bound of such range?

My second question is on the energy decree adopted by the government in mid-February. We know there are ongoing discussions between the Italian government and the European Union, wanted to have your thoughts and expectations in this regard.

Then my last question is on M&A. Recalling during the latest conference call, you mentioned that the company is working on an asset rotation strategy and defining an asset rotation strategy, was wondering whether you could provide an update on this, which assets and geographies could eventually be targeted in your view.

Beatrice, let me start from the first question. The operational performance in the quarter, I confirm, was good.

Say the first quarter, as it's one of the most important throughout the year, along with the fourth quarter. A good start, for sure.

We are satisfied. It could have been even better if US had performed in line with our expectations, because in the end, the contribution of US was short of roughly €6-€7 million compared to our expectations.

In the end, say the good performance in UK and the better wind in January and February, in particular in Italy, allow us to post a quite good performance in the quarter. We decided to stick on our guidance range because in the end, honestly, April was not particularly good in terms of wind, even though over the last few days, wind seems to be back very strongly, and then we are quickly recovering.

The question, if I understood well, you asked for what should happen to reach the upper part of the guidance. As we like to define ourselves internally, we are a company P x Q, price multiplied by volumes.

What I can do to help you, you analysts, to make your best estimate is to provide you with a very simple sensitivity. The sensitivity is €10 per megawatt-hour in prices higher of our internal estimates are worth, basically, €10 million, €9-€10 million of EBITDA, because we just have roughly 1 TWh of production still exposed to merchant.

While as regards production, say 100 GWh of more productions means Of course, it works also the other way, the sensitivities, but 100 GWh is worth more or less €10 million. Very simple.

€10 per megawatt-hour in price, €10 million EBITDA; 100 GWh in production equal to €10 million. To reach the upper part of the guidance, we would need, say, from €10 to €20 per megawatt-hour higher in the selling price as regards the merchant volumes, and from 100 to 200 GWh of higher production.

Is it that possible? Of course, yes, because in terms of forward prices for Q2, Q3, and Q4, in particular in some countries such as Italy or UK, that are, by the way, our two main countries right now, we have already forward prices higher than from €10 to €20 compared to our budget.

In terms of production, who knows? I would need a crystal ball, difficult to predict how wind is going to blow, especially in the fourth quarter, because honestly, the fourth quarter usually is going to be the swing quarter.

If you want, I can, because we are becoming more and more on climate and meteorological matters experts, and in particular, the World Meteorological Association is expecting at least with a 40-50% probability that El Niño or a super Niño will come in during the fourth quarter of the year, actually in September, after the summer. This usually is associated to good wind.

In the past, was like this. Let's see.

I repeat, I haven't got the crystal ball, but we have elements internally to be a little bit optimistic. I hope to have answered your questions.

About the guidance, please don't keep asking me because the only thing I can say, make your best estimates. I provide you with the parameters to calibrate it as best as possible.

Energy decree, you open a subject that make me very angry, because we are basically very, very negative on this decree. Fortunately, let me say, the European Commission just last week, on May on the 5th of May, published on the official journal of the European Union a communication which is I can read you, because I want to be more precise, because I got the document just in front of me: The Middle East Crisis Temporary State Aid Framework.

You can find it on the website, for sure, Googling. This document, which is an official document, and I repeat, loaded on the official journal of the European Union at article 45, states that the member states can, I quote, because I'm reading by the official document, member states can consider measures to mitigate the impact of high gas prices, but at certain conditions.

Those conditions are six, seven. The first one is they have to be time-limited, I mean these measures.

The second condition: they are designed to prevent internal market distortions. The third condition is they preserve long-term investment signals for clean energy.

The fourth condition is: do not cover the compliance cost of ETS, nor use ETS prices as a proxy to determine compensation. That is total in contrast with the Italian decree.

The fifth condition, they include safeguards to ensure full pass-through of benefits to final consumers. The last: if the member state decides to charge the cost of the measure on consumers, only consumers that benefit from the measure should contribute to its financing.

I can tell you, very, very sure of what I'm saying, that none of these conditions are met by the Italian law. I think I can stop here.

I'm quite confident that in the end, this law will be reduced in power, because the European Commission is working on it, and I think the fact that this article, I repeat, published last week was so detailed, it's to me an implicit answer to the Italian law. The third question was about M&A.

In this respect, we are working, we are mapping all our options. I repeat, I can say much more than what I've already said in March, because this is one of the main reason we decided to postpone the presentation of the business plan to the end of the year, or more likely at the beginning of next year, because we are working on this, and this takes time, as you can imagine.

I hope to have answered all your questions.

Yes, very clear. Thank you so much.

Thank you to you.

Yes, good evening. Thanks for taking my questions.

The first one is on the UK. I just wondering if the very good results of the UK are simply because of the external and internal growth, the new plants and the acquisitions, under normal conditions that we can eventually project for the remaining of the part of the year, or if the good results of the UK includes any say one-off benefit in the sense that the condition has been above forecasted or budgeted expectation for the country?

Just wondering if it's a normal, very good contribution of the UK, or if that includes a special condition which anyway compensated, of course, the special negative in the US, but just wondering how to calibrate the performance of the UK. You mentioned the Sardinia plant, on the 121 MW.

Can you tell us when eventually you expect this potentially to contribute to numbers? Then a question on the guidance, but I'm sorry for that, as you said not to ask that much on the guidance,

but I

just want to calibrate the indication that you provide us last time on the guidance, the expected lower production, the fact that you reduced the guidance on the current 520-590. At the time you provided that guidance, the trend in the power price was not so strong.

Basically, you already had some months ago a condition in which you were able to reach the 5 the €590 million of EBITDA. Then we are adding something more on top, which is the sensitivity on the power price that you just provided us, which actually was not forecasted at the time you provided the guidance.

I'm trying to compose the puzzle if actually the sensitivity you provided us may also target anything above the 590, because you have the old condition under which you can arrive at the 590, and on top of that, you have the prolonged situation on the power price which added the sensitivity that you provided. I'm not sure if I have been clear, but just to compose this picture.

Sorry, I have another question on the green certificates. Can you tell us how many green certificates you have this year and how many you have next year, because unfortunately, we have this very crazy regulation in which next year, unfortunately, the green certificate price will suffer from the very high price that we have today.

If you can tell us on what could be the potential impact on that side. Thanks a lot.

Let me go in the order you posed the questions. The first one is UK.

UK number doesn't include any special item. It's a correct number reflecting the very good performance of the portfolio.

We are very satisfied because I think it's quite clear that with the recent acquisition, we now have and we can now rely on a very well-spread portfolio across UK, because we are in England, we are in Scotland, and we are in Northern Ireland. It happened to be a good locations for the wind, especially in this first quarter.

Let me say behind this good performance, because last year we posted, if I remember well, €8 million EBITDA, and now 26 or almost 25, 26, it's let's say, €18 million EBITDA more than last year. 2/3 are associated with the new assets.

The 47 MW Corrainey wind farm in Northern Ireland that we started up in the second part of last year, plus the 73 MW of portfolio in England that, don't forget, is entitled to ROC, a kind of green certificates. That was one of the reasons we explained at the announcement of this acquisition when we made this asset swap between Sweden and England.

This is part of the result. The 1/3, the other €6 million, came from a let me say, higher availability of plants.

Don't forget that our plants in UK are all brand-new, they were started up, especially the ones in Scotland and the one in Northern Ireland, just a couple of years ago. They suffered their ramp-up phase at the very beginning, and they got progressively recovering a better performance in terms of availability.

Maybe we are not completely at the full potential, but we are approaching it. We are getting better and better from this point of view.

The third point, which is a double point, but I would say I summarize in just one single point, is the service market and the curtailments. Curtailments were lower finally in Northern Ireland, where they are not refunded, any megawatt-hour that are cut from your production is a lost in your P&L.

We are having a strong connection with the TSO there in order to prevent this congestions from happening, and some achievements have been reached from this point of view. The other, which I put in the same point, is the fact that the Scottish assets are participating to the balancing market that is at premium compared the day-ahead market.

The grid operator can ask plants to stop, to reduce production. This production, given that you are helping the system to be balanced, is paid the day-ahead price plus a premium, then translating to higher EBITDA.

In the end, we expect these flows to remain in the picture, I would say nothing nonrecurring in those numbers. About the Nulvi Ploaghe project, again, we are very, very, very, I repeat three times, because we submitted the first documents for authorization in 2018, 2018, I repeat it, and we received the formal authorization, Autorizzazione Unica, from the Sardinian region just over the last few weeks, after a long tragic part through Court of Justice and blah, blah.

In order to make the final investment decision on the investments, we need, this is compliant with our business model, to secure the route to market. Our energy management is working to find a potential PPA, or we can wait for the next FER-X auction that is expected to be by year-end, but still uncertain because in Italy, there is not a clear calendar for this kind of auctions, while in other countries such like Germany, every three months, there is an auction.

We are waiting, but we are not doing nothing, and nowadays, we are working to find a PPA, a long-term PPA, which can guarantee, say, the LCOE of the plant. You said about the guidance, I knew you couldn't resist to ask something about the guidance.

We decided not to change the range, as we did last year. In the end, last year, we finished at the bottom part of the guidance, because numbers can change very, very rapidly depending on the wind presence.

The fourth quarter, as I said, is the swing producer. I don't want to correct you, but let me say that forward prices were not that different compared to mid-March, because the Iran situation was already broken up, and then there was no very big difference from this point of view.

Even though in the meantime, you are right, we made some hedging, short-term hedging, at prices and values that were higher than we could expect for sure at the beginning of the year, but was already included in our guidance. About production, I repeat, the first months of the year were good compared to last year, but below historical average.

To be frank and very transparent, we lost roughly 300 GWh in the first three months of the year. That item was already fully included in our guidance, because in mid-March, when we presented the guidance, we already knew the production over the first two weeks, and we had in our hands forecast for the next two weeks.

This was already fully captured by our guidance. This is just to say that 300 GWh less or more can happen very, very quickly.

According and based on our intelligence, say there is a good probability that in the fourth quarter, maybe instead of a minus, a plus could be there. We are not taking this as an estimate right now.

Let's leave the range as it is, and I provided you with all the elements and the rule of thumbs to make your own estimates. Green certificates, Michele, maybe you Yeah.

We have 1.1 TWh in 2026 and 0.6 TWh 2027. These are the figures that we still have for our Italian asset that benefit from this kind of incentive.

Yes, good afternoon, and thank you for taking my question. The first one, I wonder whether you can split this 1 TWh of merchant exposure by country, and if you can give us an indication of your merchant exposure also for 2027.

Secondly, you made the final investment decision on revamping of some solar assets in Italy. I wonder what the impact will be in terms of stoppages and after the revamping new generation potential.

Those are the two questions. Thank you.

I start with the last one, and then I leave Michele to answer in more details the first one. Let's say, this morning, the board of director approved a couple of investments.

One in France, it's a greenfield 25 MW wind that has already got a CFD for the next 20 years. For the 20 years starting from the commercial operation date, which is expected to be in Q1 2008 2000 in Q1 2028.

This long time is just based on the connection time, because we need to have the connection. In fact, the capex and the expenditure in '26 will be very, very limited.

The cash out for capex will be especially in the second part of '27. As regards the PV investments, as you ask, this is 36 MW.

Basically, we are revamping. Revamping we mean changing the panels, changing the inverters, and most of the time also adding trackers to help the plants to follow the direction of sun.

Given this kind of intervention, we can increase production of the order of 40-45%. It's a very big amount.

A big increase when you change everything, including the tracker. Where all trackers are maintained, anyway we are talking about an increase in production of 20-25%, because the new panels are much more efficient.

Consider that the panels that are mounted in this kind of installations were there since 2010 2010. A lot of technological steps have been made over this window of time.

This investment is particularly interesting, the return is double-digit, because according to the norms and the law, the operating rules by GSE, Gestore Elettrico, the stoppage of the plants is permitted to be recovered with incentives, with Conto Energia incentives, at the end of the period. During the next years, all the production benefiting from the upgrade of the quality of the plants can enjoy the Conto Energia.

There is a big jump in EBITDA, a big jump in net profit. That's why these investments got a return which is above 15%.

It's normal. The regulator wants to support the rejuvenation of the fleet in the country.

If not, at the end of the useful life, you shut the plants, and blah, blah. This is the nature.

In term of stoppage, I think you ask this, the impact is quite limited, is less than €1 million in 2026, because we want to stop, shut down the plants, say, in the last part of 2026, and then implement the revamping in the next few months of 2027 in order to add the plants under the new industrial layout for next summer, when the sun hit more, let's say, in order to maximize the return of the investments.

On the second question, we still have on 2026 1 TWh of merchant exposure. We do not expect to have material hedging before the delivery because we need to maintain a merchant component in order to take in account the volatility of the production of our wind farms mainly.

Of this one 1 TWh of production that is merchant as of today, for the remaining months of the year, 0.4 is in Italy, 0.1 between France and Spain, 0.3 in Eastern Europe, 0.2 in UK, Scotland mainly. On 2027, total merchant exposure is around 2.5 TWh: 1 in Italy, 0.4 in France, 0.5 Eastern Europe, 0.3 in UK, and the remaining Spain and Germany.

Taking into consideration that this 2027 exposure will be hedged during this year, because you know that we have a policy of rolling hedge, we will start the 2000 start 2027 with a merchant exposure that will be much more limited than today essentially, because in the next months, we will continue to hedge the production 2027 mainly, 2028, and by minor extent also 2029.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, and thank you for the presentation and for taking my question as well. The first one is an update on the wind availability in April and May so far, what is the visibility, what is the comparison year-on-year?

This is the first question. The second one is still on '27, but as regards the hedged part, you can provide an update on the level of pricing of the hedging, at least in qualitative terms, compared with the average of the hedging in 2026, no?

What is higher, to what extent, etcetera? Then a third question is on the US.

I suppose that the weather condition affected the Q1 operation were only temporarily due to weather condition, we should expect a normal contribution in Q2 and in the remaining part of the year. Still on the US, a final question on the M&A side, acquisition side, the opportunities, there is an update, I think you are still exploring part of opportunities to increase your capacity in the country.

There is an update on this. Thank you.

About the wind availability, I've more or less already said. April was not particularly good, as well at the beginning of May.

There was an anticyclonical situation over Europe, continental Europe, but over the last few days, wind is back and is very strong now. We are recovering, and the guidance we are saying today is fully including already the performance in April and the first day of May.

We are very confident about what I have already said, also because I repeat the fourth quarter will be the game changer. If the wind will be stronger, and we have some signs that it's going to be like this, at least according to institutions that are made in this kind of long-term forecast, we can be positive on the full-year results in 2026.

I repeat, we would need the crystal ball to know exactly how wind is going to blow in the fourth quarter or in the third quarter. About the US, I'm going answering the three questions, and then leaving Michele the hedging.

The US performance, yes, you're right. There were a multiple events not strictly correlated each other.

In January, there was a blizzard, there was a storm, a snowstorm, and also a transformer failed in a nearby substation where our wind farm is connected. This has got impact on the availability of the plants in February, but now the availability is back to normal, let's say.

In March, in particular in March, but also in February, there was a particular tough market conditions in terms of grid constraints, congestions, that basically had a quite huge impact on the nodal price and the PPA we have on the wind farm. There is a financial settlement between the real-time price in the nodal market versus the day-ahead price in the hub market.

Let's say the two points got the same price based on supply and demand, like our day-ahead market. There is just one price, the two prices are aligned.

In the American market, the local price is affected by the congestions and the constraints. If a certain node got congestions, blah, blah, something hurting, say, the transmissions, etcetera, the TSO is going to charge this cost on the node, and then we are paying for that.

The PPA is not providing a hedging or covering this risk. This is exactly what happened during the first quarter.

We had a light queue in April, the first weeks of April, but now it seems everything is back to normal. We are confident that results going forward should be in line, at least, with our budget.

The third, again as regards US M&A, we keep working with Apex. We have this preferential right agreement.

Far, hasn't yielded many deals because there was still a gap between what we were prepared to pay and what they wanted to achieve from the sale. I can say the gap is narrowing.

We are working on it. At least that's what we hope.

We will see, but for sure, it remains a point of a big attention for us. I hope to have answered all the three questions.

Now I leave Michele for the fourth one.

Regarding the hedging level, we currently have an hedging level on the term component, short-term hedging on 2027 lower than 2026, because as I explained before, the level of the hedging that we have in place for 2027 is the result of an hedging policy that is the result of build-up over three years. Today, the current level of the hedging in 2027 are lower than 2026.

Take in consideration that a large part of the hedging of 2027 will be executed during 2026. The final number for 2027 is also of the result of what we are doing in these months.

Just to give you a figure, for example, in 2026, we have hedged on a short-term hedging 1.4 TWh, while the amount already hedged in 2027 0.5. This means that we still have to build up roughly 0.9 TWh of hedging during 2026 to cover 2027.

The final figures that we will have in 2027 will be the result also of the hedging that we are doing today in a environment that is for sure more positive than a few months ago. Just I would like to clarify a previous question regarding the number of green certificate, because I need to be more specific, maybe, just to be sure that everything is clear.

The figure that I have given to you is the total number of incentive in Italy, wind and solar, green certificate, Conto Energia. So 1.1 TWh in 2026.

Just the wind green certificate, if it was the question, not sure, is just 0.8. While in 2027, total incentive in Italy is 0.6, of which 0.3 solar, 0.3 wind.

I hope that the explanation about hedging is clear. Otherwise, I'm

Everything is clear. Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon, gentlemen. Thank you for the presentation and for taking my questions as well.

I have three. You explained very clearly about the EC guidelines with regards to the energy market disruption.

I was wondering if you can share your view about the long-term perspective, say related to the so-called acceleration EU plan. What are your wishes or the elements that could really change, or at least change in positive, the game for renewables and for you as well over the next 5-10 years?

Second question related to the pipeline is just a clarification if you can update us on the, I would say, ready-to-build and execution projects you have on your hand with an eye to this year and the next couple of years. Final question, very broad, about the leverage.

We used to see leverage and the threshold level in the region of 4x, 4.5x debt-to-EBITDA. That seems in the recent period changed a bit in the way that some peers have been deleveraging, even maybe related to the fact they have less opportunities.

Related to that, do you see this kind of level still in place, as good for you, for rating agencies? This is, of course, related to the potential you have on the balance sheet for further growth, maybe coming for opportunities we can have in future.

Thank you. Let's say,

let me start with the pipeline, because it's something we are working very hard on right now. We have already 230 MW right now under construction, at which you have to add the more or less 60, 36 + 25 MW we have approved this morning, which bring the total above 300 MW basically under construction right now.

On top of this, as we said in mid-March, we are working on a pipeline of projects that is wider, but we are very now focused on roughly 700 MW, half of which are repowering projects, mainly wind, mainly in Italy. Part of them are roughly 200 MW, or even more, are already fully authorized.

I repeat it, we have to wait for the final investment decision, the start-up of the site work, to secure the production, to secure the revenues, to secure the P&L for the next 20 years or 15 years with either through a PPA or through a CFD awarded through a public auction. We are not still there, but we are working for that.

It's not all our fault, let's say, because we were expecting a FER-X auction in Italy take place in the first part of the year, but according to rumors, according to news coming from the ministry, the Energy Transition Ministry, this auction should be held at the end of the year. We have to move accordingly to the route to market option available.

On top of the wind, we received just a few weeks ago, or a few days ago maybe, a full authorization also for 80 MW of battery storage system, which is quite a very nice project, because it's close to our wind farms, and it's close to a connection point that we know very well. On top of this, we already had another 50 12 MW project already fully authorized, BESS, always BESS.

Now, we are working on the procurement side and on the route to market side in order to define the business plan of these two plants, with the aim of approving those investments again by the end of the year. In fact, that was the real reason we decided to postpone the business plan presentation, because we want to gain a better idea of the potential of our pipeline in the very short, medium term.

Connected to the first part of your question, yes, something is changing. This geopolitical situation basically is bringing to the table the fact that Europe didn't, in particular Italy, didn't do what was suggested to do when the Ukraine-Russia case broke out a few years ago.

You should remember that we were all committed to renewable, we were all committed to investing in wind, BESS, etcetera, but that was not enough, especially in Italy. Renewable has not grown as they should be.

Now something is changing, because I think this situation is bringing back on the table, on the agenda, the importance of developing and pushing on renewable, because they are competitive in terms of cost of energy. The LCOE is well below the current prices on the wholesale market that are set by gas technology.

They provide for independence, because we don't need to import wind and irradiation or water, because those natural resources are available, while gas is mostly imported by US, by Middle East, and still a bit from Russia. We need to have a clear calendar for auctions in order to proceed as we should in deploying megawatts.

Now some headwinds are moving into tailwinds that make us more positive, let's say. Michele?

Regarding leverage, for sure you have noticed that yesterday Fitch has confirmed our rating, and the financial policy that we are following is essentially to maintain this investment-grade rating, and this translate in a FFO-to-net-leverage that should stay below 4.5x, that is translated in a roughly ratio net debt-to-EBITDA in the region of 4. We consider this as an appropriate level for our business, that is a business that has a strong component of quasi-regulated revenue, very good visibility on our cash flow.

We do not see this in this moment as a strong constraints to our growth, because we have flexible opportunities also to invest more. We have other instruments are available on a financial market, like hybrid bond that can allow us to exploit even better our capital structure.

Also asset rotation, as explained by Paolo before, could be a way to have a better portfolio, more concentrated in area where we can get a better synergy. This is something that we have already commented three months ago.

Again, we do not consider this level as excessive, but consistent with our quasi-regulated business profile.

If I may add, we are very satisfied about the confirmation of rating by Fitch in a time where there is more pressure on renewable players, because the increasing interest rates, inflation expectations, etcetera. Some companies, I can mention them, but in order to maintain their targets, their rating, have been forced to suspend the dividends or to transform it into a scrip dividend.

It's not our case, and next week, we are going to pay €1 per share dividend that has been approved by our AGM. I think it's a quite important achievement that is based on the quality of our portfolio and on our track record and credibility.

It was not to be taken for granted, this result.

Thank you.

Thank you to you.

Hi, good afternoon. I have a couple of questions.

The first one is on the postponement of the business plan. Could you please elaborate a little bit more the reasons behind the postponement of the presentation of the business plan?

Because I struggle to understand why a definition of the pipeline could be a valid argument for the postponement of a business plan. This is the first question.

Second question, considering that basically from what I understood from this call, the glass is half full rather than half empty looking at your guidance, could you please give us an update on potential buyback in addition to the dividend that you are paying next week? Thank you.

Let's say, probably, Andrea, you hadn't had the chance to follow in our last webcast when I explained in more details the reason why we decided to just present to the market because it's not true that we didn't present anything, we present the guidance, and we confirmed the objective to keep growing our renewable portfolio in accordance, in line with the '24-'26 business plan, which was the last plan basically we presented. Apart from the work we were doing on the pipeline, I don't see eye-to-eye with you about this, because it make all the difference of the world.

If we have 700 MW fully permitted by the end of the year, we need to invest more than €1 billion, and then we need to calibrate the business plan. On top of that, as said more in details in mid-March webcast, we are working on mapping all the options we have in our pocket to generate value, including asset rotation, and build-to-sell assets, etcetera.

These are elements that will be part of the business plan, but we are not used to proclaiming targets without having a clear picture of them. This is part of our story.

The third reason, which is very important, it's the fact that the board of directors is going to terminate its mandate next April. It will be then renewed in one year.

It's quite use of the house to present a business plan approaching this date. That's as simple as that.

Thank you for the clarification.

You're welcome. Buyback is an option, sorry, I forgot to say.

Buyback is always an option. You said a buyback instead of dividends, it's an option.

As said even recently, every year, when we close the P&L for the year, we decide what best for us: dividend, buyback, a mix of the two. This kind of decision will be taken early next year when we have a clear picture and understanding of the balance sheet and the economics of the company.

For the time being, we decided this year to pay €1 dividend, which is pretty in line with our policy declared to the financial community.

Thank you.

Thank you to you. It's over?

Okay. Thank you very much for the attention, and see you in August.

August,

or end of July, I can remember the

date.

Thank you very much, and I wish you a

Thank you.

pleasant weekend.

Thank you for your attention. Thank you.