Thanks, Lorenzo, and a very warm welcome from the Nordex team in Hamburg. Thank you for joining the Q1 2026 results management call.

As always, we ask you to take notice of our safe harbor statements. With me are our CEO José Luis Blanco and our CFO Dr.

Ilya Hartmann, who will lead you through the presentation. Afterwards, we will open the floor for your questions.

Now, I would like to hand over to José Luis. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much for the introduction, Anja. As well on behalf of the management board, like you to welcome to our first quarter results of 2026.

Let's start with a recap of the first three months of the year. Overall, we are pleased to report that the first quarter of the year represents a positive start into the year for Nordex, generally in line with our expectations.

We continue to execute well operationally, deliver further margin improvements, and enter the year with a strong financial position. We maintain a strong presence in our core European markets with Europe representing 97% of the total project order intake.

Germany remain our most important market, followed by Türkiye and Sweden. Project order intake amounted to 1.9 GW, which is slightly down year-on-year, and this development is to be seen in the context of a particularly strong comparison base in Q1 and Q4 of last year.

More importantly, the underlying demand environment and pricing remains stable. Secondly, we continue to deliver solid operational performance across the businesses.

The total revenue reached €1.6 billion, 11% growth year-on-year. Project revenue accounted for 86% of total revenue, also growing by 11%, driven by consistent progress in execution and deliveries.

Parallel, service revenue represented 14% of the total and grew as well 11% year-on-year. Thirdly, profitability improved further in the first quarter.

We achieved an EBITDA margin of 8.2%, reaching levels above 8% already in first quarter. Fourthly, our cash position remains very solid.

At the end of the first quarter, we reported a cash position of €1.8 billion. Working capital continued to normalize, moving back to around -9%, which is consistent with the seasonality of our business.

On the strategic side, we continue to see supportive market fundamentals, particularly in Europe and in Germany. Overall, the first quarter confirms that we are on track to deliver on our guidance for 2026.

We have started the year with improved margins, continued revenue growth, strong financial position, providing a solid foundation for the quarters ahead. With this, let's move a little bit more to next slides for details.

First quarter of 2026 saw order intake in line with our expectations. In Q1 26, turbine order intake totaled €1.7 billion, corresponding to 1.9 GW.

Orders were received from 13 different countries. Average selling price increased to €0.91 million per megawatt compared to €0.87 million per megawatt in Q1 25.

This increase was driven by regional mix and project scope. From a regional perspective, Europe accounted for 97% of the order intake, and as always, while we are not providing specific guidance for the year, we remain comfortable in our order intake momentum for this year.

Let's move to the next slide, the order book. Let me briefly comment on the development of our order book.

At the end of the first quarter, our combined order book amounted to close to €17 billion, reflecting continuing momentum in both segments. The turbine order book stood at €10.5 billion with most orders scheduled for installation in Europe, followed by North America, rest of the world, and Latin America.

In the service segment, the order book increased to €6 billion. By the end of the quarter, almost 14,000 turbines were covered by service agreements, corresponding to an installed base of 49.4 GW.

Overall, the order book development supports planning visibility and reflects the expansion of our installed base over the past years. Let's talk about the service business.

Looking at the first three months of 2026, I can confirm that our service business continued to develop positively. Service revenue increased to €218 million, and service sales represented around 14% of total group revenues.

At the same time, service EBIT margin improved further to 19.2%. As we have mentioned before, the margin recovery in service is not linear, but the underlying trend remains clear and steady.

This development is supposed by an expanding service order book, contract tenor, and continued discipline in execution. Operationally, fleet availability remained stable at around 97%, and the average tenor of the service contract increased to over 13 years, supporting visibility and stability in the service business.

Overall, the first quarter development confirms the continuing improvement in service margins, progressing towards our medium-term EBIT margin target of crossing 20%. Let's move to the next slide, our installation and production figures.

Installations increased to 227 turbines across 14 countries, up 10% in megawatts year-on-year. Installations were mainly focused on Europe, followed by South Africa.

At the same time, turbine production increased to 249 units compared to 209 in Q1 last year, largely tracking project scheduling and delivery requirements. Blade production remained stable in the quarter despite temporary delays at one supplier facility in Türkiye.

Overall, operationally, the activity in the first quarter developed in line with our expectations, supporting execution readiness for the higher activity in the quarters ahead. Now, I would like to hand over to Ilya for the financials.

Thank you, José Luis. Welcome also from my side, and as usual, I will guide us through financials in starting with the income statement.

As mentioned by José Luis, in the first three months of this year, sales rose by around 11% to €1.6 billion from €1.4 billion in Q1 of 2025. This development was primarily driven by higher activity levels in both our project and service business.

We again further strengthened our gross margins, reaching 29.4% in this first quarter compared to 27.3% in the same period of last year. As a result, we generated an absolute EBITDA of €89 million, which is higher substantially than the €35 million in the first three months of 2025.

This development translates to further EBITDA margin improvement from 5.5% to 8.2% year-on-year. On the back of this operating performance, we reported a net profit of €54 million for the quarter, representing a substantial improvement versus the €8 million in Q1 of last year.

With this, we already move on to the balance sheet. Looking at the balance sheet, the overall structure remains on a comparable level when looking at year-end 2025.

We ended the first quarter of 2026 with a cash position of €1.8 billion, as already mentioned by José Luis as well. Then the working capital normalized from -12.4% end of the year to -9% end of this past quarter.

Equity ratio improved and reached 19.4% at the end of the first quarter. Then of course, this development is largely driven by a further increase in net profit.

Now, together, let's have a look the other balance sheet KPIs on the next slide. The net cash, as a result, reached €1.5 billion at the end of the quarter, and remaining at a arguably strong level in a quarter which is usually softer.

Working capital ratio, one more time, at -9% or in total numbers €690 million at the end of the quarter, which is a reflection of the normalization in working capital usual for a Q1. With that, let's go to the cash flow and CapEx slide.

Cash flow from operating activities before net working capital stood at €175 million at the end of the quarter, and again reflecting the strong operational performance of the company, with the working capital normalizing, as I just said. Cash flow from operating activities after working capital amounted to -€69 million at the end of the quarter—million, of course.

As a result, we generated a negative free cash flow of -€98 million in the first quarter of this year. However, for the full year, we continue to expect a solid free cash flow generation.

CapEx spendings amounted to around €27 million in that quarter, and this is pretty similar to the ones in the previous year. Our investment focus remained largely unchanged compared to last year with investments primarily in blade and nacelle production facilities and tooling for installations and transport.

With that, I would like to hand it over back to José Luis for the guidance slide.

Thank you very much, Ilya. Based on a healthy first quarter, I would like to confirm our guidance we set at the end of February and that we expect profitable growth to accelerate in 2026.

This is of course assuming no material disruption in the market due to recent geopolitics development and market normalizing at some point during the first half of the year. Our guidance for 2026 is as follows: sales between €8.2 and €9 billion, meaning top-line growth between 9 to 18% year-on-year; EBITDA margin in the range of 8 to 11%—we believe that midpoint-plus is the most likely outcome as of today; working capital ratio below -9%; CapEx approx €200 million.

Regarding free cash flow, as Ilya mentioned, we don't provide formal guidance, however, based on the building blocks we have shared, you can likely conclude that we are positioned to deliver another solid free cash flow year. With this, handing over to Anja to open for Q&A.

Thank you, gentlemen, for the presentation. Lorenzo, you can now please start with the Q&A.

Good morning, and thank you very much for the presentation. I just got one question, two questions if I may.

If we look at the quarterly performance, the first quarter, despite being a relatively low-revenue quarter, has delivered quite a sizable increase in margins. If you kind of extrapolate that into the rest of the year, it would imply a bit more than the midpoint statement that we just said over the course of the presentation.

I was wondering to what degree you could maybe point to as how the profile of margin will evolve over this year, not giving a forecast, but just understanding why that if you have a relatively low-revenue quarter, this way you've got a good margin, but then the future quarters should have sizable operational leverage, which should lead to quite a substantial increase in those quarters, too. If you could help us with the dynamics there, that would be really helpful.

Then the second question was more around just more policy than anything else. In March, there was a paper out which was on the EU Industrial Accelerator Act, and it had some restrictive EU origin requirements.

I just wondered if you could just talk to that and how that may affect your portfolio, if at all. Thank you.

Yeah. Let's do this together, Ilya.

I think regarding the first quarter, and as we always mention, majority of the activity is always in the second half of the year, and this is a project business. The composition of the margin changes with scope, with quality and quantity of the projects you are executing in your planning phase.

Yes, you might get some general early indications, and this is why with information we have as of today and with the disclaimers that this geopolitics get settled in the first quarter in the first half of the year, we think we can do midpoint-plus. We see this is slightly more chances than risk to exceed the midpoint, but to go more into details, I don't know, Ilya, if you can provide more light.

I'd say probably combining in one response hopefully, too. A, to the profile, I think for calibrating, and I think we did that on the full-year call, yes, a step up in total and percentage numbers in the profitability probably to a similar pattern to an absolute terms, obviously, than ja last year.

That's how I would see the trajectory. Second, the important points on what it looks today and what José Luis has made, I would just make one addition.

As you said, Ajay, it's a bit of a slow, weaker on revenue-wise quarter, this is why service margin outweighs and outperforms a bit. I don't think you can necessarily extrapolate that first quarter to the rest.

Yeah. Regarding the EU Industrial Acceleration Act, I think is a policy in the right direction.

Our sector, as everybody now understand, is super critical for not only to fight climate change, but to deal with affordability, and we saw that in the auctions in Germany, to deal with a resilient energy market, to have energy sovereignty, and to have technology sovereignty as the role that this sector plays to national security and to critical infrastructure. What EU Industrial Acceleration Act is somehow trying to address is to make sure that roadblocks are removed to unleash demand growth.

A good example was a very successful case in Germany, hopefully this acceleration act will provide some leeway as well for other countries to follow and somehow will put in value what our sector brings to governments and to society in terms of affordability, resilience, and autonomy.

Great. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for taking my questions. Congrats on another really strong print.

I've got three questions, please. The first one related to the Middle Eastern conflict.

Now, José Luis, I think last week you were in an article in Recharge, and this morning I spoke to Ilya as well, and it doesn't really seem that you guys are seeing much headwinds currently either in terms of supply chain or inflation at the moment or at least in Q1, but Q2 doesn't really seem to be an issue there as well. I'm wondering, you're obviously assuming that you can do midpoint-plus if the situation ends in the first half.

What exactly are you seeing in Q2 which would change that view if this conflict continues into the second half? That would be the first question.

As seen in a project business, everything is about risk and chances. Of course, this situation has had some impact that we were able to deal with with the chances in other areas of the business.

Regarding Q2, I would say all things being equal, we should be able to deal with that as well. For us, the biggest concern is security of supply.

If one thing is price of what you procure, this is quite volatile. There are certain cost factors that regardless what the price in the market, vessels were contracted, the high prices in the market might not hit you in your P&L, although might have some impact.

The biggest concern is if the situation prolongs for long, we might start to see disruptions in supply, which will affect our ability to deliver, and then there is a knock-on effect that might impact more '27 than '26, which is inflation that this will potentially bring to the markets where we operate, but not that much in '26, potentially in '27.

Understood. Okay.

Question number two then on order intake for the remainder of the year. You obviously made a statement in the presentation where you're confident about the sustainability of the trajectory of order intake, assuming the US does not happen this year.

Are there any markets in Europe which are other obviously than Germany having lower auctions compared to last year, are there any other markets that are potentially underperforming and would lead to a view where you would tell yourself that order intake could potentially be below last year, or are basically all markets performing pretty well and therefore we should expect probably flat orders, assuming no change in the US?

I would say with the typical disclaimers, Constantin, that we don't guide order intake, I would say all regions we are organized performing business as usual, let's put it that way. Maybe some challenges in Nordics due to temporary low electricity prices, but materially speaking, this could be compensated by slightly more volume in other regions.

US apart, I will consider situation stable.

Great. Thank you so much.

Then last question. Now this one is a little bit harder to answer, and I get it, but I just want to get your view on this.

If Germany really transitions to the EEG 2027 the way it currently is, meaning we would go into contracts for difference, redispatch, you wouldn't be awarded for that anymore if you're curtailed. Clearly, the return environment is getting worse for the developer.

I understand that Germany wants to auction 10 GW per annum until 2032, but I'm assuming that if the developer isn't getting a good return, we won't see the 10 GW. I'm trying to figure out how do you think the market will evolve from the current feed-in tariff to the contracts for difference?

What are you hearing from developers about keeping these volumes running at these higher levels, i.e., 10 GW? Would be great to get your view on this.

No, our view and our strong advice to policymakers is to think well through the changes so the changes can be implemented in a way that volumes are not delayed because on the positive aspects, we saw the beauty of bringing permits to the market. Auctions were reducing prices quarter-on-quarter, contributing massively to one of the key concerns of all governments, which is affordability.

We are part of the affordability. We are part of the resilience, of the strategic autonomy.

If you delay that, that's not good for Germany. I hope that this is taken into account.

You name it. I think every time that a system changed from model A to model B, there are going to be adaptations needed that might or might not affect volumes.

We saw the opposite in a few years ago when Germany implemented the overarching and overriding public interest, which accelerated the market. Hopefully this is taken into account by the policymakers, and volumes are somehow stable.

The redispatch discussion is a good one to have, but who carry that risk, the developer or the system? If you are aiming for net zero, the path is clear, the end game is clear, maybe it's not very smart to push that risk to the developers because it's going to be more expensive for the system because they need to price it.

I think hopefully they will take this into account, and hopefully this change doesn't compromise the speed of the energy transition, which by the way, we are late in our overall targets across Europe and in Germany as well. Ilya,

Yeah. I think I see it the same way.

I think from those two points you mentioned, Constantin, in the legislative process, I'm not so concerned about that they would be touching volumes, the total volumes of the market. Could there be some outliers of people being unreasonable or some irrational behavior when bidding into the auctions?

Yes, that can happen, always happens. By and large, it is what José Luis said.

That's not a German discussion, go back to any given US project. If you have a PPA where your offtaker takes it as produced, you offer price A.

If the offtaker wants you to bear the curtailments and the risk of the uncertainty of the curtailments, you get a price of A + X. The market should resolve that.

The underlying question for policymakers is whether it's cheaper to bear that on the system directly or through indirect effects on bidding. I think on the total volume, that, again, provided largely rational behavior, that shouldn't change.

The same is true for the CfD mechanism. If until now you had an open or clause for to go to direct marketing and you, let's say, don't get that in the future, well, you will have to bid initially your auction a bid with a different level.

Pricing will basically adjust for whatever the legislator decides.

We should not forget that this journey requires grid deployment and renewables deployment at great scale. I encourage more policymakers to accelerate the grid deployment to deal with the curtailments than to decelerate the capacity deployment of wind onshore, which is going to delay on all main KPIs, on net zero, on resilience, on affordability, on everything.

Understood. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much, everyone. Good afternoon.

I have a couple of questions. I'll go one at a time if I may.

The first one is a follow-up around your comments around cost inflation, potentially being more of a 2027 topic than '26. I was wondering if you could give some color or commentary around where you see your pricing power.

Customer returns are maybe a bit more squeezed than where they were post-COVID. We've seen the auction prices in Germany fading, but then on the other hand, the turbine prices have spiked.

We have, of course, still a pretty strong German market in volume terms and so on. How do you see how easy it will be to push on higher prices given that cost inflation?

Thank you.

No, thank you for the question. I think it's Q1.

What I can comment in Q1 that Q1 we are happy with the quality of order intake. For the quarters ahead and for 2027, it's too early to comment on that.

You name it. I think if oil is costing more, logistics might cost more, resins might cost more, and then the rest is what are the other levers.

The other levers is what is the price, allowable price for the market, and this is supply and demand and competition. We will try to do our best to capture the best possible prices as it should be, and then is efficiency gains and productivity gains that we need to squeeze further to deal with this margin pressure that we might have, provided we cannot pass those cost increases directly to customers.

That's clear. Thank you.

My other question was just a follow-up on the free cash flow. In general, completely agree that working capital to sales should generally improve from here seasonally given this is Q1, but the payables line does still stand out as quite a bit higher than where it was, say, six months or so ago.

Is there anything we should bear in mind about how that particular line should develop, should it stay at this sort of level for the coming quarters? Thank you.

I think this one I'll take as well. No, that's a good observation, Vivek.

However, this is just due to the size of the business and how the manufacturing, the production, everything is lumped, to speak. In general terms, and again one more time without guiding anybody, I would repeat my statement from the full-year call that we clearly expect a conversion rate, more normal than last year, not that high, but a conversion rate of EBITDA to cash of around 50%.

Thank you, very clear.

Good afternoon, and thank you for taking my questions. I've got two, please.

Firstly on services, there was another step-up in service order intake this quarter to what looks to be a new record level. Is this a reflection of a better renewal rate than before, or is this more just a generally growing installed base within projects?

That's my first question. Then the second one, more of a broader question on the industry.

ASPs looked elevated this quarter. I appreciate there's some geographical scope in there on why it's a bit higher, but I guess the main thing is it looks like pricing discipline has been pretty well maintained within Europe.

What are your views on the industry competition? We've spoken about the re-entry of Gamesa into Europe, but what about some of the Indian OEMs that are looking to re-enter or to enter the European market?

Thank you.

Thank you, Richard, for the question. I would say services, we are steadily growing that business and improving profitability, but improvement doesn't happen overnight.

It's a low pace of improvement, let's put it that way. We with this expect to continue, provided things keep working as they are working.

We are super happy with the technology. The service business, of course, the main drivers is reliability on the technology and then efficiency that the growth brings and dealing with potential inflationary pressures we might have on people and on certain materials.

We expect the journey to continue, but a steady pace. I think there should not be expected big jumps.

We always say high-single-digit, low-double-digit growth, and whatever profitability that this growth might bring to the business, all things being equal. Regarding the industry and ASP, ASP is, as we always mention, an indicator, which is an indicator, but doesn't reflect, in fact, the quality of the business and is driven mainly by in this case, I cannot disclose the quality on the order intake, but we are happy with the quality order intake, has not deteriorated, but the key contribution for the ASP is geography and product mix.

Regarding how this could affect in the future with newcomers, hopefully the market will grow in the areas where we operate to accommodate the newcomers and long term or medium term. I think short term, the market is in an execution focus.

The volumes that were auctioned and needs to be contracted, needs to be executed, with all disclaimers, and I might burn my fingers, but I don't see customers willing to change the way they operate until we process this big volume that was auctioned and contracted. This might change long term, but so far we don't see it.

That's clear. Thank you.

Good afternoon, everybody. Thanks for taking my questions.

Three for me. The first one would be on mix, and we had the debate before around the gross profit margin of more than 29% in the first quarter.

I was wondering if there were any one-time effects, or if you would consider the regional mix in any particular way favorable, maybe you could just quickly comment on that, and then I have two more.

I think it's probably a notch to the high end, I wouldn't expect that to be always recurring on that level. Again, one more time, smaller quarter, more service helps the profitability, I think the trajectory is clear, but it's probably for a single quarter, which I always would ask us not to look too much at quarters, I wouldn't read too much into the number, but at least ballpark.

No specific one-offs either way.

Okay. No, that's good to hear.

The next one on provisioning, there was around €45 million in the first quarter. I think it's not necessarily an outlier, but I just wanted to check in whether there's any change to what you had planned for.

I think you have been guiding previously to 3 to 4% or so, but you could just comment on that one, Ilya?

Good observation. Thank you, Sebastian.

That gives me the chance to talk about that. Yes, for the quarter, a bit of a higher number, but very clearly all provisions were basically with that at 4% when you talk about warranty provisions.

We keep our basic message from the last quarters, especially the full-year call, somewhere between 3 and 4%, and yes, you might expect that for the full year go up to 4%, but not beyond that.

All right. Then the last one just on the volumes.

I think over the last 12 months, you have assembled almost 9 GW of turbines if I'm not mistaken, and you did not provide the gigawatt number as part of your midterm target update. Can you talk about the ambition for the company when it comes to considering probably Europe being about 8 GW or so alone in '26, and that is, however, before factoring in any contributions from Canada, from the US, or from Australia?

I was just wondering if you're comfortable in talking about volumes and where you want to take this company over the next couple of years? That's a

that's a good question. I would say in times of instability, you need to invest a little bit in overcapacity to have room to maneuver as well as to accommodate to project schedules and and so and so on.

The the the the 9 the 9 GW, it it might change from component to component because the timing and the project demand is is slightly different, and the overcapacity is slightly different per component to deal with different risk profiles. We are ready to to to deliver in that ballpark, 9 to 10 GW a year, yes.

When you say overcapacity on the one side, you're doing already at a run rate about 9, how much leeway would you then have, and then well, but

It depends a lot, Sebastian, in nacelles substantial, in blades less. It depends because you do a risk assessment of all different aspects that might impact your business, different import duties, taxes, on, forth, future view of what Net-Zero Industry Act might have for your business.

In nacelles, we have, of course, way more than 10 GW a year, in blades, ballpark that number.

The last one then quickly on the blades part, because apparently you were able to then also equalize or offset then what you've been missing in terms of the Turkish blades by external partners. How do you see the scope for then also getting better supplies going forward if need be?

That's the intention to phase out low-performing suppliers and to concentrate in internal factories and suppliers with better quality performance. Now the focus is to further growth in India, to ramp up Türkiye, and keep working with our Chinese suppliers in Morocco and in China.

Okay. Thank you for that.

Thank you for taking my questions. I have two, please, if I could.

One on the central costs. I understand that there's an investment need to support your strong order intake, but it has continued to ramp sequentially for quite a few quarters.

Could you help us understand or better estimate what the normalized level should be, presumably it should begin to flatten at some point? Then my second question, just a kind of macro question on the US.

I'm just curious to see how conversations are going with customers right now, what the interest levels are and the hold-ups, especially as we approach that July 4th safe harbor deadline. Thank you.

Sorry, Colin, we couldn't get the first question in full. I don't know

I'm not sure, Colin, did you ask about kind of a calibration of a run rate for the investment, the CapEx part?

No. Sorry, apologies if the line is unclear.

I was asking about the central costs line. It continues to ramp as it has done for several quarters.

Can you help us understand the unallocated central costs, €120 million of EBIT, what that should levelize and normalize at? Then the second question was just what you're seeing in the US.

The second one we got. You take the first, Ilya?

The first one is basically still ramp-up activity-driven increasing of the business, that goes back to a bit to the conversation that Sebastian and José Luis just had in a different shape, which is about the capacity. I think if the business develops as good, but within the ballpark of what we're calibrating you, we should be getting close to at least by Q3, the latest Q4, by a run rate, and I don't think that the increase will be so steep going forward when you compare them, let's say, in the last 12 to 18 months, not so much more, I would expect.

Regarding US, I would say you need to understand that we don't have the market position we have in Europe. In US, it's Vestas and GE.

Nonetheless, we see substantial commercial activity. Most of this commercial activity is subject to certain federal permits that needs to happen to release those final investment decisions.

From now to July, we see very much what the volume of the market could be for the foreseeable future. I must say that for us, we see a momentum which is not minor.

Understood. Thank you very much.

Hi, thank you for taking my questions. I wanted to follow up on some of the topics we already discussed.

The first one on inflation, you mentioned that this might be more of a topic for 2027. Given that you've locked in most of the ASPs for your '27 production, maybe last year or even in '24, was wondering whether there is any specific indexation to bunker fuel or resin costs?

I suppose, given you are producing a lot of your turbines in China and India, the cost of moving that to Europe, should your customers be willing to bear that? That was my first question.

The second question was a bit more on the German auctions. I think the recent auction price was also below, I think at €55 per megawatt-hour roughly, and it is now, I think the last time it was in these levels was probably in 2018 or so.

Wanted to just check how you're thinking of pricing, because so far you and the rest of the industry have maintained that discipline, but it seems like developers are maybe losing it a bit. What is your comments here?

I think one of your smaller peers said that he was not willing to lower prices in Germany, wanted to get your take on this topic. Thank you.

Let's go to the to the first one. Very much our indexation policy, Ilya can elaborate more, but pretty much we try to lock what is firm orders.

The moment we we we lock an order, we try to lock the logistics and the towers to to have certainty on the delivery. We don't we don't do forward forward so we are not long in in hedging fuel for expected order intake.

The future margins of the volumes that are unsold are going to depend of what is the cost base at the moment we we lock the order and the price we can get from the order, which is going to be a typical competition with your against your competitors to to win the order. This is this is what, '26, we are comfortable because 3/4 of the activity ballpark is very much locked with contracts, 1/4 of or 1/3 to 1/4 of the activities still needs to be sold, and consequently we will figure out what the margin of this expected order intake is for '26, small portion, and for '27, big portion.

When we talk about German auctions and and the and the and the pricing and and adjusting or not adjusting, again, supply and demand. We will try to harvest the best market conditions possible, but we need a prerequisite: the projects need to be viable with with the wind, with the CapEx, with the land lease, with the finance, with expected return for the customer, and with healthy margins for us.

We learned painfully in in in in previous in previous years how devastating can be for a sector doing doing irrational things, and I hope that we can make a living all in the sector at the current auction prices. I don't know, Ilya, if you can elaborate a little bit.

I think you nailed it. I think maybe the 2018 comparison, with all due respect, is a bit skewed because it was a different system, undersubscribed auctions, but still the general trajectory or the direction of the question is totally understandable.

Nonetheless, let's not forget that the auctions, as they stand today, still have an open or upside to the electricity market. It is not an absolute data point where the auction lands.

The developer, the ultimate owner is still entitled with those tariffs to step in and out of a power marketing system in Germany, so that might change with the CfDs. I think we had this conversation earlier on.

Nonetheless, José Luis, I think you summarized what we called in the full-year call. Also Germany will become a more normal market.

It will have oversubscribed supply and demand auctions, hence the whole value chain in Germany that arguably was a bit healthier than in other markets with those set feed-in tariffs will normalize, and then basically we will have a market with a very good volume, but on margins in comparable markets in Europe.

It's a great market to be in. The 200 projects, the capillarity that you need to build to execute that, you don't build it overnight, you don't lose it overnight.

Germany and Central Europe is the highest price for electricity in Europe for several reasons, you are in a market where electricity is paid more than in Baltics or Nordics or Iberian Peninsula, where there is huge demand, and where the company has amazing capabilities to deliver. Yes, you always want better auction prices, but I think we can do reasonable business with the current volumes and auction prices.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon.

A question on service. You talked about crossing 20% in your comments.

I'm just curious as to really what are the drivers, and I guess blue sky, how far above 20 should we start thinking about? That's the first question.

All things being equal, volume. For volume, you need to be patient.

If we keep growing 10%, every seven years we duplicate the business, but the margin will not grow in that proportion. It's hitting an asymptote because we cannot deliver better margins than the ones we sell, and the ones we sell, I think we cannot disclose in that detail, but the growth rate, and you see it in the previous quarters, is slowing down, as it should be.

Thank you. Another question just on the service fleet, because I'm just wondering if today you break down your fleet, how much of your fleet still of the older AWP turbines, and how much already is Delta?

Just on the assumption that I suppose you're getting better margins on turbines you're selling today.

I would say big majority is now Delta and Delta4000. AWP, we are losing renewals, and the weight of the AWP fleet is decreasing by two factors because the overall is increasing, and we lose renewals.

Over time, the AWP might be facing out and being very small portion. Still, we have a big fleet under service in Latin America, in Spain, in several countries, but the trend is lower AWP contribution over time.

Understood. Thank you.

Great. Thanks for taking my questions.

Two if I can, please. First, just to follow up on the EU Industrial Accelerator Act.

As you currently understand the draft legislation, would that require any changes in your supply chain to move more into Europe, or do you see the footprint currently as well-positioned? Then secondly, just in your customer discussions in Europe since the start of the Middle East conflict, has that changed at all the tone of those conversations with customers, are they accelerating things due to movements in fossil fuel prices or any hesitation given sort of the inflation and interest rate environment that we're in?

Thank you.

That's second is a typical dynamic. First, Industrial Acceleration Act, no changes for our supply chain.

We were preparing for that and planning for that to have different options. We might bring some more towers from A to B, and we might produce a little bit more modules in country or country B, but generally speaking, it's not a surprise to us because we were expecting that and planning for that because we always mentioned in the past that we didn't want to have all eggs into the same basket, just planning for having optionalities for the future.

That's regarding supply chain configuration. Regarding customer conversations, two-fold here.

Every war is a drama, no? For our sector, what has happened or what is happening in the Hormuz Strait is reinforcing the contribution and the importance to renewables, and especially wind onshore, to the resilience of the countries and to the affordability for consumers and hopefully accelerate electrification.

It is true that in the past, many countries were questioning a little bit that might need to consider back gas or is gas the solution for Europe? All those things, I must say, are very much out of the table, which is only good for our business because then policymakers focus in accelerating renewables because gives you a better country, a more resilient country, less exposed to volatility and so on.

When you translate this to customer discussions, I would say the helicopter view is great because the sector is needed and needs to be accelerated, but in the short term, you need to deal with volatility, with costing, with pricing, with margins, and so on, with financing, getting the projects bankable and finance, and this might have some short-term impact. I think we should be able to manage that.

I don't think this will affect dramatically our sector. What I hear from customers is that a reasonable project in Europe, wind onshore with permits, gets built in almost every country.

Of course, in Germany, being the auctions oversubscribed, that's not totally true, but over time, the sector is not lacking capital, and PPAs in certain markets are not adjusting, in others are adjusting to the new reality. It depends a lot market to market, but generally speaking, wind onshore is a good market to be.

Thank you.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. I wanted to focus in on the second half just a little bit.

Quite a growth in nacelle production in Q1, blades flat. Given what you describe around kind of pricing, bunker fuel, resin, and outsourcing, can you give us any sense of kind of safety net backlog you have in blade supply, and how we could think about kind of Q2 into Q3 given what happens or what we're seeing right now?

Nobody can really predict the end of a conflict, but if the Strait of Hormuz is not open, then will we start to see later deliveries or supply chain constraints in the second-half numbers, and will it be blades? No,

thank you, John. I think I would say the activity in Q1 is mainly driven by a high activity last year.

We accelerate the buildup of the stock because the company is a growing company, and at least our view is expected to be a growing company in the foreseeable future, strategically we were anticipating inventory to be in a better position to deliver higher quantities over the quarters, mainly in Germany. This was advisable to slow down a little bit in Q1 that was on purpose, but everything normal.

Regarding slightly cost increases that we might have in blades, but even considering that, we are still committed to the midterm-plus in the guidance. We will figure out how to manage in other commodities.

In parallel, we are ramping up blade production in Türkiye. That the same quarter of last year, that factory was producing blades, and then went into Chapter 11, and then we rescued the assets and are starting up as we speak to produce blades.

I would say business as usual with the typical changes in models that are allocated to different factories, but we are well-equipped to deliver our projects without impacts. That affects blade production, blade production cost, and fuel costs.

Of course, if the situation deteriorates in the second half and you don't have availability of components, I wouldn't say that projects even might survive without LDs and so on, but percentage of completion will be under pressure, because if you don't produce, you don't recognize revenue and margin, but too early to say. The assumption is that the factories will work in second half.

Understood. Follow-up question if I may.

If we isolate just to your project margins in Q1, very strong year-on-year delivery and expansion here, kind of 360 basis points. How would you characterize that?

Is that better profitability on the project deliveries overall? Is there a strong mix effect from the nacelle production, and how should we think about through maybe Q2 given your current outlook?

I would say Q1, I will categorize that in every project business you have risk and chances, and risk didn't materialize and chances materialized. This might or might not be the case in the future quarters, maybe it's a more balanced approach or maybe the trend continues, but too early to say.

Okay. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions.

A couple, please. Firstly, going back to the discussion on gross margins or project margins, can you please throw some more color on the differential between the project margins, gross margins you're achieving and the service gross margins just so we get a sense of mix effects into the year?

On that topic, would you describe your project margins as sort of flying at target altitude, or is there scope for expansion around mix? That's my first questions.

Let's do this together. I think Q1, as Ilya mentioned before, is lifted on an EBIT level as the contribution of services that the service business will expected to grow steadily in the quarters ahead of us, but the contribution of service will decrease once the project business ramps in Q3 and Q4.

You will have less service contribution to the overall profitability. The rest is portfolio, Ilya.

I think to the first part, I think William's question, I think that is as specific as I would go on a public call on the split between the two. I think to the underlying or the other question that William was asking is about how do you feel about the project margins, is that the target run rate you have?

I think here what we were saying is, and José Luis, you correct me if I'm wrong, when we now sell the projects and go into execution, they absolutely are, but then it is a function of how we perform against the risk and chance and the contingencies we've baked into them. Last year, for example, we came out in November, as some of you might remember, with an ad-hoc notification that we were just doing substantially better.

This is what we also said at the full-year call when we gave the guidance for this year, we are budgeting this in a very similar fashion. Whether this ultimately will be the target rate or the rate we're targeting, I think if everything goes well or a bit better than planned, totally.

If it goes much better, well, that's why we guide for a range towards the upside. If some risks which we haven't seen in so far materialize, it goes the other way.

I think that is, what we'd say, depends on the bandwidth of contingencies we're baking into our calculations.

Thank you. The second question would be around technology or product mix going historically and going forward.

I think you're in the phase of ramping up the N175, a significant opportunity in the 6 MW category. When we look back on the success of the Delta4000 around the 4 and 5 MW platforms, how should we think about the risk as you evolve onto the 6 MW platform, and specifically is this something which has similar levels of profitability or better, or how should we think about mix effect with regard to product development in the project business?

That's a very good question, William. I think, first, the 175 is one further extension based on the same platform.

We started 149 4.X, 5.X, 6.X, 163 5.X, 6.X, now 175 6.X and even 7 7.X. On product, I consider this product one evolution, and my expectations is that the reliability of the product doesn't deteriorate.

Contrary to what you could think, in the previous upgrades of products, every new variant of Delta4000 was performing slightly better than the previous one, which I have no reason to believe that 175 should be the other way around. That's from a reliability point of view.

From a margin point of view, I would say this product makes projects viable and bankable at price levels that otherwise those projects were not bankable. Are we capturing the extra value in increasing profitability?

The honest answer is maybe not. Maybe this is the product that you need to make sure that we keep profitability slightly improving in an auction price market that is declining.

This is part of the solution why we think we can make money even with auction prices in Germany dropping so substantially.

Thank you. The last perhaps relates to one of your flagged risk issues around supply chain.

If I recall, your turbine volume production stepped up 50% in China last year. I think it's about 40% of the volumes you booked.

How would you frame the risk around supply chain from China, and going back to some of the earlier questions about addressing the European localization content, do you have the capacity to ramp up if you need within Germany and Spain to flex or to balance between the two in value-added around nacelle?

We do. We clearly have the possibility to double if needed our capacity in Europe.

Far, we are keeping that possibility and we're using that possibility balancing cost and obligation for the Net-Zero Industry Act auction and eventually doing a little bit more in Europe than strictly required, but we have possibility to do more, yes.

Super. Thank you very much.

You're very welcome.

Thank you very much, and let us close as always with a few takeaways from the first quarter. First, we have a positive start into the year with healthy order intake and continue confidence in the order intake trajectory across our core markets.

Second, our focus remains on generating positive and sustainable free cash flow, supported by good visibility on margins and the continued recovery we see across the business throughout the year. Third, we confirm our guidance for 2026.

Last, overall, the first quarter supports our view that we are setting a consistent path towards our upgraded midterm EBITDA margin target of 10 to 12%. Thank you very much, and wish you a great afternoon ahead.