A very good morning, ladies and gentlemen. A cordial welcome on the occasion of the RWE annual press conference for fiscal 2025.

It's great to have you here in Essen, and also, thank you very much to those who dialed in. We have got our CEO, Markus Krebber, here, Michael Müller, CFO, and Katja van Doren.

My name is Birgit Hiller, and I'm in charge of communication as a successor of Stephanie Schunck. For you, ladies and gentlemen, there will be no changes.

Markus Krebber and Michael Müller will share the most recent financial news with you of fiscal 2025, and they will also give an outlook into the future. Despite a challenging environment, RWE delivered and is very confident about 2026 and beyond.

Our strategy was revamped, and we have got this strategy in order to get to new eras. Of course, we are troubled by the current developments, that is the war Russia-Ukraine, but also the situation in the Gulf region.

Even if our company is not active in these locations, we nevertheless are concerned by the developments. There are very many victims already now, and nobody has got a clue where it is all going to end.

It also goes to show how fragile safety, security, and peace has become, and therefore, energy are of paramount importance. This is exactly what we are going to talk about, and we are doing this in a hybrid format.

After the presentations, we will enter into a discussion. If you want to ask questions here in the room, you can indicate that by a show of hand.

If you have dialed in, you can enter your questions into the chat, and I'll read out the questions. For our international guests, you have to know that we've got simultaneous interpretation into English, but you may ask questions in English, and they will be answered in English.

We are, of course, also happy to get your input, and it would be a good idea to switch on your cameras if you want to ask questions. The webcast and all the presentations will then be put onto our website.

Then, eventually, before we get started, the following: at 11:00, the sirens will be sounded. They are acoustic alerts that will be tested, and this is only a drill, a nationwide drill.

If you cannot switch off the flight mode, you should, shortly before 11:00, switch off your telephones entirely, because the sirens will come through the mute status. Markus, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Birgit. Europe will be forged in crises.

That, ladies and gentlemen, was said many years ago by one of the founding fathers of the EU, Jean Monnet. He was a politician, but also an entrepreneur.

He knew that stability and resilience do not arise from comfort. They arise from dealing with uncertainty in politics and in business.

The key question in both cases is, how do you build resilience for uncertain times, and how do you invest in a world where the rules of the game can constantly change? At RWE, we have a clear answer to this question, and today, we brought you the figures that give weight to this statement.

I'm therefore delighted that you have taken the time to join us, and would like to warmly welcome you all to this year's annual press conference. 2025 was a decisive year for RWE.

We continued to make good progress with our growth strategy. In an uncertain environment, we once again invested billions of euros, expanded our portfolio in a value-accretive way, further reduced our CO2 emissions, and above all, achieved our financial targets at the upper end of the guidance.

This, despite the fact that the framework conditions often developed dynamically. That is why we are adjusting our plans for further investments where necessary.

For example, in the US, we had put further investment decisions on hold for the time being in view of the debates on technologies and tariffs. Since summer 2025, however, clarity has returned thanks to the so-called one big beautiful bill and the safe harbor rules.

We have therefore resumed our investment activities in full. For a second example, we can turn to the UK, where the government has provided a reliable framework for offshore wind build-out.

In the last round of auctions, the so-called AR7 auction, we were successful with 5 large offshore wind projects. That was more than we had originally expected.

We were awarded Contracts for Difference for 6.9 GW, which now gives us a solid planning basis for the electricity revenues from our assets. This was and remains a major milestone for the further expansion of our offshore wind portfolio.

At the same time, we have entered into new strategic partnerships. Strong alliances are particularly important when making billion-euro investments in turbulent times.

With the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, the renewable energy investor Masdar from Abu Dhabi, and the US financial investor KKR, we are increasing our financial scope for offshore wind projects. Thanks to our partnership with the infrastructure investor Apollo, we have secured the further capital requirements for the expansion of the transmission grid through our stake in Amprion.

In brief, 2025 was a successful year for us strategically, operationally, and financially. Above all, however, we have a product that is in demand, namely electricity.

The world will need significantly more of this in the future than it does today. The International Energy Agency expects electricity demand to rise by more than 10% in Europe and the US alone by 2030.

This is driven by advancing digitalization, the boom in AI, electromobility, new forms of heat supply, and air conditioning. This additional demand cannot be met without additional generation capacity and massive investment, and we can deliver it.

Thanks to our technological expertise across a broadly diversified portfolio in renewables, battery storage, and flexible generation, and thanks to our financial headroom, we intend to use this and invest significantly through to 2030, a total of €35 billion net. This will grow our generation portfolio of renewables, battery storage, and flexible generation to a total of around 65 GW.

We are not spending this money indiscriminately. RWE has a large, broadly diversified pipeline.

This allows us to focus on the most attractive projects, and we only give the green light if the risks associated with the new projects are manageable and the returns are right. We expect an average internal rate of return of over 8.5% on our investment programs.

We are focusing on 4 major areas for investment over the next 6 years: firstly, power generation in the US; second, flexible generation in Germany; third, offshore wind, primarily in the North Sea; and fourthly, onshore wind and solar in our core European markets, including Germany, and in Australia. What are our specific plans?

In the US, we want to expand our business even more than previously planned, and we will be investing almost half of our total investment volume there over the next 6 years, €17 billion. We already operate a broad portfolio from the East Coast to the West Coast, and over the next 6 years, we want to add 9 GW with onshore wind, solar, battery storage, and now also with flexible generation, i.e., gas-fired power plants.

Our focus here is on new gas peaking power plants. They perfectly complement our renewable energy portfolio, as they can supply electricity particularly quickly to meet short-term demand.

A reliable supply is especially important for electricity-intensive customers such as data centers. These power plants are planned at sites where we already have grid access.

We aim to have the first units in operation by the end of the decade. Our second investment focus is to expand flexible power generation in our home market of Germany.

According to the Federal Network Agency, Germany will need an additional 22 to 36 GW of firm, flexible capacity by 2035. This includes modern gas-fired power plants that are technically prepared to operate on hydrogen as well as large battery storage systems.

Both ensure the secure supply of electricity, even when solar and wind power are not available. The German government therefore intends to put out to tender a total of 12 GW of new flexible capacity this year, with commissioning planned by 2031.

The relevant legislation and tender conditions must now follow quickly so that the schedule can be met. We are ready to build 3 GW of new hydrogen-ready gas-fired power plants.

These will be located at the former power plant sites with existing grid connections. We have signed preliminary contracts for turbines and are pushing ahead with the relevant planning and approval processes.

These power plants will be supplemented by the construction of large battery storage systems to cushion peaks in demand and take pressure off the grid. Here too, we will be looking to build at sites with existing grid access.

Around 400 MW are already in operation, and 1.6 GW are under construction. A further 2 GW, which will be able to be commissioned by 2030.

In total, we want to invest around €9 billion in flexible generation by 2031, primarily in Germany. Our third focus is on expanding offshore wind.

Here, we plan to add a net 5 GW to our portfolio by 2031. This figure relates to the RWE share only.

Since we are building the projects together with partners, the actual installed capacity will be significantly higher. The main focus of offshore expansion in the coming years will be projects in the North Sea.

In addition, we are continuing to pursue our long-term plans to build offshore wind farms in Japan and Korea with local partners. The fourth focus area is our onshore wind and solar business in our core European markets, primarily Germany, the UK, France, Italy, and Poland.

These markets offer significant growth potential and attractive off-take agreements, such as two-sided Contracts for Difference. In this area, we aim to expand our portfolio by an additional 5 GW and invest a net amount of around €7 billion.

Additional opportunities are arising for us due to the demand for new data centers, both because they drive electricity demand, and because we have many potential sites for data centers that benefit from existing grid infrastructure. The attractiveness of these sites for tech companies was demonstrated by our sale of a data center project in the UK last autumn.

That's why we are working intensively on developing further locations for potential data centers. We also see opportunities for the reutilization of our infrastructure in the field of fusion power plants.

Our existing nuclear infrastructure in Biblis and Gundremmingen, for example, provide the ideal conditions for this. Our partners, Focused Energy for laser fusion and Proxima Fusion for magnetic fusion, will make use of these sites.

In addition, we contribute our operational experience and expertise in approval processes, both increase the speed of implementation and reduce costs, a clear advantage in the global race to build the first commercial fusion power plant. Ladies and gentlemen, you can see, in a world full of challenges, we can look to the future with confidence.

We are investing a net amount of €35 billion through to 2031. If you include our partnerships with investors, the total is considerably higher, especially in the UK offshore business.

We are investing in a high-performance and balanced portfolio that will consist half of wind and solar plants and half of flexible back-up capacities and storage, and with which we will achieve attractive returns, with strong focus areas in the US, UK, and here in our home market of Germany, since more than a third of our investments are earmarked for our domestic market. Overall, our investment program will lead to exceptional earnings growth.

By 2031, our adjusted earnings per share will rise from today €2.48 to around €4.40 per share. This means we will increase our earnings per share by an average of 12% every year, and our shareholders will benefit from this attractive earnings growth as well.

We are raising our targeted dividend growth to +10% per year. This is what we mean when we say RWE has got a clear compass.

This also applies to our goal of achieving net-zero by 2040, because our ambition remains the same: to achieve sustainable growth while continuously decarbonizing in line with the 1.5-degree target. At RWE, everyone pulls together to achieve this.

Once again, in 2025, more than 20,000 employees worldwide have demonstrated that team spirit, expertise, and commitment pay off. This was once again impressive.

On behalf of the entire Executive Board, I would like to thank all employees for their outstanding dedication. With that, I would like to hand it over to my colleague Michael Müller.

He will present last year's results and our financial targets for the future in detail.

Thank you, Markus, and from me as well, a warm welcome to RWE. 2025 was a successful financial year.

That's very pleasing and confirms our course to date. Our adjusted EBITDA came in at €5.1 billion at the upper end of the guidance we communicated at the beginning of the year.

Adjusted net income also reached the upper end of the forecast range at €1.8 billion. Adjusted earnings per share amounted to €2.48.

We clearly met our forecast and even exceeded expectations for 2025 overall. The development in the flexible generation segment was particularly pleasing.

A significant contribution came from the sale of data center project in the UK, which is planned to be built on the site of a former RWE power station. In addition, our stake in the German transmission system operator Amprion delivered a noticeably higher contribution to earnings last year.

Beyond that, we commissioned many new wind farms, solar plants, and battery storage systems, which contributed to earnings for the first time. Over 60 projects in total with a combined capacity of 2.8 GW.

Two-thirds of this new capacity was connected to the grid in the US. At the same time, we invested robustly in the continued expansion of our generation portfolio.

In total, around €11 billion gross, about as much as in the previous year. On a net basis, that is net of proceeds from divestments, our investments amounted to €4 billion.

The biggest individual items in our investment program in 2025 were our offshore wind projects in the North Sea, in particular, the construction of the Sofia, Thor, and Nordseecluster wind farms. We will commission Sofia later this year, and we're also well on track with Thor and Nordseecluster, meaning the first turbines will begin generating electricity during the year.

Additionally, last year, we invested mainly in the US in new onshore wind and solar farms as well as large battery storage systems. There, renewables are enjoying a strong tailwind, as they can be built quickly and are competitive, especially to meet the growing demand for electricity from new, large data centers.

The projects in the US are usually significantly larger than in Europe, for instance, a solar farm that can have a capacity of 100 to 300 MW, whereas in Europe, it's often just 10 to 50 MW. We currently have over 100 projects with a combined capacity of 10.3 GW under construction worldwide.

The commissioning of new generating facilities is also reflected in the development of our electricity production, which increased by 4% compared to previous year. However, wind speeds in our European core markets were unusually low, our offshore and onshore wind farms generated less electricity.

On the other hand, our gas-fired power plants were used more than in the previous year, once again highlighting the importance of a balanced portfolio of renewables and flexible generation for the resilience of our business. Even though we produced more electricity, the carbon emissions from our power generation continued to decrease last year.

This shows we're consistently pursuing our CO2 reduction targets. Despite our high investments, our financial position remains rock solid.

For example, our net debt in 2025 remained almost unchanged, and the leverage factor, showing the ratio of net debt to adjusted EBITDA, was 2.1, well below our self-imposed upper limit of 3.0. Our equity ratio improved by a full 7 percentage points to 41%.

Thanks to our very strong credit rating, we enjoy excellent access to the capital markets. Last year, we were able to successfully issue two long-term green bonds of $1 billion each, and for the first time in 10 years, we issued a hybrid bond in two tranches of €500 million each.

In both cases, investor demand was high, and the order book was heavily oversubscribed. All of this demonstrates the future of RWE is built on a strong financial foundation.

The capital market has confidence in us. This trust is the solid basis for our further development.

For the current year, we anticipate an adjusted EBITDA in the range of €5.2 to €5.8 billion, and adjusted net income of €1.55 to €2.05 billion. For adjusted earnings per share, we expect a figure between €2.20 and €2.90.

For 2027, we also expect strong earnings growth. Our adjusted EBITDA should rise to €6.2 to €6.8 billion, and our earnings per share to €3.05.

For the past financial year, we plan to pay a dividend of €1.20 per share, an increase of 10 cents compared to the previous year. For the 2026 financial year, we will increase our dividend target again to €1.32 per share.

That's an increase of 10%. Now, Markus, back to you.

Thank you very much, Michael. As you can see, ladies and gentlemen, RWE is not only good at developing concepts, but we also deliver when it comes to implementation.

We think, plan, and act with a long-term perspective. Electricity generation is a long-term business.

Whenever we decide to invest today, we're committing our capital for decades. In politics, however, the time horizon is often different.

There, people think in legislative terms and sometimes even shorter. Those who invest billions of euros need reliability.

If there is a risk that energy policy will abruptly change direction with a change of government, investments will be put on hold. This is why a fundamental consensus in energy policies is essential.

We need a shared understanding of the direction to the where to, and fewer ideological trenches about the how. Because, above all, our economies need one thing: more electricity.

If we are to succeed in this, debates like "Renewables: yes or no?" will not help, nor will setting generation and grids against each other.

Instead, we need a clear focus on expanding an energy system designed for increasing electricity demand, one that becomes more resilient, meaning it reduces dependencies. To achieve this, we must reduce our dependence on fossil fuel imports and expand generation and grids in line with the electricity system.

This is our shared responsibility with policymakers, power producers, and grid operators. At RWE, we're doing our share, primarily expanding generation, which is our core business, and indirectly, also by contributing to grid expansion through our stake in Amprion.

Over the next 6 years, we will invest €2 billion there in addition to our own investment program. Our investments help to make the energy system more resistant overall, in other words, less dependent on imports.

Because for an economy like Germany's, it can only reduce its dependencies if it makes progress in electrification. The international comparison is clear: Japan and China are also massively dependent on energy imports, but their economies have an electrification rate of about 10 percentage points higher than Germany.

Why? Because for a long time, we met our energy needs with cheap gas from Russia, and those days are clearly over.

Today, the rule is, if we do not want to replace old dependencies with new ones, then electrification will play a key role. The more electrified we are, and the more our electricity stems from renewables, the less dependent we become on fossil imports.

This also requires the right players and stable framework conditions, rules that can be relied upon and are not called into question at every opportunity. The best example is the current debate about the European Emissions Trading System.

With this, we have a functioning, strong, efficient, and above all, market-based instrument, one that sets the right incentives for decarbonization and investment. This is precisely why the European trading scheme has so far made the main contribution to decarbonization.

It also goes without saying that we need viable solutions for energy-intensive industries operating in global competitive environment. Those who fundamentally question the trading system for that reason endanger Europe as an investment location.

Many companies, for example, in the energy, steel, and building materials industries, have invested with confidence that the emissions trading system will function in the long run. What's needed is a structured discussion about necessary adjustments to the ETS: first, a limited allocation of emissions rights even beyond 2040; second is targeted extension of the free allocation of emissions certificates; and third, using revenues from CO2 pricing more effectively to support industry.

To further strengthen electrification in general, taxes and levies on electricity should be reduced to a minimum, which means for all consumer groups. That will make electricity more attractive, drive electrification forward, and strengthen the resilience and independence of our society from fossil imports.

At the same time, of course, the additional electricity has to come from somewhere. It must be available around the clock, and finally, it must reach the place where it is needed, that it must reach the customer.

This requires major investments in generation and in grids. Round-the-clock generation is based on renewables, storage, and flexible backup capacities.

In this respect, it is important and right that the German government is pushing ahead with the tendering of secured capacity. Otherwise, as the German Federal Network Agency has calculated, there is a risk of supply gap.

We need battery storage and hydrogen-ready gas power plants, the former already being added without subsidies, including by us. The weather multi-week periods of low wind and solar outputs, additional batteries are not enough.

It will not work without substantial increase in genuine backup capacity that can generate electricity for several days. Finally, generation and grid expansion must go hand in hand.

Electricity that does not reach the consumer is wasted. Resetting the incentives is correct, we support the German government's considerations.

Policymakers should design incentives in a way that problems can be solved for producers and large consumers such as data centers. That means building facilities in the right locations, supported by differentiated construction cost subsidy for grid expansion.

Then plants will be built where they make systemic sense, or the costs of additional grid expansion will be borne. The incentive for a fast and efficient grid expansion, however, must lie with the grid operator.

I'm convinced, if we address the task ahead in a consistent, rational way, they are solvable. Because, ladies and gentlemen, Jean Monnet's quote has a second part: "Europe will be forged in crises, and will be the sum of all the solutions adopted for those crises."

We wish to contribute to this sum of solutions as a reliable partner even in uncertain times, one trusted by investors as well as international customers, with a resilient business model, committed employees, strong financial resources, and the willingness to make major investments in expanding our energy supply. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Markus. Thank you, Michael.

I think there is a lot to discuss, and here we've got Mr. Steitz.

You can ask your question now. Yes, I've got a couple of questions if I may.

Let me start with the US. Of the €17 billion, how much is to go into gas-fired power plants?

Can you tell me how you want to go about it? Do you want to build them yourself, or are you thinking about acquisitions, or a twofold approach?

How do you want to organize it? Then I've got a question concerning the energy crisis in the Middle East.

Can you give me your take on things, the developments in the region? Maybe you can also tell us whether RWE is impacted in any way, because there is ADNOC there, and you discussed LNG supply with them in February.

To what degree is RWE impacted by the crisis? Let me start with the US.

The gas-fired power plants are under development, we've got a particular run-up time, and this is why we said the first plants until the end of the decade. That will tell you that the share of the €17 billion is perhaps 1%, the lion's share is onshore wind, solar, and battery storage.

How do you want to go about it? We've got existing grid access, and we have got the existing infrastructure where we are going to install renewable energy production, and the sites sometimes also have gas pipelines, and the peakers and the like can be used there.

Now we are talking to our customers whether they want to go for 24/7, that is baseload band, or only renewables. Then we are going to discuss where we are going to have additional gas-fired power plants.

When it comes to the acquisitions, we have no assumptions in our financial statements concerning any further acquisitions, and we are not going for any major M&A deals, but what we have done hitherto as well: put in additional plants. This is something that we cannot exclude sitting here today, but no major M&A plans.

Gulf region: we all understand that this is a very relevant region for the worldwide energy supply. 20% of all the global demand comes from the region, and this has come to a standstill, and that of course is going to have consequences.

We see that in the rising prices, particularly if and when we are having a look at Europe. We say that there is no extreme shortage, there is supply security, but of course, prices have come up, and it is much more expensive to get the energy to Europe.

At the end of the day, you will have to ask the question of how long is it going to take. Currently, the markets consider that within a space of 3 to 4 weeks the problem will go away, and then we will need a run-up phase for 2 to 3 weeks.

If it takes longer, and nobody is able to assess the situation, this will have a more lasting impact and become more critical. Then we here in Europe will have to handle the question of how do we want to fill up the accumulators, the gas accumulators, for them to be filled for the winter.

Of course, we all know that energy is a driver for wealth, and 20% of the energy that is being traded is missing globally speaking. That means the longer the conflict is going on, we will have a downturn in business activities.

There is one more question here. Here is Mangold from Bastion, and then we will go to a chat.

Then after that, Ms. Becker from Börsen-Zeitung.

Thank you very much. I would like to come back to lignite, and ask for an update.

Where do you stand also when it comes to reducing the number of jobs? How many jobs were done away with, and what are your plans for the next 1 to 2 years?

Then also, exiting lignite activities, is that irreversible, also given the energy crisis on the horizon? Then in more specific terms, Iran, what does that mean for supply and trading?

Are they trying to change their tack, or do you see any positive impulses for your energy trading activities? Then the share price, or the share of RWE, that skyrocketed over the past couple of months.

Do you think this will go up further, or is that as much as you can expect? Is there a share buyback program?

Are you cognizant of the fact whether or not Elliott is still on board, or whether they have gone away? There were several questions.

Question on lignite: no plans to change the plans. We've got an agreement, a very clear one, and this is what we are using.

So 2030, end of story. The federal government is saying that we need the plants as a reserve capacity, but no decisions have been taken.

If they want us to keep that as a reserve, we will. Now Katja, the CHRO.

Lignite exit, I want to repeat it again and again, has been planned for many years, and is flanked by social measures. It is not only that we are cutting jobs, but we are also providing solutions so that the employees can go to new jobs.

For this purpose, they are upskilled, and they are also put into renewable sectors. Today, just under 6,000 employees in lignite activities, and by 2030, it's going to be 2,000 to 2,500 round about-ish.

Before giving Michael the floor, trading and the share price, I understand that I have not given a full answer to your question, and whether we are impacted with our LNG activities coming from the region. You see the discussions with ADNOC are ongoing.

They have slowed down a little bit in view of the problems they are having, but we've got a letter of understanding, and this is all very conducive. Then also lignite, how much have you reduced the activities over the last year?

Have you got any plans for the next year? How many staff will you reduce in 2026?

2025, about 500 job reductions, and that will go down from 5,600 down to 2, 2.5 thousand by 2030. All right, let me talk about the impact on supply and trading that the Iran war is having.

Our trading activities are based on the fact that we go for fundamental analysis, and what we are observing is an event-driven, geopolitical event, and there, of course, it is difficult to really understand how long it is going to take. Therefore, you may proceed on the assumption that we will reduce our risk positions and wait and see when the waters are calmer again, at what level we're going to see.

Now, let me talk about the share. We believe that this can go up further, and it is demonstrated by the story that we have reported a minute ago: €35 billion to be invested and earnings growth of 12% per annum, dividend growth by 10% per annum.

This is a long-term value accretion for our shareholders, and therefore, we believe that there is a lot of potential for our share. I think what is important as well is that it is very important to deliver the growth.

We had a look at the analyses of the past decade. We've always made it.

We always delivered and sometimes overachieved our targets. This is exactly what the markets want in order to develop confidence and trust in our activities.

Therefore, it is very positive for us when it comes to the share. Share buyback programs, correct, the current program is going to be completed by June 2026.

We don't believe that this will be continued over that date, but at the end of the day, this is a discussion we had a year ago. It is not important that you invest, but that you do investments in a value-accretive fashion.

This is exactly what we are doing: are the investments making sense? If there are changes when it comes to their purpose, when it comes to their targets, we might change our plans.

Currently, we are very confident that we will make it, and that we can go for value-accretive investments. Now, Elliott, well, you'll probably have to ask Elliott themselves, but they kept mum for a while, maybe that gives you an indication what that means.

The chat. Ms.

Becker from Börsen-Zeitung. I think you can see and hear me?

Certainly. Two or three questions if I may.

First, taking the longer view, will RWE have no more possibilities to do green investments because, obviously, you are putting a lot of money into flexible generation? Then, I'd like to know whether these long-term forecasts make sense when they produce such a broad range.

Your forecast 2027 for your adjusted income, you would have the result of 2025. What does that mean?

Then also, the windfall profits, or the tax on windfall profits, this will be a topic that is to crop up again, don't you think so? First question concerning the investments: well, our CapEx plans when it comes to the mix between renewables and storage and gas backup have not been subject to change.

We always had the intention of building 3 GW gas-fired power plants, and that was quite vague in the past, but now the government has offered a remuneration plan for that. What we have seen is a shift away from offshore net, more investment into renewable activities in the US.

The mix is the same, it's only a slight shift, simply because we have got partnerships when it comes to offshore activities, which is much larger because of the success that we have seen in the UK. If we leave aside the investments in the gas-fired power plant gross, would mean that there is an increase in the expansion of gas-fired power plant, why would we need that here in Europe?

At the end of the day, it's all about cutting dependencies. Our long-term forecast is only a point guidance.

We always said €4 in 2030 and for €3.40 in 2020 in 2031, but long-term forecast are very important simply because we are telling our investors that we want to invest billions, and then of course, they want to know what will we get by way of a return. Then our business has got a long run-up time, and I think more than 50% of the investments we are doing until 2030 or '31, maybe more than that, are already known by name and by site and have already been contracted.

We've got building time between 3 and 7 years or construction times, and a lot we are showing here today is already completed. What about the bandwidth?

The bandwidth is not increased. At the end of the day, it's all driven by the wind.

If there are low wind speeds, the result may be lower, and then we've got an offset due to the flexible generation, there is some bandwidth in there. If you have a look at the multi-year average, this is all offset, and in the long term, we are being very confident, and we think that 2031, 75% of the revenues will be contracted, and that of course offers a great degree of flexibility.

Windfall profit tax, I'm expecting this issue to arise. The policymakers are aware of the figures, figures dating back to the last discussion, which has not been finalized yet.

Really, there was not much of a result in this respect. Our situation is the following: a majority of the electricity are contracted in long-term contracts via PPAs or Contracts for Difference, and we've already sold the electricity.

There is no such position that we might benefit from the rising electricity prices. Then the parts that are flexible need to ramp up if there should be a shortfall, and then we need to pay higher prices for the gas that we have to buy in.

The winners are who have some fossil fuels, who can export fossil fuels and who can export them. Really, Europe will not benefit from it, because we are major imports.

At macro level, we will not benefit. The industrial customers, having bought in the energy and have to reduce production because the demand is not in place and the economy is suffering, then they can sell part of the electricity, and they can, of course, earn some money with the electricity position, but not very much, because they have to compensate other losses.

If we look back at 2022, 2022, and really the benefits that were raised during that time, then you see that not much came of it. Thank you very much.

Then Mrs. Berdiyorva from the Manager Magazin and Mrs.

Brendel here in the room, and then after Mrs. Brendel, we will turn to Mrs.

Höning from the Rheinische Post via video. You have really really really voiced great for the reliability and sustainability, but at the same time, you are saying that you're investing a lot in the United States.

How can that be brought together, because you have had negative experiences? Then gas-fired power plants, you wish to invest more.

When will the tender take place? What about the 10% requirements on the part of the Federal Cartel Office, and who's going to bear the cost for the gas-fired power plants?

Is this going to be added to the power price, or what is your idea for the price setting? Yes, thank you very very much.

Your question on the United States: well, we we we perceived here Europe in a way that energy policy is volatile in the United States and difficult. If you if you talk to the US team, US team, then their view is totally different.

Of course, there were uncertainties in the beginning with on the basis of the tax credits and the tariffs and the safe harbor rule, how much need to be secured in by 2030. We have a very clear compensation remuneration framework for further investments.

The only thing that that you that you have to exclude is offshore. The American administration is aware of the topic of investment protection, and we keep it on hold.

I said it at an earlier stage, we we if if we are not authorized to build the installations and the offshore wind farms, then they will return the money to us. The the really the the message the message that we get as energy suppliers is, well, the demand is so high, this is why build as much as you can, be it onshore or offshore and and really nuclear.

Everything is needed, and the and the really the preconditions are fulfilled. Then on the gas-fired power plant power plants in Germany, we said, well, we can build up to 3 GW.

We wish to do it at already existing locations. The two questions you raised as regards the 10% rule, let me answer as follows: well, on the basis of political decisions decisions taken during the past decades, decades, we were forced to decommission two-digit percentage rates of fossil energy, and and we had were to reduce the number of jobs by 10,000s.

Why why should we believe that if they restrict restrict the capacity 1.2 GW, and how many stakeholders are there who can really cope with such huge size of projects? The third aspect is the consumers.

It's really in auction in in in in a competitive way, and this is why the debate is not really clear to me, and we're against such a rule setting. I I would be surprised if the 10 10% were were decided, because then we cannot add another 12 GW.

The costs, the costs for the security of of supply are negligible in the framework of the total cost of energy production. If if if we distribute it over the of the useful time of 20 years, then it it it adds up to 1% of the electricity bill.

There's no real price effect by the backup capacity. The grid costs and and the installation that that incur a lot of costs, that is renewables, for example, and it's, at the end of the day, political decision whether or not it is imposed on the consumer or whether the the state take takeovers.

If we take the long term, then 20 years, then the costs are really negligible. In summer of this year, this is latest the point in time for the tenders.

The awarding awarding, and the third or third or fourth quarter of this year. Then, now Mrs.

Brendel, and then Mrs. Höning from the Rheinische Post.

My question is, you said before, no M&A in terms of gas-fired power plants in the United States, but would you go for partners and build gas-fired power plants with partners? The second question, to what extent did US policy influence your decision on gas-fired power plants?

That is that Donald Trump puts more focus on gas-fired power plants. One year ago, Mr.

Müller said that the trading positions would have to be reduced in uncertain times, and those days you were talking about tariffs. Is this something that needs to be implemented now?

Yes, that's right. Major M&A transactions is not in our pipeline.

Individual plants, perhaps, and partnerships, well, of course, in some cases, we go for partnerships, but there we do not have anything in the pipeline to this end. Politics really put the framework conditions, and that influences our decision whether or not to invest.

Why are further gas-fired power plants needed in the United States, and why do we invest? The electricity demand in the United States is really leaping up.

The problem is that if you start to build renewables, which can be installed very quickly, but at the end of the day, you need some gas peakers for a couple of hours and days where the capacity of batteries is not enough. Of course, the renewables, they offer a lot of generation capacity, but I need a stable power supplies, and this is something we wish to offer.

If we look at the energy policy, it's interesting to see that in all regions, the same energy mix is added, that is really renewables, battery, and flexible generation. Trading, I addressed it before, yes.

Our trade is driven by a fundamentally approach and not based on speculative positions. We have reduced some position, but of course, if the situation changes, we would respond.

Thank you. Then let's turn to the virtual room, and we're looking forward to more questions.

This is Höning, and then later Rachel Miller, and then we come back to Essen. First from the chat, Antje Höning from Rheinische Post.

Thank you very much. I've got two questions if I may.

First, nuclear energy: Ursula von der Leyen regretted that Germany exited from nuclear power generation. Do you share this view, and what about the opportunities for the fusion reactors?

Is there a possibility that small modular reactors come back, or maybe that the old blocks or units come on the grid again? Then lignite: we have now got the groundbreaking ceremonies for the hyperscalers in the Rhenish region, and will they get the electricity cheaper?

Thank you very much, Ms. Höning.

Coming to terms with nuclear power in Germany is complete, is finished, and I can't think of them going back online. When it comes to fusion, we are watching the developments very, very carefully, and there is one power plant together with the Schleswig-Holstein government where we are thinking about expanding the activities.

For private companies like ours, responsibility is for the funds, and I think it's too risky. It is not doable, and there is no provider that can mitigate the risk.

A private company like ours cannot invest two-digit billions without any clear plan. Therefore, there are only three groups being active in this project: it's states themselves that want to give it a try; and then there are regulated energy supplies that are able to roll it out to the customers, and the customers have to pay for it; and then there are semiphilanthropic approaches like Bill Gates and say, "I might give it a try, and maybe it's a breakthrough."

For us as a commercial company, I can't really see this as a viable thing to be done now. Then the second question, hyperscalers: yes, we do supply hyperscalers with electricity, of course we do.

They would come to us when the plants are being commissioned, that is 1 or 2 years before they are being commissioned, and then we go for long-term contracts. The good thing is that the big American companies continue with their decarbonization objectives, they only go for green PPAs.

This is also the case in the Rhenish region. This is something that is going to happen in the future, say in a 1- to 2-years period.

Then the specific projects, you've seen from our press releases how many contracts we have concluded with them around the globe. Rachel, you can ask your question now.

Thank you. Two questions about the Middle East, and then one about the UK.

The first questions are just what do you think about the EU's proposals to cap the price of gas? Secondly, can you say a bit more about the impact on RWE specifically from the interruption to Middle Eastern supplies?

Are you missing shipments from Qatar, and how are you replacing those? Thirdly, just on the UK, when do you expect the projects that won contracts in AR7 will be built by, and how much certainty is there on those timelines?

Thank you.

Thank you, Rachel. Starting with the first question, I think we have learned in the crisis couple of years back that price interventions in tight markets will not help.

We do need the price signal when you have tightness and scarcity of supply, that the price signals should sort out where can you save, in this case, gas and oil, in the cheapest manner. I think what is needed, if the crisis continues for longer, the political discussion to support the socially vulnerable customer groups and maybe even industries, but I would strongly refrain from intervening with a market system.

Using money to support the vulnerable is correct, but trying to do that by fiddling around with the market will in the end backfire. The second part of the question: we are not affected with force majeure effects from Middle Eastern gas supplies, it's not part of our portfolio position.

On your question on offshore, the timelines for the AR7 projects are known. We are still awaiting final confirmation about—now we have the alarm here in Germany, no worries—so we expect still confirmation about the grid connection dates, which will set the ultimate delivery period.

We plan especially the Norfolk projects to be online and providing power before 2030.

I answered already.

Mr. Wittkopp, you're next, and then Björn Finke, Süddeutsche.

Mr. Wittkopp.

Thank you very much. Gas: there were several proposals being made in order to make sure that Germany can replenish the gas accumulators.

The market signals have deteriorated in the beginning of the replenish period, it is not really very profitable to fill the gas accumulators now. Some people think we need a gas reserve, and others are saying that they need to be big enough in order to have an impact, and that would ruin the market.

Then you pointed out that there is a French intervention as a kind of a role model. What is your preference when it comes to refilling the gas accumulators?

Then a second question if I may: there were these two agreements with the United Arab Emirates, LNG and batteries, that were signed most recently. Is the current crisis having an impact on that decision?

Thank you. Thank you for your question.

Let me talk about the gas accumulators. If it wasn't for the current crisis, we'd go for a reasonably dimensioned gas reserve for the nation, and then have the market work in an ordinary fashion.

The market will work on the basis of average winters, not making provisions for extreme condition, and this is something that could be done by the national gas reserve, for example, if there were supply chain disruptions, like for example, there's not enough delivery from Norway, and then the replenishment would become more expensive. This is not the current discussion what we should do.

It would be the wrong thing to replenish an extra reserve now. It is completely right what you're saying here: price signals do not give us a market-based signal to accumulate gas, because prices are higher in summer than in winter.

There are no short-term problems, but of course, we would have to discuss how to organize it for this summer if the prices continue to be what they are today. If the crisis goes away in a 2- to 3-weeks period, then we should be able to go back to plan A.

At the end of the day, if this is going to continue, we need some national incentives. Then, at the time, the government bought in a very fixed pattern, and that drove prices simply because it was so predictable.

I would go for tenders, and those who make the volumes available in the most inexpensive fashion would then fill the accumulators, and then the government can rest assured that they have got sufficient accumulation of gas. It should be market-based.

After Mr. Finke, whose turn it is now, we will go for Nadine Bös from FAZ, and then going back to the chat, Pauline Faust.

Mr. Finke.

Good morning. In your presentation, you mentioned the problem of synchronization of renewable expansion and grid expansion.

At the E-world, you had the idea of redispatch in line with the government, and said this is absurd, but now you changed tack a little bit and said variable construction subsidies could be a solution. A redispatch, is that an inferior management tool in comparison to the variable construction cost subsidies?

Is it just nonsensical to do that, or is it that on the basis of the redispatch proviso, if you were twisting a few screws, that you then get an idea of the level, and can you then arrive at the situation that you have got a situation everybody can live with? Thank you very much, Mr.

Finke. Let me take one step back, and the objective of the grid network of the ministry is quite the right approach.

We need a better management of the expansion of generation and grid, and if the generation is at the wrong place or site, and doesn't get to the customers, it is pure waste, and nobody should be paying for that. I tried to make it clear in my presentation that the incentives have to be done in a way that those who can resolve a situation need an incentive to do so.

A mismatch to have the problem shifted to generation is of no avail whatsoever, because we cannot resolve it. Otherwise, we would have to build our own grids, and therefore, we need an incentive, and therefore, we think a differentiated construction incentive or subsidy would do the trick.

When I have to generate electricity somewhere and then have to transmit it to a situation which is far away, then somebody would have to pay for that, and it is certainly not the general Tom, Dick, and Harry who should pay for that. When it comes to the grid operators, they need incentives as well to expand the grids, and the redispatch proviso is very preliminary, and a judgment I think that would take away the incentive, because at the end of the day, this is always passing the buck.

It is correct that this technical discussion is being done, and I'm convinced that at the end of the day, we are going to have a good solution, because at the end of the day, everybody's pulling together and wants the same thing. Thank you very much.

Now, Ms. Bös, your question.

A couple of my questions have already been answered, and therefore, I'd like to follow on the German Antitrust Authority. You mentioned the 10% proposal already, but then in the same breath, the Antitrust Authority found out that we as RWE would be the only one which is above the market threshold.

Do you consider yourself being treated in a fair fashion, yes or no? This is not about fairness, Ms.

Bös, but the definition of market power, is that carried out in the right way? Because we've got a different opinion, because the electricity markets are European, and they are talking about a 5% threshold.

If you have a look at the electricity markets, Mittlerer and Enel in Italy, and EDF in France, and England, we are the biggest one. They are talking about market shares over and above 20%, sometimes close to 40%.

What is really very important is that those who do trading in the market act in a fair fashion and play by the rules. Over the past couple of years, we had more than 45 different audits from the antitrust authorities and the stock exchange supervision, and everybody confirmed that we are doing the right thing and that they are fair.

Big companies, of course, can pay more for investments worth billions, and we simply made sure that we played by the rules, and therefore, I don't see a problem here. Quite the opposite is true: I see an advantage here, and I've tried to point that out as well.

How many companies can you think of who can do two-digit billion investments? This is exactly what is needed in this country.

Then also the reutilization of our existing infrastructure, what we are building now is something to replace the investments in those things that we have decommissioned. Very

very pleased if we can answer all the questions. Mrs.

Faust in the virtual room. Thank you.

You addressed already the topic that it's very easy to invest in the United States, also in renewables. That is, is Germany a lot less attractive than United States when it comes to investing in renewables?

No, I'm not that pessimistic. I think it's quite right that discussions are taking place, and some people have to write proposals, and we have to exchange opinions.

I don't see that there are people think that we don't need more generation and that we have to do it in an efficient way. I think the framework conditions will be okay, that is for both.

Generation and grid expansion will also continue in Germany. We remain virtual.

Philip Akoto is next, and after Mr. Akoto, we will have another English question, and after Mr.

Akoto and Mrs. Schlüter, we would be looking forward to your questions here in the room.

Thank you very much for taking my questions. Let me return to the Iran, because all other questions have already been answered.

My question is, how close we are to a real energy price crisis? I know the general market is still somewhat relaxed, because the long-term prices have not increased that much.

You have your own view, and I would be interested in hearing about that. Then, possibly, what would be the point in time when intervention would be called for in order to protect companies and consumers?

If you look at the petrol prices or electricity prices at the spot market, then, of course, we're already faced with a very tense situation, because these are price levels that nobody wants to accept. This is due to the scarcity.

We're already faced with a very tense situation, but the question arises: how long will it take before a situation relieves again? It might exacerbate in the weeks to come, but, on the other hand, there might be some sort of a relaxation in the Gulf region.

This situation is different than in 2022, because in 2022, mostly Europe was affected, and now it's a global crisis, and particularly Asia is affected. Compensation measures and at what price level, that's a critical question.

I think that really you should leave the markets alone, but what you should do is support vulnerable groups, and not try to intervene in the market, because these are not things that can be solved on the basis of market intervention. There are consumers that are vulnerable, but at what point in time and at what price level politics is going to intervene is something that's not up to me to decide.

Now an English question.

I have four questions. You mentioned the importance of consistency in energy politics.

This week, President Ursula von der Leyen said that the German Atomausstieg was a strategic mistake. I was wondering, how did this make you feel?

My second question and my third questions are about the Netherlands. You want to invest in offshore wind in the North Sea.

Will you participate in the Dutch wind tender of this year or maybe the coming years? Third question: in the Netherlands, you have the coal-fired power plant, Eemshaven.

There was a research done to see which alternatives would be possible there. One option is heat storage.

What are you planning to do with the Eemshaven centrale, and when will you decide about its future? My last question: this month, you signed a letter of intent to build new nuclear plant in Gundremmingen.

It will be a fusion reactor. This is still a very innovative technique.

What are your plans in this field? Could you maybe elaborate on that a bit more?

Thank you.

Sabine, thanks for many questions. I think our business is not about feelings, when it comes to nuclear, we look forward and not backwards.

I think I had to one of the German questions already that we are done with looking back, we are looking forward, and I elaborated on that. On offshore, yes, we are building one of the biggest offshore wind farms in the Netherlands together with Total, and you have seen the last tenders failing.

The government now is working on the final details on the new auction design, and if that is a design which we think works for investors like us, then we are also willing to participate. What is important is we need bankable projects, we need to have certainty about long-term power offtake agreements, in the end, the solution is Contracts for Difference, and I think in the Netherlands, it's also going that direction.

Next question on Eemshaven: our current plans is according to the law in the Netherlands, we have to shut it down by 2030, and that is so far the plan. It is a very good site with many options, but in the end, the first thing is we need from the Dutch government is what is the energy policy around it, and then we can discuss potential options.

I expect that discussion will now probably intensify after the new government has been formed. When we have clarity, then we can inform you as well.

Fusion is in the very advanced research stage. The plans here on magnetic fusion is that the startup company Proxima, which was founded by the Max Planck Institute in Bavaria, will do a first test reactor, and therefore, it will use our facilities because it's going to jump-start the development.

If you would, on the greenfield site, build a new one, they're going to lose 5 years and more. They're going to use our facilities.

We are also open to co-investments there, but it's still in the early days. We keep an eye on it, because if that is successful, that could solve the energy problem long term.

Yeah.

Let's go back to Essen. Steffen Eder has some questions.

After that, Mr. Steitz, and another second question by Mrs.

Brendel. Mrs.

Eder. The other questions have already been answered.

That is, let me return to fusion. Mr.

Krebber, you talked about a clear advantage and competitive edge in the global race for fusion power plant. Can you give us a figure, a year?

What is the position of Europe and Germany? The Federal Chancellor, of course, has already put a focus on fusion.

Thank you very much, Mr. Eder.

There are two countries doing some research on fusion, that is doing some research on laser fusion and other magnetic fusion, that is the US and Germany. This is due our research landscapes.

The topic, why is speed so important, that is who's fastest to show that commercial reactors will be in the developing stage. That is, those who show to be the first that he's on the right track towards a commercial project receives all the moneys and all the funds, the first gets it all, and the others are left behind.

We'll have to look at the time frame. What you need is research, and what you need are pilot plants.

Since these are plants which are impacted by radiation emission, and if you built them all in a greenfield, then 5 years would be really a very short period, and this is why we provide the setting for them. Thank you, Mr.

Eder. Mr.

Steitz. Yes, two further questions if I may.

Margining. We haven't addressed this.

What is the state of affairs here? Is this an issue, and if it's not an issue, why not?

Second question, a bit more general, what does this crisis mean for the German industry and the European industries? Have been faced with high energy costs for years.

What are the chances for the German industry or the European industry to become competitive again? Margining, first question.

The question is securities which you have to provide for deals on the stock exchanges. After the last crisis as regards Ukraine, we've been a very positive position, no issue.

Let me focus on the energy industry to answer your second question. Situation is not easy because we're overwhelmed by Chinese imports, and we of course are suffering from a very bad economic situation.

The CBAM, which does not work out in all areas, and the Asian companies are very hard-hit by the energy crisis, in part even more than we are, and so the situation is not going to become easier, and the world economic situation will deteriorate, I'm quite sure of that. At the end of the day, it's a matter of agree on two things, that is we need further investments in electrification, that is a discussion about electricity market or generation or what have you.

What we need is more electrification and more electricity, but what we also need is solutions for the energy-intensive industries, that is we need, for example, a different allocation in the ETS systems, and free allocation of certificates, and so in order to support the energy-intensive industries. Mrs.

Brendel. My question would be, the gas prices have risen quite a lot.

Electricity prices have not risen as much as the gas prices. What is the reason?

Has this something to do with the renewables, or is the demand lower than in earlier crisis period? If we look at different countries in the world, then we enjoy one benefit: the renewables are not affected.

As long as we produce renewables, then we're not affected by the gas price, and that is the more we have in terms of renewables, the less we're dependent on the gas prices. The CO2 CO2 prices have not increased, but this is a warning signal because the overall economy expects and the market expects that the economy will deteriorate.

Then, Mr. Krebber, one further question, a question on the campus here and the topic of employees here, for example, Uniper presented its figures yesterday, and they said 10% of the jobs will be reduced in the administration.

Are there plans to reduce the number of employees, or will you add jobs? How many employees do you have here in the campus?

There are 3,500 people working here on the campus. Of course, we regularly review our cost structure whether this fits still.

For example, we looked into the cross-sectional costs, and so we looked into the right sizing of the overall structure, that the right people are in the right place. What were the results, and what are the consequences and your conclusions?

We need to take good care of the fact that the platform costs, that is a support of the operational business, is equipped properly, that is with enough people. We've seen that in some areas, we're overdimensioned a little bit, and this is what we're tackling at the moment.

Whenever there are changes, we do it in a socially compatible way. The adjustments are really negligible when we meet again in 3 years' time and exclude lignite, where there's a clear phase-out plan, then you will not see a major reduction in employees.

Mr. Mangold and Mr.

Finke, a follow-on. Briefly, of the €17 billion for the next 6 years in the US, €1 billion earmarked for gas, how many power plants that are to be smaller can be erected, 5, 10?

It depends on the size in megawatt, somewhere between beyond 500 MW. This will only be ramped up, and in subsequent years, it could become more if and when it is successful.

In the first couple of years, we will start in a modest fashion in order to expand our portfolio, and we can then offer the back-up for the base load next to the renewables. This is home stretch now.

Mr. Wittkopp.

Briefly on the fusion: when do you think will you be ready for a pilot project in Gundremmingen, and who are your major competitors? Here we've got Gundremmingen, is that advantageous for you?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Wittkopp, because that makes it possible for me to actually make clear the roles.

You would have to ask Proxima or, when it comes to magnetic fusion, Focused Energy in Biblis, because we are not the ones that invest into the plant. We are going to give support to the company, we are going to operate, to manage the site, and make available our expertise, but the plans for the investment into these facilities are with the companies.

As soon as that becomes mature, ready for the market, and that will be in the 2030s also, then we will enter as well. We want to have competition between the technology developers, and then choose those who are most competitive.

We want to do that to the avail of the German market. I think we had a very valuable discussion of the topic, and I've come to the end of my list of questions.

I think we have been able to discuss very many different aspects of our industry: international policy, national policy, technological approaches, and then also nuclear fusion and other promising technology. I think we have really offered you a broad range of different topics.

Thank you very much for coming. Thank you very much for dialing in, and thank you very much for your focus despite the alarm that went off.

Then thank you very much to the Executive Board for taking the time and answering the questions. Then also thank you very much to my team and the technicians that had made this event a success.

Now, have a safe trip back home, and have a good day.