Hello, and welcome, everyone, and thank you for joining EDPR's first quarter 2026 results conference call. We are pleased to have with us today our CEO, Miguel Stilwell d'Andrade, and our CFO, Rui Teixeira.

They will walk us through the key financial highlights of the period and share insights into our strategy. After the presentation, we will open the floor for questions.

You are welcome to submit them via the conference chat or ask them directly over the phone. The session is scheduled to last approximately 60 minutes.

With that, I will now hand over to Miguel Stilwell d'Andrade to begin the presentation.

Thank you, Miguel. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you very much for attending EDPR's first quarter of 2026 results call.

I'll kick off with some key operational and financial highlights for the first 3 months. If we move straight in to slide four, I'd say that EDPR's first quarter was a good, solid start to the year.

We're absolutely focused on executing everything that's under our control, and making sure that this is then reflected in the underlying performance. I think we are well set up for having a constructive base for the rest of the year.

On the key financials, recurring EBITDA reached €489 million, it's up 2% year on year, or 10% if you exclude FX. Recurring net profit is at €71 million, it's increasing 9% year on year, or 21% excluding FX.

This strong financial performance, it was basically underpinned by some key operational drivers. We had 2 GW more of gross capacity additions over the last 12 months.

We also have already 90% of 2026 target additions already installed or under construction, also a good start. Generation up 0.4 TWh to 11.3 TWh.

However, we had lower prices in Europe. We had an average selling price that was down 9% to €52/MWh versus last year, which, as had substantially higher prices.

We also had a strong impact of the US dollar devaluation versus the first quarter of last year. On the current macro context, I think it's important to recall that over 80% of our generation is long-term contracted or hedged.

On the efficiency side, I think it's very important to note that we have continued our focus on operational efficiency. We had a 11% year-on-year decrease in the recurring core OpEx and a very good improvement on the productivity metrics, OpEx per megawatt or OpEx over gross profit, so, overall, I think very proud of the work that the team has done over the last few years.

It's consistent in terms of extracting efficiencies and making sure we can leverage the economies of scale within the company. Finally, over 90% of the recurring EBITDA is in A-rated countries, reflecting the low-risk earnings profile, I just wanted to reiterate that also in terms of the quality of the earnings.

If we move to slide five, could talk a little bit about the US market. I think here, key to note that independent consultants, like Wood Mackenzie and others, are projecting that between the electrification trends, industrial reshoring, and the rapid growth of data centers, they are driving sustained increase in electricity demand of around 2% to 3% a year between 2025 and 2035.

I think it's also increasingly clear that renewables generation will play a pivotal role in supporting this, and it's expected to have an 8% CAGR between 2025 and 2030, while non-renewables declines by 4% given that many thermal plants are being retired. Obviously, some are being installed, others retired, and the older ones retired, net declining.

Renewables is really outperforming the more conventional thermal. The bulk of the capacity additions by technology are mostly solar and storage, but still some wind.

If we look at the graph on the right-hand side, we can see that in 2025, roughly 66 GW of new generation capacity was added in the US, with around 92% coming from wind, solar, and storage. Solar alone accounted for more than half of the total additions, and this trend is expected to strengthen even further.

Overall, a structural shift in the US energy mix, and underpinning EDPR's long-term growth opportunities, given our focus on renewables. I'd also wanted to give you just two important data points.

In the month of March, renewables, including hydro, generated over 1/3 of US electricity generation, overtaking gas for the first time ever. Also that additions in the US are expected to reach a record high of 86 GW this year.

I think just two important data points that really highlight what I just mentioned. If we move to slide six.

Obviously, this demand is then translating into a favorable price environment. In the graph, you can see on the left-hand side, shows the evolution of the market PPA prices.

They've risen steadily across the different technologies, and this is then reflected in very robust contracting activity. We'd have corporate PPA volumes reaching around 24 GW in 2025.

EDPR secured already 1.4 GW in the US over the last 9 months since the OBBB was signed, and we expect to continue the momentum over the next few months, and still sign an additional couple of PPAs which are currently under active negotiation. We're benefiting from growing demand for co-located generation between solar and batteries and co-located demand solutions with data centers.

We have around 2 GW of powered land, and so we continue to work on those opportunities. Also on the wind side, there are some attractive wind life extension and repowering opportunities.

We have around 0.6 GW in marketing stage. However, this optionality is not included in our 2026-2028 business plan, and so it would be an upside if it materializes either in this period or post-2028.

I think this is relevant in the context of some of the recent news that has come out about the licensing of wind. If we move to slide seven and talking a little bit about Europe.

Here the message is also very clear. On our side, we are very focused on value creation and just discipline on the investments.

This is clearly a market where renewables are structurally supported by reinforced electrification and energy independence efforts. Now you've seen a lot of statements by President von der Leyen of the European Commission, you've seen them by Dan Jørgensen, the European Commission Commissioner of Energy, sort of this focus on really making sure Europe is more energy independent and immune to some of this volatility.

You can see this also just by the fact that as renewable penetration continues to rise in certain markets like Iberia, we see a clear structural decoupling between electricity prices and fossil fuel price volatility. In general, it has lower and more stable wholesale power prices.

I think this reinforces the role of clean energy generation not just in the decarbonization, but also in terms of system resilience and affordability. Iberia, I think, is a good case study for the rest of Europe, and I know that a lot of the European political leaders have been looking at this precisely for that reason.

This transition is also being supported by regulatory and policy environments. In 2025, close to 95% of all new capacity additions in Europe came from either wind, solar, and storage.

For the first time ever, renewables overtook fossil fuels in total electricity generation. Again, we are well positioned to capture value here.

We have close to 15 GW of pipeline in the European core markets, and we benefit from these fundamentals and increasing system needs. Finally, around 55% of our European EBITDA comes from Iberia.

Here, I think regulatory risk, price volatility remains low, and generation taxes have also recently been reduced in Portugal and Spain. I know there's been some very recent speculation about extraordinary taxes on energy.

I think that if we look back in the case of Portugal certainly to 2022 crisis, the electricity sector was not included. We only know obviously what's publicly available, but I'd say that given that they are using as a precedent the 2022 basis, that the electricity sector would be excluded from that.

That's certainly our strong expectation. Overall, in Europe, supportive market context, strong pipeline visibility, disciplined capital allocation, I think we see Europe as a good, stable, and attractive platform for EDPR to continue growing.

If we move to slide eight and talking about additions and the investment plan for 2026. Out of around 1.5 GW of target additions, we already have 90%, as I mentioned earlier, already installed or under construction to be delivered mainly over the second half of 2026.

A lot of this will be very much backloaded towards the end of the year. We still have some remaining projects with the other 10%, which are basically solar DG, which have an average of 6 months construction time, we're still perfectly on time to have them built by the end of the year.

Overall, US and Europe should represent around 95% of total expected additions for the year. In terms of technology, around 50% solar, 25% storage, and 25% wind onshore and offshore.

As I said earlier, 2026 plan really shows this focus on core low-risk markets, US and Europe representing 90% of total investment, 95% coming from A-rated countries. If we move forward to slide nine and talking about business plan execution.

2026, as I mentioned, secured. 80% of 2027 is already secured, and we have good line of sight of additional megawatts coming out of the US over the next couple of months that we expect will be signed.

Overall, we have around 60 GW 60% of the 5 GW additions already secured at this time, of which 3.2 GW is coming from North America and Europe already. I'd wanted to stress again, because I really think that's an important part of our value proposition, these are value-creative, low-risk growth with an expected return or spread of IRR minus WACC for around 285 basis points.

To capture the benefits of this development activity, we are well positioned with the pipeline and commercial momentum, as I mentioned, in US, Europe, and also some low-risk APAC markets. We have around 1 GW of PPAs under commercial discussions, 20 GW of pipeline overall.

50% of this is in MISO and PJM. For some of you who are more familiar with the US might know these are some of the most attractive demand pockets of products in the US.

This has been supported by competitive domestic content procurement. As we reconfigured our procurement supply chain a couple of years ago, it's all domestic content, and we also have the tax credit safe harbor.

In Europe, we have around 0.8 GW of PPAs under commercial discussions and a 15 GW pipeline in the core European growth markets. Again, deliberately low-risk, execution-driven, focusing on core markets, leveraging CFD auction routes to market.

In APAC, we are focused very much on countries like Australia, Singapore, and Japan, A-rated countries with also good growth prospects. Takeaway very simply is delivery of the '26-'28 business plan is being de-risked at attractive returns with long-term contracting.

If we move to slide 10, and this before I pass over to Rui. An important point is the focus on portfolio optimization, and we aim to maximize returns and to reduce risk also through our asset rotation program and the disposals in non-core markets and segments.

In 2026, and I think I say this every year, we continue to see strong demand in private markets willing to buy high-quality assets at competitive multiples, and this has been consistent over the last couple of years. Given the favorable market environment, given the visibility that we already have, we are able to advance with an upward revision on the expected 2026 asset rotation gains from around 0.2 to 0.

to a range of 0.2 to 0.3 billion interval. I think this is just an additional proof of our strong execution track record and on a part which is critical for our strategy.

This is not done with additional volumes. In fact, if anything, we will probably be doing less volumes than expected, but with higher gains per megawatt, which I think is exactly the right message and the signal.

If you want, I think an additional proof of the quality of the vintage of projects that are coming through this year. Additionally, our disposals in non-core markets is also ongoing, and we will be reinforcing the high weight of A-rated countries in our portfolio.

As I say, US and Europe and certain select APAC countries. Finally, just on offshore, I just wanted to highlight the recent settlement between Ocean Winds and the US Department of the Interior that came out just a couple of days ago.

This will enable Ocean Winds to recover the leases in the value of around $0.2 billion. This is in line with the current book value of these projects, we don't expect gains or losses on these projects, but, obviously, it will be a positive cash impact on the balance sheet that we expect to have over the next couple of months.

This will reduce EDPR's current exposure to the US offshore to a book value of $0.2 billion. We've roughly recovering already half of the value.

If you want, we can then talk a little bit later about SouthCoast Wind. Anyway, I'll stop here and I'll pass it over to Rui and come back later for final remarks.

Thanks.

Thank you, Miguel. Good afternoon to you all.

Let's move now to the first quarter 2026 results. We are delivering a solid start of the year.

Average installed capacity increasing 9% year on year, we reach 20.5 GW by the end of the quarter, obviously driven by North America and Europe as the regions with main additions. At the same time, we also continue to actively reshape the portfolio with the different asset rotations that were closed throughout last year, some final closing also in the first quarter this year.

That was about 0.9 GW sold, in line with what was forecasted in the business plan. As a result, electricity generation increased 3% year on year to 11.3 TWh.

This is obviously supported by average higher installed capacity in operation, partially offset by the perimeter change, as I just mentioned, given the asset rotation. Overall, generation levels are fully in line with our full-year expectations.

If we move now to revenues on slide 13, electricity sales decreased 5% year on year to €591 million, and this reflects both lower prices in Europe, the normalization of the prices in Europe, and the depreciation of the US dollar. I think it's important when we exclude FX, revenues were broadly stable as higher volumes offsetting the price normalization.

The average selling price declined to €52.3/MWh. As I said, mainly to the European case, that was a drop by about 14% year on year.

North America, if we look at it from a US dollar perspective, actually remained stable year on year. Europe was impacted by this normalization, obviously despite of the higher generation, particularly in Iberia given the extreme weather events that happened in this first part of the year.

North America declined €24 million year on year, but actually increased in US dollar, again supported by the volumes. South America and APAC showed positive contributions from higher volumes as well.

Overall, I think that the key takeaway is that volumes are growing, pricing reflects normalization, and then we have these specific regional events and particularly the FX impact on the US dollar side. If we now move to slide 14, I think it's important to focus on the efficiency because it's really a key part of how we create value.

In the first quarter, our recurring core OpEx decreased by 11% year on year, and even when accounting for FX and depreciation and the inflation adjustments, it actually decreased 9% year on year. It's a very important decrease in terms of the recurring core OpEx.

This reflects a continued execution in what we define as the efficiency strategy. On a per-megawatt basis, core OpEx is decreasing by 11% over the last 2 years to €41,000 per average megawatt, and OpEx per gross profit ratio improved to 34%.

These results reflect obviously the focus on more efficient, flexible O&M strategy, continued cost discipline, organization streamlining with a lean workforce model, but also scaling digital and AI across EDPR that is contributing to productivity improvements across the different regions. All this in the context of growth, to bear in mind that EDPR delivers its growth targets and is able to reduce the core OpEx.

I think it's notable, it's a remarkable achievement by the entire company. As we also recently shared, this is part of a wider value-driven asset management that namely will look at how we maximize the asset's life.

We can think about life extension, we can think about repowering, co-location, something that we highlighted a few weeks back, which is the existing value of the operating fleet that goes well beyond what is a sort of defined standard useful life for the assets, particularly on the wind side. Now if we move to slide 15 on EBITDA, recurring EBITDA reached €480 million, up 2% versus last year or actually increasing by 10% if we exclude the FX impact.

Looking at the main drivers, electricity sales were lower, as discussed. Tax equity revenues increased by €13 million, supported by the solar additions that benefit from the ITC that offset the gradual phaseout of the wind PTCs.

Core OpEx decreased by €20 million, just mentioned before, reflecting these efficiency gains and the cost discipline. Other costs improved, including initial asset rotation gains of about €5 million in Q1, from final closing from a past transaction, I think, on Greece.

As also Miguel stated, we should observe the concentration of this year's asset rotation gains in the coming quarters. From a regional perspective, growth was mainly driven by North America, while Europe was impacted by the pricing normalization, portfolio expansion and the efficiency gains definitely more than offsetting this pricing effect that I just referred to.

On financial results, Q1 saw an improvement of €13 million year on year, with total financial costs reaching €113 million. This is driven by €0.4 billion lower average net debt, also by a reduction of the average cost of debt from 4.8% to 4.5%.

We also observed a lower impact from FX and derivatives, and these were partly offset by higher capitalized financial expenses. The financial profile remains strong, 74% of the debt is fixed.

We are well diversified across different currencies, 42% euro, 39% US dollar, 9% in Brazilian reals, and 11% in other currencies. We maintain the long maturity profile, with 60% of our debt maturing beyond 2028.

All this reinforces the discipline and low-risk financial policy that we have. We now move to slide 17, and looking to the cash flow evolution in the first quarter of '26, organic cash flow reached €142 million, 1% up versus last year, reflecting the strength from the operating portfolio.

During the quarter, we invested €0.4 billion in expansion CapEx, partially funded by operating cash flow, and as a result, net debt increased to €8.4 billion, that's up €0.3 billion since December. Recurring net profit, this is on slide 18, reached €71 million, increasing 9% year on year, or 21% when excluding forex.

It showcases how EDPR's good financial, operational performance was in this first period of the year. The main drivers, in addition to the portfolio expansion, the good operational performance that deliver higher EBITDA, also the improved financial results.

Depreciation slightly increased, obviously given the capacity additions. Taxes remained broadly stable when compared to the first quarter of last year, as there are no material asset rotation deals that were closed in these periods in both of the years.

Also higher minorities following the completion in Q4 last year of the sale of a 49% stake in our Pioneer portfolio in the US. Regarding the one-off impacts at the net profit level, there's €1 million recognized this year, mainly coming from accelerated depreciation of Meadow Lake IV.

As you may remember, this is a repowering wind farm project in US. We also have some small impacts from some HR restructure.

Before ending, just a quick note on scrip dividend. Following the approval in the last month's shareholders meeting and the launch of the process on May 4th, the admission to trading of the new issued shares will start on June 3rd.

Just finally, before I hand over to Miguel, on slide 19, let me just recall the sensitivity of EDPR's net profit to wholesale markets, and obviously considering the current context, the geopolitical context, the current macro context, and the wholesale markets. The portfolio is highly resilient, low-risk profile.

85% of the generation is either long-term contracted or hedged. Around 70% is secured through long-term contracts, with an average remaining life of approximately 11 years.

Therefore, we have very strong visibility on the cash flows well beyond the current business plan. The remaining exposure is actively managed through rolling hedges, while merchant exposure remains limited, and they're always a very strict management.

As a result, the average selling price are, I would say, very well protected at around €51-€53/MWh in 2026, and then increasing to €52 to €55/MWh by 2028. Again, importantly, it's a very limited merchant exposure, and also well diversified geographically, which then benefits from this diversification effect.

In Europe, forward prices for '28 are currently slightly below our business plan assumptions. This is mostly driven by Iberia, with a modest negative impact of around 2% on EBITDA.

On the other hand, this is largely offset by more favorable dynamics in US, particularly in our exposure to PJM in MISO markets, but also Brazil. Their forward prices are above the plan assumptions, and therefore they contribute positively to the earnings.

Overall, as I was mentioning, there is a diversification effect that works also as a hedging across the different regions. Taking all this into consideration, net income sensitivity to forward power prices as of now is less than 1% for 2028.

Again, I think it reinforces the message that our earnings are predictable to the extent of the exposure to wholesale prices, and therefore also the cash generation. With this, I would hand over to Miguel for closing remarks.

Thank you.

Hey, thanks, Rui. Just before going to closing remarks, just a quick update on how we see the 2026 EBITDA guidance.

We had a, a good first quarter operational, financial execution, and so we feel comfortable about upgrading our 2026 EBITDA guidance by 5% to around €2.2 billion, essentially on the back of three levers. The first one is an improved outlook on the asset rotation gains, so as I say, going from around 0.2 to a range of 0.2 to 0.3, and benefiting from the strong private markets and investors willing to buy these high-quality assets.

As I say, I think this is a signal of a new vintage of projects coming through that we'll see over the coming years, months and years. The second lever was really a strong focus on the underlying performance and this commitment to driving efficiency consistently over time across the business.

You saw the numbers that both I and Rui talked about in terms of bringing the OpEx down and bringing the OpEx per megawatt down. I think that's something that, again, this is something we're going to continue to drive over time, and I think it's it's really showing through also in the numbers.

Finally, a third point, a third lever, it's really just the improved macro context, power prices, some tailwinds on the regulatory and political landscapes, like the generation tax in Spain, which is also positive. All of this put together, I think just shows EDPR is in a good place, strong execution capabilities both financially and operationally, together with a good environment.

I think that we can really, get the company to unlock its full potential over the coming years. With that, going on to just the the final slide.

Just the key data points. Execution on the business plan, progressing well, visibility continuing to improve.

60% of the 5 GW already secured at attractive risk-return metrics. Commercial momentum remains strong, over 2 GW under active discussions in the US and and also 0.8 GW in Europe.

80% of our electricity generation long-term contracted. I think Rui has already spoken at length about that and how that keeps us sort of protected from some of the volatility.

Post-2028, I think the visibility is also strengthening, and so maybe at some point we'll be able to also talk about that. Demand growth in both Iberia and the US, structurally driven by these long-term electrification trends, data centers, electric vehicles, industrial reshoring.

I think it's this is going to this is really important, because it's more demand means you need more supply, and so that's, we're definitely locked into that. In the US, higher PPA prices, meaningful recontracting upside, improving local supply chains, safe harbor framework for tax credits locked in, I think all positive.

Europe, increasing demand for hybrid solutions, regular CFD schemes reinforcing this role of renewables. I think Europe also a lot of positive signals.

Overall, I think, we are in a good place. Continued investments in digital and artificial intelligence, I think that's what we're also continuing to focus on to just push this operational efficiency in the asset performance.

All in all, taken together, good long-term demand fundamentals, good medium-term visibility, disciplined execution means we are confident on EDPR's ability to grow and have resilient value creation, not just over the course of this business plan, but also beyond. Thanks, and, Miguel, I'll pass it back to you.

Now I think we can start here with some questions from the web. The first question we have from Beatrice from Mediobanca and other analysts around the EBITDA guidance for 2026.

If we can elaborate on 2026 guidance upgrade from 2.1 billion to 2.2 billion, namely providing detail on the breakdown of contribution between asset rotation and underlying, and also regarding how do we see the evolution for the next quarters.

Okay. Essentially, the upgrade is based on two things, on underlying performance and also on higher visibility on the asset rotation.

In terms of the underlying performance, already 90% of our 2026 is long-term contracted or hedged, no reason for big deviations here. Excluding the dollar headwind, the underlying effects would obviously be better.

Even independently of that, we have and are still expecting high single-digit growth of electricity generation, around 44 TWh in '26, and then an average selling price range to stay in the €51-€53/MWh. Also expecting slightly better contributions from prices in Poland, Romania, Brazil, better-than-expected OpEx, lower taxes and levies in Iberia, US partly offsetting US depreciation.

That's on the underlying performance. On the asset rotation, as I said, I think, in the presentation, we are expecting to sell the same or I'd say slightly lower perimeter of assets almost certainly, but at better margins than initially assumed.

Higher visibility on asset rotation also. The combination of this, I think, is what's giving us confidence on the upgrade.

Thank you, Miguel. The next question comes also from Arthur Sitbon from Morgan Stanley and other names if we can provide some visibility in terms of guidance for net profit for 2026 as we didn't provide in the presentation.

Yeah. Normally, we don't give specific guidance on net profit for EDPR.

I think what I can say here is that we're comfortable with the recurring net profit consensus for 2026, which, depending on the sources, could be between €400 and €450 million range. As I said, this is due to what I'd mentioned.

What I said about the EBITDA is obviously then flows down to the net profit. We are also working on EDPR's portfolio optimization, and so the exit of some non-core markets and business segments, and we expect that to also positively impact EDPR's underlying financials, the net profit trajectory for the next couple of years.

In relation to 2026, it's essentially the comments on the EBITDA flowing down to the bottom line. Let's say, consensus for '26, that range, we're comfortable with.

We have a question also on the net debt by the year-end, how do we see the net debt evolution until December 2026.

Thank you, Miguel. We do expect net debt below December '25.

Just reminded, it was €8.1 billion. We should be deleveraging and trend down as projected in the business plan '26-'28.

Again, just reminded, we expect in '28 to be below '25 by €1.5 billion. This obviously depends on the timing of the execution and the cash-in on the asset rotation and tax equity proceeds, as well as on the disposals, portfolio optimization, which are on track.

Then

we have a question on the recent news that came out this weekend on the Trump administration blocking wind power licenses that came in Financial Times, if we have any comment on this.

Sure. There was news.

I think we all saw that on the US administration blocking wind power licenses. I think it's a broader concern for all wind repowering projects that require federal permits primarily, and it's obviously something that we're monitoring very closely together with the industry associations, ACP and others, that are acting on the ground.

I just wanted to reinforce this, because I mentioned it also way back in November at the Capital Markets Day, and I've repeated several times, we don't expect this to have any impact on the '26-'28 business plan, because we already projected this to be relatively prudent in that respect. We were only including one repowering project in the US for this period, that's already under construction, any additional repowering that we did in this business plan period would be potential upside.

As this news, it's not obviously positive, but it doesn't have an impact on our projections. For the period immediately post-2028, and we highlighted this also in a recent presentation we did in Madrid for those of you that were able to attend, the Wind Value Levers, we have around 0.6 GW of repowering projects currently in the marketing stage.

As I say, we are being deliberately low risk in terms of permitting and in PPA commitments, and only projects that meet these criteria are considered secure. We're not taking undue risks on this.

As I say, any news that you get on the repowering, in principle, would be upside for us.

Still on US, also in terms of clarification of the Ocean Winds US offshore settlement agreement, and namely related with the reinvestments, financial impact for EDPR, and also how do we see the standing of the SouthCoast Wind that is still in the portfolio of OW.

Thank you, Miguel. Just first to clarify, the reinvestment, maybe just step back.

As you may remember, these two projects, one in New York and one in California, that those are projects where Ocean Winds partners with two other investors, GIP in New York and CPIC in California. What is agreed is that these reinvestments will be carried out by our partners in those two projects, and therefore there will be no direct involvement of Ocean Winds or EDPR in those investments.

I would say that the most relevant impact that we are foreseeing for EDPR is an expected reduction of 2026 net debt in this same amount of the reimbursement, obviously, in what is EDPR's share. Just also highlighting that about 3/4 of this reimbursement, the $0.2 billion, is Bluepoint, the New York, and about 1/4 is the Golden State Wind, which is California.

That's not evenly split between the two projects. From 2027 onwards, we see sort of a single-digit impact in terms of million euros associated with the earnings, given that we are saving those interests.

Regarding SouthCoast Wind, that's probably the most advanced project, offshore projects right now in that part of the country, in Massachusetts. It's very advanced in terms of the permitting, interconnection milestones, all options are being explored.

For the moment, the project continues to be harborated. As you may remember, also we took that view back in the end of 2024, when we also booked an impairment for a 4-year delay in the project.

As I said, all options are being explored as of now.

Regarding data centers, just a question around the strategy of EDPR and how is evolving our pipeline in US and Europe.

Sure. This is an interesting area, but what I'd say is we're working on both sides of the Atlantic, both in Europe, mostly here in Iberia, and also in the US, on several opportunities for co-location, powered land, securing electricity consumption, grid connection rights.

We have some more advanced stages of powered land in the US and Spain, and we'll let obviously, when we reach a concrete deal. I don't want to elaborate too much on this at this point.

I'd say, once we have something concrete, we'll obviously communicate it. The only thing perhaps to mention here, and this is something you've also mentioned in presentations, is we have around 2 GW of powered land pipeline, of which 0.8 GW is in advanced permitting, and so we are continuing to explore different ways of monetizing this and extracting value of this.

Maybe just as a side note, but obviously relevant to us, just recently in Iberia, Start Campus, which was one of the big data centers here in Portugal, which has been built just recently, announced second phase with Nvidia and Nscale. That's, obviously, a key milestone.

They're already moving through into the second phase, and I think they'll be well positioned to also then start marketing the third phase. This already represents or begins to represent a significant amount of the additional demand here in Portugal, which will come through sort of 2027 and beyond.

I think it's one specific example just because it's come out very recently that I wanted to flag. There are many more that we could probably talk about.

Regarding the upgrade of 2026 guidance, the question is if this upgrade has any implication on EDPR 2028 2026-2028 targets of the business plan.

I'd say that it's still early, I'm not going to comment too much. We're focused on delivering the plan and also gaining further visibility on the post-2028 period so that, hopefully, at some point, and not too distant future, we can come back and talk about that.

What I'd say is that the portfolio optimization is evolving positively, underlying net profit in '27-'28. When we look at sort of prices and we're still assuming asset rotation gains contributing around €0.2 billion, sort of in line with the business plan assumptions that we had.

We're also seeing good commercial activity in the US and in Europe for '27 and '28 and beyond. We're also seeing that optionality that I talked about, the data centers and some other levers for either co-location or repowering, there are some potential upsides that we're working on.

For now, I'd say just assume the current estimate for 2028. As I say, if we get additional visibility on '28 and beyond, then we would come back to the market and talk about that.

We have a last written question before moving to the questions on the phone from Arthur Sitbon from Morgan Stanley. We have seen multiple companies in sector using equity in recent weeks to prepare future growth opportunities.

Are there scenarios in which EDPR could consider resorting to the same type of measure? Yeah.

I think what I'd say here is that we are very comfortable with our current plan in terms of balance sheet. We obviously use asset rotation as a way of optimizing our balance sheet.

Our plan does not assume any equity raise, and we don't need to raise any equity. I think we are just very focused on creating the maximum amount of value possible.

Delivering on the megawatt execution, both securing additional megawatts, delivering on those megawatts, rotating those megawatts with significant gains, and keeping the balance sheet within sort of the ratios that we want, and they are compatible with the BBB rating for EDP. That's what I'd say.

We don't have any plans for equity raising.

Thank you. We go now to the questions on the phone.

First question comes from the line of Pedro Alves from CaixaBank. Pedro, please go ahead.

Hi. Good afternoon.

Thank you for taking my question. Two, if I may.

The first one, and sorry to come again to the 2028 targets. You have more than 60% of all additions secured for the plan and apparently with better returns, encouraging origination activity, and you mentioned the optionality from repowering in US in marketing stage, and also that visibility on asset rotation has improved with a healthy private market for M&A.

Can you at least acknowledge that your 2028 targets now seem to be on the conservative side, at least in terms of underlying EBITDA? The second question is just additional color on the PPA pricing in US and the cost inflation.

PPA prices continue to go up quarter after quarter, and I think this is already reflected in better IRR over WACC spread compared to your original plan assumptions. I just wanted to ask if your latest commercial discussions with offtakers in this environment give you confidence on keeping this expansion of IRR spreads for the whole 5 GW of the plan, or if, eventually, higher EPC, interconnection, or equipment costs could be absorbing most of this PPA upside into the returns.

Thank you.

Thanks, Pedro. No, listen, we're only 6 months into the plan.

We announced this in November. It's just May.

I think what we'd look for is to go on executing over the course of this year, and then, as I said, towards the beginning of next year or something, once we have good visibility in '26, we can maybe come back and talk a bit more about '28 and beyond. What I'd say is that there are positives and negatives on the '28 numbers.

In general, I think we feel very confident about 2028, but you were trying to get me to characterize it as conservative, and I don't think I'd go there. I would use that at this point.

We're 6 months into the 3-year plan. Let's say, give it a little bit more time before we talk about changes to 2028.

PPA pricing, yes, we feel very comfortable on the spread. I think the structural underlying demand growth and both in Europe and in the US means that we feel confident that new generation needs to be well remunerated, and we're not going for volume, we're going for risk-adjusted returns, and we want to make sure that we keep this criteria and are very disciplined on that.

I think we are comfortable on those spreads. As we have, let's say, a number of megawatts that we're expecting for the next couple of years, which seems quite doable.

We're going to make sure we're focused on getting the best projects possible, precisely to keep those spreads and that low-risk profile, which I think is extremely important. On the supply chain and all that, we're constantly updating.

One of the things I think we've gotten much better over time is our operational management on the supply chain, just making sure we're always building in better estimates about CapEx costs, building in more contingencies, buffers, making sure we're much closer in terms of when we take investment decisions and when we actually also lock in the CapEx. That's what I mean when I also talk about low risk, just making sure we are not exposing ourselves to inflation or to any type of cost overruns.

Thank you.

Thank you, Pedro. Next question comes from the line of Javier Garrido from JPMorgan.

Javier, please go ahead.

Yeah. Thanks, Miguel.

All my questions have been answered, but I would like to ask again on the last topic. You could elaborate a bit more on the potential risk or the way you manage the risk from inflationary pressures, given what's going on in the Middle East and the likely inflationary pressures we should see in the value chain.

It would be helpful if you can elaborate a bit more on how protected you are, whether your protection comes from risk sharing with the PPA offtakers or because it's more about fixing the price, basically what is different from 2021, 2022. Thank you.

Yeah. Hi,

Javier. I think happy to go into more detail on that.

I think the way that this works in terms of development of these projects, as is you go on doing some of the development, and at the same time, you are trying to find an offtaker, a PPA, and trying to price the project, and running in parallel sort of an estimate for the CapEx for the project. It's not always easy to line these up, and I think one of the things that the sector did in general, not just ourselves, but would be to make sure that we were able to lock in a PPA with certain CapEx estimates, and then go and try to lock the CapEx once you had the PPA closed.

That meant that you were exposed for a certain amount of time between when you locked in the PPA with certain estimates and when you actually locked in the CapEx. What we've been very focused on doing is reducing to the maximum possible any time between when you lock in the PPA and when you lock in the CapEx, and making sure that you're not taking on exposure, let's say, inflation exposure or CapEx exposure between these two dates, when you take FID and close the PPA and when you lock in the CapEx.

That's one point. I think the second point is just to say that we are also building in much more buffers and contingencies for delays, for unexpected contingencies that might come along.

We are being more prudent also in terms of the CapEx numbers that we use in our own modeling. When we talk about some of these spreads, they already have built in not just what we're seeing in the market, but we are adding in an extra buffer just to be on the safe side.

That's why I think we feel quite comfortable about or much more comfortable about managing, I think, the supply chain, just based on everything we've done internally to adjust, to reduce the risk.

That's very helpful. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks.

Thank you, Javier. The next question comes from the line of Alberto Gandolfi from Goldman Sachs.

Alberto, please go ahead.

Yeah. Thank you, and thank you.

Good afternoon. I have the following question.

The first one is I think just wanted to go back to slide nine. Can you please tell us again what is the IRR over WACC spread, and if you can, the absolute IRR you have been signing, let's say, over the past 6 to 9 months, and how much is the uncontracted CapEx to '28?

Because I'm just trying to figure out the upside from the plan you presented, which appears, at this stage, fairly conservative. The second question is could you be a bit more explicit on any potential data center strategy you may have?

There are companies now that are actually developing data centers themselves, there are companies that are selling sites, companies providing energy like yourself. Are you tempted to also explore the other two routes?

Are you working on that, like sites and/or direct development? The last question is I understand you just said you're comfortable with the current capital structure, but can I ask you, when can you upgrade the current level of net capacity additions without having to raise any equity?

Is it, given the returns, is it later in '28, is it '29, '30? Can you tell us when can we expect you to grow a little bit more, because on a net basis, you're not adding that much given the size of the company right now?

Thank you.

Hi, Alberto. Quite a lot to unpack there.

Just see if I can get all of your questions. On the first one, in terms of spreads, obviously it depends on the geography, because it's really spreads to the underlying WACC, I won't give you very specific IRRs, but let's say, in the US, it could be around 10% thereabouts.

I think we've seen projects sort of high 9s, that sort of range. The overall spread, then in Europe, it would be slightly lower IRRs because the cost of capital is also slightly lower.

In terms of contracted 2028 CapEx, we still have around 40% given that we only have 3.2 GW secured of the 5. Just doing the math, the 1.8 GW still unsecured is basically mostly 2028, a little bit of 2027.

I hope that answers the first question. On the second question, on the data center strategy, we will not do direct development of data centers.

I don't think we have the competencies or the balance sheet to get into that, and I don't think we're the best player for that. I think I believe very much in sticking to what we know how to do, and stick to the basics, if you want.

What we know how to do is to develop renewable projects, run networks. In the case of EDPR, just projects, whether it's wind, solar, batteries.

We know how to develop sites, we know how to develop interconnections. We have some good sites that we can monetize, as I say, either by helping co-locate data centers, for example, close to existing sites that we might have, that's one way.

We can obviously co-develop with other people as well new sites and or come up with sites that we think are attractive for some of these data centers, so that's also something that we can do. Then, obviously, the plain vanilla selling energy to these Big Tech or to some of these offtakers, and that's our bread and butter.

That's what we do on the day-to-day. That's what we've been, I think, very successful, and EDPR, I think, is a leader in doing that.

That's going to be the bulk of our projects going forward. Direct development, no.

Selling directly power to these sites in these PPAs and doing these projects, yes, that's our bread and butter. Additional sort of monetization of existing sites and or development of some new sites, we will also look at that and are looking at that.

If we have concrete transactions, we'll let you know. On the third question, capital structure, we've been around this a while.

I think what I'd say is that the two things go in parallel. As for 2028, we still have some space on the balance sheet, so that we are expecting that we could potentially upsize there just without having to sell additional megawatts.

In any case, we can always manage these two. Because the market for asset rotation is so healthy, we believe that we would be able to continue to upsize and continue to monetize some of these projects.

It wouldn't require equity. I think we've managed to find this balance certainly over the last couple of years, and that's what's built into our business plan so that we could upsize potentially, but still keeping the asset rotation.

Okay?

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Miguel.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alberto. Our last question today comes from the line of Manuel Palomo from BNP.

Manuel, please go ahead.

Hello. Good afternoon, everyone.

Two quick ones. One, maybe insisting a little bit in the last question, following up on it.

If I look at your first 10 slides in the presentation, seems to be crystal clear the good momentum for renewables. My question is, what prevents you from accelerating the installations pace, permitting, balance sheet, lack of pipeline in certain markets?

That is my question. What is preventing you from that?

The second one is a more detailed question on the Spanish generation tax. Could you please quantify the impact, positive, I understand, from the removal of this Spanish generation tax in 2026 numbers?

Thank you.

Okay. Thanks, Manuel.

On the first one, what prevents us from accelerating? I don't think anything is preventing us from accelerating.

I think what we're making sure, well, two parts to this. One, making sure we really get the best projects, risk-return.

Obviously, we can do more megawatts, but then you start perhaps sacrificing either returns or taking on more risk. I think we continue to try to find the right balance in terms of volume, but also risk-return.

As I say, it's very easy to build megawatts if you accept very low returns, because you'll just start getting market share. We're not in the business of building megawatts for the sake of it, in the business of making money, and so very focused on getting that balance right.

The second thing, though, is that there are obviously also restrictions on permitting and licensing. That does slow down in certain markets.

For example, some of the European markets in particular, whether it's Italy or France, places like that, that there are restrictions in terms of building more megawatts. In the US, in some cases, particularly on the wind side, I wouldn't say so much on the solar and battery side, but on the wind side, we just talked about some of the restrictions on the repowering or sort of upsizing some of the projects.

Yes, there is a restriction. It's not just a question of risk-returns, it's a question of licensing and what you could actually get there.

Within those restrictions, it's then choosing the best projects to take forward. On the second point, on the impact of the generation tax, I think we're assuming around €16 million at the EBITDA level in terms of positive impact.

Thank you.

We have no more questions. I'll hand over to Miguel, to final remarks.

Then

just to thank you all for being on the call. We're off to a good start to the year.

I think generally positive outlook, that's why we feel comfortable in coming back to you with an upgrade in the guidance. I'd say the long-term fundamentals are feeling very good, whether it's on the demand side, which is obviously then going to drive on the generation side.

I think on Manuel's final question, what is keeping us from accelerating, obviously there are still issues on the permitting and licensing, which can be frustrating to a certain extent. Then within that, it's really just a question of making sure we're choosing the best projects.

I think that's showing through. The reason we are upgrading, for example, on the asset rotation side, the gains, even though we'll probably be doing less volume, is precisely because I think we are getting a good vintage of projects coming through.

We've talked about this in the past, that there's, let's say, a less good vintage, now we're getting the good vintage, and I think that will show up. It's just a testament, I think, to the value of the projects that we're building, not just the ones that we're selling, but the ones that we're also keeping on the balance sheet going forward.

Off to a good start, looking good for the next couple of years, and we'll come back to you in the next couple of months or with some additional news. Thanks.