Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to our third quarter results webcast. Here with me, as usual, is our CFO, Michele.

Let's get started with the usual overview of results over the period. I'm on page number 4.

EBITDA in the first 9 months closed at €393 million, a touch higher year-on-year. While looking at the third quarter, as was the case in Q2, results are up year-on-year, with EBITDA at €119 million, plus 9% year-on-year.

The performance of the quarter mainly reflects the full contribution of the new capacity, as well as better wind conditions. Just like to remind you that the third quarter in '24 was very weak from this point of view.

These two positives—I mean, the full contribution of the new capacity and the better wind conditions—were partially offset by lower capture prices, also due to the progressive reduction of hedging pricing, which tends to follow the price scenario with a 1 to 2-year time lag. As far as the first 9 months results, the economic contribution of new assets, which was quite remarkable, was mostly offset by lower volumes due to weaker wind conditions.

This was particularly true, as we had already chance to comment, over the first half of the year. The good news is that we have been making up for the shortfall of EBITDA registered in the first quarter over the last few months, over the last few—two quarters, I'd say.

Investments in the first 9 months of the year amounted to €164 million, down significantly year-on-year. The reduction is mainly due to the fact that last year the capex included the acquisition of a wind and solar portfolio in USA in particular, also a smaller portfolio in France.

Out of the total invested in this first part of the year, about 40% was through M&A, in particular I'm referring to the acquisition of wind farm in in UK, while the remaining 60—60%, about 60%, was spent on organic developments, I mean greenfield and repowering projects that are under construction in France, Germany, Italy, and UK, and to the completion of the first battery storage plant in Sicily. I believe this trend, I mean the lower capex spent on a year-on-year basis, is very much consistent with our value over volume approach.

Adjusted net profit in the first 9 months was €110 million, down 16% year-on-year, basically due to higher depreciation related to new assets coupled with higher financial charges as a result basically of a mix of higher net debt, higher cost of debt, and lower yield on cash management, given the trend in interest rates. Again, the good news is that earnings direction was positive over the quarter, with net profit at €27 million, up 9% year-on-year.

Net financial position at the end of September was €1 billion and 88, plus 5% higher versus the end of 2024, also discounting total distribution, I mean dividends and buyback, in excess of €160 million. Let's move on.

I'm now on page number 5. Over the period, we continued to deliver on our strategy.

In terms of installed capacity, we had two important additions over the quarter: Corlacky wind farm, 47 megawatts in Northern Ireland, came online at the end of July and is now ramping up production, which we expect to reach full potential, say, in a couple of months, as of the start of 2026. We are also very pleased with the commissioning of our first battery storage plant in Vicari, 12.5 megawatts, as flexibility, as said, is becoming increasingly important in our in our plant.

We are also pursuing our revenue securitization strategy with the signing of three different PPAs during the period with FS Group, which basically is the state-owned railway company, for an aggregate amount of around 180 gigawatt-hours per year with a tenor of 5 to 10 years. This is an extremely important achievement, as those contracts are related to existing plants, I mean plants that have already exited the any incentive scheme, basically they are merchant and they will now be covered by these long-term contracts.

On top of this, we participated in the FER X auction with three projects for a total of 148 megawatts, out of which basically the the the biggest part was made of two repowering projects in wind, 141 megawatts, and a very small greenfield projects in solar. We expect the outcome to be made public in December by GSE, but we are quite confident, fingers crossed, about the outcome.

We also took part in the recent auction in Germany with a smaller project of 12 megawatts, and again here, the outcome is expected in in the coming months. We are consistently on track both with our strategy to grow the asset portfolio, but also with our strategy on the route to market to secure revenues through CFDs and PPAs.

As per our ESG strategy, we maintained our top-tier position, a couple of ratings that have improved. Sustainable Fitch increased the score from 79 to 83, and also GRESB confirmed ERG as a top performer with a 98 out of 100 rating, very, very top.

We also unveiled our fifth project of the social purpose for solar revamping program, this time with Banco Alimentare in Sicily. These kind of projects are something we are particularly proud of.

Now to Michele for his review of results in more detail.

Thank you, Paolo. In third quarter 2025, baseload market prices have been lower than third quarter 2024 in most of the countries where ERG operates.

However, as this trend had only a limited effect on our all-in unitary revenues due to the quasi-regulated nature of our business model. In Italy, the wind all-in unitary revenues stood at €121 per megawatt-hour, lower than last year, mainly due to hedging at lower prices and lower spot market price, partially offset by the increase of the green incentive value, rising to €55 per megawatt-hour from €42 per megawatt-hour.

In France, the increase in unitary revenues was driven by higher short-term hedging prices. In Germany and Romania, capture prices are aligned in the two quarters.

In Poland, unitary revenues were slightly lower than third quarter 2024, mainly driven by the short-term hedging. UK capture price is around €68 per megawatt-hour, higher than third quarter 2024, thanks to higher short-term hedging.

Note that this figure does not include revenues from balancing services. In Sweden, the unitary revenues is higher than third quarter 2024, driven by higher spot market price.

As far as solar all-in unitary revenues, we recorded a decrease in the quarter in Italy, mainly due to lower hedging prices. In Spain, capture prices were impacted by the current market environment, with a significant profile effect during daylight hours, and by short-term hedging at lower prices.

In France, solar revenues are sold at feed-in prices compared to 2024, where the energy produced by newly acquired assets was sold at merchant prices. ERG plants in the United States have unitary revenues that reflect PPA prices, very stable.

Now focus on production. In the third quarter of 2025, the group's overall production was higher than previous year, mainly due to perimeter effects coupled with better windiness in the period compared with the third quarter 2024, characterized by windiness well below historical average.

In detail, in Italy, we recorded 622 gigawatt-hours, plus 36%, mainly due to better windiness and irradiation coupled with perimeter effect due to repowered assets. France, 263 gigawatt-hours, plus 5%, thanks to new greenfield assets entering operation during 2024 and second quarter 2025, but also to better wind condition on existing assets.

In Germany, 95 gigawatt-hours, minus 5%, due to lower wind condition and also to the extraordinary out of service of two substations that are in the process of being resolved. UK Nordics, 159 59 gigawatt-hours, higher than last year, mainly thanks to the new assets acquired in January in Scotland and new greenfield assets in Northern Ireland entering operation during the quarter, coupled with better windiness overall.

In Spain, 160 gigawatt-hours, minus 5%, due to lower irradiation and some curtailment during negative prices hours. USA, 167 gigawatt-hours, minus 7%, mainly due to lower wind condition.

Eastern Europe, 125 gigawatt-hours, minus 13%, due to worse wind condition, especially in Romania. In the 9 months, the production has been 5.3 terawatt-hours, higher than 9-month 2024, mainly due to perimeter effects, 0.7 terawatt-hours, of which 0.3 terawatt-hours related to US in the first quarter, partially offset by extremely low wind conditions, mainly in the first half in Europe.

In the third quarter of the year, EBITDA reached €119 million, €10 million more than third quarter 2024. This growth was mainly due to perimeter effect, €11 million, linked to newly acquired assets and organic development, as well as better wind condition compared with the third quarter 2024 below historical average, as already commented.

These positive drivers were partially offset by lower capture prices in Italy and Spain. Italy EBITDA reached €81 million, an increase of €10 million year-on-year, primarily driven by the higher wind and solar condition coupled with new investment in both wind and solar.

This was partially offset by lower capture price. In France, EBITDA is €7 million higher than last year, supported by a higher capture price in wind and a perimeter growth and better wind condition.

In Germany, EBITDA is €4 million, slightly lower than previous year, mainly due to weak production. In Eastern Europe, EBITDA is €9 million, €4 million lower than previous year, mainly driven by lower wind resource.

In UK and Nordics, EBITDA is aligned to third quarter 2024 despite the higher production. This is because in the third quarter of 2024, we benefited from liquidated damages and other reimbursement from contractors.

In Spain, €3 million EBITDA, lower than last year, impacted by reduced production and lower capture price. USA EBITDA is €9 million, slightly higher than previous year.

9-month EBITDA is €393 million, higher than previous year by €3 million, mainly driven by perimeter effects, partially offset by the low wind condition in Europe in particular, as we know, as already commented, in the first half of 2025. A comment now on the investments.

In the third quarter, we invested €22 million, mainly due to ongoing construction in Italy, UK, France, and Germany. In particular, we spent organic capex for €6 million in UK for the completion of the Corlacky wind farm, and €9 million in Italy, France, and Germany for repowering activities.

In 9-month 2025, investments amount to €164 million, of which €72 million of acquisition in UK versus €500 million of 9-month 2024, which included the acquisitions in France and US for a total amount of €390 million. Let's now comment on the financials, commenting on the other items of the profit and loss.

Amortization and depreciation are €68 million in the quarter, higher than last year due to perimeter effects. Net financial charges are €13 million versus €9 million of third quarter 2024.

Financial charges versus banks and bondholders, net of liquidity remuneration, stand to €9 million, plus €3 million, due to perimeter effect and lower remuneration on cash. The complement to €12 million, €13 million, €5 million, are non-cash accounting items, such as effects coming from the accounting of the tax equity partnership in the US portfolio and figurative lease interest expenses according to IFRS 16.

Tax rate in the quarter is stable at 25%. The adjusted net profit in the quarter amounts to €27 million, higher than last year by €2 million, mainly driven by the already commented EBITDA, partially compensated by higher financial charges and amortization.

The adjusted net profit of 9 months amounts to €110 million. Finally, let's take a look at the cash flow statement and the net financial position.

The net financial debt in the 9 months is €1.9 billion, €0.1 billion higher than the end of 2024, mainly driven by the dividend payment and investment of the period, partially netted by the cash generation from EBITDA. The net working capital is affected by ordinary dynamics, also affected by payable for investments.

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

Thank you, Michele. Now let me wrap up this presentation with our guidance for the full year with just one quarter left.

In short, we essentially confirm all our guidance. EBITDA is still expected within the previous range.

Let me give you some more details. October was very good, above the historical average in terms of wind, while these early days of November are conversely quite weak.

Nevertheless, our best estimate points near the midpoint of the range. Everything will depend on this last part of the year, which usually, as tends to be windier, December in particular.

In all honesty, reaching the upper part of the range will be very, very challenging given the wind level so far. We would need extremely favorable conditions, which can't be ruled out, but are sincerely unlikely.

With this caveat, we confirm our EBITDA guidance within the previous range, but looking more at the midpoint. Capex is also confirmed within the range of €190 to €240 million, and the same for net financial position at year-end, which is confirmed within the previous range.

Thank you for listening, and we are now ready to take your questions.

Hi. Good afternoon everybody.

Thanks for taking my question. The first one is related to the storage business.

You highlighted that you started your first project in this technology. I would like some comment on, let's say, the revenue pattern that you expect from the Vicari battery.

In general, it would be appreciated your view on this technology going forward, both in Italy, if you expect to participate to the MACSE auction, and in other European countries what kind of opportunities you see there. In particularly if on the MACSE auction you can provide a comment on the level of pricing that have been achieved in the first one.

Second question is regarding the US market. Several utility companies there, renewable companies, are commenting on an improvement in the outlook.

If you can give us some comment on how you see the US market in this moment, and in particularly if, let's say, better market condition could, let's say, accelerate the acquisition of the part of the asset in the pipeline on which you have a preemption right in the country. The last one is on the FER X auction.

Terna has provided some preliminary indication of possible prices, if I'm correct, around €80 per megawatt-hour. If your projects are awarded at that level, if you think that the profitability would be interesting, and in case when those project you think could be started to contribute to your EBITDA.

Sorry for the many questions.

Thank you, Enrico. I'll try to answer in order as you asked.

About the storage business, yes, we are very pleased to announce that our first plant, battery storage, has just started basically in July. Now it's ramping up its services and its functioning.

This plant is totally merchant, I have to be direct on this, but it's located in a specific area where we have another wind farm and we consider that location particularly attractive given the local conditions of the network. The plant is now also do whatever is needed to take part of the services provided by the TSO.

We expect to add, say, some revenues going forward coming from the participation to this kind of frequency services to the network. For the time being, but it's just a month or more of operations, it has already made a margin of €100,000 or a little bit more in terms of contribution margin, which is pretty in line with our expectation.

Let me say this first plant is a sort of training area for us to learn competencies how to manage this kind of plant vis-à-vis the network. We hope it's just the very, very first move into a larger stream of revenues going forward.

In fact, the second part of your question was related to the MACSE. I can confirm, or I can announce because we hadn't said anything about this, we participated to the auction with a couple of projects, all in all roughly 80 megawatts or even a little bit more than that.

As many other operators, we were not awarded the tariff because our bid was in the region of €20,000, €20,000 per megawatt-hour, which resulted higher compared to the average awarded price in the region of 15 or €13,000 per megawatt-hour, a significant discount compared to the price cap of the auction that was €37,000 per megawatt-hour. Nevertheless, let me say we remain very committed to this kind of stream.

We are now studying a different business model, different from the MACSE, even though we recognize the MACSE was a quite good mechanism. Now we are studying a hybrid business case for these two projects.

Hybrid means maybe part of the revenues coming from a tolling agreement, part from merchant use of the plant, and maybe part from capacity market, because this plant could participate to the next auction of capacity market, which is different from the MACSE. In the meantime, we are also working hard on developing a large pipeline of projects of battery storage, not just in Italy, but also in Spain and in UK.

Those are the countries where we recognize the better value in developing this kind of assets. In Italy, for instance, we have a quite large pipeline.

Part of it is well advanced. Say, we are working on a 600-megawatt pipeline right now, and we hope half of it could be authorized in the next 12 months.

Second 300 megawatts are a little bit behind this, but in a couple of years we would be ready also for this second wave of the pipeline. More or less the same in Spain, we are working on several projects, even though let me say Spain is not, paradoxically, because probably it's the country where storage would be needed more, but they are lagging behind in terms of regulation, in terms of connections, and so on.

Now something is moving, but our, say, job is to get ready when the right conditions will be there. I hope to have answered your first question.

The second one is about the US market. Yes, it's true.

We noticed that the baseload prices are going up, at least where our current assets are operating, in Illinois and Iowa. Yes, we are also aware that this undergoing trend about data centers that are pushing up demand, and then driving prices higher.

I have to remind all of you that the two assets in our portfolio are covered by a long-term PPA. In the short term, in the medium term, because those PPA have a duration of 10 years since the COD, still probably 8 years to go.

By then, we don't see any particular upside from the market. For sure, it's legitimate to think that probably the renewal of those PPAs will be at premium compared to the current pricing.

On the development side, you know that our model is learn and grow. We are buying just in case some CPs are met, and among those, for sure the fact that the plant is already started up with a commercial operation date in place and a PPA and a tax equity scheme already negotiated, basically fully de-risked asset.

For the time being, we still see in the US market a gap between bid and ask. We don't want to derogate on our financial discipline, we are waiting for the right moment.

We have a kind of methodology to value these assets, and we want to stick with this methodology. The US market, probably also for what you have just said, are still based on expectations that are not in our, say, approach, we are very cautious.

The third question is about FER X. Vice versa, we are very positive, say, on repowering.

Repowering is a wonderful tool through which we can on the one hand rejuvenate our asset base, and on the other hand to secure a long-term mechanism, a CFD or whatever, a PPA, to stabilize the revenue. Yes, we took part to the last auction with 150 megawatts, more or less, basically three projects, say.

The one we are looking at more carefully are the two wind repowering projects that are very important for us. The total of those projects is 140 megawatts, and we are quite confident to be well positioned to get the tariff CFD.

As you probably know, GSE issued a press release saying the pricing of wind fell into a range between €70 and €83 per megawatt-hour. The average point is 76.

Our bid was slightly better than this. It may seem a lower price compared to the initial expectation, but let me say that we managed to negotiate a capex per megawatt which are better than what we thought at the beginning.

In the end, the return at which we think we can install those two projects are in line with our objectives. On top of that, please I want to remind you all that we got some financing from the European Investment Bank that makes the levered return on this project low double-digit, say.

That's our expectation. Enrico, I hope to have touched and covered all your points.

If not, I'm here.

Yes. Thank you very much.

Very clear.

Thank you to you.

Yes. Thanks for the presentation.

Just a clarification on the guidance, if it's possible, and the moving parts that drives to the guidance. If we stick to the midpoint of the guidance, actually the implied fourth quarter would be in the region of €180 million, €78, €80 million, €178, €180 million, which would be a significant increase year-on-year, above 20% basically.

Actually, I worked out Corlacky, new plant, should maybe potentially add up only €2-€3 million. Just wondering if you can a little bit compose this picture that drives to a plus 25% considering Corlacky, and of course the other delta change in the perimeter versus the trend in the wind, just to get how visible is also the midpoint that you are targeting right now.

Then again, I was also interested in the battery and well, if I take it out, €100k for just few weeks of operations, and I take it on the full year, could it be that we have a €0.4-€0.5 million of EBITDA over the year for that Vicari plant? That would be nice to have as a reference to understand what's the profit potential of you being involved in the pipeline you said you're working on.

Then I'm afraid, but on the incentive, I know we are still getting out and understanding on what's the outcome of the FER X, but we always look ahead and we start talking about the potential FER Z. I don't know if you have any idea of how this could be shaped in the future for the incentives on the '26 and '27.

The last one is a consideration of the data center. You mentioned for the US, but it's also a driver for Europe and Italy as well.

I was wondering if you are already starting to think about it as a potential business model also for you. We saw in the past days both A2A and Enel yesterday also starting to present this direct involvement into construction of sites and gain on rental fees for the hosting, the energy provider, and the services.

I don't know if that can potentially work also for renewable groups that can add, on top of the energy service provided, at a very cheap sourcing cost and as well as the green footprint to any potential IT developer. Thanks a lot.

Roberto, there are many questions. Let me try to go in order.

The guidance, I'd say I already had the chance to comment during my speech. October was very good.

It's all very good. Finally, basically the first month closed significantly above budget.

Unfortunately, the the the very first days of November were very weak. Part of the upside we had in October was eroded.

From next week, at least according to the weather forecast, something could change, and wind could be back. It's difficult to say.

I repeat, we are very, very confident about the fact that the number should be within the range and near the midpoint. We are looking Our best estimate as today is something, a number, a ballpark figure nearby the midpoint of the range.

To go in the upper part is pretty unlikely, even though not impossible, because we would need an extraordinary wind, significantly above historical average. It happened It has already happened in the past.

It's not, I repeat, impossible, but our real target is nearby the midpoint of the range. Today, I would say the consensus also from you analysts are more or less slightly below the midpoint of the range, because according to our data, it's about 560, the consensus, and we are nearby, say.

Yes, it's true. It would imply a quarter a fourth quarter significantly up year-on-year.

It's not a secret that the last the the fourth quarter of '24 was pretty weak from wind condition point of view. It's a reasonable number, it's a sustainable number, also considering the very the larger the larger portfolio we can rely on right now, because it's not just the BESS for sure, but it's above all all the assets that entered into operations during '24 and the first part of '25.

Please consider, and this is always more true, that to to bring a new asset to full to its full potential require times. We are also having an improved performance from, for instance, our UK portfolio, our repowering projects, and so on.

The the contribution of new assets is improving quite significantly over the first 12, 18 months of operations. Please consider consider also also this.

About BESS, I say I don't want to enter into more detail than I have already given, in the sense that we are now working operationally on this 12.5 megawatts, and we expect a margin, say, in excess of €1 million for sure on '26, between €1 and €2 million from this from this asset. Let me say that the game-changer will be the next projects.

As I said, we are trying to elaborate a business case which is different from MACSE for the time being, even though MACSE, too, MACSE auctions are expected to take place in 2026, in 2026. We we we are at a crossroad with different option.

We'll pick the one we consider the best for us, but we are not ready to give an answer more precise than what I just said. FER Z, yes, it's on the pipeline.

The main innovative concept is to introduce non-economic criteria, and that those maybe are welcome, because our repowering projects, we believe, are bringing value added to the system, because we are doubling the capacity, tripling the the production without occupying more soil. Should be favored, by the regulator, but also from a technical point of view, the FER Z should introduce a kind of I don't know yet how, but some kind of ability, let me say, the the FER Z want to stimulate the creativity operator of operator to, follow the profile of demand.

To me, it's quite difficult, because wind and solar are unpredictable. They are producing when sun or wind is out there.

Let's see. Let's see.

For the time being, we are focused on short-term FER X, because we would be very, very pleased if those two projects can go on in their construction. They could enter in their construction phase.

Data center, yes, it's the topic trend of these days. Nowadays, we can keep talking about data center.

We are positive on them. We still need to see the real upside of them in in terms of demand, because, everybody knows that one of the problem is the the weakness of demand across Europe, electricity demand.

The European Commission recently stated through their 2040 climate framework that they should push more on electrification of consumptions, and one one of the pillar of this electrification is exactly data center. We are not studying right now a precise business model on data center, but we'll definitely benefit if this kind of electricity stream will will keep growing going forward.

Roberto, I hope to have touched your points.

Yes. Thanks a lot, Paolo.

You're welcome.

Thank you. Good evening, everybody.

I have three questions. The first one is more high-level, related to your strategy and the fact that in the last two business plans you cut the development capex and the growth basically of the company, waiting for an improved scenario.

It seems that, in my opinion at least, that this scenario has a bit improved compared with 1 year ago, for example. We are lower interest rates, probably lower capex per megawatt.

Then I have also a question more specific on the capex, but not higher for sure. Also the outlook in some markets, not only the US, has improved as regards the electricity prices, or at least before everyone would have foreseen a decline in power prices, now probably the outlook has improved, etc.

Do you see these improved condition, to resume and to accelerate basically your growth in term of development capex as business plan? Thank you.

This is the first question. The second one is more short-term on '26 hedging, if you can provide an update.

The third one, as said, is on the supply chain. If there is an update on the capex per megawatt for onshore wind and solar.

Thank you.

Okay. Say about capex, yes, you are right.

You mentioned a little bit lower interest rates, some aspects of the outlook that, say, slightly improved over the last few months, 12 months, say, exactly. We are very concentrated on our business plan, and part of our business plan is based on repowering.

The fact that you are seeing lower capex is just a matter of time. If FER X had taken place when it was supposed to, probably right now we would have spent more in terms of capex.

We are just adapting our deployment in terms of timeline, say, waiting for the proper conditions to go on with our investment. That's the real reason behind the profile of capex.

If in a month, say, GSE will confirm that our two projects are among the awarded one, we will start the construction, and then we'll approve the capex. In parallel with those two projects, we have other projects ready to be launched, not just in Italy, but also in Germany, in France, and so on.

This environment is not for us stimulating an acceleration beyond what we have already announced during the business plan, because you said just the positive, but also there are point of attention in the market, looking for instance at the negative hours and so on. For us, it's crucial when we approve an investments to secure its return in terms of IRR.

To do that, we need to have the route to market already secured, we would need to secure the capex per megawatt, and behind this, there is a big work to do. That's our approach, and we don't want to get away from this kind of approach.

We are still on that approach, and we'll keep it. We don't see particularly acceleration.

We hope to accelerate on our organic pipeline, that's for sure. We are working on the next business plan, and we hope to say a little bit more in March '26 when we'll update the financial community on our plan.

Regarding hedging, we are entering November with 2026 volume that are hedged on 75%, we have exposed to market 25%. What we expect in the coming months is to reach our target that is around 80-85% by the end of 2025, to start 2026 with our target hedged volume.

That we are following a 3-year rolling hedge policy that add some short-term hedging to the long-term hedging provided by tariffs or PPAs or green certificates. This is the situation of the hedging today.

Regarding the supply chain, you are right that we are seeing for sure a stabilization, also some improvement in the supply chain. In particular, we have experienced in this moment for projects in Germany, in France, and in Italy, in wind in particular.

In particularly in Italy, the competitiveness of the auction has some effect also on the behavior of the wind turbine suppliers, because they recognize that if they want that the projects that are based on their technologies, they know that they need to be competitive in their offer. Otherwise, there are no project for them.

I think there is an alignment of interests in these specific cases between IPP and technology provider to be competitive in the auction. This is something that we see happening on the market.

Regarding the remaining part of the cost per megawatt, civil works and so on, I don't see any particular disruption in the market, in particular for wind in wind project, and in particular for ERG, that is an established player in this market.

Thank you. Just a follow-up still on the hedging.

You mentioned the volumes, but as regards the pricing, overall there is an improvement in these three other hedging [average?] ?

[unclear]

I cannot comment on specific figures on the hedging. We are following in these 3 years methodology the price on the market.

In this moment, on the term, I don't see any particular change in respect of 2024 regarding the price that we are building up for 2000 sorry, the price for 2026, we are not seeing any material change regarding the price of 2025.

Okay. Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon, gentlemen.

Thank you for taking my question and for the presentation. I have three, if I may.

The first one is still on batteries. I was wondering if you can share your view about the cost trajectory of the technology that to me, it looks like there are some room for improvements also on a technological point of view.

I wonder if this is a good positive case for the technology going forward. Second question on M&A, you partly already answered with regards to US, but moving to Europe, wondering if you can share your view how the market is going, if you're considering some dossiers, which is the gap actually between the bid-ask in this part of the world.

Third question with regards to the PPAs market, and this question is partly related maybe to the demand growth expected from data center. In the PPAs, do you see utilities that are actually some of them downsights in their capex in renewable as key clients in future to lock in some new capacity that renewable operators like you could develop in future?

Many thanks.

I say, very, very quickly. BESS, yes, you're right.

We notice a huge improvement in the capital intensity that is getting lower and lower. In particular over the last few months, the few months before the launch of the MACSE auction, we noticed a significant drop in capex intensity.

As a matter of fact, say in July the cap was set at €37,000, and then the outcome came at €13,000, with a very huge discount, because the pricing of the furniture went down quite significantly. This is an upside for sure going forward.

It's not a secret that here scale is crucial. That the operator that won 70% or even more of the MACSE auction was a large-scale operator, you need to have a significant pipeline to reach this kind of pricing, but we are working in this direction.

M&A, US is still an area at which we are looking at, despite what I said before, but still it's interesting for us, also for the reason Roberto mentioned before, the trend in terms of data center and whatever. Still, we are looking for the right moment to increase our presence there.

About Europe, yes, we are involved in some beauty contests in particular in countries where we have a quite sizable positioning, and it's not a secret, like France, UK, Germany, this kind of countries. As M&A, you can't say anything till you have closed it, because till the last moment.

Yes, we are working on some very specific asset acquisitions that could create value from our perspective. PPA market, I think we are delivering a lot, much more than we ourselves could think just a few years ago.

In 2021, in 2021 we had zero PPA in our portfolio. Now we have 3.7 terawatt-hours per year of production covered by PPA with high-level offtakers across the world, in Europe, both in Europe and US.

We believe to have been a leader in this segment. Even in this quarter, in the third quarter, we closed down three important PPA with FS, the rail train operator in Italy.

We are now working on other PPA on some assets outside Italy. We hope to be in the position to announce something in the very near future.

If the question was to understand if PPA market is still alive, yes, it is, and we expect it to develop even further, because, as you said correctly, most of the integrated utilities are moving capital from RES to other segment, like regulated ones in particular, and then from this point of view, they would need to sign more PPA. In fact, ourselves, ERG itself signed few PPAs with utilities recently.

This trend should reinforce, in our opinion, going forward. Davide, I hope to have answered your point.

Yes, many many thanks.

Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon.

Thanks for taking my questions. I have two, if I may.

The first one is just regarding the lower capital intensity, or at least capex per megawatt, I think, that you were talking about. I just want to kind of make sure I understand correctly, because I think historically you had a capex per megawatt guidance that was a little bit higher than the rest of the industry due to your own integration, as well as Italy and repowering, and also some specificity.

I think you've been talking down capex per megawatt for yourself in terms of your next investments. What you've been doing as well, and I'm glad to see that comment being made again today during the call, because you made that first, I think, last time at the H1 call, was regarding turbine prices perhaps coming in lower than what you were expecting, or at least the European OEMs being a bit more conscious of Chinese competition, and perhaps lowering prices.

I think that's a message that's very opposite of what the OEMs themselves are talking about. I would be interested to really have your view about what you're seeing in terms of turbine prices for Europe.

I'm just also wondering if the lower costs you are getting on your project is perhaps due to other factors as well. Is it because of the balance of power, system, transformer, connection, EPC, some better integration, or maybe some lower costs that you're trying to put in in terms of risk adversion for the project themselves, because I know historically in the past you were getting a lot back from compensation.

Then the second question perhaps, and sorry for the first long question, is that given that perhaps organically you're trying to accelerate, I'm conscious of that, but you're perhaps not deploying as much capital as what you were thinking, should we safely assume that that means there is even more upside regarding higher dividend per share or higher share buyback into next year, which was already the case at the beginning of the year? Any kind of color on capital allocation, and ultimately if you had any more directionality being given by the board and by both your main shareholder groups?

Thank you very much.

Alex. Try to answer your question very rapidly, and then I leave Michele to elaborate a little bit more on your first question, as a CFO is also accountable for our procurement, he's negotiating every day with all the names you mentioned, I mean the Chinese and the Western OEMs and the Chinese one.

Say, historically, honestly, we had a capex per megawatt which was lower, not higher than other operators, because in 2020, 2018 we managed to sign a framework agreement with Vestas and Enercon at the price at that time. We had a wave of investments 3, 4, 5 years after that framework agreement supported by a lower capex per megawatt in terms of wind turbines.

Then unfortunately, those frameworks expired, and back to normal, let's say. That's the reason behind the increased capex per megawatt over the last, say, 2 years.

Having said that, over the last two projects I mentioned before that took part to the FER X auction, together with our partner, because we consider the OEM with which we work as a partner, and they were aware of the competitiveness expected in this auction, we found an agreement to reduce the capex subject to the fact that we order a certain type of machine turbine. I can confirm that the reduction was strictly limited to the wind turbine supply agreement, subject, of course, we are awarded by the CFD.

Of course, there is also, let me say, I don't want to enter into the shoes of OEM, but there is a kind of reverse engineering exercise also for them. If they know that the pricing at the FER X auction is going to be 75 or 76, they adapt their value proposition for wind turbines in order to get the order.

It's a double interest, and fortunately is an interest that we have in common. This kind of partnership we hope is going to work as regards the FER X.

About the balance sheet, I think it's a nice problem to have, I mean having a stronger balance sheet than other peers, and this definitely our picture. Because as you have seen, the net debt has remained broadly flat, notwithstanding we distributed almost €170, €170 million in '25 dividends plus buyback, because in January, don't forget, we spent more than €20 million in buyback.

Going forward, we like to have a strong balance sheet, because whenever opportunities will arise, also from an M&A point of view, we are ready to get them. In March, when we close the profit and loss, say, for the full year, usually we have a discussion internally to set the dividend, think about maybe buyback, and whatever.

As we said, buyback is considered a flexible tool to allocate properly cash. For the time being, I'm not ready to take any commitment from this point of view, except confirming the €1 per share dividend, that's was our minimum, say, target from this respect.

Alex, I hope to have answered.

Yeah. No, it's super helpful.

Just maybe if I can, just one very quick follow-up. You mentioned you had a historical framework with Vestas.

Any comments you can give us about the partner you're having for the FER X procurement?

Michele? No, but you know that I don't know if you want to

No, I think what I can say is that we have a history of working with Western OEM, Vestas, Enercon, Nordex, and so on. We cannot rule out the possibility to work also with the Chinese supplier.

We see that they are entering the market in Europe, they have a very small market share up to now, and not all projects are good for their technology in terms of size of wind turbine comparing to the permitting that we have in our project. Notwithstanding that, we have discussion ongoing also with them to understand if we can benefit from lower-cost technology, but without compromising on the asset quality, that is one of the characteristic of our group, that is to maintain a quality in our asset base that can deliver value in the long term.

Okay. Haven't selected yet, but keeping all options open, including Chinese provider.

That's super helpful. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you to you, Alex.

Thank you. Thank you all for the interest, and we will see at the next one in March for the full-year results and also for the update on the business plan.

Thank you very much, and have a good weekend.